Greatest I am
-
Posts
288 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Greatest I am
-
-
Moontanman
First. I cannot get the quote function to work for me.
Second. I was speaking of my wife and I swearing to telepathy. Not to finding the Godhead. I was alone in that one.
As to whether the courts would believe us, I don’t really care. I have no agenda or dogma to sell.
As to the scientific method and trial and error. Have you heard of any discoveries that did not include trial and error. I have not and you are quite short sighted if you think our scientific method was that much different in principle from what the ancients were using.
Regards
DL
A Tripolation.
Quote
We attest to the reality of an experience, not that we or I can replicate it at will.
Then what use is the whole thing?
FMPOV, it is our vehicle, so to speak, to our next evolutionary step.
What use is it FYPOV, the same as your earlobes or remnants of your tail bone.
Quote
In fact, since I consider it an assault, and think there may be shields against it if I can use that term, then replication is likely impossible.
...what?
My wife tells me that it felt like an assault.
After much discussion and thought, I speculate that we may be able to shield ourselves from such communication.
It is quite invasive and we may have developed a mental block along with the ability.
Regards
DL
0 -
What I meant: that there is at least some outside evidence for some sections of the Bible being historically accurate, and, IMO, more evidence for than against it.
Show it?
Alright.
First, there are surprisingly few self contradictions for an historical book that has been translated and copied and was written by more than one author. Although that isn't outside evidence, that's internal evidence.
Secondly, http://www.allaboutt...le-prophecy.htm
http://www.truthortr...rticle&sid=1163
Those were external proofs/evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61295LAfQmo
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2569440864215926514#
As to prophesy.
If God is forced to follow prophesy, then he has no free will.
IMO, any that read scriptures as the words of a God are fools.
God would not create talking snakes and donkeys.
If he did, where are they.
After all, the bible prophesizes that the taliking snake would be with us forever.
Regards
DL
0 -
How is a talking serpent any more defying laws of nature than a talking human? Maybe it was E.T. Besides, if God is omnipotent, than those miracles described would actually support the Bible's message IMO.
To change my mind about God, I'd either have to see another religion with at least as much evidence for it, or more evidence against Christianity than for Christianity.
How deeply do I believe? I hope that I believe deeply enough that I would give my life for Him, but nobody really knows whether they could do that unless they were in that situation.
What do you mean by "Keeping Jesus divine in our minds may discourage some in trying to follow his lead."? Jesus is commonly referred to as the Great Example.
Miracles certainly would support any religion that had someone to do them.
Fact is, none do.
Even as Jesus says that anyone with true faith can do miracles but you will note that no miracles are being done.
What evidence do you see that makes you think Christianity is not just another scam?
The bible can easily be shown to be man made and full of errors, contradictions and forgeries.
Jesus the great example is contradicted by scripture.
Scripture says he is to be our scapegoat, dying for our sins, yet he himself tells us to be the scapegoat for others.
Dogma says that Jesus is the only one whose sacrifice is sufficient to save yet he says we can do the saving ourselves.
All it takes is repentance. Repentance and forgiveness changes your perpective quite a bit.
It does show a universalist God but most Christians are way to tribal in their thinking to allow it.
They love to hate too much to not allow forgiveness and compasion to rule God's thinking.
They must have a hell for all the other tribes.
Regards
DL
Not exactly
Tacitus doesn't count?
This passage is not only secular but it is also early (~115CE, iirc).
Early?
85 years after Jesus and all witnesses are dead.
Give me a break.
Regards
DL
0 -
Moontanman
“So all the evidence you have is your wife confirmed it? Interesting I admit but hardly conformation.”
Strange that evidence that any court in the land would accept, you would not.
“We live in the first and only civilization based on science”
The way I look at society, we and the ancients have used science from day one.
In the beginning, how did we learn what to eat and how to act to survive.
By observation and trial and error.
Rudimentary science and technology for sure. Science never the less.
======================================================
Brainteaserfan
“Most Biblical literalists do not disagree with science”
Yes they do and the caveat you give shows exactly why. Science is showing what nature and physics are and what laws control them, so to say they believe in it, except for their God being able to breach them, shows clearly that they do not believe in science and physics.
Their atoms are held together by God, not natural physical forces.
BTW, you clam an experience like mine. It was not.
If it was you would be a universalist and not a Christian.
Knowing the mind of God, you would know that none are lost.
“If you were God, how would you carry out population control? “
To think that a God would not build in all the necessary requirements to his perfect systems shows lack of faith in those system if they have to be continuously tweaked.
Does the God you know not get things right the first time around?
Do you see us as his make work project. If you look at man within nature, we are doing exactly what our instincts tell us to do.
“No, I am not saying that a religious government is good (although I believe it is).
Need I say more?
================================================
A Tripolation
“...one person is not considered an affirmation by scientific standards. You would have to replicate this, many times, under a controlled, monitored environment.”
I agree. This testimony from two people is not trying to confirm a scientific method.
The testimony of both of us is more of a proof for law than science. We attest to the reality of an experience, not that we or I can replicate it at will. In fact, since I consider it an assault, and think there may be shields against it if I can use that term, then replication is likely impossible.
“Or I would have at least created a perfect world. Not this one plagued with evil.”
If you need it, I can link you to where it is shown that the markers for evil, such as slavery and violent crimes, that you hint that the world id full of, are actually the best they have ever been. The world is not basically evil. It is basically good.
Only if you are unable to define what you mean by "God" in a sensible, non-speculative manner.
This seems to be a real problem for many proponents.
Yes.
In fact without God ending his hiding phase and stepping up to be questioned about his attributes, we cannot know his attributes.
Regards
DL
0 -
Once you can assert belief in god as the truth then all limits to behavior are removed. If you believe god says all redheads are evil and should be killed and you think that is the truth and your god demands it then what is to stop you from doing just that? Once you believe something to be the truth with no evidence to back it up then civilization fails. Our entire civilization rests on the premise of the truth being verifiable fact, not something some one believes. Throw that out and anything is possible as long as you believe it.
BTW, cosmic consciousness, telepathy? If you don't mind A Tripolation, I'll stop disagreeing with you and concentrate on GIA....
That being the case, I hope you read more cautiously.
He said--”I would hope someone would hospitialize me if I convinced myself that telepathy existed.”
Right after I tell him that if my wife had not confirmed that telepathy is real, then I would not have given any veracity to my contact with the cosmic consciousness.
I did not convince myself. My wife did.
Before you have at me, you might want to get the latest from
I think they are at the forefront of that research at the moment.
Regards
DL
Believers often claim that some special knowledge reveals truths about divinity to them which give them unshakeable confidence in its existence, or some special epistemic capacity, such as telepathy, allows them access to a truth about the cosmos or the divinity which cannot be doubted. Since such experiences are private, there is no way to refute them. However, before they can count as true for me, or as establishing anything as objectively real, they have to meet the publicly agreed upon criteria for objective existence, so their secret manifestation for any given individual doesn't really do anything for the essentially public question of God's existence.
But I also wonder why believers are so willing to trust their inner intuitions or special revelations about the divinity, given that we all know that the mind can play tricks on itself. Erotomaniacs are convinced that some causual acquaintance at work is in love with them, and the delusion can seize hold of the erotomaniac's mind in such a way that the normal critical faculties are put out of operation. The same thing could easily be happening with inner convictions assuring people of God's reality. Even the Bible warns that the Devil may appear as an angel to delude us. Generally, the only way we can be sure that some inner intuition or conviction is true is by checking it against evidence in the outside world, not by inspecting the intensity of our inner conviction. If I wake up overwhelmingly convinced that horse number 7 is going to win the first race, that's not a good reason to make a bet, and it certainly doesn't compare with reading in the newspaper the next day which horse actually did win.
As stated. Without confirmation, I would not have accepted telepathy as real.
You might also remember that I do not consider the cosmic consciousness a deity. It is a part of nature that most just have not found yet.
Regards
DL
0 -
I entirely agree with your very wise post, but you must accept the fact that 99% of humans are not as enlightened as you.
Can you deter a stupid thief from stealing your car, by appealing to his belief in "ethics"? If you said, "Don't steal my car - that's ethically wrong", wouldn't he just laugh at you?
I agree. Marat spoke well. Quite the mind there.
As to your last, if the thief will laugh away secular moral conduct then he would laugh harder at anyone who would invoke a God watching over him.
Regards
DL
0 -
Greatest I am: The Christians and Jews have absolutely no proof of the existence of Yahweh and the Muslims have no proof of Allah. How is your belief in a "Godhead" any more rational than their belief in an anthropomorphic deity.
The "religious" claim that God exists and has a role to play in our lives. You claim that a godhead exists and basically does nothing and has no interaction with us. How is that any more reasonable?
I have a pet fairy, you can't see her, she doesn't violate any natural laws, and you can in no way experience her. All discussions of her are speculative nonsense, however, I assure you that she exists.
For both you and A Tripolation.
The cosmic consciousness is accessed through telepathy. Another un-proven concept.
Why do I believe my personal experience to have a basis in reality?
Because I did it twice. The first time with my wife and the second time with the cosmic consciousness.
Without my wife as a witness to the reality of telepathy, I would not give any veracity to my second experience.
If either of you think you can somehow make me disbelieve my own senses, and my wife, you are both wrong and spinning your wheels.
Regards
DL
'Pascal's Wager' famously states that everyone should believe in God, since if we believe in him and he doesn't exist, we lose nothing, while if we refuse to believe in him and he does exist, then we lose our ability to enter into Heaven. But the premise is false, since believing in a fantasy whose purported rules for life limit your ability to act according to your own rational, ethical judgment is in itself a great misfortune, since you abandon the dignity of human rationality and your claim to be an ethically significant being, given that you act according to imaginary orders of an imaginary being, rather than on your own courageous judgment. On the other hand, losing the promise of Heaven by refusing to believe in God's existence costs you nothing if you decline to believe in fairy tales.
I wouldn't cite Voltaire to support belief in God, given that Voltaire himself was an atheist! He may have a character in 'Candide' state that this is the best of all possible worlds, but he doesn't believe it himself. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz felt he had to prove that this was the best of all possible worlds before he could assert that God exists, but his proof got him tangled up in a ridiculous notion of 'universal compossibility' such that Lee Harvey Oswald's bullets striking Kennedy in Dallas would have to be seen as an absolutely necessary event, without which the entire universe would fall apart. But since we would simply have to have irrational faith to believe in that connection, we don't make any headway with it in proving the existence of God, belief in whom also requires irrational faith.
The anthropic principle is stated in various ways, but it usually means that unless human beings had the type of perceptual and intellectual apparatus that they actually do have, they would not be able to perceive and interact with the world at all. This then presents an apparent paradox that the world is designed perfectly to match our capacity to perceive it, but in fact there is no great coincidence here at all, since evolutionary processes obviously have to design organic entities to be able to perceive their environment in order to survive, so the physical world simply shaped us to be able to see and comprehend it, and the coincidence disappears.
Also, given that there is a discussion now going on about how the world looks and what it means, and that discussion could only occur among those whose perceptual and cognitive appartus 'fit' the world so that they could perceive and describe it, there is no real coincidence that we are having this discussion. There may have been a trillion other cases where beings came into existence who could not perceive their world, or worlds existed which their resident beings could not perceive, but they all drop out of the picture since the only world in which this issue can be discussed is the one in a trillion where the beings turned out to be able to perceive the world around them.
Well thought out but it still does nopt refute---
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”
This same sentence or sentiment could just as easily and accurately have been made by Darwin when he found and studied the Galapagos Islands.
He found an environment that was evolving as perfectly as it could given the conditions at hand.
This can be said of all life that exists everywhere.
Regards
DL
I don't see how this bothers you. I think having a diverse field of beliefs and convictions improves this forum as a whole, so long as the members are polite and do not try to shove beliefs down one anothers' throats.
You say this after saying this---
"In an attempt to show you that you are just as much an illogical person as the people in the "Abrahamic Cults".
Once would be informative of your stance.
You are hounding me on it and showing you trying to force it down my throat.
Regards
DL
0 -
Jesus literalist. What would change your mind?
Many books on Jesus and Christianity have come out of late questioning the historicity and source of both Jesus and the gospels. Most of these come down on the negative side of Jesus being real or of scripture coming from the apostles.
All who believe in Jesus and scripture must read the Bible literally, to some extent.
After all, what other book give Jesus historicity or literal existence? None.
There is not one historical secular document that I know of that indicates that some miracle working Jesus ever existed.
The Bible begins with a talking serpent and other miracles that defy nature and physics.. This should be warning enough, for anyone who can think independently that the Bible should not be read literally. Alas, this clear message is lost on some believers .
Most scholars know that the Bible is myth and can be read in a variety of ways. As allegory, myth or literal. They choose not to read it literally as that would mean that they would have to believe in fantasy miracles and magic. Most will not take that leap of faith.
The Catholic pope and most mainstream Abraham protestant religions say not to read the Bible literally but as stated above, they must read some of it literally to believe that Jesus actually existed. They do not seem to follow their own advise.
As a follower of a real historic Jesus, do you recognize that you are a literalist?
How deeply do you believe in fantasy, miracles and magic?
As an adult, do you see your fantastic beliefs as those of a healthy mind?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDbesQQi9yc
What would it take for you to change your mind about fantasy, miracles and magic being real? These are required for you to believe in a real historic Jesus.
Keeping Jesus divine in our minds may discourage some in trying to follow his lead.
Is there something that would change your mind or start you seeing Jesus as an archetypal good man that we are to emulate?
Regards
DL
0 -
You repeatedly say you believe in some God. Now you say it's nature. You are aware that nature is an abstract concept that is not sentient in any way, correct?
I tend to call what I believe in a Godhead, just to show a difference to the word God.
I generally indicate that it is a cosmic consciousness and not a miracle working super God.
I say it is a part of nature, not nature.
You are also a part of nature and are sentient. So is the Godhead.
I have admitted to not having proof and do not push for belief by anyone and prefer to speak to morals.
Why are you bothering to question what I cannot prove?
Without you believing me, we go into the same speculative nonsense that this O P is about.
Regards
DL
It's important not to make the inferential leap from the fact that we don't have much information to test the reality of God's purported existence to the assumption that the evidence of the reality of his existence must be very hard to find. It may also be the case that the whole hypothesis has no real-world application, and so there is no evidence for it.
Wittgenstein was concerned to rid philosophy of false problems which only seem to state real issues requiring examination because they can be framed in the familiar form of genuine questions. If I ask, "What is the greatest natural number?" my stating the question needn't imply that there is an answer, or that the very idea of there being a possible answer, or possible quest we could set out on to find the answer, makes any sense.
In the modern West what people usually mean by 'God' is an omnipotent, omniscient, ubiquitous, sempiternal, infinitely good entity which can act upon the universe but which also stands apart from it as a distinct object, conscious of its surroundings and also of itself. As an extraordinary hypothesis, it requires extraordinary evidence to induce us either to investigate it seriously or eventually to accept its reality, but we have no such evidence. Also, given that there are evils in the world a) which don't appear to be the result of human free will creating evil consequences; b) which could easily be prevented by an infinitely good and powerful God but which are unaccountably permitted to happen; c) which seem easily avoidable or greatly diminishable by simple, non-disruptive re-designings of the world such as a good and omniscient God would have undertaken (e.g., no Progeria cases, no Huntington's gene) but did not, the whole God-hypothesis just seems logically impossible given the nature of what we all know about the world.
Yes. All thoughs will flow from how we see reality. Not just of the world but of the whole of our universe.
The anthopic principle indicates that all things are the only way it can be and thus can be called perfect.
Not the finished type of perfect but an evolving perfection as all things evolve.
Observation of any life here on earth, I think makes this quote true.
Candide
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”
Not created by design but only by the happenstance of evolution.
This condition , I think in part, is what gave rise to I D.
Unfortunately, those who saw this perfection in creation took a leap of faith and put their sentient God in the gap instead of just plain old nature.
What do you see when you look about?
A perfectly evolving system, or a system that is somehow defective?
Remember that things are the only way they can be.
Regards
DL
The reason that we don't put religion on hold is because if there is some kind of an afterlife, as promised in many major religions, then we may lose something by not believing/acting in some way now.
Then the question becomes, by whose standard and the answer is some absentee God whose instructions are unclear and contradictory. We still end up without a guide except for man.
Since all we know of God is what man has said, then the obvious conclusion is that man is supreme here and the only God we have to please.
Regards
DL
0 -
We've been speculating about God for at least 30,000 years and it hasn't got us very far. Not even as far as deciding whether there's such a thing as God in the first place!
This startling lack of progress, strongly suggests that the whole issue cannot be resolved without further data. Which evidently isn't yet available on Earth.
We might obtain more data, if we could contact other intelligences in the Universe.
The only way to contact these intelligences (if they exist), is by using our Science. To build things like radio-telescopes. And perhaps, in the future, we'll develop more advanced communication devices. Using "Q-Rays", or some other yet-to-be discovered technology. Or maybe future Science will give us the data even without the putative ET's.
So I think we should concentrate on developing our Science, and put speculation on hold for the present.
It would be nice yes, but while religions are still doing much damage to society, I do not think those who oppose them should relent.
For evil to grow, all good men need do is nothing.
Regards
DL
No. There's a good deal of evidence that suggests that a man named Jesus, and that he was a roaming prophet/magician.
How many times do I have to tell you that any belief in a supreme deity is illogical. Your god(s) is(aren't) any better. You are just as illogical and you believe in just as much fantasy.
I have agreed that I do not believe in a supreme deity or the supernatural as well, so if you are silly enough to keep repeating yourself to me, that is your problem.
There is nothing in my belief system that goes beyond nature.
Regards
DL
0 -
It's all subjective. I think it's a good foundation because it's pretty much all we've got. And there does seem to be some historicity to Jesus. You obviously don't see it as a good foundation. Which begs the question... Why are you wasting your time only participating in the religion forum of this board if you see it all as speculative nonsense? Do you seek to elevate yourself by calling modern religions "fairy tales" and "cults"?
There is historicity to Jesus only if you want to suspend your logic and reason and go to belief in fantasy, miracles and magic and also think it a good idea to punish the innocent instead of the guilty via a blood sacrifice.
As to why I am in religious discussion boards.
I have a responsibility to correct those who are not thinking right. Why?
It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1
They also do much harm to their own.
African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related
Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqGhcwwE1s
Promoting death to Gays.
For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can.
Regards
DL
From a scientific standpoint, I guess so. The absence of evidence of a deity makes it hard to actually discuss it objectively.
From a philosophical standpoint, I'd like to think it's an interesting topic. On the other hand, some people say philosophy is nonsense because it's not related to the real world, or something.
Rather a reversal of what I see as reality.
Disregarding people lying to make money, or gain power, no. Whether they have spoken to a god or not isn't important when it comes to this question. If they actually believe they have spoken to their deity, them telling you they have isn't lying. They are, at worst, deluded.That would excuse them I guess.
Secular law does make exceptions for those who are not quite all there.
It seems quite clear, at least when it comes to christianity, that man can never know God's thinking. Maybe being able to understand God's way of thinking would equate us with him/her/it?Only to those who see Eden as the fall of man.
Those like myself who read it as man's elevation will think we can think like Gods. At least at the moral level because in Genesis, God himself, in the myth at least, tells us we, like A & E, can become as Gods, knowing good and evil.
Regards
DL
============================================================================
Marat
Well and eloquently stated.
Regards
DL
0 -
That's interesting, but I think that there is more evidence for the Bible than for that.
Not quite sure what you mean.
There is evidence of Bibles yes. I have one.
There is no evidence of anything within the Bible though if that is what you meant.
If there is evidence in the Bible of anything, please show it.
Regards
DL
Do you have verses that support no Trinity? The Roman Catholic Church can't just make something official. The Bible makes things official. IMO, the Bible supports the Trinity idea very well.
http://www.bible.ca/...proof-texts.htm
I disagree with the other poster quote. Many times Christianity persisted during heavy persecution. Some will bend, but those who truly believe won't.
Any true believers are conspicuous in their absence just like their absentee God is.
Jesus tells us how they should be able to show themselves yet none will step up to move the mountain of 6 million people that starve to death yearly.
So much for believers caring for their neighbors.
This is how a true Christian show his faith.
You might note that there is no one on earth with faith.
If there was, we would all know it. They would act.
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
Mark 16:17-18.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Regards
DL
0 -
We were told that the various holy texts are the Words of their respective Gods. This is what discussions are based upon. So, if you consider that a weak foundation, then yes, all discussions are speculative nonsense.
In the Abrahamic cults, can it be said that a book that begins with a talking snake, a God who would demand the sacrifice of Abraham’s son in the middle and ends with a seven headed monster, is a good foundation?
Regards
DL
0 -
IIncedia
My speculation has concluded that what the ancients called the soul was really our subconscious minds.
That aside, because it is likely wrong, the ancients did believe in a state of going into the spirit. Trances and such. Much of scripture was written by those who claimed to be in the spirit when revelation was given.
My experience of this, no proof of course, is that what they called going into the spirit was what we today would call telepathic contact with who they thought was God. i call it my apotheosis.
I also have no proof that telepathy is real, but to me, the word soul now just means a way to communicate with God. Again, to me, this bible God guy is not the God I believe in. The Godhead I found was more of a cosmic consciousness. It is the repository of all consciousness’ that have--uploaded --- to it.
Seems that we all upload at some point in time. No choice.
Regards
DL
0 -
The Ten Commandments say that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". I believe that Jesus is a part of "me". This link contains lots of verses that support that: http://carm.org/bibl...ow-jesus-divine
Yet Jesus did not officially join the Trinity till, what, 300 odd years after his death.
Constantine gave life to the Trinity by basically shoving it down Christianities throat.
Originally Posted by animefan48 Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.
Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)
But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)
http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx
Regards
DL
0 -
Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense?
Many quote God’s WORD as coming from God’s own mind somehow yet that same WORD says that God is unknowable, unfathomable and mysterious. That same WORD is full of contradictions which may help demonstrate that God truly does work in mysterious, illogical ways.
Those who say they know the mind of God, lie, if the Bible is to be believed. According to it, God is un-knowable.
Many claim a personal relationship to their God yet few will admit apotheosis.
Are you/they lying if no actual personal contact has occurred?
Are all discussions, of any God, just speculative nonsense, or can a man actually know something of God’s thinking?
Are we all just spinning our wheels in discussions.
Regards
DL
0 -
They didn't know right from wrong, but they did know, because God told them, that they couldn't eat from either of the two trees.
We evidently have a completely different definition of the word "punishment".
Yes. Yours does not include purpose while mine does.
The fact that you did not speak to my points show that you cannot justify yours.
Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.
Without purpose.
Regards
DL
0 -
In order to be a just God, he must give what is fair. Those who have earned punishment will get it. That is not senselessly cruel.
I think that this verse is what you were refering to. A & E, I believe, were intelligent before the fall. They simply didn't know right from wrong.
Genesis 2:17
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Not the tree of all knowledge.
If they did not know right from wrong, then it was wrong of God to punish them.
A just God would punish to change attitudes and actions.
To punish without these in mind is just purposeless torture and not any kind of justice at all.
Do you punish your children if no benefit is to be gained?
In order to be a just God, he must give what is fair. Those who have earned punishment will get it. That is not senselessly cruel.
I think that this verse is what you were refering to. A & E, I believe, were intelligent before the fall. They simply didn't know right from wrong.
Genesis 2:17
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Not the tree of all knowledge.
As to earning punishment. Punishment with a purpose perhaps but not if it serves no purpose.
Punishment is usually given to change ideas, attitudes and actions of a sinner.
If punishment is given for any other reason, then it is being given without an altruistic purpose and would be given out of a sense of cruelty.
Does hell serve the purpose above?
If so, to continue to torture a repented soul is not just.
If not then it is cruelty that is motivating the eternal torture.
Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.
Only a sick mind would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone. That is why God would not do such because then, heaven would be hell.
If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once been human or good.
You should think of hell just a bit and recognize that God would not create such an immoral construct.
Regards
DL
0 -
We all have our styles and all do the best we can with what we have.
Two things that I would point out.
Any that dare question religion will get shit on.
I have seen the loving type buried in it as well as my type so I will just follow my bliss.
As to fundamental or literal beliefs.
I would point out that any that believe in Jesus must read scriptures literally to some extent and all of them have fallen to belief in fantasy, miracles and magic.
To my way of thinking, they are all just as foolish as those who believe in talking animals.
After all, they have to believe in a God who would covet another man's woman, a sin, and impregnate his own mother with himself via invisible flying sperm. Incest.
How droll.
I leave it to others to be gentle with those, who as shown with my links above, are abusing children and promoting hate.
If that kind of thing does not set you off then you are not a moral person.
Regards
DL
0 -
I think the answer is that the Jewish Sabbath started on the evening of Christ's execution, which is why they were in a hurry to break his legs so that he would die, thus allowing them to wrap things up before the Holy Day.
Thanks for this.
There was always something to do with timing.
Even the trial.
It has been speculated that all of the events that supposedly happened, the quick trial and gathering the judges and making the presentation to the Romans etc, just could not have happened that quickly.
Regards
DL
0 -
GIA - what do you hope to accomplish with your posts on religion? I am a firm atheist and rationalist and have been for many years so my criticism of your posts is not made with a religious perspective; in your posts you seem to be going out of your way to offend and upset those who do believe in god and are members of an established religion, is there a reason for this constant attack? I cannot believe that you are of a mind such that you think religious members of the forum will read your posts and re-examine their faith, they do not raise any interesting or new points, and they use highly inflammatory language; to me they only seem to evince an attitude of snide contempt and mockery, and I am curious why you bother.
Firstly.
I write more for the lurkers than those who are likely to respond. Those are the ones who will likely think of the issues as opposed to the more literal or fundamental who will try to refute my position.
Seconly.
I bother because I care for my fellow man. Believe it or not, and think it evil for us not to correct poor thinking.
It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1
They also do much harm to their own.
African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related
Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqGhcwwE1s
Promoting death to Gays.
For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can.
If you do not, what does that say about you?
Regards
DL
In connection with the original churches being houses of prostitution, there still are temple prostitutes in religious shrines in India. The girls work there for a few years to collect enough money to help their families or finance their own later endeavors.
I would never vote to make prostitution illegal, as in the West, most of these people are there because of past abuses, mostly in the home, and I would not add to that abuse.
At the same time, I think prostitution to be a blemish on any society.
Sure, many are in it just for the money but it is still human trafficking and placing a dollar figure on humans.
We cannot say we venerate human life while at the same time putting a price on it.
It is like the death penalty in some states and countries.
Can they be seen as venerating life while killing it.
I do not think so.
Regards
DL
0 -
You say that He wants us to sin so that we can repent?
Romans 3:23
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"
We have already sinned and he wants us to repent and believe on Him so that He does not need to punish us. Which leads me to my next point, that punishment is not necessarily given for a change of attitude. For example, what's the point of life in jail, or the death sentence? http://dictionary.co...-SEARCHD=Search Where do you see that punishment is given for a change of attitude?
We incarcerate for self protection.
God has no need of protection.
If we, like God, could know what is in the perpetrators heart and know that he has repented and changed his attitude, it would be foolish for us to continue to incarcerate.
If your God does, then he is not only foolish but senselessly cruel.
Regards
DL
Religion is stuck in a paradoxical situation. If God attempted to present himself, communicate his message to humanity, or represent himself in a human form, and did so adequately, then there is no way that anyone could have doubted that what they were encountering was divine, as even some of the Apostles seem to have done. So in this case there would have been no room for free will and thus no room for blame or sin, since everyone would have accepted the self-evident validity of what they saw.
They could only doubt it sufficiently to retain room for free will so that they could get credit for faith and belief if God presented himself inadequately or deceptively, but then why would he bother with the presentation at all? To trick people by doing a poor job of it?
It gets worse.
A & E are not shown as having any doubt of God being God, yet Christian dogma, not Jewish dogma, still shows then ignoring his command to stay as dumb as the lesser animals.
Christians see that as our fall yet the Jews thought of it as our elevation.
Regards
DL
0 -
In the beginning, the temple resembled a hoar house.
In studying ancient history of the advances of technology used in temples, and knowing that the first prostitutes were temple prostitutes, and also knowing that alcohol and psychotropic drug use was common, I tried to envision the reality of just what the temple and early religion was all about.
We generally envisage a large building that held many but in truth, the early churches where more like the home churches used today in smaller communities. I think they may have begun as places of worship but to early man, worship looked quite different than it does today.
Churches latter expanded along with the populations and used the latest technology to draw the crowd and the best technology and God would win the hearts of the patrons. These patrons were mostly poor people and for them to be persuaded to part with their hard earned wealth took the best effort that science and persuasion powers of the priests could muster.
The temple then, by the time Jesus came along to throw his temper tantrum, was a place of commerce, theatre for myth reading, partying and prostitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_prostitution
http://www.truthcontest.com/entries/the-present-with-religion/belief-truth-fantasy-reality.html
Just how important the theology of whatever God was worshipped we can never know. We can assume, because of the vast number of Gods that their theology was not important to them as they changed from one God to the other. We can know that the wealth that the temples amassed was earned with methods, that many today, would consider rather odious. They were more like carnivals, speak easies and hoar houses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution
There is a hint in the following--
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+6&version=KJV
where the writer seems to be bemoaning the use of these various delights yet not quite calling them illegal.
Even when I was young, the small local church was where I learned of drinking, partying and key clubs. It was rumored that every church had a key club but I have no direct proof of this last. Drinking and drugs though, I can vouch for.
From such is where our, ever so proper moral religions were born. From what we today would call immoral activity. Sacrifice, indulgences, fees for drink and drugs and prostitution gave birth to religion and financed what we have today.
Was religion born of what we would call corruption?
Were the ancient battles between churches just what we would call turf wars for wealth and the various magic tricks that the churches used to compete with each other?
Today, with religions that are based on fantasy, miracle and magic, are priests just doing the same Flim-Fam job on believers for their wealth?
IOW. Are priests just con artists?
http://www.megavideo.com/?d=3D3511DE
Regards
DL
0 -
I have heard various reasons given and I don't know which are speculation or not. Regardless, I don't see any reason why an individual should be punished, let alone crucified, for expression. On thing that is clear is that the crowd requested Pontius Pilate execute Jesus because they said their laws didn't allow it. That is blasphemy of Holy Spirit. If you sincerely believe in a law, you don't seek someone else to break it for you because you're not allowed to.
Memory fails me.
Was Jesus crucified on the Sabbath?
Jews could not work on the Sabbath and the Romans did not have that restrictions.
Regards
DL
0
Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense?
in Religion
Posted
Your link speaks of observation and experiment as the rule for science.
In the beginning, man had to experiment with various foods and observe if he lived through it or not. That is science as described today.
As to my agenda, it is to try to convert theists away from their silly beliefs.
Theists are the one's causing damage. I am more appreciated where atheists are actually trying to do the same thing.
If those here are not doing the same elsewhere, then to my mind, they are not doing their duty to society.
We are all our brothers keeper. Self defense demands it.
Regards
DL
Like so?
I have done this before and someone told me there was a better way.
Regards
DL