God as One

[Hapsburg]

So one shaman is representative of all shamans?

Shamans. Plural. Similar experiences between them within the same cultural group led to more structured forms of belief. And while their experiences varied somewhat from culture to culture, the evidence points to a lot of commonalities between groups. Similar imagery, similar processes. Read Inside the Neolithic Mind for more detail.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You sarcasm is very poor, As far education public school are very poorly graded . My sons are in graduate school, If you have some understanding in biology or chemistry , you definitively would reject the idea of primordial soup .

"Primordial soup" is a term introduced by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin. In 1924, he proposed the theory of ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup

 

[Jan Ardena]

Each and every interpretation of the Christian Bible is an account. You want specific sects or groups that differ from you?

The Christians may have put the books together creating ''the Christian Bible'', but the information which make up the texts aren't ''Christian'' (namely the O.T. and the gospels). My questions pertain to either radical Christian interpretations that go against the ''mainstream'' ideology, or non-Christian interpretations who are able to use other sources of scriptoral, astrological, historical, and naturalistic scientific analasys, as a basis for their comprehension.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It has to be terribly difficult for anyone to explain something when you have no factual evidence. It's like trying to put IKEA furniture together and realizing that you possess the parts, except none of them are included in the instruction manual.

P.E. Are you your body?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

weg,

At the end of the day, you are welcome to think my "version" of faith is in error.

I'm not questioning your faith. You said post 21 was preaching, but upon reading it I was baffled as to how you thought so.
If anything it is a variation on the ontological proof for God's existence, not a sermon.

You believe in God, and here is a proof of His existence (according to the statements). Now if you don't think this is a proof, then state why and even give account of your reasons, that is the purpose of these discourses. Instead you take a very familiar route (athiest) as a pretense in the dismantling of this argument, by totally rubbishing it. In your cas,e by saying it is preaching/evangelising, reminiscient of Sunday shool, and therefore should not be taken seriously.

But, this site has rules and one of them is to not be dogmatic and "preachy." You can start a website of your own if you choose. But, it is preaching when you tell posters, atheists and believers alike, that what they believe is "wrong."

Isn't that what everybody does (one way or another) including yourself. You say post 21 is preaching, therefore shouldn't be) taken seriously, as it goes against the rules of these forums. But it's not preaching, it is logical claim for God's existence, whether you agree it is, or not. So what you're in effect saying is, anyone who takes this preaching seriously, is wrong for doing so (even if only in relation to this site).

One thing to have a healthy exchange but when it becomes a lecture on the part of one or some posters in hopes of leading people to convert their thinking, that is evangelism. And this site has a rule against that.

Are you referring to this...

If you allow yourself to think so, then it would seem that the systematic process of deletion, of God (One without a second) has begun in your mind.

jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The Christians may have put the books together creating ''the Christian Bible'', but the information which make up the texts aren't ''Christian'' (namely the O.T. and the gospels).

How so? Presumably all of the N.T. was written by folks we would call Christians.

My questions pertain to either radical Christian interpretations that go against the ''mainstream'' ideology , or non-Christian interpretations who are able to use other sources of scriptoral, astrological, historical, and naturalistic scientific analasys, as a basis for their comprehension.
jan.

What value does a fringe person such as an astrologer have to offer over a mainstream person, such as a theologian?

 

[(Q)]

Reject which idea ? About soup or the ban ban. At the present science does not know but speculate . Should I accept the idea and pretend that I am scientifically oriented . How about if I say lets work and stop speculating.

So, there isn't actually anything you can tell me that would give me reason to reject the idea of primordial soup? And, that would be because it is you who doesn't know anything about biology and chemistry, or even understand the idea behind primordial soup? It is actually you who is speculating?

 

[Robittybob1]

So, there isn't actually anything you can tell me that would give me reason to reject the idea of primordial soup? And, that would be because it is you who doesn't know anything about biology and chemistry, or even understand the idea behind primordial soup? It is actually you who is speculating?

Did you define the "primordial soup"?

 

[(Q)]

Did you define the "primordial soup"?

I'm awaiting arauca to do that for us, he/she is the one who brought it up. Obviously, that would mean he/she understands it and has taken the time to refute it.

 

[Fork]

Did you define the "primordial soup"?

Primordial soup is the source or the One.

 

[Fork]

P.E. Are you your body?

Yes. You are also spirit or energy or chi as Shaolin monks call it.

 

[Fork]

Taken from post 21:

What does this have to do with neurotheology? Insofar as God is
generally defined as the Prime Mover or first principle of reality,
God is by definition real, and thus a part of the real universe. And
because this first principle is by definition primary — because there
is by definition no preexisting reality to contain it — reality cannot
properly include it. So the real universe must coincide with God;[/URL]

Of course It's real.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes. You are also spirit or energy or chi as Shaolin monks call it.

Soooooo... if you lose a limb, are you still the same person?

jan.

 

[arauca]

"Primordial soup" is a term introduced by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin. In 1924, he proposed the theory of ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup

What would you expect from an atheist. At that time they had purged ( 1924 ) the bulk of open minded scientists.

 

[arauca]

So, there isn't actually anything you can tell me that would give me reason to reject the idea of primordial soup? And, that would be because it is you who doesn't know anything about biology and chemistry, or even understand the idea behind primordial soup? It is actually you who is speculating?

I thank to our friend Aqueous Id, by posting primordial soup link,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup.
By the way since you apparently are good in Chemistry , would you help me in my new post :
How do you build a polyamide chain in aqueous system. Then we can talk some more about primordial soup

 

[(Q)]

By the way since you apparently are good in Chemistry , would you help me in my new post :
How do you build a polyamide chain in aqueous system.

Why? What are you building?

 

[(Q)]

What would you expect from an atheist.

There is only one thing to expect from an atheist, their lack of belief in gods, of course.

 

[arauca]

Why? What are you building?

polypeptides

 

[(Q)]

polypeptides

LOL? And, you are in possession or have access to a multimillion dollar laboratory to do such things?

Wow, when will believers ever be honest about anything? :facepalm:

 

[Fork]

Soooooo... if you lose a limb, are you still the same person?

jan.

I believe the answer to that is yes.