Can you tell the difference between these definitions?

If you wish to define god as reality whatever that turns out to be you still have not tied that reality to any particular scripture. If you wish to define god as reality whatever that turns out to be then You still have not demonstrated that any part of reality had or needs a creator. If you wish to define god as reality whatever that turns out to be you still have not defined the word holy or shown that it applies to reality in any sensible way. If you wish to define god as reality whatever that turns out to be you still have not demonstrated to me that anything is or can be eternal.

You say that I do not understand but I must say that you are not doing the best job of explaining your position. You say that I need not concern myself with your personal testimony (and I don't necessarily disagree as that is anecdotal evidence) but you keep bringing it up.

I don't need to demonstrate any of these things.

No amount of explaining, no matter how thorough, is going to open the eyes of those who see but are blind. It will do nothing for a hard headed, stiff necked, and faithless people. To those who can understand, let them understand.

People would rather needlessly go about the. strivings of words than accept The Truth. Argue about what the truth is. That isn't the point. The point is that God exists, which is necessary given what God is, and people would rather be men pleasers than God.

I am very secure. I know that if I was a thousand times better at explaining and teaching it wouldn't make a difference. 

It means that those who do not abide in God abide in death, because everything they have faith in will be wiped away by time.

If you define god (capitalized or not) as reality (whatever that turns out to be) then yes sure it exists. If reality is not eternal, doesn't create and or is not holy then the reality you are describing does not exist. Reality exists, there is no observable evidence to suggest that it is eternal, holy, or creative (unless you care to present any).

You are right about one thing. No amount of explaining your position will convince me that anyone is justified in believing things in the absence of evidence.

You capitalize words out of respect for something that likely does not respond observably to your linguistic convention and offer it love and worship we cannot know if it appreciates or even notices, or indeed possess the conciousness necessary to notice or be aware of anything. You do not worship actual reality Mopac because we as humans are not likely to be able to know with certainty what that is. You are worshiping the concept of reality that exists inside your mind, just as when I accept reality I am not accepting actual reality I am only capable of accepting the concept of reality that exists inside my mind.

Then don't believe the truth, that is your choice. Perish in your superstitions if that is what you want.

I thought Jesus had covered all that for us. So it isn't true that he died to save us from everlasting death and I won't rise on the given day and I won't be with him in paradise - wherever you believe that to be - and I am going to be simply "washed away with the tide like the sandcastles you are. Lives of vapour, smoke".

 I find it all very confusing. How is anyone supposed to keep up with all these contradictions?

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

If your faith is in created things, your faith is in death, because creation is subject to death. The Truth is what conquers death. The Truth is The Word of God. 

Salvation is only through God, and if you don't believe this, it is you who condemns yourself, not God.

This is what I mean by an equivocation fallacy. You suggest a one definition for a word (God is the ultimate reality) and then try to cha.ge that definition later in your argument (God is a creator and the ultimate moral authority) if being a creator and a moral authority is a part of your definition of some god(s) then the ultimate reality is not a complete definition. A revised definition that includes additional attributes may need to be demonstrated where as a tautalogical one can be excepted definitionally even if it has little meaning.

You have too much baggage.

You should let it go.

The Ultimate Reality.

That's what God means.

Which by the way, means THE TRUTH.

Something you are in denial of if you deny God.

If you are actually interested PM me. I am not going to talk out here for the fools to mock.

The Ultimate Reality is God. They want to argue about other things while not accepting this. It confuses the issue. They would have less trouble abandoning their superstitions if they accepted this definition and admitted that God is The Necessary Existence.

I do not deny that some reality exists. If you wish to call this reality god (capitalised or not) that's fine but if you add things to your definition I am under no obligation to accept this new definition and not doing so does not mean that I necessarily reject the original definition.

Well the orignial definition is all I ever pushed, and nearly every ounce of resistance I have received about this seems to be the attempts of people trying to goad me into doing exactly what you are accusing me of.

I mean what I have been saying since the beginning. The Ultimate Reality.

You called this ultimate reality a creator not me. You are the one who is trying to the the bible to the ultimate truth not me. If you cannot plainly say that you do not claim either of these things then I can agree to your original stripped down definition of whatever reality is, but what it is may not be eternal.

Tao = the way, the natural order, not god. My post stands unchallenged and your is refuted.

The subject matter of the bible is God, so obviously there are useful things in it for teaching.

I have certainly found this to be the case. so you shouldn't be averse to something simply because it comes from the bible. 

You don't really know what the bible is for, or what Christianity is really about. If I were you, I wouldn't confuse myself with that. I would instead stick to what it is I am telling you at the moment.

The Ultimate Reality is God, whatever The Ultimate Reality truly is. You can at leadt say God exists, and you don't know anything else. There is no shame in that.

Because a dictionary tells you so.

I do not object to the bible itself but I reject any claim that the bible is historically accurate or a reflection of reality.

Yes, I know. You rarely reject anything I personally have brought up. Most of what you reject are preconceptions you have about what it is you believe I must mean. You have your mind made up, and the entire point of you engaging with me is to goad me into talking so you can trap me in my words.

That is the impression I get from you. 

It is a little difficult to pin down exactly what you mean. Every time thus far that you have presented me with a definition that I feel I can agree to without violating my epistemology you promptlybadd something to said definition that is not supported by my observations or by scientific inquiry. If god is reality and reality is god then fine but any claim of being eternal or of creating is not provable by anything you have thus fat offered. I also have yet to hear any logical reason to connect christianity the bible or indeed any him an religious beliefs to this proposed reality. Can you honestly say that you are not claiming any of those unsubstantiated propositions?

You are the one adding these claims, not me.

I have always consistently said the same thing since I got here. That God means The Ultimate Reality.

That is all it means, and I don't know how many times I have to tell you this. Over how long? Months now have I been saying the same thing?

I think you have hang ups keeping you from accepting the obvious.

I don't feel like dredging through all the threads you have posted on but you have claimed that god/reality created the universe and that god/reality is good and just and that god/reality is somehow connect to christianity. Please do not be dishonest.

I'm not being dishonest.

There is a difference between God and claims about God.

So know the difference.

Not everyone who believes in God believes the same things about God.

Then why should I accept your claims about god/reality over anyone else's? What makes you an authority on the unknowable?

Don't believe me, believe God. If what I say is true, believe the truth. I am not the authority, God is. If I speak the truth, this truth came from God, not me. 

If you had the faith to accept me as a teacher, I would be as a parent to a child, in the sense that my intention would be for you to eventually grow out of needing my guidance, being equipped to go out on your own. Discipleship requires a certain level of trust and honor. As a parent has an honor to their child, so a child has their honor towards a parent. In the end, I would want you to be a disciple of God, not me, and that would be my role. To guide you into a mature personal relationship with God. I have no reason to believe that you would be interested in such a thing.

So what can I say? Use discernment. Even if your sense of discernment is undeveloped, you can only really go with what you have the faith to do. If you don't have the faith to accept me as a guide, I would tell you to be sincere. Be honest. Be slow to judge. Realize that you are always wrong, and allow the real humility that comes from this realization influence how you deal with yourself and others. Love The Truth above all else, it is the best thing you can do. The good teacher is God. Be a disciple of God. 

well said

But as a human you are wrong, so when you say you speak the truth that came from god you have already told us that what you say is wrong, as a result the only conclusion we can come to is that we can't believe anything you say.

You have never demonstrated even a modicum of humility, so as you say, what you say is wrong.

There might or might not be a god thing. But what you say is all wordy bullsh#t Mr Mopac.