The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500. Lol @ "the beginning 6000 years ago". For a guy who loves the bible so much, you seem to know suprisingly little about the origin of the Old testament. I recommend you check out "The Old Testament with Christine Hayes" on YaleCourses on YouTube. It's entirely free and you can learn a whole lot about this artifact which you hold so dear. And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well.  Wow, that second paragraphy displays an almost shocking level of ignorance of basic physics! If the "electromagnetic spectrum" and the "time dimension" were different I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too. Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe. Laugh at your own imagination. Nobody was there then. Nobody knows. The Bible is witnesses recounting what they witnessed, not scientists recounting things they didn't witness. |
|
|
|
Everyone deep down is agnostic to some degree. Even those that believe, must at some time have doubts...as goes for those nonbelievers.
Well, this is absolutely true. Nobody has seen God except the one and only Who He has sent. So, since we haven't seen God, there certainly are aspects about Him that we do not know. What else could this produce but a touch of agnosticism? I don't know who you are talking about? I am an ATHEIST not an agnostic. I do not live in some demon haunted world full of Gods and magical ferries. I have no doubt whatsoever about it. As Heinlein said in Stranger in a Strange Land, "Thou art god." Do you grok it? |
|
|
|
We all struggle to live. A Down's kid is struggling to live even harder. Aborting a kid who is struggling so hard to live sounds cruel to me. |
|
|
|
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. Doesn't change the point I just made. Everything you believe, and all your arguments, are based off a book that was written when people thought the sun raced across the sky on a chariot. Those wrong beliefs and ideals are the bible. I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.  You say "people" like you say "scientists." What I mean is, you can find loads of people who believe all different kinds of things, just like you can find many scientists who understand the same evidence in many different ways. How does that answers to the fact that you base your feelings off a 2000 years book? The guys back then would have thought the smartphone I'm writing this post on is godly if they have had any chance to see it. The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500. And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well. |
|
|
|
That's a cute guess. And guesses aren't bad things. But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.
These guys are getting really concrete: http://www.iqpr.asia/en/technology/index.htmlThat link wasn't working in my browser. However, I also want to say that while: 1. I don't believe in any God and 2. I think that the canonical conceptualization of God is not relevant for science (ie, by definition God is unobservable, not natural, etc) I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything. As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation. Oh yah, for those that are saying that the Bible is 2000 yrs old, I think that's a simplification. Some of the texts seem to go back at least 3000 years, and are probably dervied in part from other ancient texts (Gilgamesh, for example) others weren't written until hundreds of years after Christ's death. Then again, depending on how your philosophy handles linguistic translations and retranslations of those translations, you might say that the English Christian Bible was written as recently as a few hundred years ago. Even 200 years ago a smartphone would have seemed godly Smartphone wouldn't have worked 200 years ago. No way to charge the battery, and no cell towers. Solar cell + Airplane mode That's not the point anyway. Are you really so stupid you don't see the point? Oh come on. Almost everything you say is a joke. So why can't I joke a little? |
|
|
|
It is not true. We cannot sin, because God is almighty and would never let their children sin. God exists, and there is no doubt of it. He is your father. He loves you. And he commands the world. He is all powerfull and nothing goes on without his consent.Accept that you, as sons of God, are gods yourselves. And be happy!  Well, fuck that god then, for commanding/consenting child rape, and cancer, and AIDS... In Isaiah in the Old Testament, there is a place where Isaiah explains that once this world has passed through the Judgment - he doesn't say that it is thrown into the lake of fire, but that is the time he is talking about - none of this life will be remembered or brought to mind. It will be taken entirely out of history, even of God's remembrance. Remember how Jesus is called the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end? There will no longer be any middle. There will no longer be anything left of this life. It will all be the New Heavens and the New Earth. Even the people who don't get saved will be entirely forgotten. Now, I don't like pain any more than anybody else. But I expect that I will die just like everyone else. The pain of death will probably come for me. So, I am not going to deny God in anger for two reasons: 1. I don't want the pain of everlasting hellfire; 2. And, more importantly, I don't want to miss out on that new, wonderful life in the New Heavens and the New Earth. |
|
|
|
Atheists are reasonable people who are able to understand the world that surround them without the need to appeal to magic/mystic.
They have the clear mind to seek reason in order to understand reality.
TLDR, atheists are not lazy people: they use their brain.
No! Atheists do not believe in god or gods, period! I know a lot of people who are atheist and they believe in a lot of crazy conspiracy theories, astrology, homeopathy, Feng Shui and a lot of other pseudo-science or New Age bullshit. Atheism is not the same thing as skepticism. Atheists have only convinced themselves that they do not believe in God. This makes all true atheists liars, lying to themselves, mostly. |
|
|
|
Everyone deep down is agnostic to some degree. Even those that believe, must at some time have doubts...as goes for those nonbelievers.
Well, this is absolutely true. Nobody has seen God except the one and only Who He has sent. So, since we haven't seen God, there certainly are aspects about Him that we do not know. What else could this produce but a touch of agnosticism? |
|
|
|
Atheists are the people who have given up on believing in any version of God for whatever reason. That's basically it though, naturally, some are more loudmouthed about it than others. If you want to see atheists in action, this is a decent subreddit to hang out in. http://www.reddit.com/r/atheismThe funny part about this is that, if God really is real, then what they have done is to put themselves up into the place of god by attempting to be more powerful than He through denying Him. |
|
|
|
How might atheistic thought be superior to theistic thinking?
At one time Jesus' disciples said to Jesus something to the effect of, "Now we can see that you know all things, and that you don't even need anyone to ask you questions." I still need people to ask me questions... at least much of the time. In Mark 11:22-24, Jesus says that if you have faith in God, you can have anything that you say. Then He goes on to say that if we believe that we will receive what ever we ask for in prayer, we will have it. Then He says that if we don't forgive, we won't be forgiven by God. The point is, an atheist knows that he doesn't have any sin. This produces an automatic self-forgiveness in him. Because of this, an atheist often gets what he asks for faster than a Christian. And what he asks for above many other things often is a peaceful life. A Christian knows he is sinful. Knowing he is sinful makes it hard for the Christian to forgive the most important person in his life (next to Jesus, of course), himself. So, since the Christian won't forgive himself like he should, he gets what he is asking for... trouble in his life. Now, I said this briefly. Think it over and put it into better wording for yourself. And if you are a Christian, start forgiving yourself. After all, Jesus and His Father both forgave you. So why shouldn't you forgive yourself, and start having a better life? It is not true. We cannot sin, because God is almighty and would never let their children sin. God exists, and there is no doubt of it. He is your father. He loves you. And he commands the world. He is all powerfull and nothing goes on without his consent. Accept that you, as sons of God, are gods yourselves. And be happy! All right, all right. Sounds like you got it made then. Lots of Christians have not forgiven themselves for all kinds of things that they have done, even though they know God has. And there are several places in the Gospels where Jesus says that if you don't forgive, you won't be forgiven. Let's hope that all these unforgiving Christians finally forgive themselves before they die, even if it is on their deathbed. |
|
|
|
Well, today I learned that by definition, I'm an atheist. I originally thought that atheism meant that you didn't believe in anything other than what you can prove through science, but apparently it just beans that you don't believe in deities. I'm a scientist primarily, but if I know something in my heart and have seen personal evidence that I cannot prove, I classify those views as spiritual views.
I know through personal evidence that the cosmos does speak, (not verbally, of course) and you only need to know how to listen. For instance, the other day I was debating what happens when you realize karma for what it is. Does the karma become invalid if you're happily going through it so that no longer have that karmic consequence to deal with even though negative karma is not supposed to be enjoyable? I had to deal with perceived karma that would overdraw my bank account. My ATM pin wasn't working, the bank was closed, and everything was blocking me from making a deposit. Usually when something isn't working no matter how hard you try, it's a sign that it's not meant to happen. I realized that that was probably karma from something that I did. (I know what it was that caused the karma.) I called my dad and he suggested making a night drop deposit. I needed an envelope to do it, so I stopped into the store behind me and got a gift card envelope to deposit the funds and I used a blank check as the deposit slip.
So, I debated that if I didn't make the deposit, then the karma would be purged. If I made the deposit, would it still complete the karmic consequences or would it mean that I'd have to revisit those consequences another day? Well, while I was thinking about it, two people walked past talking about investment banking and I took it as a sign that I was meant to make the deposit. I went and made that deposit and the next day I found out that the bank gives me a $5.00 cushion before they start charging me fees up the wazoo, so being over by a few pennies wouldn't have hurt me. My guess is that sometime that knowledge will come in useful, so I needed it as a dependency for some future project rather than as a lesson to be leaned in karmic consequences.
The deposit was really only important if you were making it into the account of a seller of bitcoins (probably using BitQuick.co), bitcoins that he was going to transfer to you once he received the deposit. |
|
|
|
How might atheistic thought be superior to theistic thinking?
At one time Jesus' disciples said to Jesus something to the effect of, "Now we can see that you know all things, and that you don't even need anyone to ask you questions." I still need people to ask me questions... at least much of the time. In Mark 11:22-24, Jesus says that if you have faith in God, you can have anything that you say. Then He goes on to say that if we believe that we will receive what ever we ask for in prayer, we will have it. Then He says that if we don't forgive, we won't be forgiven by God. The point is, an atheist knows that he doesn't have any sin. This produces an automatic self-forgiveness in him. Because of this, an atheist often gets what he asks for faster than a Christian. And what he asks for above many other things often is a peaceful life. A Christian knows he is sinful. Knowing he is sinful makes it hard for the Christian to forgive the most important person in his life (next to Jesus, of course), himself. So, since the Christian won't forgive himself like he should, he gets what he is asking for... trouble in his life. Now, I said this briefly. Think it over and put it into better wording for yourself. And if you are a Christian, start forgiving yourself. After all, Jesus and His Father both forgave you. So why shouldn't you forgive yourself, and start having a better life? |
|
|
|
I do believe we, in a way, are reborn until we learn whatever it is we missed in the previous 'chance', or for whatever reason that escapes me at the moment - Post Cxx Annos Patebo.
We shall return..
And we remember all the things that we didn't miss? I must have been really ignorant last time. 'Cause I don't remember any of it. And the way some people in this thread think I am "dumb" this time, there probably won't be much for me to remember next time, either. |
|
|
|
That's a cute guess. And guesses aren't bad things. But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.
These guys are getting really concrete: http://www.iqpr.asia/en/technology/index.htmlThat link wasn't working in my browser. However, I also want to say that while: 1. I don't believe in any God and 2. I think that the canonical conceptualization of God is not relevant for science (ie, by definition God is unobservable, not natural, etc) I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything. As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation. Oh yah, for those that are saying that the Bible is 2000 yrs old, I think that's a simplification. Some of the texts seem to go back at least 3000 years, and are probably dervied in part from other ancient texts (Gilgamesh, for example) others weren't written until hundreds of years after Christ's death. Then again, depending on how your philosophy handles linguistic translations and retranslations of those translations, you might say that the English Christian Bible was written as recently as a few hundred years ago. Even 200 years ago a smartphone would have seemed godly Smartphone wouldn't have worked 200 years ago. No way to charge the battery, and no cell towers. |
|
|
|
These are interesting perspectives; however, it would seem His entropism has not been heard.
Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.
From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.
From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.
Actually, God gave man freedom in this universe. Not only that, but He made man His greatest creation. Then man turned his back on God, thereby creating entropy in God's universe. Why should God put more energy into something that man is going to destroy through entropy anyway? God's plan is, instead of putting more energy into this universe, save man out of it. Make a new universe where man can't introduce entropy, and put man in there. Then, destroy the old universe in the lake of fire to get His energies back out of it. |
|
|
|
No English common law here, so little chance the people will ever be free.
|
|
|
|
Zolace
In the past I've put this question to all Christians...
You speak to your "god", but does it ever speak back to you?
Of course I already know the answer, and the answer is no. It does not talk to you. And I respectfully submit that, if you actually HEAR/SEE something from your "god", then you need to seek help from real-life mental health professionals.
You know that as well as I do.
If you don't mind if I ask....
What motivates you in your religious beliefs? It's not like you have something that I don't. It's not like you have any "secret knowledge" that I don't.
There are thousands of reasons to consider your religious beliefs to be nothing but 100% pure bullshit; and absolutely 0 reasons to consider your beliefs to be otherwise.
So, why do you bother?
God speaks to people through the Bible, and directly to their hearts. God is a Spirit. However, its a little like the thread. After awhile God gets tired of speaking to a bunch of people that won't listen to Him anyway, just like people get tired of listening to their opponents in this forum saying the same things over and over again. So He has it written down in the Bible so that, if any of them decide they want to listen a little some of the time, all they need do is pick up the Bible and read. |
|
|
|
Most states wanting independence I don't understand. The Scots should be independent, they are losing money on the British politics.
At its basic form, the money comes from the people. The Scottish people have the right to use English common law. They have the right to go to Queen's Bench where they can virtually eliminate all direct taxes for themselves. But they don't know how. Get into the below links to find out how some people in England are learning how, and using it. The Scots can do the same. http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc |
|
|
|
From Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivisions_of_Scotland - "Traditionally burghs have been the key unit of the local government of Scotland, being highly autonomous entities, with rights to representation in the old Parliament of Scotland. Even after the Acts of Union 1707, burghs continued to be the principal subdivision. Until 1889 administration was on a burgh and parish basis." The Point? With all this talk about the independence of Scotland, and all the talk about other parts of the world doing the same and looking to Scotland for guidance and encouragement, how far do we go? I mean, after Scotland gains her independence, then let's give all the burghs in Scotland, each its own independence, right? And then after the burghs, how about each family and business, right? And, finally, each person, so that every person is his/her own government, right? Scottish people say, "Me want this and this and this. And England won't let me do that and that and that. So, me want independence from England." But do the Scots really know what they are doing? English common law, when used correctly, is powerfully free for the people, as it is, right now. The people have the right to go to Queen's Bench in the courts and virtually, individually as individual people, eliminate almost anything that any part of the whole government of the UK wants to do to them. But almost all of them don't even know that they can do this. The question is, if the Scots get their independence, are they smart enough to keep English common law, at least in form, even if they call it by a different name? If they don't, they will be moving THE PEOPLE of their country in a direction away from freedom into slavery. Now, here is the important point. The people of the UK, like the people of the USA, Canada, Bangladesh, and a whole lot of other common law countries, have not been using their common law freedom. They don't know how. They haven't figured out that using English common law, they can stop taxes, stop traffic tickets, stop unfair laws, and give themselves almost complete freedom from government, right now, individually, if they use Queen's Bench in the courts. The danger for the Scottish people is that they will lose the right of Queen's Bench in the new government they want to form for themselves. They will, as individual people, lose some of their individual freedom.Listen to Bali, of England, in the Talkshoe audios at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc . Find out how Karl Lentz of the United States went over to England and started teaching them their own common law, so that they could be free of their own government oppression - http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/ . Then tell me what you think about it. |
|
|
|
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. That's a cute guess. And guesses aren't bad things. But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things. Thank you.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
