Supernatural is a term used to explain what the science still can not explain. Only closed minded people think science can explain everything and can not think outside the box.
Science can explain everything. Look at all that was unknown when god was first invented. Soon, science will explain everything.  What's interesting is that some of the smaller subatomic particles are showing far less "particle" action, far greater "wave" action, and something else that hasn't been defined, yet. It's my guess that the "something else" has to do with consciousness. |
|
|
|
On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:
The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.
Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot. The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven. You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science. Don't you understand that? Your house is built on a foundation of cards. You know? The Bosnian pyramids show that the people of Atlantis knew a whole lot more about science than we give them credit for. And some of their knowledge was so different from ours that we are just beginning to relearn it. |
|
|
|
As long as "God" remains in the realm of the supernatural, ie, the unobservable, there will never be scientific proof that he/she/it exists by definition. Science, by definition, is about building and testing hypothesis based on repeatable, observable experimentation. Anyone who expects to find scientific proof for "God" either has a non-traditional view of "God" (ie God is not supernatural) or else has a mistaken view of science.
Yet there are many things that are common now, that 200 years ago would have been CALLED supernatural. I would say that regarding things in this universe, nothing is supernatural. Some things only appear that way, and will until we find the technology to control them. It sounds like you're saying you don't believe in a supernatural. Which, as far as I can tell, means that you don't believe in a supernatural God. I think that's a totally respectable belief system. Look at what God said in Genesis, during the time that the people were building the Tower of Babel: "The LORD said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.'" Probably reaching right into Heaven is something that people could do if they all joined together and put their minds to it. So, is there really supernatural? Or is it a word that is used to cover a certain form of ignorance that we have? Lol, I guess by "what God said in Genesis" you're referring to what the J-writer or the P-writer said in Genesis. Anyway, if youre version of God is a natural phenomenon tied to predictable observation then haven't you taken away his/her/its Godness? As far as reaching into heaven: Yuri Gagarin is usually the first credited with this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin). Don't limit yourself. Envision what it would be like for people to work together toward the goal of reaching right into the "supernatural." |
|
|
|
On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:
The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.
Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot. The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven. |
|
|
|
As long as "God" remains in the realm of the supernatural, ie, the unobservable, there will never be scientific proof that he/she/it exists by definition. Science, by definition, is about building and testing hypothesis based on repeatable, observable experimentation. Anyone who expects to find scientific proof for "God" either has a non-traditional view of "God" (ie God is not supernatural) or else has a mistaken view of science.
Yet there are many things that are common now, that 200 years ago would have been CALLED supernatural. I would say that regarding things in this universe, nothing is supernatural. Some things only appear that way, and will until we find the technology to control them. It sounds like you're saying you don't believe in a supernatural. Which, as far as I can tell, means that you don't believe in a supernatural God. I think that's a totally respectable belief system. Look at what God said in Genesis, during the time that the people were building the Tower of Babel: "The LORD said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.'" Probably reaching right into Heaven is something that people could do if they all joined together and put their minds to it. So, is there really supernatural? Or is it a word that is used to cover a certain form of ignorance that we have? |
|
|
|
As long as "God" remains in the realm of the supernatural, ie, the unobservable, there will never be scientific proof that he/she/it exists by definition. Science, by definition, is about building and testing hypothesis based on repeatable, observable experimentation. Anyone who expects to find scientific proof for "God" either has a non-traditional view of "God" (ie God is not supernatural) or else has a mistaken view of science.
Yet there are many things that are common now, that 200 years ago would have been CALLED supernatural. I would say that regarding things in this universe, nothing is supernatural. Some things only appear that way, and will until we find the technology to control them. |
|
|
|
Bangladesh is a common law nation, based on British common law. If the people understood how powerful this is, they could almost outlaw the government. In the event you are interested in how common law can be used over there, look at how Karl Lentz is teaching people to use it in the United Kingdom. http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tcMany of the Talkshoe recordings are hosted by Bali, from the U.K. I don't know where his family is originally from, but with a name like Bali, might even be Bangladesh. It is, in theory possible to overthrow any government regardless if "the law" allows for this to happen. I would however doubt that they would attempt to overthrow the government of Bangladesh in an attempt to be able to use bitcoin, the benefits are simply not there for the people to try to do that. The idea isn't to overthrow the government. The idea is to protect yourself from the government. In English common law, there are basically only 3 things that the government can get you for: 1. If you harm somebody; 2. If you damage his property; 3. Breach of contract. The government can make all the statutes stick, if you don't fight them on common law grounds. But if you fight them common law, nothing sticks except the above 3. Individual use of Bitcoin can't be stopped in a common law country, unless it can be proven that the Bitcoin user has violated one of the 3. And there has to be literal harm to a person shown, or damage to his property. Breach of contract is really damage of property. |
|
|
|
Maybe the Ebola virus is one that can't be cured or controlled. Oh, well. The people are all going to die anyway. Does Ebola affect animals as well? If so, maybe the only way to cure Ebola is to let all life die together. |
|
|
|
I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam because it is destroying the ignorant people who become Muslims. |
|
|
|
Scientific proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?
Say after me:
I AM
The sound is the proof you need. What more needs said?
The FSM hypothesis is not powerful enough to explain the evidence for survival: Here is one example of high-quality evidence of the survival of the personality: Dr. James Hyslop, professor of Logic and Ethics at Columbia University, and one of the most distinguished American psychical researchers, reported the following incident.
[...]
As Sir Wiliam Barrett concluded in his review of the case: "The simplest and most reasonable solution is that the information was derived from the mind of the deceased person."
2 page PDF: http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_51-75/case56_soule-soul.pdfIs FSM going to give us any information at all? I challenge you to explain the evidence using the FSM thesis. Again, when you research the way that the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) came into existence, and the time periods and different authors, and the thread of salvation through the Messiah that runs throughout the whole thing, you will see that the Bible can't exist. There are too many improbabilities attached to the way that it came into being. So, what does this mean? It is one of the major evidences that God exists. And the descriptions of God in the Bible show that He is not the FSM, or anything like the FSM. Search on things like "history of the Bible" or "Who wrote the Bible" or "traditions behind Bible existence" or other such search wording. What's interesting is that the DuckDuckGo search engine - https://duckduckgo.com/ - often brings up a variety of sites in searches that Google and Bing often don't show. Try them. |
|
|
|
Bangladesh used to be controlled by the British. Formerly it was called Bengal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BangladeshThe important part about this is that Bangladesh is an English common law country. This means that the people have the power to individually use Bitcoin without adverse governmental restrictions or punishment, if they pick up and use their rights, that is. A link about how English common law is being used right now: http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/ . |
|
|
|
But some do - I worked for a Jewish company years ago, and though most were not that religious, the lead programmer who taught me was. This subject somehow came up, and he knew about Elijah, but Enoch he disagreed with at first.
But, then upon reading the passage, he could see why one would conclude he left without dying also; I don't think he had ever given it thought. Not sure what came of that with him later.
Of course, then there is Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:3, "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever." |
|
|
|
I'm sorry but I can't even consider the arguments of a person who believes there are angels living in our sun, to me your brain is all kinds of messed up and all of your other views have been affected. Before even bothering to check your links, why not respond to my statements directly? What are YOUR thoughts on drug legality, harm to others, and more, not the thoughts of people you are sourcing.
I thought you would understand that my thoughts were in what I posted. A person never reveals all his thoughts. Even if he wanted to, he couldn't, because there are too many. Drug legality is this. Let people do what they want. But, inform them of what the results will probably be. Inform them in a strong, emphatic way. Then, if they want to go out and hurt themselves, it's their life. Don't take their freedom away from them. If they harm someone else, however, make them pay. In other words, don't legalize drugs. Simply keep from making them illegal. Keep life simple. Apply this idea to traffic laws, and almost all laws. Actually, the links I provided show how anybody can apply this idea to all laws and government right now. |
|
|
|
Then what is your problem,? You live in constant fear that you will think an "evil" though and piss off your "god" and he'll send you to hell.
I sleep very well, secure in the fact that there is no bogeyman. Too bad you can't claim the same.
It's good to not live in fear. But it is good also to live aware of what's going on around you. Just look in the news to see how many people "... sleep very well, secure in the fact that there is no bogeyman," and then S.W.A.T. disrupts their dreams. |
|
|
|
I saw something on the history channel about the stories in the Bible and one of them was about Noah's arc. The way they put it was that alien DNA was responsible for all the creatures loaded on this arc. The main point was it was the only way possible to bring 2 of every creature on, through DNA samples. The logic many Christians would use is anything is possible with God, but its also possible the stories were pictures we could understand while not taking anything away from what really happened. So i guess this explanation could help the skeptic who God i'm sure would know wouldn't believe such stories.
Just a technical note. If you read Genesis carefully, you will see that it was 7 pair, a male and his mate, of clean animals, and 2 pair of unclean animals. |
|
|
|
I know enough about the Bible, and Christianity, to know that there is no confusion between right and wrong; reality and fantasy.
Zolace has been brainwashed to the point he doesn't know which way is up. ... but that doesn't stop him from preaching what he learned in Sunday School.
I have invited Zolace on many occasions to simply research the things he preaches, but he refuses to do it. He would rather preach the bullshit he learns from charlatans.
He is not a Christian, nor is he taking his faith from the Bible, but from the religious conmen he has placed his faith, who depend upon people like him to spread their lies.
Enough said.
But at the same time, those who get deep into the Bible face a danger. Not all the Jews and Hebrew people who got deep into the Bible were saved. In fact, these days most of the Jews in Israel will admit that they accept the Messiah of the Old Testament, but reject the Messiah of the New Testament. Why? Partially because of legalism, and the results of legalistic Jewish leaders, of the old days and now, who teach them that Jesus wasn't legalistic enough to be the Messiah. Moses said in Deuteronomy 4:8, "And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?" Yet, many of the Hebrew people were tricked by the laws into believing that they had obeyed and could obey the laws perfectly enough that they could stand with the Messiah on their own strength. This is not so. We need the strength OF the Messiah to stand. Acts 15:19-21 says, "19It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." Jews, of course, aren't Gentiles. Yet, it would be better for the Jews to be like Gentiles and be saved than it is for them to be deep into the Bible, legalistic, and damned. The point? Zolace may preach. Zolace may have only partial knowledge of the Law - the O.T.. But Zolace is not legalistic like many of the unsaved Jews. Rather, he stands in faith in Jesus and is saved. |
|
|
|
Bangladesh is a common law nation, based on British common law. If the people understood how powerful this is, they could almost outlaw the government. In the event you are interested in how common law can be used over there, look at how Karl Lentz is teaching people to use it in the United Kingdom. http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tcMany of the Talkshoe recordings are hosted by Bali, from the U.K. I don't know where his family is originally from, but with a name like Bali, might even be Bangladesh. |
|
|
|
Scientific proof that God exists?
Say after me:
I AM
The sound is the proof you need. What more needs said?
Anyone here seen an episode of Ancient Aliens where they said the earth is a big big aquarium and someone is looking above us but its not god. Its them. God is alien to us. But since He came as Jesus, He is not alien as well. |
|
|
|
BADecker my head started hurting before I even started reading your post, given our past arguments I figured this would be a bunch of nonsense. Mostly though I'd like to talk about one point of yours, this one: 1. Harm nobody;
2. Damage the property of no one else;
3. Fulfill the terms of all your contracts.
This is it. This is what the whole country is based on. It's listed in the constitutions and amendments. There is complete freedom regarding anything one can do as long as he doesn't break the 3. If you don't believe that there is complete freedom, it's because you used your freedom to limit your freedom, STARTING IN YOUR MIND.
There is hardly complete freedom, and that is completely objective, not subjective as you stated (ie in your mind). Let's start with drugs, pot is illegal, cigarettes are not. I am not a pot smoker, never have and never will, but I believe in it's legalization, because it does not break any of these three. If you say it has to do with harming yourself, then look at cigarettes, alcohol, prescription and non-prescription drugs, knives, ropes, and any other substance that can be used to abuse and hurt yourself. All of those items can harm you greatly, or even others, but they are legal while pot is known to be harmless and even beneficial, but it's outlawed due to the monetary interests of the paper corporations. Pot accounts for over half of all drug arrests, and a huge percentage of people who are in jail are there for drug related offenses. Source: https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/marijuana-arrests-numbersIf we are truly free, then why are people placed in jail for doing something that doesn't break any of the three fundamentals you listed? The only way you can wiggle yourself out of this one in my opinion, is to state that even people in jail are free in their mind. Which is a silly statement for anyone to make. 2. Damage the property of no one else? You state that corporations lose when they damage the property of others, but this is only in a very direct sense. Consider the harm corporations have done to the environment (everyone's property) and the harm they do to people through pollution/fracking/toxic waste mismanagement. What happens when on occasion a corporation gets called out on these misdeeds? A fine, a fine which goes to the government, not to the people they have harmed. Often times, the fines are so low in comparision to their profits, that it makes more fiscal sense to take the fine, then to handle the disposals of the waste the proper way (which costs more than the fine.) I feel like you must live in some sort of fairy land, where the walls are made of chocolate and the flowers are peanut butter cups. Your world view seems a little off to me buddy. First, the links in my post are where you would go to check out your freedom. What it is about is, the USA is a common law of the people land. But you have to assert it through the courts (not all the time; sometimes letter writing will work). In order to assert, you need to know about it. Ninety-nine percent+ of the people don't understand about common law. That's why I provided the links. The thing about the links is, they are really neat things. You can look at them, and admire their beauty. Notice that they all start with "http://." So artistic. But they won't do anyone a heck of a lot of good if people just admire their form rather than clicking them and figuring our what is going on inside the sites. Here's another couple. Nobody's going to force you to study a little. http://voidjudgments.com/http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htmSlow down a little when you read these, unless you are used to looking at law and thinking about it. |
|
|
|
"Ah, the snake that eats itself.. now when it eats itself, does it ask, I wonder if I'll be reborn"?
Now you're talking like Robert A. Heinlein's book, Glory Road. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
