I think that was sarcasm from knight31. Hint: page 1 of this thread replies to FriendlyFace and his Sun in avatar. Just FYI.Quote:
I find it very reassuring, knight31, that you have it in you to compliment Darkmatters on his artworks.
Printable View
I think that was sarcasm from knight31. Hint: page 1 of this thread replies to FriendlyFace and his Sun in avatar. Just FYI.Quote:
I find it very reassuring, knight31, that you have it in you to compliment Darkmatters on his artworks.
Oh God this...this...this thread is beyond repair
Attachment 4764
Lucifer Followers
My Avatar is The Source. It is a golden entity Traveling to "U". Here is the entity (synchronistically) pleading with "You" (it's followers).
***
Dennis's golden wings - UK version [HD] - YouTube
***(2:39) 203 views
Lucifer disconnected himself from his creator (the source of his life) and now is Black and dark. But in the YouTube below he strips-off his blackness.
The name of the singer is Dennis and is derived from the name of the Greek God Dionysius. Dionysius is the Zero card of the Major Arcana in the Mythic Tarot. So Dionysius is The Fool. And The Fool represents You and I, as we journey through Life (life is represented by the other 21 cards of the major Arcana.
Here are the words of Dennis' song:
"Ha, can you see into my eyes, (like open doors)?
Leading you down into my Core,where I've become so numb.
Without a Soul, My Spirit's sleeping somewhere Cold
until you Find it there and Lead it back."
(1:00) Dennis (Lucifer) throws-off his darkness, revealing his original golden body (of light)
"Wake me up in side
Wake me up inside
Call my name
Save me from the dark
(..?..)
Before I come undone
Save me from the Nothing I've become."
Here he reveales his high wing-like appendages that he used to hold up-over his creator God in the days when he was Lucifer, "The" covering Cheribum.
Synchronistically Dennis (Dionysius) the Fool is Lucifer. Lucifer is addressing his Followers (heeheehee)
(1:33) HA HA HA
"Bring Me to Life
are are are are are ARE."
here he reveals his second pair of wings turning himself into a golden DRAGONfly with a collapsed wing.
"Save me from the Dark."
(..?..)
"Save me from the nothing I've become."
"Bring me to Life"
Oh
and the person who is revealing this "Avatar" to you is non other than the Mythical
[u] 666-666 [/b]
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
a-b-c-d-e-f-g-h-i
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
-j-k-l-m-n-o-p-q-r
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8
s-t-u-v-w-x-y-z
4-2-9- (constonents) 15= 6 debra
--5--1 (vowels) 5+1= 6
1-5---(constonents) 1+5= 6
Jane
-1-5 (vowels) 1+5= 6
4-6-5 (constonents) 4+6+5=15 (1+5) =6
dixon
-9-6- (9+6=15) 1+5= 6
So
---6-------6------6
Debra Jane Dixon
---6-------6------6
That is only a coinsidance. (heeheehee)
I believe heaven is outside of time and space. How is that possible?
DISCLAIMER: The below is just some creative open-minded thinking of mine. It does not represent the teachings of any Christian Church to my knowledge. And I wouldn't even say that I believe it, but rather I am just thinking outside the box here.
Is it like another dimension? or Is it like with dreams and reality, where you cannot perceive your real room where you are sleeping from within the dream? I know someone here in this thread mentioned the idea that this reality of ours may be all Adam's dream. I have also heard of the idea that reality may be God's dream. And I think that idea has some merit in terms of explaining how God can be everywhere at the same time: because reality is all inside his mind. In that sense, when we lucid dream, we would be experiencing the dream world much like God experiences the waking world - and since the bible says that we were created in God's image, then it would make sense that we have some abilities that are kind of like an imperfect version of God's abilities. And if creation is God's dream, that would make us tulpas, I guess. Although I must admit that I am not entirely comfortable with that concept (when I first came to DV, and read about tulpas for the first time, I must admit that sounded a bit crazy to me). However, the God's dream idea does seem like a good metaphor at least - a way to try to wrap our minds around this concept.
According to the bible heaven is an actual physical place up in the sky. I suppose that is why God isn't active in the world any more, he is to busy dodging air planes that fly through heaven. Though on a more serious note, ever wonder why in the bible God is really active and meddles in the life of humans all the time, yet today God has pretty much disappeared completely and no longer does anything? No giant floods, or fire balls raining from the sky, and no more sending Angels to murder people in their sleep, none of that happens anymore. It all happened in the bible but not now. God disappeared from the world. Or the more logical explanation is that he was never here to begin with.
The bible is a non-literal set of books written by human beings for various reasons. Most of the authors of the books of the bible had absolutely no intension of being literal. At times the Bible completely contradicts itself not because God changed, but because humans' interpretation of God changed, not because God changed from a wrathfully to a loving God. The authors of the New Testament were less likely to accuse God of killing people because by the time of the New Testament, civilization had evolved and people realized that blaming God was not the solution to their problems. (Though there are parts of the Old Testament that also speak of a loving God.) Another way of looking at it is that part of Jesus' salvation was to save humans from the follies of their own misinterpretations, to set the record straight. Of course, he did not fully succeed: being human is in part to err, and thus we did not get the message fully correct, of course. God is as active in the world today as he has always been. What has changed is human interpretation, not God.
Of course they mistook everything. They thought lightning and storms was caused by the anger of god, and they blamed all sort of natural disasters on divine intervention. The real question becomes, if they mistakes everything for god, why would you believe them at all? Clearly they didn't know what they were talking about and there is no reason to take any of it seriously.
For me, the world makes more sense with God in it, as created and redeemer. I know that for you, Alric, it makes less sense. So the following is why I believe, not why you or anyone else must believe - belief is a personal choice.
For me the world without God would be meaningless, hopeless, and sterile. I have no problem with the fact that I have more questions than answers, that I have both belief and doubt. believing is not an all or nothing supposition for me.
One could argue: why would anyone believe in science given how flawed it is? Scientists make mistakes and those mistakes are discovered sometimes only after many generations through further research. peer review is very flawed. I used to work as a managing editor of a peer reviewed journal, and there were many flaws: some topics were rejected off hand without review based on only editor in chief's digression, it depended on how established a scientist already was and how hot the topic was how much peer review scrutiny the article would undergo, etc. Stephen LaBerge's discoveries on lucid dreaming for example, he had the hardest time to get people to peer review them because a lot of paranormal studies departments were studying lucid dreaming, and LD had a bad reputation as something paranormal as a result. People are prejudiced. However, to reject science because the scientific community is flawed would be foolish, I. My opinion. Science has a lot of truth to offer, and I take it seriously, but I do not always believe it because I know it can be mistaken. for example science is now discovering that cholesterol is not nearly as bad as previous researchers found. Conversely there are scientific studies claiming health benefits of caffeine which I am skeptical about based on personal experience with negative effects of caffeine.
To me scientific peer review is very much like peer review of religious beliefs by believers: people over time review and reach some degree of consensus or reject claims. No, we do not use scientific method and logic is not our only tool for evaluation of religious claims - since I believe logic is flawed, it cannot be fully trusted. Faith, intuition, conscience ( inspired by the Holy Spirit), does it ring true, creed, doctrine, scripture - we use other tools in addition to logic to supplement it. but belief is not static, it is evolving and subject to self examination and examination by other believers.
That's how I believe. obviously, others believe differently. But I am not alone in these beliefs either.
In addition: Personally, I have felt God's presence at times. I cannot prove that of course to anyone else, but for me it reinforces my faith.
Edit: Note that I do not believe that human logic is worthless, but I do believe that it is inadequate to understand everything. My belief requires a leap of faith which cannot be logically explained. I do not believe this to be a flaw in my belief because I do not believe logic is the ultimate arbiter of truth: logic is one tool among many for understanding the world, and in my belief human logic is flawed but at times very useful of course.
The science community admits that they make mistakes and are always trying to get things right. That is what being objective involves. Religion just takes positions and runs with them unconditionally, even after those positions are clearly proven to be wrong.
I am an atheist, and life has a great deal of meaning to me. From a logical standpoint, I know that nothing really matters, but there is a lot that matters majorly to me. I have a nervous system that gives me desires and emotions.
I think one of the fundamental differences between us is that you start with the assumption that logic and reason can be used to determine truth, whereas I start with the assumption that logic and reason are inadequate to assess the whole truth. I do not believe that being objective is possible nor fully desirable. Love for example trumps reason for me. As a result neither of us can convince the other because you cannot convince me using reason alone, and I cannot convince you that reason is inadequate. I must admit that this discussion has been very useful though because now I have a better understanding of atheists' point of view I think, and while you cannot convince me to agree with you, and I cannot convince you to agree with me, but I think understanding others' views better is an important part of human interaction. I hope that my comments have shown you though that even believers can and do continue to question our beliefs, and it is not true that all believers in God just accept everything in the bible or doctrine without continuous reevaluation.
PS: Your saying that the science community admits they make mistakes and are always trying to get things right is not a difference between you and me: I and believers who are like me also admit that we make mistakes and we are also trying to get things right - this is why our interpretation of our faith changes over time.
So basically you think logic and reason isn't as good as ignorance because ignorance makes you feel better? That is kind of like saying that if you have a large growth the size of a baseball growing out of your side, it is better to pretend it is nothing instead of going to a doctor because believing it is nothing makes you feel better than thinking you might have some disease. It might make you feel better in the short term but then you die because you didn't get treatment.
Going through the world blind because it seems easier is a ridiculous idea to me. Science and logic isn't always easy but if you want any hope of knowing the truth you have to use it. Your basic idea seems to be if a group of people come together and decide on reality, then that is good enough. If most people believe rain is caused by god and we need to pray for it to come, then that is how it should be done because people agree and it makes them more comfortable believing it and it causes less conflict or whatever.
At the end of the day, people can't just decide what is true and what isn't. The truth is the truth. I guess we will never agree since you are not seeking the truth, you are seeking what is comfortable and easy for you to understand.
I definitely do not believe that ignorance is better than the persuit of truth. You keep saying that just because I believe that reason is inadequate, I think that unreasonableness is preferable. That is not true. I think that humans should use reason, but I believe that human reason cannot understand everything no matter how hard we try - and I believe we should try as hard as we can. I do not believe that one should reject reason: I believe that reason can only take us so far, that there are truths beyond reason's limits.
Oh, and I definitely do not believe that just because the majority of believers believe something that makes it right. That would be foolish. Faith is not democratic. And I believe that there is truth outside of what we believe, that the beliefs are not all just in our heads. Even if all people suddenly started to worship bananas that would not make bananas holy.
I believe that belief can be mistaken. The basis of my beliefs are many and complex.
I believe that reason can neither prove not disprove faith, and no matter how much one uses logic to debate the existence of God or how many people believe or do not, that does not change what is actually true. Philosophers have tried to use logic to prove or disprove God's existence, and I believe that none of the logical arguments neither for nor against God's existence are irrefutable. I don't think faith can be evaluated by reason, but that does not mean it is unreasonable - it means that reason is only one tool at our disposal, and it cannot decide matters of faith. I believe that you think you do not believe in God because of logic, but I think that your faith in logic is much like my faith in God - you think logic cannot be wrong if it is correctly applied and that everything can be explained with logic.
Well I do know that the bible fortold of the reconstruction of Israel and no other book could do that. But I'm not trying to convince you of anything because I don't believe that the revelations are written to convince people I think they are there as a guide, and not meant to be seen exactly clearly until the time passes, because if direct evidence was thrown in peoples faces they would be stripped of the blessing of choosing god, rather than having god forced upon them.
I am interested in counter arguments at this time because they provide and an extra guide to tell me areas to research. For example that Gilgamesh story. That is something to look into that some atheists say copied the bible. I dont believe the claim but I will investigate it all.
What was the question?
If he was creating earth as perfect earth would be heaven, so it would be the firmament. But there is still another option even if that weren't so. For example jupiter is a gas planet in outer space to us, but what happens if we move up a level in dimensions? Suddenly the planet isn't Gas anymore it's solid, and it's inhabited. If you go up through the dimensions then outer space out be heaven, and so it could very well be the firmament.
If it's all there than tell me exactly how you got from today's people now and traced it back to the time of adam and eve. Is there a website with all the dates and a family tree back to adam and ever recorded? I don't think so. Show we the information that says it or we can move on.Quote:
There isn't any holes, it is all there, especially from Adam to Abraham and like I said we know when Abraham existed since he is the first person in the bible who might actually be based on a real person instead of entirely made up. You can doubt it all you want but it is in the bible. If you believe the bible is a holy book you should read it, and if you read it all you will see the dates are all there and they are wrong.
How can the bible give exact time lines if this calender system that we are using came after the bible?Quote:
Also saying they experienced time differently is just a silly excuse. The bible was written by people in more modern times why would they say day if they meant a million years or something? They wouldn't. You just can't explain how the bible is wrong so you are making up excuses. The bible specifically gives exact time lines, and they are provably incorrect.
When the great flood happened, it could have gone over large parts of land, even entire continents, but that's not to say it went over every single bit of land. I have already suggested how this is possible, Google artifacts and cities under Antarctica ice and about sunken cities. You will find plenty of information on it. I'm not going to quote the entire internet on it but there is so much on that topic that is beyond the scope of the post right now. From all I have researched about it, nothing you say convinces me a great flood was not possible.Quote:
There has never been a situation where all the land could be covered.
Why do you believe so much in science? And how do you know what the laws of physics even are when they are updated over and over again for eternity, So you keep getting proved wrong about the laws of physics every time they discover the rules were updated. And you live your life according that? Why not just admit that it's hopeless and you will get proved wrong for eternity to come? Why do you have to have a certain law of physics that you know will just be proved wrong in time?Quote:
As for those limits, they are called the laws of physics. I believe in a physical world of science. Just say what you are thinking, the flood was magic and you believe in magic. What you are saying can not possibly happen in the real world, unless you believe in magic. Of course there is no evidence of magic being real. Someone told you a fairy tale and you believed it, as simple as that. If your only answer is magic then that is the truth.
Each time they make a different discovery or when culture changes, they also change the rules of it. So what you believe in isn't even stable.
You know what is funny about this is all the creation myths I do know of, they all say basically the same thing anyway. So maybe they are on to something, if these stories keep coming up that tells the same things.Quote:
You don't know the story of Gilgamesh because you never read or studied early literature. If you had studied early literature, even briefly, you would realize that a huge part of the early stuff people wrote was about trying to understand where we came from and how everything was created. In fact every culture has their own creation myths. The bible is just one of many, and Gilgamesh happens to be one of the earliest one we have evidence of in written form, and is widely known because of it.
You are essentially saying, believe me it's all fake, but you aren't giving me any proper reasons.Quote:
Though if you read those other creation myths and study things going on at the time it becomes pretty clear they are all fake.
They did not have plastic bottles back then, so you wouldn't find any coke bottles. Remember it was thousands of years ago. they probably didn't even bring anything will them hardly. They most they would have is a camel.Quote:
It is kind of like if I had a beach party and invited a third of California to come party on the beach. The sand isn't going to be pristine and clean the next morning and everyone is going to know something happened.
Too vagueQuote:
Actually, you are the one misinterpreting the bible, kind of like how you didn't know what firmament was. I am no biblical scholar but I have looked into the subject enough to know what they mean when they are saying a lot of the crazy stuff they are. The thing is, there are other books and stories written at the same time of the bible and we can use those as references. So there is information on all the stuff they were talking about and you can reference stuff and when you do the bible usually proves to be pretty inaccurate.
I still don't understand how you think it's not a sacrifice. He was tortured and put on the cross. Surely that doesn't feel good, it's not something you do on a weekend.Quote:
I am not saying sacrifices can't be done, I am saying Jesus did not make a sacrifice at all. What he did wasn't a sacrifice in any sense of the word.
I have never witnesses Jesus doing something that was a con and I doubt you could prove it.Quote:
I am just calling it like I am seeing. If Jesus actually existed as a real person, chances are he was a con man. He is basically the same as the cult leaders that are around today, that get people to follow them around. In fact Jesus was a pretty sorry cult leader because he had barely any followers at all.
so because someone gets arrested they are a con man? Anyone could arrest anybody. It doesn't prove anything.Quote:
Jesus did the same thing, he convinced a handful of people of some crazy story and they believed it. The fact that he got arrested and sentence to death because people thought he was a mad man, kind of reveals that he was likely kind of crazy. Evidence seems to suggest that he is a lair and a cult leader and that is a more likely story than the stuff he claimed.
He gave up his life. Also he performed miracles that fed thousands of people that saved their life's, so that was also worth something. Did he materialize bars of gold and make a palace for himself? No, but he did give starving people enough food to eat when there was none.Quote:
How about him giving something up? Jesus doesn't give anything up, and free loads off everyone else in the bible. A proper example of a sacrifice would be a rich person giving up his money to help others for the sake of helping others. Money has value and the person gave up the money and he did not gain anything from it, he did it solely to help others.
by the time an atheist dies, they will be faced with the fact they are still existing. So they won't be an atheist anymore, because they will still be alive lol. So your theory falls apart right there.Quote:
No, they wont be with you. If two people truly love each other, and one is an atheist and one is a christian, then they can't be together. God will separate true love and abandon the one that doesn't worship him. So how would that christian be happy in heaven with their true love burning in hell? They wouldn't be, the concept of perfect happiness without your love ones doesn't make sense. Heaven is an illogical place that can not exist.
No-one forces you to go to heaven, you can stick around in the slum type of areas in you want. In fact you won't be allowed in the highest parts of heaven unless you are qualified enough. but you still have access to everything below that level. So anyone you care about that would be in hell as you put it, you could still go and see them. If they were like a serial killer or something, you might see them in flames where ever they walk around though.Quote:
I am not really afraid of anything since I know heaven doesn't exist. However in this hypothetical situation I would be afraid of having my personally destroyed and replaced with something that isn't me, and that no longer cares for the people I used to love. There is no point in living if your entire personally and your memories are wiped cleaned. That isn't you any more. It is just something that resembles you.
No he designed beings that were capable of making their own decisions. You can no longer blame god for your own decisions. That's not responsible.Quote:
So basically you confirmed what we all already knew. God is a sadomasochist so he designed impure people that would require pain to be purified. Kind of wonder why the church is so against sex though. Shouldn't we all be into bdsm and whipping each other in worship of God? At least if your into that sort of stuff you get pleasure from it, so even though God doesn't exist you still get the fun stuff.
vague....Quote:
The bible didn't accurately foretell anything. Jesus doesn't really fit the prophecy and there is a lot of flaws in the Jesus story which shows the story was edited and faked so that Jesus would fit it. The entire birth of Jesus story is riddled with holes that doesn't make sense and is prime evidence it was just made up so it sounded like he fulfilled the prophecy.
The bible told the re-contruction of Israel, and the mark of the beast part where they put a chip in you to buy and sell things, That part is coming up shortly. So that will be two things that clearly are prophetic. But there's much more than that if you make an effort to study it.
I think so many don't believe because the bible was wrote in a way to leave room for doubters, or they would not be able to choose their doubt, and then that wouldn't be exactly fair.Quote:
There is a reason so many people doubted Jesus was really the person he claimed to be and even today a major parts of the religion disagree. For examples the Jews don't believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecy. Why did so many people not believe? Well the answer is simple, because the story doesn't make any sense.
This...
Yes or no?
Joanna, I am glad this discussion has helped you understand atheism better. You have made some interesting points. I have two questions for you regarding your skepticism toward logic. Do you believe that 2 + 2 = 4? Why or why not?
I believe 2+2=4. I believe reason is adequate to answer arithmetic questions. As I said, I do not believe that reason is useless. It definitely has its place, and there are questions that can be fully answered using reason only. However, I also believe that there are questions that cannot be answered using reason alone, and "is there a God?" is one of them.
Oh and in response to the suffering question: I do not know the answer. I do not claim to know all the answers. One possible speculation is that suffering exists so that we are challenged, so that we can evolve, and so that we can learn humility and surrender as opposed to pride and taking things for granted. However, the question of suffering is too complex a question to answer with a simple answer, and I do not know all the cause for suffering - my understanding is limited, but I accept that. And why is there suffering is one of those questions which believers need to continue to reexamine and reevaluate, in my opinion. We need to come up with better answers over time. And I know that the answers I can come up with now are inadequate.
Quote:
question: God can completely prevent suffering and he prevents it in some cases but not others because there are rules he has to follow to allow certain things that are more important than not burning forever?
You do realize you are taking something formless such as Infinite power. And applying it to a situation that is finite in scope. So that question doesn't even make sense.
But to give you an analogy, If you created a software program, the software program has rules that it carried out, you do create the code that creates the software, and then the software runs. God can create the code for reality that then does it's thing. He can change the coding or create anything about the software that he wants.
But if you ask why doesn't infinite power prevent rules that it makes. You are making a very illogical statement. You are taking two completely different things and putting them together out of context. Why would you create a rule if you didn't want that rule to be in place. A limit in itself is just a decision that can be changed at another time. Infinite power is not bound by limits. Limits are bound to infinite power. I'm not sure what paradox you are struggling with, but it's easily solved if you consider how it works.
In addition he could make ice burn if he wanted to. But there is no reason at this time for him to do that because he doesn't want to. You are basically judging god and telling him what to do. Which is silly because you don't have any power other than what he gives you.
Quote:
I have two questions for you regarding your skepticism toward logic. Do you believe that 2 + 2 = 4? Why or why not?
I have a question for you Universal mind.
Take a look at this image and you have to tell me an answer. Is there only straight lines in this image or does it contain a curve?
Attachment 4767
That is the type of no win questions you are asking me and JoannaB. The question itself doesn't make sense. From the moment you ask the question it's illogical. So the only answer is also illogical. You are asking a false question and expecting a true answer. you cannot take an imaginary concept and apply it to a real situation.
1+1=2 is an idea, until you apply it so some situation in a social context, it's not even real until you gather 1 apple and another apple.
Jesus defied laws all the time that's why he walked on water. It wasn't because he was using logic that he could defy logic. It was because he had the power of god behind him. God isn't limited so you can't use logic to understand infinite power.
Why do you even bother with logic? Since any type of logic can be defeated by a different logic. Just as that image can be seen as either having only straight lines, of having a curve as well as straight lines. To different things in mind but they aren't even different it's just part of the structure of it.
JoannaB, maybe you are one of those that knows how to balance her medium of faith and doesn't try to impose all actions because of your faith.
But what Universal Mind is stating is that Science is aware that mistakes are likely, and that they're progressively aiming to correct things as much as they can. Religion on the other hand, is simply placing faith into entities and what have you depending on their upbringing. You may be able to understand that there are some things beyond our limits, that sometimes our faith and our logic isn't enough to explain these things, but to compare Science and Religion as having the same conceptual ambition is a bit impractical.
Science aims to utilize what it currently knows, going through peer-reviewed analysis, constant repetition of hypotheses through the scientific method, and is willing to accept change if the conditions of the scientific method are met, and the general scientific community can agree on it (who already are serious of reducing as many errors as possible).
You may not see Religion as differently from that, you may think it's the same ideology, but using your experience and what few believers who practice your medium of faith (or have a particular religion similar to it) does not exclude the fact that there are people who just label that "This entity did it" if they can't explain a certain phenomenon. Science aims to not be in a defeatist's position (like people have stated people of religion generally do unconditionally), and it is aware that it doesn't have all the answers, but they do say "we are getting there."
Huge difference. People of religion can try to do that, but they can't get much progress if they only use sources that teaches their religion. (However, people can still be scientific based on science and keep their religion to themselves just fine).
They don't place labels automatically that they'll go back to later when they have the time, they take the time to observe reality instead of something that's different depending on how you were brought up. As much as you want to believe that Religion can be as practical as Science, that's another story. But Science is consistent no matter where you were brought up ((more consistent by the way, not absolutely and irrefutably consistent, just more practical). If you were born a Muslim child, you would most likely practice the mediums of faiths that people usually believe in. If you were born a Jewish child, you would most likely conform to their beliefs. If you were born a child in a community that mostly practices Taoism, the same likelihood as well.
A person, no matter where they're born, if they are engaged into Science long enough, they will come to the realization that if their place of birth heavily affects how they conceptualize reality and labeling the unknowns as the work of certain entities, they would realize that it's purely faith without much analysis put into it (mostly anecdotal and ways to have a sense of belonging, a morality system, etc). And to state how its similar to Science would be completely inconsistent. Your practice of religion and practicality may be decent because you don't try to impose that faith into science (hopefully), but as a whole, it's a bit far-fetched to presume other people of your faith, or anyone with strong ties with religion does this same "practical" approach..
Science may not be the perfect solution, but it's more practical simply because it doesn't put labels on things supernatural/solely conceptual and imaginative and/or superstitious. It doesn't put emphasis on a higher being, or that a higher concept is responsible for.
And as for your statement for logic, of course there's going to be limits on our end, but it doesn't make the rudiments of Religion any better or more practical then Science.
Are these straight lines or curved lines? If you answer mine I will answer yours. Or does this have to be double standard or your theory falls apart?
Attachment 4768
Whatever your answer is I'm going to say the same thing back to you and it's what you decided. face it, that's checkmate.
you were only trying to use illogic to trap me into saying something illogical. You should play fair instead of cheating.
If I said straight line (or yes) you will bring up the curve. If I say curved line (or no) you will bring up the straight line.
In addition if I said both straight and curved. You would bring up only straight. If I said neither. you would bring up both.
This illustrates your strategy of trolling me.
Wrong, that science is more practical is just your assumption. You cant save earth from environmental pollution and destruction with today's science. Yet native Americans and other native people lived for thousands of years without science and didn't hardly cut down even 1 tree. So if you think environmental destruction of the earth is a practical thing, more practical than having a clean environment, then that's why you believe in science to get things done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Linkzelda
As I have said science is a method, It is socially constructed and cultural. That is not debatable that is accepted by sociologist. Only scientist debate that because their faith is science. lol
Methods are not how you get things done even. One method can work at one time, and then fail at another time. So you can't even rely on any kind of method, let alone a scientific method. Just like you can't rely on witchcraft to get results. Neither can you rely on science to get results.
If you do a spell and something happens the witch says "i cast a spell, and looked what happened" but they didn't cast a spell at all. It's superstition.
Likewise if you do something with science and something works you say "It's my theory and I experimented and look what happenedt". but it's just as delusional as the witchcraft!
Lets looks at it another way.
A witch waves her wand and says, every time i wave my wand the light in my room goes off. I'm magic.
But what the witch doesn't know is the person who designed the building made it so every time the light senses the wand, it turns it off. So it's not actually her doing anything.
Like wise a scientist may say, "look, every time I drop a ball it falls. Gravity"
But what the scientist might not realize is that it's only being designed that way it's not a set rule. Anyone could change it in an instant and a 'witch' who is closer to god might fly around and there is even accounts of that in history.
So how do you ensure results? by being closer to god. That's the only possible way. When god favors you. He will do things for you. If he does not favor you, there is nothing you can do to stop him preventing your method from working
Why do you think Jesus could perform so many miracles? Because god favored him he was closer to god.
In the lasts days of tribulation the bible speaks of people who will use that logic to deceive others. For instance they will perform 'great wonders' and people will think they must be closer to god, follow them. But this is a deception that is coming. You are NOT meant to rely on that. You can't rely on outer signs that way, this will be one of the tests made. If you only follow the miracles, the miracles will lead to the Anti-Christ.
Which is what this song is all about if you listen carefully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T_R40Zb--U
I'm going to explain the lyrics
The boy's got a head like an atom bomb
(atom bomb refers to lots of energy. Jesus had a lot of life energy to effect things. Also atom is similar to saying adam, first man)
Hang him from a cross like the number one son
(people seen it as dangerous to their social order)
And he's been waiting so long
To get it on
(This speaks about revelations that are coming)
The boy's 15 but he's 16 gauge
(you have to understand numbers here the same way you would understand them in the bible, notice how it don't make sense saying his 15 or 16 gauge because it's not really referring to numbers the way we currently understand them)
Wants to break out from his Jesus cage
(he is talking now about this generation that will live to see revelations come to pass. Jesus cage refers to god limiting someone)
He's already torn out the last page
(this is about taking apart the bible or examining it without understanding what it really is)
It's the "latest rage"
(the latest rage is to fight against true bible believers)
Violence for the people
They always eat the hand that bleeds
(this is referring to Jesus on the cross again, they got violent images of jesus on the cross all as they are growing up )
Violence for the people
Give the kids what they need
(they need to see this)
Kill your god,Kill your god
(this has a double meaning, it means we killed Jesus christ. but it also means Kill science, that has become your god)
Kill your TV
(a double meaning again. The television promotes deception and you should destroy it. But television also refers to scientific observation of the world around us, just like we look at a television. Science looks at the world)
The boy's purified by the quitter gods
(the quitter gods are the fallen ones, they give up their entire soul, and are made into a puppet for satan. Meanwhile satan purifies all those against him)
Burning up his cross like a revelation
(This is a hard one to explain.A cross is a symbol for sacrifice, and every time you make a sacrifice for god. You reveal gods power through you it actually destroys the amount of sacrifices you are required to make. The revelation is the truth that opens your eyes.
And his glass jaw opens
glass is a boundary that you don't realize exists. When you work for god, you discover his word is creating the boundaries of reality, and you can see the boundaries of reality open up before you.
Like a puppet head
(People who speak for god, they are not actually speaking for themselves at all. They are a puppet for god)
This is what you should fear
You are what you should fear
(We are seen as in sin out of the garden of eden from our disobedience to god. This is what we should fear)
The title of the song is a reference to about what happens in the end times. And the thing we are in fear of is Satan.
This song comes from Satan. Mostly all music today comes from Lucifer, He was well known in heaven for his musical ability!
Not only that but the way imagery is used in the previous video is very effective to convey the message also. Wan't called the Angel of light for nothing.
If you still don't believe this is from Lucifer mostly guiding the music industry.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DTOxTAcP3E
I don't see anywhere that Universal Mind was trying to lure you into saying anything inconsistent or illogical, and this is implying you're making anything that's cohesive in this creation of a thread.
One....you are a pulling out something so extreme, that you're completely becoming delusional if you're going to even conceptualize that religion is going to save environmental pollution.Quote:
Wrong, that science is more practical is just your assumption. You cant save earth from environmental pollution and destruction with today's science. Yet native Americans and other native people lived for thousands of years without science and didn't hardly cut down even 1 tree. So if you think environmental destruction of the earth is a practical thing, more practical than having a clean environment, then that's why you believe in science to get things done.
Two. Comparing religion and science with Native Americans to imply whatever it is you're trying to get out is completely abstract from what I was stating to the previous user that I quoted. If you're using Native Americans as the epitome of Environmentally-concerned individuals, you are free to do so, but please don't tie this in with how Science can't save this or save that. Of course Science isn't able to solve everything, which is why, and I'll state this once more in bold and italics, "We're getting there...".
If you think for one fleeting moment that Religion is going to save environmental pollution, then that means I can easily pull things Religion can't save. Can Religion save someone from terminal cancer? Can Religion stop environmental pollution? Can it shift the taxes of a nation?
You see where this is leading to? Nowhere.
Knight31, you do know that Sociologists are scientists right? Sociology = scientific study of society. Again, you are completely making little sense here. If a Sociologist is a scientist (which they are, and if you're trying to disprove that meaning, then you seriously need to understand their occupation). Sociologist analyze society based on science as well, if you go to any sociologist, they're going to want more evidence that's consistent and empirical rather than something of religion. They'll use science to analyze society's behaviors pertaining to religion, belief systems and such, but there's no way they're "not" scientists.Quote:
As I have said science is a method, It is socially constructed and cultural. That is not debatable that is accepted by sociologist. Only scientist debate that because their faith is science. lol
Think this through a bit more before you try to say "Only Scientist debate that because their faith is science." I heavily encourage you to think this through.
I'm not sure if you're reading what I stated about the scientific method, it's clearly able to repeat something if there's some reason that there's a fault (whether it's through results from graphs, tables, etc.). Of course there's bound to be some failures, but again, you're trying to imply that because of its limits of not being perfect, that it's not efficient.Quote:
Methods are not how you get things done even. One method can work at one time, and then fail at another time. So you can't even rely on any kind of method, let alone a scientific method. Just like you can't rely on witchcraft to get results. Neither can you rely on science to get results.
Again, this brings me back to stating once more that Science is more practical because it's peer-reviewed, goes through constant repetition of the scientific method if needed, is open to change if there's enough evidence to support it. Science is not perfect, however, the rudiments behind science, its simple approach to not have religion encroach its ambition of "We're getting there" (the mentality that isn't a defeatist) is what makes it more practical.
I think you're using Pseudoscience as an example here. You're making it look as if that one person uses the scientific method, that suddenly it's right. This is false, it's a collaborative effort amongst peers, not just one person. And even if the experiments show potential, it still has to be analyzed through peer-review and have practical evidence that can refute an accepted concept.Quote:
If you do a spell and something happens the witch says "i cast a spell, and looked what happened" but they didn't cast a spell at all. It's superstition.
Likewise if you do something with science and something works you say "It's my theory and I experimented and look what happenedt". but it's just as delusional as the witchcraft!
Lets looks at it another way.
Witchcraft on the other hand, is as practical as flipping a coin.
That is definitely an informative example you gave there, but make sure you have evidence of witches flying, and then we can start making realistic examples here.Quote:
A witch waves her wand and says, every time i wave my wand the light in my room goes off. I'm magic.
But what the witch doesn't know is the person who designed the building made it so every time the light senses the wand, it turns it off. So it's not actually her doing anything.
Like wise a scientist may say, "look, every time I drop a ball it falls. Gravity"
But what the scientist might not realize is that it's only being designed that way it's not a set rule. Anyone could change it in an instant and a 'witch' who is closer to god might fly around and there is even accounts of that in history.
Alright, let's break this down as simple as we can. Your type of God, you are free to believe whatever concept you think of him/her/it/etc. But your statement is full of narrow-mindedness because you're forgetting about other Gods that other religions believe in. You're imposing this idea that being closer to God is being closer to the truth. But how can your God, out of many Gods, suddenly have irrefutable, consistent, and practical evidence that dominates all other religions?Quote:
So how do you ensure results? by being closer to god. That's the only possible way. When god favors you. He will do things for you. If he does not favor you, there is nothing you can do to stop him preventing your method from working
Answer me this, do you think for one moment that if you were born in a Muslim country, that your idea is going to be consistent? It may be the same in terms that being close to the Muslim's medium of faith, but other ideas as to how to follow that specific God/entity will be different. If you were born into a Buddhist country, can you tell me that you would state the same thing you're spewing at me right now?
Again, your own ambition to find whatever modicum of peace and closure you're sustaining through your medium of faith, you are welcome to do that, but now we're beyond sympathy here because you're imposing the idea that your type of God is closer to the truth than any other religion's Gods/higher concept.
That's the perfect sign of someone who's not being considerate of how and where you were brought up in life determines how you practiced a certain religion and and established a different schemata of life.
Again, look back to my question on how you would interpret that if you believed in Yahweh, or another type of God/Gods/entityQuote:
Why do you think Jesus could perform so many miracles? Because god favored him he was closer to god.
Let's make a quick recap of what you stated.Quote:
In the lasts days of tribulation the bible speaks of people who will use that logic to deceive others. For instance they will perform 'great wonders' and people will think they must be closer to god, follow them. But this is a deception that is coming. You are NOT meant to rely on that. You can't rely on outer signs that way, this will be one of the tests made. If you only follow the miracles, the miracles will lead to the Anti-Christ.
Quote:
Why do you think Jesus could perform so many miracles? Because god favored him he was closer to god.
Yeah so...Quote:
If you only follow the miracles, the miracles will lead to the Anti-Christ.
Yeah. I don't even need to state anything for this. I would like more clarification on this, since this at face value, you're making contradicting statements.
EDIT: Seems you changed the video link, so never mind on that.
No, they specifically mention earth later as well, so the earth surface can not be the firmament. Also your idea that they were referring to other dimensions doesn't make any sense at all. You are just grasping as straws now, just admit the bible is wrong. There is no firmament. Firmament is an outdated belief and is totally untrue. Why is that so hard to admit?
Sure there are websites. There are lots of them. Like I said the information is all in the bible and even if something is a few years off here and there, that still wouldn't explain the millions of years the bible is off. Face it, the bible is just wrong.Quote:
If it's all there than tell me exactly how you got from today's people now and traced it back to the time of adam and eve. Is there a website with all the dates and a family tree back to adam and ever recorded? I don't think so. Show we the information that says it or we can move on.
Time Line Survey of Bible Events
History Timeline
Can you give me a basic timeline of the Bible?
No it couldn't, there isn't enough water for that sort of thing. Also small areas can sink, those are call sink holes and happen when say you pump all the water out of an underground aquifer and the ground becomes unstable and it sinks. A whole continent can't sink. Where exactly do you think it is sinking too? There is sold ground under it, and so there is no where for it to go. The edge of the tectonic plates can slide against each other and be pushed up or down but that is hardly the same thing as sinking into the ground.Quote:
When the great flood happened, it could have gone over large parts of land, even entire continents, but that's not to say it went over every single bit of land. I have already suggested how this is possible, Google artifacts and cities under Antarctica ice and about sunken cities. You will find plenty of information on it. I'm not going to quote the entire internet on it but there is so much on that topic that is beyond the scope of the post right now. From all I have researched about it, nothing you say convinces me a great flood was not possible.
You seem to be confusing real things, with just made up stuff. What you are saying in regards of the bible makes no sense what so ever and is physically impossible.
No they don't just change like that. Gravity is gravity and it isn't going to stop in the future due to new discoveries. That is just silly and you are making no sense. When people update science they might find out what causes gravity and so gravity becomes better understood. Gaining a better understanding of the causes or the limits to things can change in science, the basic stuff doesn't just suddenly change to totally different and new ideas.Quote:
Why do you believe so much in science? And how do you know what the laws of physics even are when they are updated over and over again for eternity, So you keep getting proved wrong about the laws of physics every time they discover the rules were updated. And you live your life according that? Why not just admit that it's hopeless and you will get proved wrong for eternity to come? Why do you have to have a certain law of physics that you know will just be proved wrong in time?
Each time they make a different discovery or when culture changes, they also change the rules of it. So what you believe in isn't even stable.
So early ideas had big flaws but as time goes on we only improve things. You make it sound like people are making random guesses and stuff, and that is ridiculous. The truth is always the truth, and our understanding may improve over time but that doesn't mean science is wrong or bad like you seem to be claiming.
Nothing is going to change the fact that there isn't enough water on the earth to cover the surface however, or the fact that the flood story is physically impossible and makes no sense.
They are totally different depending on the area you are talking about. They are same in neighboring areas because people steal and incorporate stories they heard from others into the stories they make up. If all the stories were the same throughout the world that would be something, but they totally change depending on where you go.Quote:
You know what is funny about this is all the creation myths I do know of, they all say basically the same thing anyway. So maybe they are on to something, if these stories keep coming up that tells the same things.
Also most of the stories are probably based on things like a local tsunami and to them it was a world flood but in reality it was just their village. And it could happen to five villages over the course of a 100 years. Then when people talk about it, the flood stories get confused and put together. That is probably were they came from and it is a pretty reasonable explanation. Of course that would mean the bible is incorrect and not historical accurate however.
That is silly. How did the survive? They needed food, they needed water, they needed clothing and shelter and all of that. If they had camels they needed even larger amount of food. Where did all that food come from? They didn't bring it with them? They didn't get it from the desert since that would leave evidence as they would have devastated the local environment. I guess you will just say it was magic though.Quote:
They did not have plastic bottles back then, so you wouldn't find any coke bottles. Remember it was thousands of years ago. they probably didn't even bring anything will them hardly. They most they would have is a camel.
Yea except he got tortured and put on the cross for being a criminal, he didn't really have a choice in it. He got arrested, tried, found guilty then executed. That isn't really a sacrifice. Does a criminal in our court system who gets the death sentence sacrificing him self for others? No, not at all.Quote:
I still don't understand how you think it's not a sacrifice. He was tortured and put on the cross. Surely that doesn't feel good, it's not something you do on a weekend.
That is because Jesus isn't alive anymore. That fact that people living during his time didn't believe him and he got sentence to death as a criminal seems to suggest that he was indeed a con man. If everything Jesus said was true, then how come no one believed him? All he ever got was a tiny group of followers, everyone else at the time thought he was crazy.Quote:
I have never witnesses Jesus doing something that was a con and I doubt you could prove it.
You sure ask for proof a lot but when I want to see proof that he fed thousands, you got nothing do you? Oh the bible said he did this and that, yea and the bible is full of inaccuracies and silly ideas that make no logical sense. Where is there any sources at all that even hint that any of these things actually happened?Quote:
He gave up his life. Also he performed miracles that fed thousands of people that saved their life's, so that was also worth something. Did he materialize bars of gold and make a palace for himself? No, but he did give starving people enough food to eat when there was none.
According to you though, it is to late by then. They will already be in hell. According to the church and the bible God doesn't forgive mistakes, if you don't accept him prior to die it is to late. And so your love rots in hell and you are separated forever.Quote:
by the time an atheist dies, they will be faced with the fact they are still existing. So they won't be an atheist anymore, because they will still be alive lol. So your theory falls apart right there.
Okay you are just pulling stuff out of your ass now. Even if that was true, how could you possibly even know that? Does God talk to you in your sleep? None of that is supported by the bible or the church, so where are you getting it?Quote:
No-one forces you to go to heaven, you can stick around in the slum type of areas in you want. In fact you won't be allowed in the highest parts of heaven unless you are qualified enough. but you still have access to everything below that level. So anyone you care about that would be in hell as you put it, you could still go and see them. If they were like a serial killer or something, you might see them in flames where ever they walk around though.
The mark of the beast isn't a chip they put in you, that you just made up your self. Show me a reference to a chip any where in the bible. The reconstruction of Israel also isn't prophetic in the least. Stuff over there gets destroyed and rebuilt all the time. Saying that means nothing.Quote:
The bible told the re-contruction of Israel, and the mark of the beast part where they put a chip in you to buy and sell things, That part is coming up shortly. So that will be two things that clearly are prophetic. But there's much more than that if you make an effort to study it.
That is stupid. You basically just said that God wanted to leave room for doubt so that people could become confused, otherwise if people weren't confused they might always accept him. If god hides him self and a person doesn't believe him then they are not rejecting him are they? You can only reject god if you believe he is real. If god wanted to test people he would prove beyond doubt he was real then let people freely decide to follow him or not.Quote:
I think so many don't believe because the bible was wrote in a way to leave room for doubters, or they would not be able to choose their doubt, and then that wouldn't be exactly fair.
The fact is the bible is just poorly written and is often wrong.
Ever done an exam before. Why do they give you a bunch of questions to answer? Because they don't know or because they want to test you?Quote:
Yeah. I don't even need to state anything for this. I would like more clarification on this, since this at face value, you're making contradicting statements.
EDIT: Seems you changed the video link, so never mind on that.
Same thing goes here, if a bunch of miracles happen from the anti-christ. It's because it's a sort of exam. Except the only thing you need to pass the exam is not bow down to the Anti-christ. Like I said you CAN perform miracles if you are close to god and that's the reason Jesus could. But just because a miracle happens doesn't always mean that it's the correct thing to follow the person doing the miracles they may get that from satan. Though satan brings calamity and god brings godliness. Satan is death, god life. If you follow satan you follow death. If you follow god you follow life.
Again, let's go back to this:
It is blatantly obvious that you're stating on how Jesus performing miracles because God favored him and he was closer to God. And yet, with that same notion, the same God that favored Jesus (who would be able to perform miracles), the miracle-performing is also an encroachment towards being a following of the Anti-Christ.Quote:
Why do you think Jesus could perform so many miracles? Because god favored him he was closer to god.
If you only follow the miracles, the miracles will lead to the Anti-Christ.
This is why I can't take you as seriously if you can't even provide to me how Jesus is suddenly an anomaly from this.
And yes, I've taken an exam before, but it's mostly dependent on how much I can memorize useless concepts that don't even pertain to any success in life other than to make it look like I was prestigious in my endeavors of education. The same could go for this test you're talking about with not bowing down to the Anti-Christ, seems like a list of things to memorize, and as long as you follow God and no other God, as long as you don't question this type of God, you'll be fine and follow the path of life.
This "Move along child, just believe and let go of the delusions of logic" notion is completely full of contradicting and horribly connected beliefs within the Bible and the people who profess it. The same God that should be responsible for giving us a brain, for us to have to be tested by battling through our ego, trying to collaborate with the subconscious and other aspects of our mind to maintain peace, giving us free will, if that even exists with such a passive and blind faith way of thinking, it's all suddenly a test?
To search for the existence of God, which is definitely right now and has been since humanity conceptualized Religion, has been difficult to solve to where people can genuinely accept the possibility as irrefutable truth.
When I look at person that has this idea saturated in their minds, I already know I'm going through an echo-chamber after they keep repeating things and asking,
"Ever took an exam?"
"Are these lines curved to you?"
You still haven't answered my question pertaining on whether or not you would have this same ambition to cleanse the souls of those that are apparently followers of Lucifer if you born a Muslim, a Buddhist, Taoist, etc.
You still haven't given me realistic examples to state how Science is impractical. You've given me a comparison of Witch-craft, and a "Brain-damaged" example of a person using the Scientific Method. And like I've stated, it's a collaborative effort, and your example clearly just "one" person thinking their theory is right.
All of this and much more about you, whatever feasible explanation you're trying to manifest through your medium of faith, you are using the wrong platform (like a user already stated). This is why we're beyond sympathy here, this is why we're beyond trying to see you realistically here. No level of euphemism on my part or anyone else's can even come close to enlightening you on the flaws on your anecdotal examples.
No one. Except God.
I just thought of a metaphor:
Scientists have found that octopuses have very high intelligence, but their intelligence is of course different from human intelligence. Still some things that an octopus can understand are signs of high intelligence by human standards as well: for example, an octopus can figure out how to maneuver not just one maze but two mazes, if the scientist keeps switching it from two tanks each of which contains a different maze, it is clear that the octopus remembers lessons learned.
Now imagine that someday in the future marine biologists figure out how octopuses communicate with oneanother and learn to replicate it. If such marine biologists then told an octopus something about undersea environment, the octopus could easily understand that and one could likely find some way to get the message across.
However, explaining about stuff outside of the sea or aquarium to an octopus would be either impossible or very challenging. And that is not because things outside the sea are not real, but because they are outside of the octopuses experience. A marine biologist in such a scenario could try to explain such concepts to an octopus, but the octopus would not understand.
We are kind of like the octopus, and prophets are kind of like the marine biologists in this scenario.
Even your scientist admit that there is different dimensions on top of each other, they are just debating how to find and contact them.
So you are going against your own faith even. which is not difficult cause science just changes with the culture. With dimensions it's easy that heaven could exist as an overlaping dimension.
look this debate is silly if you have gone to the beach, or saw photos of planet earth. You will notice a thing called the ocean, and it's quite big, there is more sea water around earth than there is land right now. So what does that tell you of how possible a flood is? There is water for thousands of miles everywhere on the earth and you are saying a flood can't happen? If the water moved around a bit, it could cover america or any part of it.Quote:
No it couldn't, there isn't enough water for that sort of thing. Also small areas can sink, those are call sink holes and happen when say you pump all the water out of an underground aquifer and the ground becomes unstable and it sinks. A whole continent can't sink. Where exactly do you think it is sinking too? There is sold ground under it, and so there is no where for it to go. The edge of the tectonic plates can slide against each other and be pushed up or down but that is hardly the same thing as sinking into the ground.
If laws don't change, then how can we make a photon either act like a wave or a particle? Your entire paradigm just collapsed now.Quote:
No they don't just change like that. Gravity is gravity and it isn't going to stop in the future due to new discoveries. That is just silly and you are making no sense. When people update science they might find out what causes gravity and so gravity becomes better understood. Gaining a better understanding of the causes or the limits to things can change in science, the basic stuff doesn't just suddenly change to totally different and new ideas.
That's the point, early ideas we can now see had big flaws. And later down the track, they will look back and see big flaws on what you believe now. You will never get to the end of infinity. Infact if you tried to learn infinite knowledge, you would never get to infinity, and you would never be any closer to getting to it no matter how much you think you progressed. You are exactly as far away from reaching ultimate knowledge now, as humans were thousands of years ago, because infinity is never ending.Quote:
So early ideas had big flaws but as time goes on we only improve things. You make it sound like people are making random guesses and stuff
All you have to do is move continents around on a map, and you will see there is enough blue space to cover the land space.Quote:
Nothing is going to change the fact that there isn't enough water on the earth to cover the surface however, or the fact that the flood story is physically impossible and makes no sense.
The cultural setting changes but the stories seem to be the same. That's actually showing that I'm more correct because people on other side of globe that lived thousands of years before another group that didn't even have contact with the other group, built same type of stones with same design as in another area. So you are pretty screwed.Quote:
They are totally different depending on the area you are talking about. They are same in neighboring areas because people steal and incorporate stories they heard from others into the stories they make up. If all the stories were the same throughout the world that would be something, but they totally change depending on where you go.
I'm talking about actual things like stonehedge, where ancient stones that communicate the same message that were put up at different times in different parts of the world. You think you have evidence the bible is wrong, yet I can completely screw your world view over of history badly just by pointing out a few things like that.Quote:
Also most of the stories are probably based on things like a local tsunami and to them it was a world flood but in reality it was just their village. And it could happen to five villages over the course of a 100 years. Then when people talk about it, the flood stories get confused and put together. That is probably were they came from and it is a pretty reasonable explanation. Of course that would mean the bible is incorrect and not historical accurate however.
You can rule out food being intact after a few thousand years, I think it's going to go past it's use by date. Water is obviously going to dry up in the desert.Quote:
That is silly. How did the survive? They needed food, they needed water, they needed clothing and shelter and all of that. If they had camels they needed even larger amount of food. Where did all that food come from? They didn't bring it with them? They didn't get it from the desert since that would leave evidence as they would have devastated the local environment. I guess you will just say it was magic though.
clothing, they wore it, they wouldn't have left it in the desert. shelter, they were traveling, so they wouldn't build anything.
Also if moses was doing things like parting the ocean water, it's funny you are worried about their survival in the desert without leaving a mess. Think about it, if he is parting the ocean, he probably can lead them across the desert easily without leaving a mess that would last for thousands of years. They wouldn't need to carry junk around with them. Infact that would slow them down.
you think that they over powered him? He went along with their wishes, he could have easily said no. He even told one of his followers, I know you are going to betray me do what you have to do. Because he has to give permission for everything to happen. And he gave permission to be betrayed.Quote:
Yea except he got tortured and put on the cross for being a criminal, he didn't really have a choice in it. He got arrested, tried, found guilty then executed. That isn't really a sacrifice. Does a criminal in our court system who gets the death sentence sacrificing him self for others? No, not at all.
Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole because I am far from giving in
you say you follow science but you are doing the appeal to popularity thing? Goes to show that you don't really trust science anyway.Quote:
That is because Jesus isn't alive anymore. That fact that people living during his time didn't believe him and he got sentence to death as a criminal seems to suggest that he was indeed a con man. If everything Jesus said was true, then how come no one believed him? All he ever got was a tiny group of followers, everyone else at the time thought he was crazy.
Google it there is plenty of evidence proving the bible.Quote:
Where is there any sources at all that even hint that any of these things actually happened?
they will be in a specific level of hell depending on how bad they were. If they lived a bad life, then they won't reach very far up. Atheist normally aren't very wise, so they don't get far in the afterlife because they never even believed in it lol. how could you be adept at something you never even thought was true.Quote:
According to you though, it is to late by then. They will already be in hell. According to the church and the bible God doesn't forgive mistakes, if you don't accept him prior to die it is to late. And so your love rots in hell and you are separated forever.
yes god talks to me, that's how I know what I'm saying.Quote:
Okay you are just pulling stuff out of your ass now. Even if that was true, how could you possibly even know that? Does God talk to you in your sleep? None of that is supported by the bible or the church, so where are you getting it?
I'll show you the reference.Quote:
The mark of the beast isn't a chip they put in you, that you just made up your self. Show me a reference to a chip any where in the bible. The reconstruction of Israel also isn't prophetic in the least. Stuff over there gets destroyed and rebuilt all the time. Saying that means nothing.
"He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave,
to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,
and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark,
or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."
(Rev 13:16-17)
here it explains how it relates to now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJXNWHHSR10
And I'm talking about the reconstruction of Israel as a nation silly. Not it's buildings. Israel used to not be a nation. The bible somehow knew that it would again become known as a nation. And it also says that when they say "peace and security" destruction will come. And guess what Obama has been saying 'Peace and security' for Israel so guess what happens next according to the bible?
He will prove he is real AFTER the beast has tried to deceive. Not before. You don't get get an answer sheet that tells you the answers of a test, when you are in the exam. While you are being tested, god can't give you the answers or it wouldn't be a test.Quote:
That is stupid. You basically just said that God wanted to leave room for doubt so that people could become confused, otherwise if people weren't confused they might always accept him. If god hides him self and a person doesn't believe him then they are not rejecting him are they? You can only reject god if you believe he is real. If god wanted to test people he would prove beyond doubt he was real then let people freely decide to follow him or not.
no it's written in a really amazing way. If it wasn't so powerful it wouldn't be so prevalent and wouldn't be the topic.Quote:
The fact is the bible is just poorly written and is often wrong.
Fact is you don't even know what the revelations mean yet.