View Full Version : Discussions about Carico's God
Man doesn't think he knows better than your god. Your god isn't demonstrated to actually exist. Moreover, the mythology of the bible doesn't reveal anything of substance that wasn't already observable by the humans who created the mythology in the first place.
Indeed, the world doesn't work "exactly as the bible says it does." Your bible states that a man brought down "the walls of Jericho" with trumpets and marching. This is neither scientifically demonstrable or probable on many levels. There are no evidence of "trumpets" in the loudest of marching bands that can "bring down walls;" and the archaeological evidence shows that walls didn't exist to be brought down in the first place at Jericho.
The bible says the sun was made to stop and give a full 24 hours of light so a battle could be won. This isn't scientifically probable or possible since the sun doesn't actually revolve around the Earth. However, if we accept that your god was simply stupid and didn't realize that he made it the other way around, and that it was the Earth that simply stopped rotating, we can still say it is scientifically improbable and impossible for the planet to simply stop, then start again 24 hours later at the same rotation.
Your bible says that Jesus was born of a virgin. This is a scientific improbability since creating a blastosis requires mitosis that is a result of the fertilization of an egg by a sperm. Either your god was lying, he was a rapist, or he doesn't exist.
There are hundreds of things in your bible that demonstrates that the world simply does not work the way it describes. In short, your bible is bunk.
Sorry but Jesus is God incarnate. So since you have to make up your own history to deny that Jesus is who he said he was, then that imaginary history is the degree to which you have to go to deny God. So you are in error because God has shown himself to people, not only in the form of Jesus Christ, but by the awesome miracle of creation which you also deny. So sorry, but denial isn't a valid refutation. ;)
SkinWalker
10-09-08, 09:55 AM
Sorry but Jesus is God incarnate.
What's the evidence for this? How do you know it?
So since you have to make up your own history to deny that Jesus is who he said he was, then that imaginary history is the degree to which you have to go to deny God.
What history, specifically, have I made up? How can I deny a god in more or less than the other thousands upon thousands of gods humanity has created?
So you are in error because God has shown himself to people,
Where is the evidence of this sighting? Is it something we can put to the test? If not, why should it be held in any higher regard than the evidence that Quetzacoatl, Mythras, or Zeus -all gods who were "shown" to the people.
not only in the form of Jesus Christ, but by the awesome miracle of creation which you also deny. So sorry, but denial isn't a valid refutation.
I don't deny creation at all. There's no miracle and I'm not one to let my ignorance create gods to explain that which I don't know, but I'm happy I was created. I thank my mom and dad for it at least once a year.
What's the evidence for this? How do you know it?
Read the bible to see how you can know it too. Then go to Israel and do your research and you'll find that all the evidence points towards Christ's existence and none points away from it. Or again, are you going to make up your own history of what happened in Jerusalem during the time of Christ? :confused:
What history, specifically, have I made up? How can I deny a god in more or less than the other thousands upon thousands of gods humanity has created?
Since you claim to know that the authors of the bible are lying about Jesus, then you must know what really happened in Jerusalem during the time of Christ. Or are you simply in the habit of discussing things about which you know nothing? :confused: If so, then please explain why people should listen to you.
I don't deny creation at all. There's no miracle and I'm not one to let my ignorance create gods to explain that which I don't know, but I'm happy I was created. I thank my mom and dad for it at least once a year.
This statement is a contradiction. It's like saying; "I don't deny that I'm an alcholic. I'm simply not an alcoholic." So try again. ;)
What's the evidence for this? How do you know it?
Carico just knows, apparently. He is blessed with all the answers, and looks down on those who explore for knowledge.
Carico: do your research and you'll find that all the evidence points towards Christ's existence
Actually the more research I do, the more JC fades into the myths of his day and there seems to be a total lack of any real person involved. In particular there are even serious flaws in the gospels, which seem to be the only source which discusses him.
Of course you aren't interested in hearing that.
SkinWalker
10-09-08, 10:16 AM
Read the bible to see how you can know it too. Then go to Israel and do your research and you'll find that all the evidence points towards Christ's existence and none points away from it.
Okay, been there done that. Read your bible and examined Syrio-Palestinian archaeology. Which, among these, constitutes evidence?
It looks like you're talking shit here.
Or again, are you going to make up your own history of what happened in Jerusalem during the time of Christ?
Why do I need to "make up" anything to doubt it is anything more than mythology? Should I make up new histories regarding Greece since I consider Zeus and Aphrodite to be mythical? Should I make up new histories of Mesopotamia because I regard Marduk and Tiamat as mythical? Should I make up new histories of Mesoamerica because I consider Quetzacoatl to be a mythical god? Your making a fallacious argument here.
Since you claim to know that the authors of the bible are lying about Jesus, then you must know what really happened in Jerusalem during the time of Christ.
This, again, is a logical fallacy. Another false dichotomy as well as a strawman. I don't recall stating that I "know" the authors of the bible are lying. I do, however, state that I think the text written in the bible is probably myth, which is a set of tales (believed in part or whole) that usually begin as oral traditions before they are ever written down. The authors of the bible were probably writing down what they already heard, embellishing and enhancing the stories as they saw fit and probably believed. Though I'm wouldn't be surprised if much of the text in the bible was an outright lie since we have documented evidence that humanity is certainly capable of lying in order to create written propaganda that suits their agendas and goals.
Or are you simply in the habit of discussing things about which you know nothing? If so, then please explain why people should listen to you.
No one should listen to me. They should doubt every word I write. Indeed, they should question what I say, how I say it, and why I say it. And, if they find that my statements rise to a logical and reasoned level of veracity with a demonstrated level of knowledge then, and only then, should they take me seriously.
They should, by the way, take every thing you say and write in the same manner. Particularly since you write with such ignorance and lack of education. I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, but, rather, in an academically critical one. You criticize others who dare question your superstitions and myths as not being "knowledgeable" about them, yet you are utterly ignorant of the rest of the academic discourse that necessarily accompanies your claims.
That discourse includes scientific understandings as well as comparative religious studies -you're clearly ignorant of the very origins of your own religious myths, no doubt self-shielded from them in order to preserve and justify your cult doctrine and dogma.
This statement is a contradiction. It's like saying; "I don't deny that I'm an alcholic. I'm simply not an alcoholic." So try again.
Allow me to clarify for the ignorant: I was created by my parents. They fucked and here I am. It isn't a miracle. It has happened at least 6.5 billion times in the last 50 or so years.
No one should listen to me. They should doubt every word I write. Indeed, they should question what I say, how I say it, and why I say it. And, if they find that my statements rise to a logical and reasoned level of veracity with a demonstrated level of knowledge then, and only then, should they take me seriously.
So why do you never question scientists and instead, blindly believe everything they say? If you did question them, you would see how unscientific their methods are. But you don't. You defend them even when their methods have been shown to be nothing more than speculation. So you contradict yourself, my friend. ;) But if you doubt your own words, then you're not going to convince anyone else either that you're right.
They should, by the way, take every thing you say and write in the same manner. Particularly since you write with such ignorance and lack of education.
Oh really? Have you ever been to Israel and gone to the cities described in the bible? I have. Have you ever researched other ancient cultures who interacted with the ancient Jews? i have. Do you know why animals can't produce humans as descendants? :confused: I do.
So sorry, but the lack of education is on your part which is why you make claims about the life of Christ when you have ZERO evidence for them nor can you back them up by any source. Unbelievable. :rolleyes: So you need to first get educated about history and do your research so you can speak from knowledge rather than ignorance. That goes for biology too.
SkinWalker
10-09-08, 11:14 AM
So why do you never question scientists and instead, blindly believe everything they say?
What evidence do you have of this? In fact, I've sat in many conferences where I've questioned the science behind archaeological and anthropological methods. I consistently question scientists -though I can hardly blame you for being ignorant of this. I can, however, blame you for making an illogical and unreasoned assumption.
If you did question them, you would see how unscientific their methods are.
But you don't.
See my above statement.
You defend them even when their methods have been shown to be nothing more than speculation.
Please, show us your analysis of any scientific study that demonstrates how it is speculative and nothing more. I'm interested.
So far, all you've done is make rhetorical statements that haven't any substance or demonstrable premises. Things aren't "speculative and nothing more" merely because they run your own indoctrinated beliefs into the ground. Just because you wallow in ignorance and a lack of education doesn't imply that those who have bothered to seek knowledge and understanding of their universe are merely speculating. Give use words of substance -otherwise you're simply talking out of your ass.
So you contradict yourself, my friend. ;) But if you doubt your own words, then you're not going to convince anyone else either that you're right.
Again, your own ignorance and lack of critical thought processes are being applied. I've never stated that I doubt my own words. Please quote the passage where I did. I said you shouldn't accept what I say prima facie. You should question and apply critical thought. You haven't and you aren't, obviously.
Oh really? Have you ever been to Israel and gone to the cities described in the bible?
Yes.
Have you ever researched other ancient cultures who interacted with the ancient Jews?
Yes
Do you know why animals can't produce humans as descendants?
Yes.
So sorry, but the lack of education is on your part which is why you make claims about the life of Christ when you have ZERO evidence for them nor can you back them up by any source.
We both have "zero evidence" that indicates a person who fully lives up to the myth of Jesus Christ as variously described by anonymous authors of Christian texts actually existed. You have a belief that he did and I simply question the notion. Maybe he existed. Maybe he didn't. I have not a shred of testable evidence one way or the other (and really could give two shits since he was just another cult leader and would have lived over 2kya).
So you need to first get educated about history and do your research so you can speak from knowledge rather than ignorance. That goes for biology too.
You have yet to demonstrate yourself to be either my better in this or qualified to evaluate my education. Please feel free to start a thread in this forum on which "biblical city" you feel most effectively "proves" your cult doctrine, keeping in mind that the mere existence of such a city would not be enough. You'll need to show why that city is significant and why it demonstrates the supernatural nature of your mythology to be legitimate.
I look forward to this.
spidergoat
10-09-08, 01:06 PM
There is only secondhand evidence for Jesus even existing, much less being a "God".
UncleChrist
10-09-08, 01:31 PM
Sorry but Jesus is God incarnate
So lets get this straight ..........
God had to crusify himself
to change his own mind regarding humanity
yep makes perfect sense
:crazy:
Sorry, but I'm a Skinwalker fan from back in the day, and I just gotta say...
WOW! Skin kicked his ass! Carico even tried the "I bet you've never been to Israel" thing...whoops!
CutsieMarie89
10-09-08, 05:12 PM
Did Jesus ever actually say he was the son of God? I know a lot of people called him that, but did he ever actually say it? I think Jesus did exist, but I think he might have just been a man with new ideas that everyone agreed with and people formed a cult around him calling him a god and deifying him, when he was really just a normal guy. I mean his followers turned on him pretty fast when he was going thru his trial.
Medicine*Woman
10-09-08, 05:31 PM
There is only secondhand evidence for Jesus even existing, much less being a "God".
*************
M*W: I would think that there is secondhand "hearsay" or "rumors" of Jesus existing.
nova900
10-09-08, 05:41 PM
Did Jesus ever actually say he was the son of God? I know a lot of people called him that, but did he ever actually say it? I think Jesus did exist, but I think he might have just been a man with new ideas that everyone agreed with and people formed a cult around him calling him a god and deifying him, when he was really just a normal guy. I mean his followers turned on him pretty fast when he was going thru his trial.
Well,not everyone agreed with him.If Jesus did exist I personally believe he was an ordinary man,although very enlightened, who was way ahead of his time and preached two basic ideas..to be selfless...to practice unconditional love.If this was the case he no doubt got on the nerves of the orthodox Jewish religous leaders and was presented to the Romans as a threat to the peace they wanted to maintain with them. What good is a man who just preaches universal brother/sisterhood,love and selflessness to leaders who want a set of idiotic dogma to control their people?
You are right as far as I know ..Jesus never claimed to be "God in the flesh".
The whole concept of God incarnating into human form to act as a sacrifice back to himself so he can accept our presence in the afterlife is to me highly illogical and it also seems to go against the way Jesus is depicted in the NT..as someone who on many occasions seemed impatient with the apostles and people in general to grasp the basic ideas of what he was teaching and to get them to take responsibility for their own actions.To do the dirty work of providing a easy way to salvation seems to be a big contradiction.
Medicine*Woman
10-09-08, 05:44 PM
Did Jesus ever actually say he was the son of God?
*************
M*W: No, because he didn't exist.
I know a lot of people called him that, but did he ever actually say it?
*************
M*W: How do you know the people of Jesus's alleged day called him that?
I think Jesus did exist, but I think he might have just been a man with new ideas that everyone agreed with and people formed a cult around him calling him a god and deifying him, when he was really just a normal guy.
*************
M*W: God is a metaphor for the sun. Jesus is a metaphor for the sun, too, as well as for the planet Venus which "rises up" and sits at the right hand of the Sun.
I mean his followers turned on him pretty fast when he was going thru his trial.
*************
M*W: That's what the myth says, but his "followers" were sun worshippers (i.e. Sol Invictus and company).
His "trial" is a metaphor for the sun's "death" and being placed in the "tomb." The "tomb" is a dark place and represents the dying sun. Then, of course, there is the resurrection of the sun when it rises again. A new moon rises with the sun as does Venus, and that is the metaphor for the resurrection. The NT is just a glorified version of an astrological calendar.
Actually, they didn't call him the son of God back then. They called him Christos (Christ), which means "Chosen One", but that did not imply he was the son of God.
His "trial" is a metaphor for the sun's "death" and being placed in the "tomb." The "tomb" is a dark place and represents the dying sun. Then, of course, there is the resurrection of the sun when it rises again. A new moon rises with the sun as does Venus, and that is the metaphor for the resurrection. The NT is just a glorified version of an astrological calendar.
Finally, someone else here gets it. It's astrological allegory.
Mr. Hamtastic
10-09-08, 06:58 PM
entertaining. Let's break out the scientific method and apply it to black holes now. At least that is possible. Reason does not equal belief, belief does not equal acceptance. Carico, these are some die hard atheists. It's silly to give pearls to pigs, they'll treat them with disregard.
It won't do any good to ask what the bible says on this forum because quoting the bible is considered preaching. So all this forum proves is that scientists aren't interested in looking at all sides of an issue, only one side. Of course that's not scientific because it's biased. So you guys have proven me correct that science is not about being objective, but about trying to prove God wrong. That's not hard to do if you try to eliminate any reference to God in the bible or in history. But the only problem is, you can't change history any more than you can take away the words in the bible. So all you're doing is trying to re-make reality (which is actually called psychosis) by pretending they don't exist and making up your own history. That of course proves nothing except fear and bias. So you've proven that the methods of scientists are unscientific. So thanks. ;)
spidergoat
10-09-08, 07:30 PM
Science is biased towards the non-supernatural since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. Science is not inherently opposed to the idea of the supernatural.
Science is biased towards the non-supernatural since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist.
What's supernatural is making claims that no one in the past or present has witnessed or documented. They're called fantasies. So a half-man, half-ape is supernatural. ;)
spidergoat
10-09-08, 07:32 PM
But the fossils do exist.
Your accusation that scientists are involved in eliminating God or the Bible's role in the study of history is ridiculous. Many scientists are very religious. My father is a scientist, and many of his associates go to church. I don't understand it, but there it is. As an atheist, I depend on knowing the history of religion in order to show just how damaging it's effects have been on the human search for knowledge. Galileo was one famous victim, but it continues to this day when religious nuts deny evolution.
lightgigantic
10-09-08, 07:46 PM
Science is biased towards the non-supernatural since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. Science is not inherently opposed to the idea of the supernatural.
Given that science popularly works exclusively in the language of empiricism, what "supernatural" things do you suppose it could locate it?
Given that science popularly works exclusively in the language of empiricism, what "supernatural" things do you suppose it could locate it?
It's interesting how afraid scientists are of the bible. One would think they'd love the chance to refute it. But they don't. They're scared to death of God's word. ;) After all, you guys allow myths on this board in the sci-fi category. So not allowing that the bible here, you obviously don't believe the bible is a myth. ;)
Mr. Hamtastic
10-09-08, 08:46 PM
Carico, you seem like the friendly, humorous sidekick to adstar. I'm christian, and it amuses me when a christian pops up who wants to smack around non-believers. Mocking won't work, threatening won't work, even having actual discussion won't work. Pearls to the swine, buddy.
spidergoat Science is biased towards the non-supernatural since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. Science is not inherently opposed to the idea of the supernatural.
Sort of, but let me help clarify.
Science as a discipline strives not to be biased for or against anything, though science is done by people and people have difficulty getting past their bias.
All science cares about is can it be observed? can it be measured? can questions be proposed about it that can be disproved? can these be shared, replicated and verified publicly? That's it at the core.
"Natural" or "supernatural" is not a question for science. Those are metaphysical claims. Metaphysical claims, by definition, are about things which cannot be observed.
Carico: It's interesting how afraid scientists are of the bible. One would think they'd love the chance to refute it.
That's because its not actually that interesting or fearsome. You like to pretend its some great thing, but its just a tired collection of myths and so most can't be bothered. Also because it is so rife with error the task is some what daunting. But luckily there are people with lot's of time on their hands.
Start here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html
But of course you won't read any of it, which is the other reason people usually don't bother. Your type is impervious to fact and reason.
scorpius
10-09-08, 09:31 PM
It won't do any good to ask what the bible says on this forum because quoting the bible is considered preaching. So all this forum proves is that scientists aren't interested in looking at all sides of an issue, only one side. Of course that's not scientific because it's biased. So you guys have proven me correct that science is not about being objective, but about trying to prove God wrong. That's not hard to do if you try to eliminate any reference to God in the bible or in history. But the only problem is, you can't change history any more than you can take away the words in the bible. So all you're doing is trying to re-make reality (which is actually called psychosis) by pretending they don't exist and making up your own history. That of course proves nothing except fear and bias. So you've proven that the methods of scientists are unscientific. So thanks.
spare us the straw men arguments,its just silly..
the reason why you cant use the bible to prove your god
its circular reasoning fallacy:
stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)
it doesnt work
scorpius
10-09-08, 09:51 PM
Sorry but Jesus is God incarnate.
naw thats just a MYTH..
So since you have to make up your own history to deny that Jesus is who he said he was,
whatever he said is still only HEARSAY..not acceptable in todays society
then that imaginary history is the degree to which you have to go to deny God.
and why do YOU deny all the other gods
www.godchecker.com
So you are in error because God has shown himself to people,
yes up on the mountain with no one around...hmmm sounds like bullshyt to me
not only in the form of Jesus Christ,
Jesus never said He was god!
btw why would God need to sacrifice Himself to Himself to fix the Sin which He created in the first place..is he and idiot?
but by the awesome miracle of creation which you also deny. So sorry, but denial isn't a valid refutation.
so refute Allah the Great for us then!
CutsieMarie89
10-09-08, 09:54 PM
*************
M*W: No, because he didn't exist.
*************
M*W: How do you know the people of Jesus's alleged day called him that?
*************
M*W: God is a metaphor for the sun. Jesus is a metaphor for the sun, too, as well as for the planet Venus which "rises up" and sits at the right hand of the Sun.
*************
M*W: That's what the myth says, but his "followers" were sun worshippers (i.e. Sol Invictus and company).
His "trial" is a metaphor for the sun's "death" and being placed in the "tomb." The "tomb" is a dark place and represents the dying sun. Then, of course, there is the resurrection of the sun when it rises again. A new moon rises with the sun as does Venus, and that is the metaphor for the resurrection. The NT is just a glorified version of an astrological calendar.
Hey I was just taking the story at face value, from the King James Version of the Bible. You can tack on whatever theories you want. That was mine.
shaman_
10-09-08, 10:10 PM
Sorry, but I'm a Skinwalker fan from back in the day, and I just gotta say...
WOW! Skin kicked his ass! Carico even tried the "I bet you've never been to Israel" thing...whoops!:D
I find it amusing when a newcomer preaching religion, ufos or psuedoarcheology tells skinwalker to "go do some reasearch".
one_raven
10-09-08, 10:19 PM
Whi I do believe that Jesus existed (and started a thread about it, which I was very disaapointed that very few of the Jesus deniers bothered to post in: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85618)...
Sorry but Jesus is God incarnate. So since you have to make up your own history to deny that Jesus is who he said he was, then that imaginary history is the degree to which you have to go to deny God. So you are in error because God has shown himself to people, not only in the form of Jesus Christ, but by the awesome miracle of creation which you also deny. So sorry, but denial isn't a valid refutation. ;)
...I defy you to show me where Jesus said he was God incarnate.
You claim that Jesus said he was God incarnate, then say others are in denial??
Chapter and Verse, please.
When did he say this?
Quote him.
Medicine*Woman
10-09-08, 11:25 PM
It's interesting how afraid scientists are of the bible. One would think they'd love the chance to refute it. But they don't. They're scared to death of God's word. ;) After all, you guys allow myths on this board in the sci-fi category. So not allowing that the bible here, you obviously don't believe the bible is a myth. ;)
*************
M*W: I asked you to answer a question earlier today. You as yet have not, and I am still waiting. Either you don't know the answer or your religion is false. Which is it?
I asked you to tell us what language did god speak. So far, no christian on this forum has been able to answer this question. Seeing as how you think you have all the answers, please answer this one now.
nova900
10-10-08, 06:20 AM
It's not science that attempts to prove god wrong, or scientists that are trying to wage war on god. It is militant Atheists who use the name of science to say things like "god does not exist".
.
I suppose a lot of the militant attitude comes from atheists who have had others attempt to force religion upon them in their lives. I don't like the very bitter attitude in some atheists either but I believe I can see where and how it came about.
I believe God exists based on my own intuition and what I feel is suggesive evidence for God based on things like NDEs and such but I would be too rigid in my mindset if I could not keep open the possibility that there is no God.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-10-08, 06:33 AM
It won't do any good to ask what the bible says on this forum because quoting the bible is considered preaching. So all this forum proves is that scientists aren't interested in looking at all sides of an issue, only one side. Of course that's not scientific because it's biased. So you guys have proven me correct that science is not about being objective, but about trying to prove God wrong. That's not hard to do if you try to eliminate any reference to God in the bible or in history. But the only problem is, you can't change history any more than you can take away the words in the bible. So all you're doing is trying to re-make reality (which is actually called psychosis) by pretending they don't exist and making up your own history. That of course proves nothing except fear and bias. So you've proven that the methods of scientists are unscientific. So thanks.
I think you're allowed to quote the bible to make a point. Did a moderator tell you otherwise?
I asked you repeatedly for a scripture reference & you won't give it.
I asked you a question, repeatedly, related to another scripture but you won't answer it.
What's supernatural is making claims that no one in the past or present has witnessed or documented. They're called fantasies. So a half-man, half-ape is supernatural.
If 20% of what scientists claim isn't true, that does nothing for your case.
It's interesting how afraid scientists are of the bible. One would think they'd love the chance to refute it. But they don't. They're scared to death of God's word. ;) After all, you guys allow myths on this board in the sci-fi category. So not allowing that the bible here, you obviously don't believe the bible is a myth. ;)
Carico, you seem like the friendly, humorous sidekick to adstar. I'm christian, and it amuses me when a christian pops up who wants to smack around non-believers. Mocking won't work, threatening won't work, even having actual discussion won't work. Pearls to the swine, buddy.
It's not science that attempts to prove god wrong, or scientists that are trying to wage war on god. It is militant Atheists who use the name of science to say things like "god does not exist".
The true scientific thing to say regarding god would be along the lines of "God might exist, he might not exist, but we have no proof either way"
Don't get confused and think militant Atheists speak for the entire scientific community becuse they do not. No self respecting scientist would spend that much of his valuable time arguing over and over the same points about god's existence when an agnostic standpoint can be taken. Obviously we have not come up with anything new to add to the god debate since 1500 years ago, we are still going over and over the same exact debates that philosophers were using hundreds if not thousands of years previous.
You have preachy asshole religious people trying to force god down peoples necks, Vs stupid ass militant atheists who masturbate over a poster of Richard Dawkins. slugging it out over a played out debate that neither side can win.
God may exist, he may not exist there is no proof that he does exist, there is always the possibility that he does exist. Anything other than those 2 statements are your own personal opinions and you can all shove them up your ass.
peace.
Absurd blathering.
Your type is impervious to fact and reason.
I'm stealing that!
======I don't know whether gods exist but I know the god of the KJVHoly Babble doesn't any more than there can be a square triangle.
========If NDEs are valid, that says nothing of whether there's a god.
nova900
10-10-08, 08:49 AM
========If NDEs are valid, that says nothing of whether there's a god.
If they are valid and not simply a dream taking place in the dying mind, it says everything about God.That's what NDEs are all about..not an afterlife that has no God.
But the fossils do exist.
Again, since there's not a picture of the common ancestor, or any transitional species on a fossil, then interpreting fossils is as subjective as imagining what images leaves on a tree represent. :rolleyes: Hitler once said; "People are so stupid. It's not hard to fool the public." And of all people, he should know. It's the samewith anyone who reads a science book. They automatically believe anything scientists say because they have letters after their names. So Hitler's right; it's not hard to fool the public, especially when they look to certain humans as infallible gods as they did to Hitler and they do to scientists. And that's why people who are easily duped never question the methods of scientists even when their methods are as unscientific looking at a dead body and making up a story about it. :rolleyes:
Given that science popularly works exclusively in the language of empiricism, what "supernatural" things do you suppose it could locate it?
Then that belongs in the category of science fiction. But since Christ's words and deeds were witnessed and recorded, that belongs in the category of history. ;)So the first thing you need to understand is the difference between science and science fiction. Science fiction is about what could happen in reality. Science is about what does happen in reality. So research the history of Israel. Only then will you be on your way to distinguishing between the real and the imaginary. ;)
Steve100
10-10-08, 10:08 AM
Again, since there's not a picture of the common ancestor, or any transitional species on a fossil, then interpreting fossils is as subjective as imagining what images leaves on a tree represent. :rolleyes: Hitler once said; "People are so stupid. It's not hard to fool the public." And of all people, he should know. It's the samewith anyone who reads a science book. They automatically believe anything scientists say because they have letters after their names. So Hitler's right; it's not hard to fool the public, especially when they look to certain humans as infallible gods as they did to Hitler and they do to scientists. And that's why people who are easily duped never question the methods of scientists even when their methods are as unscientific looking at a dead body and making up a story about it. :rolleyes:
So is it better to believe a book with no evidence than it is to believe a scientist who can throw as much evidence at you as you like (in your case probably none, as you wouldn't want to be proved wrong on anything an old story book told you)?
Carico,
As a fellow Christian, I think you're taking the wrong approach here. Take a look at this, and you may be better prepared the next time you post a thread:
http://www.ex-atheist.com/games-skeptics-play.html
Good luck.
spidergoat
10-10-08, 12:51 PM
..."Natural" or "supernatural" is not a question for science. Those are metaphysical claims. Metaphysical claims, by definition, are about things which cannot be observed.
You are incorrect. People use supernatural or metaphysical terms to explain their observations. These things would not be important at all if they didn't have a percieved effect on the physical world. If there is any effect on the physical world at all, this phenomenon can be studied by science.
Again, since there's not a picture of the common ancestor, or any transitional species on a fossil, then interpreting fossils is as subjective as imagining what images leaves on a tree represent.
There is a small amount of interpretation involved in reconstructing fossils, but much less when the fossil fragments are all found to be adjacent in their rock matrix. In other words, they are not bits and pieces from scattered sources, but found as a mass together in the right places. People don't believe scientists on the basis of their personal credentials, but on the basis of the work itself, which in order to be accepted, must be independently verified. Questioning the methods of science is as much a part of science as observation itself.
All fossils are transitional. All animals are transitional. Skeletons that have the characteristics of both apes and humans have been found. This is reality. You are free to live in a fantasy world where none of this happened but that would also make you delusional.
Saquist
10-10-08, 02:13 PM
Sorry but Jesus is God incarnate. So since you have to make up your own history to deny that Jesus is who he said he was, then that imaginary history is the degree to which you have to go to deny God. So you are in error because God has shown himself to people, not only in the form of Jesus Christ, but by the awesome miracle of creation which you also deny. So sorry, but denial isn't a valid refutation. ;)
I'll have to ask the same question as Walker.
What proof do we have of this?
Using the Chrisitian Greek Scriptures and the Hebrew Aramaic Scriptures
Does the Bible support this conclusion?
1.We know Jesus never claimed to be God.
2.The Hebrews didn't believe it was possible to see God and yet live.
3.Jesus Identified himself as "The Son of God."
4.Colosians refer to Jesus as "The First Born or All Creation"
5.God is described as existing from "Time indefinite (undefined) to Time indefinite"
6. God's name "He who causes to become" vs. Jesus "God is Salvation"
Reasoning:
A. If the scriptures say God is infinite and Jesus was dead for 3 days then this would be a contradiction in orthodoxy.
B. John 1:1 seems to uphold GOD equals Jesus in english, yet on closer inspection the original language makes a distinction between God and a god. * Included under "god" is Jesus, Satan, and the myriad of false gods"
C. Another Hebrew Scripture refering Jesus calls him mighty god but the Aramiac refers to this as a lesser god not to mention God is propperly refered to as Almighty
D. The same scripture applies the Title of Eternal Father. Keeping in mind this is prophecy, refering to one that is to come and his mission :dying for sins and replacing Adam as the Father of Mankind.
There are many scriptures giving a seperate view of God and Jesus and yet three circumstantial scriptures refering to them being One, or Titles being similar.
spidergoat People use supernatural or metaphysical terms to explain their observations.
People do all manner of whack shit, but you are not paying attention to what I said. First of all, supernatural and metaphysical have very distinct meanings.
supernatural 1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
metaphysics
1. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
2. The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
3. A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
4. Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.
Second what I said was: ""Natural" or "supernatural" is not a question for science. Those are metaphysical claims. Metaphysical claims, by definition, are about things which cannot be observed."
I did not say people never misuse those terms or make absurd claims.
There is no way for science to explain by natural laws that which is inexplicable by natural laws nor can it answer questions unanswerable by science. It is particularly difficult when the set of those things offered forth seems null.
But even in the realm of nature there are things outside science's scope. Science requires observation, measurement and replication. What cannot be observed or measured or cannot be replicated cannot be studied scientifically.
spidergoat
10-10-08, 02:50 PM
You are still incorrect. Science can determine if something is not explainable by natural laws, which opens the way for a supernatural explanation. Experiments can be set up to test for telekinesis, telepathy, ghosts, séances, and the like.
Medicine*Woman
10-10-08, 06:19 PM
I suppose a lot of the militant attitude comes from atheists who have had others attempt to force religion upon them in their lives. I don't like the very bitter attitude in some atheists either but I believe I can see where and how it came about.
*************
M*W: I don't have anyone else to blame for my indoctrination. I did it to myself, because I was searching for something greater than myself. That's different than being bitter because of someone else. When I finally came to understand the futility of religion that I imposed upon myself and my family, I was relieved as if the greatest burden of my life had been removed.
People always seek to blame something on others. That's the easy way to reconcile any degree of negativity or oppression. If people would take responsibility for their actions, the bitterness wouldn't be a problem.
lightgigantic
10-10-08, 07:55 PM
spidergoat Science is biased towards the non-supernatural since nothing supernatural has been shown to exist. Science is not inherently opposed to the idea of the supernatural.
Sort of, but let me help clarify.
Science as a discipline strives not to be biased for or against anything, though science is done by people and people have difficulty getting past their bias.
All science cares about is can it be observed? can it be measured? can questions be proposed about it that can be disproved? can these be shared, replicated and verified publicly? That's it at the core.
"Natural" or "supernatural" is not a question for science. Those are metaphysical claims. Metaphysical claims, by definition, are about things which cannot be observed.
it gets interesting when you examine the metaphysical premises that under-ride empiricism - eg "the universe is ordered/constant" etc etc
lightgigantic it gets interesting when you examine the metaphysical premises that under-ride empiricism - eg "the universe is ordered/constant" etc etc
It depends on where you stand. My understanding is that reality is itself the final "noumena" and metaphysics is just a bunch of phenomenal artifacts which find reality essentially impenetrable.
Scientific empiricism is not a rational endeavor (for those freaking at this point I mean it is not a priori or before the fact, i.e. its basis is not a thought object like an assumption) and it is not based on an assumption.
It is an empirical endeavor (i.e. a posteriori or after the fact) and is thus based on observation. Yes it employs rational tools after that and those are base on assumptions, but they are also refinable and discardable as needed because it is fundamentally the observation and not the tool which is the basis of scientific understanding.
Measurement, reason and verification are how understanding is derived from that basis.
EmptyForceOfChi
10-10-08, 11:40 PM
Absurd blathering.
I thought what I said was true, bottom line is there is always the possibility that god does exist, there is no proof that god exists as of yet.
Everything else is speculation and opinion.
peace.
EmptyForceOfChi I thought what I said was true, bottom line is there is always the possibility that god does exist, there is no proof that god exists as of yet.
You are abusing the concept of "possibility of existence" but lets consider the matter.
What can or cannot "possibly exist?"
Can you show that god is not categorically impossible? Like a round square? It would seem that most supernatural claims about god's nature would make him categorically impossible.
Can you show that god is at all a physical possibility to begin with?
One of the difficulties with either of these is because there is no god you don't have any actual information to come good conclusions with. All you have is the most vapid speculation and wishful thinking.
So no, as it currently stands there is no possibility that god exists.
EmptyForceOfChi
10-11-08, 01:41 AM
EmptyForceOfChi I thought what I said was true, bottom line is there is always the possibility that god does exist, there is no proof that god exists as of yet.
You are abusing the concept of "possibility of existence" but lets consider the matter.
What can or cannot "possibly exist?"
Can you show that god is not categorically impossible? Like a round square? It would seem that most supernatural claims about god's nature would make him categorically impossible.
Can you show that god is at all a physical possibility to begin with?
One of the difficulties with either of these is because there is no god you don't have any actual information to come good conclusions with. All you have is the most vapid speculation and wishful thinking.
So no, as it currently stands there is no possibility that god exists.
That is incorrect,
There is a possibility that a conscious energy form created the universe. you tried very well to twist in your personal opinion to back it up and sell it as logic.
you cannot just say "there is no possibility that god exists"
How would you suggest I show you god is a physicl possibility?, how about the fact that it is possible that some type of immortal conscious energy created this universe and we are like a glorified computer simulation.
Do you understand what the word possible means?, I would like you to present any kind of scientific data that proves a conscious god that created the universe is impossible. You do not have such data at your desposal because none exists that proves god is an impossibility.
This is the kind of wierd behaviour I was talkign about when people get there personal opinions mixed up with facts.
peace.
peace.
EmptyForceOfChi There is a possibility that a conscious energy form created the universe.
You are now shifting your claim, but lets see if this new claim is reasonable.
First the only "conscious energy forms" we currently have any evidence of are the ones involved with various animal bodies here on earth. None of them show any aptitude at creating matter, energy, space or time, though some few of them are getting ok at manipulating small amounts of the same. In fact, it is held that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Also, just the visible universe consists of about 100,000,000,000 galaxies each with about 100,000,000,000 stars. To get a vague notion of scale watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/v/bov9M2gEgcE&hl=en&fs=1
Now exactly how do "conscious energy forms" go about creating universes?
No. Just because you can string words together, that doesn't mean that they are possible. In fact just because at first glance they seem intelligible, that doesn't mean they actually are.
EmptyForceOfChi you cannot just say "there is no possibility that god exists"
Actually I can and I have shown why my position is justified.
EmptyForceOfChi How would you suggest I show you god is a physicl possibility?
The absolute best way and only way which is absolutely conclusive to prove god exists is to produce an actual god and let me see him. It just the same as the way you would prove anything physically exists. Showing god is a physical possibility first you need to establish that you know the first thing about real gods, direct first hand experience collaborated by others would be nice. Then you establish that none of gods necessary properties preclude physical existence.
It is obvious you need a refresher on the word possible:
possible 1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
EmptyForceOfChi how about the fact that it is possible that some type of immortal conscious energy created this universe and we are like a glorified computer simulation.
Look just stringing words together doesn't make what you think they mean possible.
EmptyForceOfChi [i]I would like you to present any kind of scientific data that proves a conscious god that created the universe is impossible. You do not have such data at your desposal because none exists that proves god is an impossibility.
First you provide me with a meaningful object to investigate. I know these words make you feel good, but as you are presenting them, the have no meaning. How would you distinguish a conscious god from an unconscious god? A living god from a dead god? You throw that word around but have not the least clue what a god is. God could bite you on the nose and you'ld be clueless.
What ever "gods" might or might not exist and whatever their capabilities or characteristics might be, you don't know. You don't know what they might or might not have done either.
But I do know what you are presenting is not possible. Your claims are without merit, unsupportable and can be dismissed as nonsense.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-11-08, 04:04 AM
Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa========If NDEs are valid, that says nothing of whether there's a god.
If they are valid and not simply a dream taking place in the dying mind, it says everything about God.That's what NDEs are all about..not an afterlife that has no God.
Many NDE experiencers report nothing about gods or religion. All the others report extremely little from the experience concerning religion & it's always related to the religion they previously believed. Buddhists saw Buddha, Moslems saw Allah, Christians saw Jesus. Many saw a bright light or something they called god or Jesus or whatever but which was not identifiable. Some return with an inexplicable urge to study science. Usually they are told by the beings there that we are here in this life to learn but are never told to learn about religion or gods.
The experiences so far indicate religion, gods & even morality to be of little or no concern in the other life or at least during the transition.
Scientists claim that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That makes energy eternal. God is Spirit so he's as invisible as energy. He has to be invisible because everything seen is finite since we can see the beginning and end of everything seen. So energy and God have to be invisible to be eternal.
But we know that God exists by the affects of his presence in the world, i.e., the existence of good and evil, love and hate, and the miracle of life itself which even scientists can't explain. We also know that energy exists by the effects that energy has in the world. So how can scientists deny the existence of God when their definition of energy is the same as the definition of God? :shrug:
EntropyAlwaysWins
10-11-08, 11:09 AM
Please clarify your reasoning.
It seems to me that you are saying:
x has property a.
y also has property a.
x has property b.
y also has property b.
therefore x = y.
This is not necessarily so, for example:
Dogs and Lions are both mammals.
Dogs and Lions are both quadrupeds (has 4 legs).
Dogs and Lions are both social animals.
Dogs and Lions are both predators.
But they are clearly difference animals.
Scientists claim that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That makes energy eternal.
Perhaps, but after many more billions of years, all of the energy in the universe will have been converted and spread out over such vast regions of expansion as to become literally insignificant. Would your god then too become insignificant?
God is Spirit so he's as invisible as energy. He has to be invisible because everything seen is finite since we can see the beginning and end of everything seen. So energy and God have to be invisible to be eternal.
Energy may be invisible, but it is detectable, hence it exists. It is the invisible and undetectable that is indistinguishable from the non-existent, like your god, for example.
But we know that God exists by the affects of his presence in the world, i.e., the existence of good and evil, love and hate, and the miracle of life itself which even scientists can't explain.
Wouldn't it be better if god disappeared, so then his presence in regards to evil, hate and things we can't explain would also disappear? The other traits, altruism, love and understanding are naturally attainable through evolution.
Would it help if We also know that energy exists by the effects that energy has in the world. So how can scientists deny the existence of God when their definition of energy is the same as the definition of God? :shrug:
Simple, energy is detectable, gods are not. If you wish to follow such a line of reasoning, why not do away with the concept of energy and just call it God?
We might have to change a few formulas to reflect this new idea, for example, "Potential God" is converted to "Kinetic God."
There may be a few problems with this idea. I saw someone cursing a car battery that wouldn't turn over the engine, not enough God in the battery. Do you think if he prayed to the battery, God might start the engine?
Scientists claim that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That makes energy eternal. God is Spirit so he's as invisible as energy. >...So how can scientists deny the existence of God when their definition of energy is the same as the definition of God?Carico, you're using circular logic; "I believe that one equals three so if one has three of anything, then they agree with me."
I'm sorry, but your argument in this thread has so many flaws in it that it just isn't worth discussing.
I would like to ask you again, why you haven't answered the questions I posed to you in the evolution thread that you started?
Please return to that thread and answer me. I was civil, polite, non-threatening and used no cursing. It's only fair of you to reply.
Thank you,
Nat.
Please clarify your reasoning.
It seems to me that you are saying:
x has property a.
y also has property a.
x has property b.
y also has property b.
therefore x = y.
This is not necessarily so, for example:
Dogs and Lions are both mammals.
Dogs and Lions are both quadrupeds (has 4 legs).
Dogs and Lions are both social animals.
Dogs and Lions are both predators.
But they are clearly difference animals.
Scientists acknowledge an invisible eternal force. So why do they deny God, especially when they can't explain the miracle of life? A miracle is an unexplained event. And scientists have never come up with a timeless explanation for the existence of life that doesn't contradict some aspect of reality. ;)
Medicine*Woman
10-11-08, 04:30 PM
Scientists claim that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That makes energy eternal. God is Spirit so he's as invisible as energy. He has to be invisible because everything seen is finite since we can see the beginning and end of everything seen. So energy and God have to be invisible to be eternal.
But we know that God exists by the affects of his presence in the world, i.e., the existence of good and evil, love and hate, and the miracle of life itself which even scientists can't explain. We also know that energy exists by the effects that energy has in the world. So how can scientists deny the existence of God when their definition of energy is the same as the definition of God? :shrug:
*************
M*W: Then call it for what it is--energy. No need to give it another identity.
*************
M*W: Then call it for what it is--energy. No need to give it another identity.
Why not call it God? The answer is easy, because then man would have to admit he sins and most men can't admit that. So they pretend there is no God erroneously believing that will make God go away. But it never does. ;)
Why not call it God? The answer is easy, because then man would have to admit he sins and most men can't admit that. So they pretend there is no God erroneously believing that will make God go away. But it never does. ;)You've got it backwards, Carico. None of the thousands of supposed gods have ever existed. No proof what-so-ever exists that they have. Nothing but fairy tales handed down by fanatics throughout history. No evidence exists that any god at all has ever existed. All you're doing is parroting the same illogical fantasies that you were taught as a child to believe in.
Just as with the tooth fairy and Santy Claus, you need to mature and give up those fantasies. Unless you're just not strong enough to stand on your own without the help of a crutch called god, that supports you in your weakness.
I've been watching you babble your nonsense here for awhile now. It's time for you to answer some real questions like I've asked you in the "Evolution" thread.
Or is it that you have no answers. Perhaps it's just that you come here to repeat unfounded fantasy and religious dogma like a good little parrot of the church.
Which is it man? Can you defend your beliefs or are you just full of nonsense?
scorpius
10-11-08, 06:21 PM
Scientists claim that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That makes energy eternal.
I think thats incorect,matter is eternal..energy gets disipated eventualy.
God is Spirit so he's as invisible as energy.
thats just an ASSumption, care to PROVE it?
He has to be invisible because everything seen is finite since we can see the beginning and end of everything seen. So energy and God have to be invisible to be eternal.
say what?
But we know that God exists by the affects of his presence in the world,
i.e., the existence of good and evil, love and hate, and the miracle of life itself which even scientists can't explain.
ok which gods are doing these things
www.godchecker.com
We also know that energy exists by the effects that energy has in the world. So how can scientists deny the existence of God when their definition of energy is the same as the definition of God?
we can detect,measure and confirm existence of every known energy,
unlike with any of the gods!
man would have to admit he sins and most men can't admit that.
Why would anyone admit to that which they don't believe?
So they pretend there is no God erroneously believing that will make God go away. But it never does.
If you went away, so would any traces of your god. *poof*
Wow Carico. Your ignorance its truly a force to be reckoned with when coupled with your absolute certainty that you have all the answers and driven by the obvious despair that so many obviously sharp people think you are full of it.
Medicine*Woman
10-11-08, 07:55 PM
Why not call it God? The answer is easy, because then man would have to admit he sins and most men can't admit that. So they pretend there is no God erroneously believing that will make God go away. But it never does. ;)
*************
M*W: No, Carico, you are wrong. There is no proof of a god, but there is proof of energy, so why not stick with what is proven?
Please show us what energy has to do with "sin." Do you even know where the word "sin" comes from? There's no point in informing you, because you won't do the research to find out.
And what does man not admitting his "sins" have to do with energy?
It's not man's pretending to not have "sins," there is no proof that there is a god. You believe in this god of yours, because you have been brainwashed to believe it.
You have come to a scientific forum where we discuss religion that can be proven as scientific or at least anthropological fact. Your bible does not support ANY facts. That's all in your head.
It appears that you only came to sciforums to cram your version of christianity down our throats. I'm afraid if you continue your little game, you could get banned. So, why not just traipse your little mind on over to a christian forum where you should be most happy.
M*W: No, Carico, you are wrong. There is no proof of a god, but there is proof of energy, so why not stick with what is proven?
Energy is invisible. So how do you know that energy is not the Spirit of God? ;) Also, the life and deeds of Christ prove that God exists. And denying he wasn't witnessed or written about is not a valid refutation any more than making up your own history of what happened in Jerusalem during the time of Christ is. ;)
Again, the miracle of creation proves that God exists. A miracle is an unexplained event. And since scientists still can't explain how life got here, then it's a miracle. So again, denial isn't a valid refutation. ;)
I see the mods have a habit of deliberately misquoting people here by making up a title of a thread and putting my name to it. That's actually a form of plagiarism. That doesn't speak too well of their integrity and thus their opinions can't be considered credible. If someone has to resort to deceptive tactics to make his case, then he has no case. So the mods are actually making my case for me by showing that they can't be trusted.
EntropyAlwaysWins
10-11-08, 10:30 PM
I see the mods have a habit of deliberately misquoting people here by making up a title of a thread and putting my name to it. That's actually a form of plagiarism. That doesn't speak too well of their integrity and thus their opinions can't be considered credible. If someone has to resort to deceptive tactics to make his case, then he has no case. So the mods are actually making my case for me by showing that they can't be trusted.
Plagiarism is claiming something as your own work when it is not. At worst this is misquotation, if it is even that.
Plagiarism is claiming something as your own work when it is not. At worst this is misquotation, if it is even that.
I said a form of plagiarism. Deliberately misquoting someone is deliberately misrepresenting what someone said. It's actually a form of libel. So why do it except to slander someone? So again, if one has to deliberately lie about what someone else said, then he has no valid defense against what the person actually said. So whatever you call it, it's lying. But since Satan is the father of lies and also the ruler of the air, then I don't expect anyone who denies God to tell the truth, which the mods prove perfectly. ;)
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-11-08, 10:35 PM
The miracle of god proves god was created.
The miracle of god proves god was created.
Something that can't be created or destroyed can't be created. :rolleyes: So sorry, but since human wisdom is fallible it will always backfire. ;)
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-11-08, 10:38 PM
If the universe was created, god was created.
If the universe was created, god was created.
:bugeye: How so? God is bigger than the universe.
Medicine*Woman
10-11-08, 10:43 PM
I said a form of plagiarism. Deliberately misquoting someone is deliberately misrepresenting what someone said. It's actually a form of libel. So why do it except to slander someone? So again, if one has to deliberately lie about what someone else said, then he has no valid defense against what the person actually said. So whatever you call it, it's lying. But since Satan is the father of lies and also the ruler of the air, then I don't expect anyone who denies God to tell the truth, which the mods prove perfectly. ;)
*************
M*W: Carico, you are the father of lies.
EntropyAlwaysWins
10-11-08, 10:43 PM
Something that can't be created or destroyed can't be created. :rolleyes: So sorry, but since human wisdom is fallible it will always backfire. ;)
The internal combustion engine is fallible but that does not mean it is guaranteed to break every single time you attempt to use it.
The internal combustion engine is fallible but that does not mean it is guaranteed to break every single time you attempt to use it.
But it will eventually break. But the truth is eternal because it holds no lie or contradictions. It therefore can never go away as Jesus tells us. That means that the Ten commandments and the rest of God's word will always be true forever. :)
EntropyAlwaysWins
10-11-08, 10:56 PM
But it will eventually break. But the truth is eternal because it holds no lie or contradictions. It therefore can never go away as Jesus tells us. That means that the Ten commandments and the rest of God's word will always be true forever. :)
That has nothing to do with my post at all.
I use an analogy to illustrate a point, you take the opposite of the meaning of the analogy and then go off on a tangent.
*************
M*W: Carico, you are the father of lies.
One first has to know what the truth is before he knows what a lie is. And since you haven't walked on water or raised the dead, then you haven't shown the world that you know what the truth is. So sorry, but your opinion of me can't affect my eternal fate in the least. It will unfortunately, only affect yours.:o
Carico And since you haven't walked on water or raised the dead
Actually I have walked on water and know how to raised the dead. If you don't you should learn since the dead you are most likely to raise is a loved one.
nova900
10-12-08, 07:43 AM
Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa========If NDEs are valid, that says nothing of whether there's a god.
Many NDE experiencers report nothing about gods or religion. All the others report extremely little from the experience concerning religion & it's always related to the religion they previously believed. Buddhists saw Buddha, Moslems saw Allah, Christians saw Jesus. Many saw a bright light or something they called god or Jesus or whatever but which was not identifiable. Some return with an inexplicable urge to study science. Usually they are told by the beings there that we are here in this life to learn but are never told to learn about religion or gods.
The experiences so far indicate religion, gods & even morality to be of little or no concern in the other life or at least during the transition.
If you look at enough cases of NDEs you will see it's not about people encountering God as some separate entity as depicted in the monotheistic religions but rather that there is a part of our consciousness ,that other half of duality that we share with the structure of the physical universe that is the part that is already part of the greater whole (God). It's not about encountering a tempermental alpha male God as some religions depict God. God from what I gather by having read hundreds and hundreds of cases is more like a universal consciousness that sustains all of reality and we are all part of it.
There is actually a morality we are helf accountable to..how much love we have within us..not our belief in religous dogma.
Carico And since you haven't walked on water or raised the dead
Actually I have walked on water and know how to raised the dead. If you don't you should learn since the dead you are most likely to raise is a loved one.
I know I haven't walked on water or raised the dead which is precisely why I trust the only one who did. And it wasn't you. :D But, if you really did walk on water and raise the dead, then of course it won't be hard to believe that Jesus did either. ;)So either way, all you prove is that you have to make false statements to deny that Jesus is who he says he is. But I already knew that. ;)
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 08:45 AM
If you look at enough cases of NDEs you will see it's not about people encountering God as some separate entity as depicted in the monotheistic religions but rather that there is a part of our consciousness ,that other half of duality that we share with the structure of the physical universe that is the part that is already part of the greater whole (God). It's not about encountering a tempermental alpha male God as some religions depict God. God from what I gather by having read hundreds and hundreds of cases is more like a universal consciousness that sustains all of reality and we are all part of it.
There is actually a morality we are helf accountable to..how much love we have within us..not our belief in religous dogma.
You've looked at enough cases to get the impression you have & think I should have the same. I couldn't guess how many cases I've looked at. I've been looking at it since you were born. Don't tell me what I will see.
If we're all god, the word god has no meaning.
Carico I know I haven't walked on water or raised the dead which is precisely
Its quite easy and like I said you are doing a disservice to your loved ones not to learn how to raise them.
Carico it won't be hard to believe that Jesus did either.
Where did I dis JC's claims about either of those?
Carico Jesus is who he says he is.
JC said he was the son of man.
It is you high priest, who wants to make him god for your own purposes.
Carico: But the truth is eternal because it holds no lie or contradictions.
You realize that you've said the equivilant of "Blue is Blue". Truth by it's definition cannot contain lies or contradictions. Please remember that you're not speaking to your congregation of gullible, naive people who suck up parroted fantasy.
It therefore can never go away as Jesus tells us.
Jesus never told you anything. The man named Jesus, (if in fact he ever existed), died two thousand years ago. The only thing you think you know about that person is what you have read in a book that was written by some person you've never met, and translated by yet another person who you've never met and that person has never met anyone who spoke or read the original language that your book was transcribed into. You're relying on a copy of something you have no way of proving is accurate.
That means that the Ten commandments and the rest of God's word will always be true forever.
This fantasy being you refer to as one of the "gods" that have been made up by men has never said anything to you. You've never read anything written by that "god". The commandments you refer to are just another fantasy written down by another person. You have no proof that they aren't the result of an active imagination after a night of too much wine.
Carico That means that the Ten commandments and the rest of God's word will always be true forever.
Which ten commandments? The first one or the second one? Exodus 20:2–17 or Deuteronomy 5:6–21
StrangerInAStrangeLa the word god has no meaning.
Man, ain't that the truth.
Man, six numbers just popped into my head! I think they were from God. I'm on my way to the store for a lottery ticket!
If they don't win, it wasn't god....just gas. :D
Man, six numbers just popped into my head! I think they were from God. I'm on my way to the store for a lottery ticket!
If they don't win, it wasn't god....just gas. :D
Sorry they weren't from the God of the bible because the bible tells us not to indulge in games of chance. So they have to be from a god of your imagination which of course, makes him imaginary. ;)
Hmmm... strictly speaking, it is covetousness that is condemned in the bible. Games of chance which don't involve the desire to acquire money are fair game. Look at how many times the casting of lots (by God's people) is mentioned.
nova900
10-12-08, 10:33 AM
You've looked at enough cases to get the impression you have & think I should have the same. I couldn't guess how many cases I've looked at. I've been looking at it since you were born. Don't tell me what I will see.
If we're all god, the word god has no meaning.
Fair enough.
I don't however think you should have the same interpretation of them as I do ..sure it's subjective to some degree according to each individual.
Since I was born?...and here I thought I was getting to be an old dude!;)
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 10:43 AM
You are.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 10:47 AM
Carico, answer 2 question or quit spewing crap.
What 10 commandments listed where?
Do you preach to animals?
Sorry they weren't from the God of the bible because the bible tells us not to indulge in games of chance. So they have to be from a god of your imagination which of course, makes him imaginary. ;)So all those bingo games where the players get money by chance don't count? Must be a special dispensation I didn't hear about.
Half the churches in the USA sponcer them.
Carico, you are so full of crap. You have both eyes glued shut against any logic that might slip in.
So all those bingo games where the players get money by chance don't count? Must be a special dispensation I didn't hear about.
Half the churches in the USA sponcer them.
Carico, you are so full of crap. You have both eyes glued shut against any logic that might slip in.
I just saw an article in the newspaper that said that 83% of people in mainline churches don't believe that Jesus is the only way to God even though he specifically says he is. So most people who call themselves Christians today don't believe the bible, which means they can't follow Jesus since they doubt what he said is true. But Jesus prophesies that in Matthew 24:10. And once again, he's right, as always. ;)So I go to the shepherd, not the sheep for the truth because only the shepherd is always right as Jesus has shown. ;)
I just saw an article in the newspaper that said that...Nobody cares. I noticed and everyone else noticed that you didn't reply to the fact that hundreds of Christian Churches promote gambling via bingo games in the church.
Why are you avoiding it?
Explain why the leaders of these churches approve of gambling on church property.
I know....it makes them money.
The church is a money making business. Nothing else.
Nobody cares. I noticed and everyone else noticed that you didn't reply to the fact that hundreds of Christian Churches promote gambling via bingo games in the church.
Who's "everyone else" figments of your imagination? Probably.;) So you and "everyone else" need to read my last post to see that most Christian churches don't follow the bible. So your point?:confused:
Vkothii
10-12-08, 02:39 PM
A true Christian knows that "the meaning of God" is a meaningless statement.
God is beyond meaning.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 02:39 PM
Who's "everyone else" figments of your imagination? Probably.;) So you and "everyone else" need to read my last post to see that most Christian churches don't follow the bible. So your point?:confused:
As if you've made any points.
Vkothii
10-12-08, 02:40 PM
Point to the points that didn't get made..?
Who's "everyone else" figments of your imagination? Probably.;) So you and "everyone else" need to read my last post to see that most Christian churches don't follow the bible. So your point?:confused:Everyone in this group is what I meant by "everyone else". How could they miss the fact that you avoided commenting on the fact that thousands of churches have and promote gambling on church grounds.
"most Christian churches don't follow the bible" you say? Who made you the Judge? I know without asking any of those other Churches that they think that your god-being and jebus both love bingo! Hell, if bingo had been around two thousand years ago, it would have been included in that comic book you call the babble.
What church do you belong to? The church of..............
Are you ashamed to tell your age? Why are you avoiding it?
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 02:55 PM
He's ashamed to admit preaching to animals & too ashamed to cite scripture reference for the 10 commandments.
A true Christian knows that "the meaning of God" is a meaningless statement.
God is beyond meaning.
Your close, but it's more like "God is meaningless."
"True Christian" is a meaningless statement.
Hell one of em told me the other day that jebus was god. I thought jebus was jebus and god was god. Now they're telling me jebus is god. So if jebus is god, then who is god? If god is god and jebus is god, then there are two gods! How come jebus gets a name and god doesn't'? Answer me that. If jebus is god and as god he gets to have a name, then god should be allowed to have a name so we can tell the god god from the jebus god. Otherwise, we have one god with a name and one without! That's hardly fair! I know! We could call the jebus god jebus and the other god jebus two! Wait, then we'd have jebus one and jebus two and jebus one god and jebus two god. It's getting too confusing. I think the god god should just stay a god and jebus god should only be a jebus. That keeps it all cool.
He's ashamed to admit preaching to animals & too ashamed to cite scripture reference for the 10 commandments.I'm starting to think he doesn't like us. I'm practicing my song for him to make him feel at home here:
jebus loves me yes I know
cause the babble tells me so
la la la la la la la
I don't know any more of the words.....
The dude is ate up with it. Brain fried.
I'm starting to think he doesn't like us. I'm practicing my song for him to make him feel at home here:
jebus loves me yes I know
cause the babble tells me so
la la la la la la la
I don't know any more of the words.....
The dude is ate up with it. Brain fried.
Well if you believe you know better than Jesus does about what happens when you die, then I guess you'll have to take the chance that you're right and Jesus is wrong. :o But I can tell you one thing; I'm not bettin' on you. :D
nietzschefan
10-12-08, 03:18 PM
You guys pay more attention to Jesus freaks than anyone else posting in philosophy.
Well if you believe you know better than Jesus does about what happens when you die, then I guess you'll have to take the chance that you're right and Jesus is wrong.Dude, you're a slow one. I don't believe in any "god" or in any jebus. I think they are fictions that weak people use to get through life. They're a crutch. Nothing more.
Get it now? When I die, my body will do the same thing yours does. It will either be changed to ashes or changed to bug shit. Nothing else happens, bucko. Make this life a good one. It's all you get.
How old did you say you were?
What's the name of your church?
You guys pay more attention to Jesus freaks than anyone else posting in philosophy.
Considering that philosophers go round and round in their heads like a dog chasing a tail trying to figure out "what is truth?, "Do I exist" then end up back where they started, asking "What is truth?' and "Do I exist", then they're the last group of people from whom one can learn the truth. :D Then when they die, they still won't know whether truth exists, much less what it is! :D So I can think of fewer confused people than philosophers...except possibly evolutionists. ;)
You guys pay more attention to Jesus freaks than anyone else posting in philosophy.First I couldn't get him to answer me and now he won't shut up! He's a little soldier of jebus and won't quit until he smites me! hehe
I can think of fewer confused people than philosophers...except possibly evolutionists.Whoa, easy...don't step back...awww shit, he fell of the edge of the world! I warned em.:p
What's Carico going to do when he realizes he's worshiping an Egyptian Sun god?
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 04:23 PM
You guys pay more attention to Jesus freaks than anyone else posting in philosophy.
There seems to be a distasteful yet compelling urge to wrestle with pigs.
Nietzschefan is right. Why don't we just ignore this idiot and move on to people who actually have some valid things to say?
I'd literally rather argue face-to-face with Norsefire for nine hours than fight with this idiot.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 04:35 PM
Maybe it is Norsefire.
Maybe it is Norsefire.
No, Norsefire had some opinions I disagreed with, but Norse wasn't stupid.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 05:36 PM
I'm not laughing at Carico being banned. Really.
But the bit about taking the rest of Sunday off nearly had me falling off my chair!
I'm not laughing at Carico being banned. Really.
But the bit about taking the rest of Sunday off nearly had me falling off my chair!
I don't exactly promote banning, but when a person refuses to engage you in the discussion, they're essentially spamming. I tried to reason with her (a girl, I guess?), but she simply refused to engage me in it. So I'm glad she was punished. If you want to be a part of this community, you have to contribute. Or, you at least can't preach.
Man, he leaves me a "you gonna die and find jebus then" PM and then I come back in and he's banned! What'd I miss? Did he throw lightening at someone or what? Maybe jebus got pissed cause he was makin shit up. :D
Medicine*Woman
10-12-08, 06:07 PM
What's Carico going to do when he realizes he's worshiping an Egyptian Sun god?
*************
M*W: Good question, JD. Unfortunately, he will never figure that out. Ignorance is bliss, they say.
*************
M*W: Good question, JD. Unfortunately, he will never figure that out. Ignorance is bliss, they say.
Let her be ignorant somewhere else, then. I have no need for her here.
CheskiChips
10-12-08, 06:37 PM
Actually, they didn't call him the son of God back then. They called him Christos (Christ), which means "Chosen One", but that did not imply he was the son of God.
Actually they called him Yeshua which means "Salvation" in Hebrew.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.