Total posts: 327
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Is it any wonder theists see atheists in a nonsensical stereotype and conversly reciprocal?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It doesn't matter what I believe, but God isn't at all inexplicable. We were created in his image. That means that either we created him in our image or he created us in his. People only say he is inexplicable to save them the bother of investigating should they discover something they don't want to know.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Busted! And you are everyone else. Krusty.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Well, I wouldn't pay too much attention to people like the ones debating the subject online. Using science to evaluate theology is as pointless as it sounds, and people like Craig were indoctrinated and support traditional theology which has been well documented as having been heavily influenced, in fact grossly distorted, by pagan philosophy. The trinity, immortal soul, hell, cross, rapture, Christmas, Easter for example.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
omniscient omnipotent creator is definitely true
Omnivore. Saying that Jehovah God is presented by his word the Bible as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent or omnibenevolent in the theological sense is like saying an omnivore can eat the space-time continuum and nuclear weapons.
Omniscient means knowing all in an exaggerated sense. Like Santa knows when you are sleeping. God didn't know what Adam and Eve had done until he asked them, he didn't know what Cain had done until he asked him; he sent three angels to ascertain whether or not reports of Sodom and Gomorrah he heard were accurate and he sent Joshua and the spies out in the land to report on it before they went in. God doesn't know what it is like to experience sin.
Is he omnipotent in the theologically exaggerated sense? No. God can't lie. God can't die. God can't come to this universe. (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chronicles 2:6) If he can't do that he certainly isn't omnipresent. And if he destroyed the entire world once, and soon again how can he be omnibenevolent? All the omni's as they are presented, are religious superstitious nonsense.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
1. Only God (intelligent creator) completely explains the creation of consistent logic and laws in the whole universe.
Only God does that? And Does God do that?
2. Only God explains how time and space were created.
Show me where God does that.
3. God must exist, because all powerful being is above the laws of logic and can create itself because being all powerful is not limited by its own existence.
Nonsense.
Now, I find all arguments for God to be based on assumptions rather than observable evidence. Its just people pretending to know something they dont. People like simple explanations and God is a simple explanation to anything. Because God can simply explain anything, its the best choice for those not interested in a more advanced solutions.
You don't see the irony in that?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I wrote this article - like - 20 years ago, it's all over the Internet including on my forum which is just used by me to keep track of old stuff I've written and intend to hopefully rewrite on my current website.
Toaism
Taoism began in the period of Chinese history called the Warring States period, a time from about 1122 - 256 B.C.E. when the mighty Chou dynasty had deteriorated into a loosely bound system of feudal states engaged in continuous warfare. A time which proved to be a great burden upon the common people.
The authority of the traditional ruling class was weakened by the constant turmoil and suffering and the people were getting tired of the whims of the aristocracy. Long suppressed ideas and aspirations burst forth like a "hundred flowers." Ideas on law, social order, government, music, agriculture, literature, conduct and ethics became known as the "hundred schools."
Two of these schools of thought endured and influenced life in China for over 2,000 years. Taoism and Confucianism.
The Tao, which means the way, road, or path, but can also mean the principle, method, or doctrine, was a sort of harmony or orderliness in the universe - a sort of will of heaven itself over any divine will other than the universe itself. A providence rather than a Creator serves as a divine will or legislation.
The belief that there is a natural and correct way to do anything and everything and that everyone has a proper place and function. For example, if a ruler performed his duty and dealt justly with the people - looking after the sacrificial rituals pertaining to heaven, then peace and prosperity would prevail over the nation. If the people also played their part of the Tao and followed it there would be harmonious peace. But if they resisted it there would be chaos and disaster.
Chinese philosophical and religious thinking was greatly influenced by the Tao, and Taoism and Confucianism seemed to actually be two different expressions of the same concept. Tao was mystical and advocated inaction, quietness and passivity. It was a shunning of society and a return to nature. Everything will come out right if people sit back, do nothing and let nature take its course.
Confucianism, on the other hand, was more pragmatic, teaching that social order would be maintained when the people set about their intended role and duty. Ruler-subject; father-son; husband-wife; etc. It provided guidelines for these positions.
Lao-tzu, meaning "Old Master" or "Old One" was the founder of Taoism. He was said to have lived in the sixth century B.C.E. though that is uncertain. The reason for the title Lao-tzu is mythical more than anything. He is said to have been carried by his mother so long before he was born that his hair had already turned white by the time of his birth.
Records of Li Erh, which was probably the real name of the founder of Taoism known later as Lao-tzu, can be found in the Shih Chi, or historical records by Ssu-ma Chien, a respected court historian of the second and first centuries B.C.E.. Li Erh was a clerk in the imperial archives at Loyang, central China. It says:
"Lao Tzu resided in Chou most of his life. When he foresaw the decay of Chou, he departed and came to the frontier. The custom-house officer Yin Hsi said: 'Sir, since it pleases you to retire, I request you for my sake to write a book.' Thereupon Lao Tzu wrote a book of two parts consisting of five thousand and odd words, in which he discussed the concepts of the Way [Tao] and the Power [Te]. Then he departed. No one knows where he died."
Most scholars doubt the authenticity of the account, but the book known as Tao Te Ching ("The Classic of the Way and the Power") is considered the primary text of Taoism. If you actually compare various translations, even just those online, you see that the change of some characters and their meanings have caused a great deal of confusion regarding the various interpretations. It is almost as if the meaning of the text is completely up for grabs with no possible way to fairly guess the original meaning.
Taoism's second sage was Chuang Chou, or Chuang-Tzu. Master Chuang. (369-286 B.C.E). He elaborated upon the Tao as well as introduced the yin and yang of the I Ching to Taoism. The common people remember him best by this, from a dream: "Once Chuang Chou dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering about, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Chuang Chou. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Chuang Chou. But he didn't know if he was Chuang Chou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Chuang Chou."
Lao-tzu didn't make an issue of agelessness and resilience, but some of the texts of the Tao Te Ching may have suggested this theme which was later expanded upon by Chuang-Tzu and much later still by later Taoist religionists. It began to evolve into a possible means of tapping into the secrets of nature and heaven and becoming immune to physical harm, diseases and death.
Taoist started experimenting with meditation, breathing exercises, and dieting. Methods thought to delay aging and death. Legends of immortals who could fly on clouds and disappear at will and who lived on sacred mountains or remote islands began to circulate. Chinese history tells of the Chin emperor, Shih Huang-Ti, who sent a fleet of ships with 3,000 boys and girls to find the legendary island of P'eng-lai, the abode of the immortals, in order to bring back the herb of immortality. They didn't find it but it is thought that they populated the islands later known as Japan.
It was during the Han dynasty (206 B.C.E. - 220 C.E.) that Taoism began to practice magic in full force. Emperor Wu Ti, though promoting Confucianism as the official State teaching, had been attracted to the Taoist idea of immortality. Such as the 'immortality pills' developed by the Alchemist Taoist - by fusing lead (dark, or yin) and mercury (bright, or yang) they thought they were imitating the process of nature. Mercury and Lead. Not surprisingly it wasn't particularly effective for gaining immortality. They also developed magic talismans that could supposedly render one invisible and invulnerable, to walk on water or fly through space. Then the magic spells of yin-yang on buildings and doorways to repel evil spirits and wild beasts.
By the second century C.E. Chang Ling or Chang Tao-ling established a Taoist secret society in western China, practicing magical cures and alchemy. Taoism had already transmogrified from a philosophy to an organized religion. In this society each member was levied a fee of five pecks of rice, and so became known as wu-tou-mi tao (Five Pecks of Rice Taoism).
Chang Ling claimed to have received a personal revelation from Lao-tzu. He was the first "Celestial Master."
Chang wouldn't be around for long, as legend would have it, because he succeeded in making the elixir of life and ascended alive to heaven, riding upon a tiger from Mount Lung-hu (Dragon-Tiger Mountain) in Kiangsi Province. An order of "Celestial Masters" reincarnated from Chang began.
During the Tang dynasty (618 - 907 C.E.) Buddhism started to challenge Taoism in Chinese religious life. To counter this Taoism started to dig deep into the roots of Chinese folklore and religious tradition. Lao-tzu was deified, Taoist texts were canonized, Temples, monasteries and nunneries were erected; much in the Buddhist fashion. Taoism adapted a pantheon of gods, goddesses, and fairies - from folklore the Eight Immortals (Pa Hsien), god of the hearth (Tsao Shen), City gods (Cheng Huang) and guardians of the door (Men Shen).
Taoism became an amalgam of elements of Buddhism, Superstition, Spiritism, Ancestor Worship and even Christianity. Priests for hire from your favorite branch of gods and goddesses to protect against evil at funerals, homes and businesses. They celebrate festivals and perform rituals.
Created:
Posted in:
I like as little moderation as possible and on the Religion forum which I post regularly I haven't seen any at all. That's good, but I know there are moderators. Is there an active administrator? Someone who could possibly fix the forum so it could embed YouTube videos or is that something the administration would prefer not to allow?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Bullshit in Stephens words.As I tried to make clear,
Yes. Sorry. My mistake. You say mythical. I guess, to me, that's the same. Myth is a widely held but false belief or idea.
And in short,Gods are deities,GOD is the fundamental source of everything.
I'm not picking on you. I want to understand where you're coming from. I have my ideas about what a god is and you have yours. It's none of our business what the other thinks. I'm not an ideologue. When I question or disagree with you, I'm not being disrespectful, I'm only allowing for differences. That's important to me because it wouldn't be fair of me to expect that for myself while denying it for anyone else, no matter what their beliefs or lack thereof involve. Fairness is very important to me because I don't think you can seek or uphold the search for truth without it. While I will disagree and question you and am very pleased when that is reciprocated by as many people as possible, it isn't dogmatic tyranny that is my motivation. You are not ignorant of your beliefs, I am. We are bound by words while communicating, and I have no issue with the way you use the word deity.
Deity: "A deity or god is a supernatural being considered to be sacred and worthy of worship due to having authority over the universe, nature or human life. The Oxford Dictionary of English defines deity as a god or goddess, or anything revered as divine." Wikipedia
If I'm not mistaken, your beliefs are Deistical? Something I know very little about and so find it especially interesting. I don't want to bug you, so if you don't feel like taking part in my enlightenment on the subject, I totally get that.
Uh - so Deism, also according to the great and powerful Wikipedia is "Deism derived from the Latin term deus, meaning 'god' is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe."
This much I get. Deus (god) means something is mighty and therefor respected. That's what worship means. Respect. So, for example if I didn't believe in (trust) the Bible but I thought we evolved I would respect, in a sense, have trust in, the random sort of process of evolution, I wouldn't see any point in attributing any semblance of design or creation. Religion is a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. While the random process would be important, it isn't sentient so attribution to a creator would involve veneration, the random process wouldn't. The latter would be like praying to the God of rocks so one doesn't come crashing down on yo' head. Chinese philosophy, for example, has various ways in which they venerate heaven (Tian). The Taoist being passive and the Confucianists being active.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Post 13 provides lots of assertions. Not a lot of proof. E.g. That Michael was created. That Michael is the Christ. That the angels - spirit beings lived for a long time before humans. You essentially gave your theological position; Jehovah's Witness.
For some reason, which I could never quite understand, it seems extremely difficult for some people, especially skeptics, to understand that Jesus and Michael are the same. Lets look at the facts regarding Jesus and Michael.
1. Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth. Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:1,3, 14; 3:13; 8:23, 58; 17:5 / Colossians 1:15-17 / 1 John 2:13 / Revelation 3:14 all speak of Jesus' existence before the world began, in fact before anything was created Jesus was created. Before Heaven, the heavens, the Earth, and of course, man. He is the firstborn of creation, the beginning of creation, he came from somewhere other than this world, he descended from heaven. There can be no doubt that he had a pre-human existence in heaven before he came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ.
2. Jesus' position in heaven before he came to the earth must have been an important one, considering he was the first of Jehovah's creation and all things were created through him and for him. (Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:3) That means not only the heavens and earth as we know them but the angels and heaven as well. Jesus is referred to as the "word of God," this means he is the spokesperson. (John 1:1) As the spokesperson for Jehovah God we can assume that when an angel performed some important task on earth, like guiding and protecting the early Israelites from Egypt or taking the physical form of men in performing an important task, it was likely Michael as he existed before he came to earth as Jesus.
3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.
4. Other than Jehovah God himself only two people in the Bible are said to be in charge of or over the angels. They are Michael and Jesus Christ. The name Michael appears only five times throughout Scripture. At Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1 / Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7.
5. Are there any others who believe Michael and Jesus are the same? Yes, there are many. Joseph Benson, E. W. Hengstenberg, J. P. Lange, Butterworth, Cruden, Taylor, Guyse all wrote that Michael and Jesus were the same.
Clarke's Commentary (Adam Clarke) - "Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host .... Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders .... hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus."
W. E. Vine - the "voice of the archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) is apparently "the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ" - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 64.
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: - "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel" – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.
John Calvin: "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
Brown's Dictionary of the Bible - on 'Michael' and 'Angel,' both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.
The NIV Study Bible - "The Angel of the LORD .... Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of the One who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7. Zondervan Publishing, 1985
Smith's Bible Dictionary (says of Michael) - "Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation. p. 40"
Today's Dictionary of the Bible - "Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." Bethany House Publ., 1982, p. 39.
I liked some of your ideas around the Garden of Eden. Yet in many parts, your ideas were not so dissimilar to what the church teach's today.
Nothing I, or you, or the JWs or anyone else says on the subject of the Bible is original. It's all from one source and it all has been said before.
I'd probably use the term YHWH as the name for God, not Jehovah. Not that we can actually speak his name anyway.
The ancient Hebrew didn't have vowells in their written language. They added them in. Comaritive example wld b lk ths (would be like this). So, Jesus' Hebrew name would be written like that as well. Just as the English form of Jesus is the son of God's name Jehovah is the English form of God's name. To say YHWH or Yahweh only demonstrates ignorance on the subject. Could you use the similar term for Jesus' name as you do Jehovah's? In languages other than English the name is also different.
- يهوهArabic
- JehovaCzech
- JehovaDanish
- JehovaGerman
- ΙεχωβάGreek
- jehovahEsperanto
- JehováSpanish
- یهوهPersian
- JehovaFinnish
- JéhovahFrench
- IehovaIrish
- यहोवाHindi
- JehovaHungarian
- Եհովա�Armenian
- YehuwaIndonesian
- GeovaItalian
- יהוהHebrew
- エホバJapanese
- ಯೆಹೋವನುKannada
- 여호와Korean
- jehovahLatin
- JehovaDutch
- JehovaNorwegian
- JehowaPolish
- JeováPortuguese
- IehovaRomanian
- Иегова
Thanks for the attempt though. Cheers.
As always and with everyone, you are most certainly welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Science is science.
No shit! Can't we get you on Mastermind?
Hypotheses may or may not be proven to be inaccurate.
My experience has been that science is almost always wrong. Which is fine, and the same as everything else. We learn and science is investigation not dogma.
With the benefit of hindsight, hypotheses that are proven to be inaccurate, could be referred to as nonsense.
Sometimes, but not always.
Though if the initial proposition was sincere, then the word nonsense would be a tad disrespectful and inappropriate.
I don't think so. Nonsense is nonsense.
Bee lieve it.
Flat earth, wrong but not stupid.
A format experiment.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2cc[/youtube]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
You believe what the government tellse you then? You respond with links? I want a scientific study and I want your take on it with a link provided if you wish.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Ive been atheist for a while now, but I’m just realizing that I haven’t really heard both sides of the argument. No disrespect to Alex O’Connor, but I feel like sometimes the sources I’m getting this stuff from can be a little one-sided, and what better place to hear the other side, than right here?
Deb. You've been an atheist for a while? Before that you were some sort of theist?
You don't want to be convinced if you're already unconvinced, and besides, it isn't really about wanting if you're coming at it from an intellectual or academic perspective. And here is not where you would want to go to become convinced. A small, obscure dead debate forum and den of atheists like yourself. Very much like yourself. What you want is an interesting exchange? I can do that. Tell me what questions, doubts and criticisms you might have about theism. What sort of theism are you interested in? My personal interest is the Bible.
PS I don't know why the board put ADreamOfLiberty there, it was supposed to be @Moozer325
Created:
-->
@Savant
Why would actual physicists have 0 math work behind them, especially when they are reacting to bold assertions? 🙃
Money, of course. Like religion. https://youtu.be/LKiBlGDfRU8?si=NmQRqLhx2N38F0RZ
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
When "the scientific community" agrees on something they have it documented. Show me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Perceptions of sexual orientation are cultural. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was 14-15 years old when Joseph was set to marry her. He was probably about 32. The reason for this is that they thought of things differently than we do today. Today we treat children as if they are innocent little idiots for as long as we can. We think it is important for them to get educated and find employment before they start to think about a family. Back then the husband trained as an apprentice until he was able to start a family, but the wife only needed to be sexually mature. Able to procreate. The Jewish tradition considers males to be men at 13. Marriage at 32 leaves a great deal of time. They didn't think of marriage like we do. It was a partnership more than the pretense of a "love" construct.
The people of ancient Israel were formed from people from the nations who practiced all sorts of sexual preferences. Homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, adultery, and catamites; boys devoted to homosexual prostitution in religious temples. When he formed Israel, he insisted they abstain from these practices because it wasn't the reason he created us as sexual beings. He created sex to be enjoyable between two partners, male and female, for support of the family unit and the extreme importance this was to society.
So, sexual practices are dictated by social or cultural acceptance. Deviations of the norm are considered perverse, within each culture. To us homosexual pedophilia - pederasty - is disgusting, but to the Romans, Greeks, Native Americans and others throughout time it wasn't. There are cultural reasons for that. It isn't, as it might seem, natural proclivity. In ancient Israel, then, if you wanted to freely practice outside the sexual norm, you would be much better off leaving and going to some surrounding nation where your practice was the norm. When I first became a believer, as a homosexual, I was faced with the decision myself. Either abandon sex or reject acceptable behavior before Jehovah. For a long time, I didn't have it in me to abandon that lifestyle, but eventually I decided that's what I wanted to do.
The conflict between atheism and theism is ideological rather than theological, practical, or anything else. I once posted my usual stuff on Sam Harris's Project Reason forum and there was at that time an idiot atheist named John. He decided to flame the forum with multiple threads with subject headings in all uppercase letters proclaiming me homophobic since I believed in the Bible. When I informed him that I was homosexual he switched tactics and posted the same way with homophobic insults to me. The issue had nothing to do with homosexuality, science, God, the Bible, religion, abortion etc. ad nauseum, it was pure stupid ideology. So, on both sides, theist and atheist it's not about whatever it seems. It really is about conformity and control. Everyone rules the world in their mind. That's part of the reason I say athesits aren't atheists. They are ideologues. The same with theists. It isn't about God or no God. It's about which gods. Atheists imitate god. They are religious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I didn't refer to your "list" at all.
Okay. No worries. The post was, at least in some way directed at me, perhaps unintentionally, by having <<<@RaymondSheen>>> in red font. But, like I said, it doesn't matter since the "Reverend Tradesecret's" position as you present it would apply to many believers including myself. So, I gave my two cents anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The GOD principle could be a BIG BOOM.
How so?
The reason I use upper case is to differentiate between X and GodsAs it is, the sound and accompanying noise, or the symbolic narrative, are widely recognised as representing the idea of some form of creative energy.Postulation is therefore unavoidable.Just as X represents an unknown quantity.
X and Gods seems a sufficient enough distinction without GOD principle as an Ockham's Razor.
To create is to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes, so what I can't figure out is how a BIG BOOM could be something that would naturally evolve and how that could be construed as a principle having anything to do with any gods, God, GOD or principle at all. To me it seems you're taking something we think happened naturally and tacking on the end of it some ancient mythology, bullshit in your words.
Have I not asked you to define GOD?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well then, please point the particular posts where you have "proved" such points. I have looked above and they seem to have been deleted. Or else just not there.
Post 13
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
The big news? Uh, powerful Iranian people flying in helicopters in a mountainous region during a seriously intense fog.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
You mean to say, scientists are human?
I mean to say that people misrepresent science, theology, religion, God, the Bible, and everything else. Freedom, democracy, on and on, and on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
This will be the same bible that you believe is full of "words that mean nothing"? or the bible that you say "can't cause anyone to do anything"? Or the bible of a Christian religious belief that you believe "should be banned"?
At first, I thought you were directing this to @Tradesecret but maybe not?
Words have various meanings, of course, they evolve and they are prone to various specific applications. God means mighty/venerated and is applied to men, spirit beings, objects. People, places, things. Soul means to bind, but is applied to the Hebrew/Greek words that mean breather. The pagan and Biblical differ in that respect. Hell in English means covered or concealed. The pagan is applied to an underground place the Biblical is applied to the grave/pit. Burial.
So, the words in the Bible meaning nothing isn't at all the way I feel about it.
Sceptics often say that the Biblical text said the snake talked and I agree. It does say that, but you can't read one small portion of the Bible and assume that it means what it says. It gives you the story from other people's perspectives. In this instance, Eve's perspective.
Similar examples of the Bible saying something that wasn't true is the Balaam's ass but also in the case where it appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor, where the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land. Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later.
This is why you have to know the entire Bible before you start hacking at it like a blind woodsman.
That the Bible "can't cause anyone to do anything" isn't a sentiment of mine. It can cause (a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition) all sorts of actions. Good or bad, but that doesn't necessarily reflect intent upon its writers. Much the same as JD Salinger probably didn't intend to cause all of the things done by people who read Catcher in the Rye.
Banned. Yeah, well - I mean did I say that here? See, this may be directed at Trade, but similar to my own opinion, which isn't likely to be especially controversial. There are a lot of believers who reject the traditional apostate mainstream Christendom. I would ban all organized religion due to its financial incentive for abuse. Organized religion is big business and big business corrupts. The same with everything. Politics, art, fashion. But really to say that it should be banned is unnecessary because I would ban money before anything. That would dissolve the incentive. People looking to corrupt religion, politics, art, music, etc. wouldn't be incentivized if the incentive were removed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Impossible to know, evidence indicates it was a chimpanzee in prehistory.
The H in HIV stands for Human. You're thinking S for Simian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There are two theories where the first HIV case came from. 1. From a hunter injury causing infection and 2. Contamination of polio vaccines. It's about the timing. Hunters had been hunting for thousands of years. Why wouldn't they have been contaminated much earlier? The polio vaccines had about 20 years. It was the vaccines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
A parody would be the FSM. It also means virtually nobody would take it seriously.
Not sure what you mean is a parody here. You're comparing my take on Islam to the FSM? I've kind of made similar comparisons in the past. I think most religion is a sort of parody like the FSM is. Shintoism, for example. If not from the origins of the religion, then certainly a parody eventually. Christianity and Judaism are parodies of their original teachings and Islam originated as a protestation of that and the FSM - oh, now I see what you were saying. Duh! Sorry, I'm a bit slow.
Created:
Posted in:
Which is a good point. Is "Science" science? As the speaker in the video points out, very often science is "science." In other words very real science is corrupted, like religion was, for profit or whatever. You have to be published, you have to have funding and often you have to keep tenure.
So, this distinction is often made "that isn't actually" or "real" science as if science can't be corrupted, abused or neglected like religion, truth, data, etc. Like gold isn't gold unless it's pure. But that isn't the case. Religion, truth, data, science, theology can't be pure in the sense that (I suppose) gold can be.
Gold and gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I consider Islam to be a sort of criticism of Judaism and Christianity by cultural appropriation. So, yeah. None of this is surprising. People are strange.
Created:
Posted in:
Most science is nonsense. While true, it goes without saying because it's like everything.
Approx. 3-minute video
Created:
Posted in:
Alright. You've had enough time.
Do me. Metaphorically and contextually. Give it your best shot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
To prove, by definition, is to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument; to demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument. I proved, or demonstrated, the Bible to be about what I thought it to be about. That is all that means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Stephen used the word bullshit.I agreed, because definitively the basis of the Old Testament mythology is a naive creation hypothesis.
I agreed based entirely on a different perspective, being pedantic, upon the linguistic Latin mistranslation of the Greek word for covenant into testament. There is no new and old covenant and testament is a misnomer, redundant and inaccurate but, of course, no one cares about any of that because everyone knows what the inaccurate implies. Common nomenclatures.
It is, as it always is, about ideology. Your statement that the "Old Testament" mythology is a naive creation hypothesis, which you can't substantiate beyond uninformed opinion based upon the modern naive evolution hypothesis which actually doesn't even consider creation but is post-creation.
Thank you, ideology, for giving us the illusion of intelligence by sacrificing fact, reason, truth, data, etc. All the stuff of "independent thinkers." Independent of thought.
You cannot prove that the supreme creative entity proposed in the OT, is not nonsense.Therefore I do not have to prove that it is.
Because first you would have to prove what it is. All you have is what traditional theology has thought it was, which is, absolute bullshit. Again, no one cares about that argument because the ideologies have already been established.
Which is not to say that the general GOD hypothesis/principle is not reasonable.
The term GOD principle is not reasonable because it postulates, however vague, the Biblical Yahweh as the original model. God means worshipped, not creator, and there were GOD paradigms prior to the beginning of the writing of the Bible in 1513 BCE by Moses. God was just a god, meaning worshipped.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, okay, here's a list of the gods in the Bible.
Kind of a lame list because they confuse various words for god/s as personal name of specific gods, which is, retarded, but whatever. It's a start. Plus, it doesn't mention men and mundane objects being called gods.
People are so stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why don't you prove it?
I have repeatedly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Pretty much, we just shifted from believing whatever we were told because it was in an old book to figuring things out on our own.
Not really. We only graduated from scrolls to digital devices. The principle is unchanged.
How?
You don't put the cart before the horse. The video I linked to includes several links to some of the patents in question. I'm not going to transcribe, so you can skip to 18:00-23:23 of the video, though the entire video deals with the related subject, the point being that the power of science you mentioned isn't really different than religion due to its obviously having been corrupted and abused for apparent reasons, pretty much the same. Dogmatic adherence of science is more destructive than even the same for religion.
Who updated them and when?
Anyone producing a Bible translation. How would you suspect it being done?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Im dumb is what im trying to say. Uneducated.
Nonsense. Don't you know I can see through your words? Education only means indoctrination. The primitives of which we speak were bombarded with nonsense and in that regard we modern personas do not differ. Anyway, I suck at grammar, spelling and typing as well. I make my responses here which checks that stuff and suggests althernatives.
Not that it's that important aside from dog and pony show. See?
Does like a cardinal know the meaning of a scripture more then a pastor or a priest.Im not sure about that.
They all adhere to tradition. Lincoln - I think it was him - said it's easy to get people to believe something but almost impossible to get them to change their mind once they believe something. Atheists tend to object to interpretation as if it meant something they won't allow, the same as the theists will do the same due to dogmatic adherence to tradition. We think what we think, whether based upon bias, ignorance or tradition. Might as well make it curiosity. The same applies to everything. Science, history, sports, fashion etc.
Wed have stuff like this hey.
We do and there's nothing wrong with that. We either say not interested or we try and scratch the surface to see what, if anything, lies beneath.
However ( To Be taken seriously ) these days, on this subject is ummmm hard.Near Impossible.
Seemingly, but not really. Ideology replaced religion and increases as time goes on. Just don't question the authoritative without as many possible alternatives as you can find. Like language. When you say something to five different people, they can interpret it five different ways but there are multiple ways to interpret it either wrong or right. The question becomes, "Is it more likely to be right or wrong the more I know about you personally?"
For example, the case of Genesis 1:3. The Hebrew can be interpreted as "God said" or "God commanded." Either one is right, but I personally like commanded because 1 God doesn't have physical vocal cords and wasn't actually talking to anyone, and the state of imperfection in the Hebrew, indicating a gradual process is more correct than the archaic tradition which implies a "magic sky man" waving a wand to make things happen.
No ( theists ) is just"avrage"Avrage at translating scriptures.
That protestation is about something else. If I poke at it, I come up with the most likely motivation I mentioned in my earlier response. Atheists don't like theist dogma, which isn't the real problem, the real problem is they aren't interested in supplying any alternative and so are only mimicking the authoritative dogma of the theism they despise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
( I'd finish off your above post with.Or a cob of corn.
Well, that's interesting. I'm not familiar with the term. A local colloquialism based upon personal experience?
A God might ummmm inspire another holy book one day hey Ray?Ya cant just answer that question with . NO .
I could answer that question with no, but I wouldn't. A God will likely inspire another holy book, but that isn't terribly relevant since they've been doing it for thousands of years. The problem with ignorance in theism and atheism is that they both confine the intellect and reasoning within narrow parameters. Think, Deb.
Think outside the box.
Buttttttt, Imagine Russell rocking up somewhere with few a4 bits of paper with god messages on it.Thats a inst trip to the NUT WARD for old Russell right here .Russ needs to be evaluated.
Uh . . . what Brand of metaphore is this? Is there context I should revert back to? Rocket. Rusty. Ward. Bill. Russell Edward.
The meaning of the bible.Its more like , the meaning of that one scripture plus amd maybe into that one scripture, oh and also that one.
Slartibartfast, I think, said it best. Your mode of speach isn't easy to follow, earthling man. It varies from place to place.
Hey Ray.
Hello? Yes, Deb?
I wanted to invent ( the top response version ) of the bible.Thats where we ask 10,000 people, ( high ranked and of bib schWe ask themHEY.
Yes? I'm with you so far. Somehow.
We go hey,What does this scripture verse here mean. ?And this one ? .
Got it . . .
And in achieving this survey.We can white out the scripture and replace it with , ummmmm , like the most replied common response / meaning.
Well, fuck, dude, let's give it a shot! That's easy enough. I think I brought this up earlier, but we could kick it around some more.
At Genesis 1:3 just about all translations read "and or then God said let there be light." I translate it to "And then God commanded that light should come to be and it began to appear." Why is that? Right there on the page I linked to it has the Hebrew.
said,
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר (way·yō·mer)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Thoughts?
Thus creating a ( Tell it like it is version. ) we could sell that little beauty for like $30 bux. ( with all proceeds going to jesus ) of course.
Jesus is dead. He doesn't need the $30 bux. And we don't need the $30 bux to do what you're suggesting and perhaps you don't see the irony in such an inqury into personal interpretation and conversely translation etc. Why?
Why oh why Deb?! In ignorance do they always protest even the semblance of confidence in accurate knowledge or the striving therin.
Which I'm.
We! Bull! We are not like they! We are men of science and integrity. Verbosity and abiguity as well, but never the less two birds baked in a pie in a bush or words to some effect, I can tell you. See if I don't!
Now.
Ruble Ruble Ruble.
Hear! Here!
I cant Imagine a kid these days "turning " to a bible for ummmm, answers.
Inundate it with even more magic and violence, some tits, fart jokes in a video game format and they'll barf it up like candy, but who wouldn't. Most of the shit they play is already that anyway so it wouldn't be too much of a departure. I don't see the point, though. Who cares, I think, is the operable question.
Google tumps bible.
Google is an illegitimate child from the incestuous union of its father Darpa Oligarchy and mother "Big" Tech Corporatocracy. Along with its siblings, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Netflix, they are known as Faang. Google is not particularly consentaneous with either the concept of Semmelweis Reflex. And that's cool. Perfectly acceptable given that Oligarchy and Corporatocracy are granted power, in a spiritual sense, through God (Colossians 1:15-16; 2:8-10; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 3:10; 6:12) and in a more practical sense, the Masses. [1]
By the early 2020's Google and its siblings had become a great deal more commercialized and socio-politically influential, which resulted in, among other things, the "Cancel Culture." An unprecedented increase in practices such as blacklisting and shadow banning, for example, were naturally experienced. None of this is anything new. It has been happening since the founding of the world and, in earnest since the late 1880s and is really a common human behavior, whether practiced by the elementary schoolyard bully or governments and corporations.
Google, in my opinion, has every right to decide what they do and do not wish to make available to the public. I am no part of the world, apolitical; the political and social difficulties which may or may not result in subjects of interest to Semmelweis Reflex being rejected are of little concern to me. They are only observed as inevitable in the self-destruction of the world.
[1] In a basic sense what this means is that Jehovah God temporarily allows governments, or as most translations call them, kingdoms, dominions, thrones, rulers, powers, authorities and principalities, to exist. Satan is the God of the world as is evident by his tempting of Christ with all of the kingdoms of all time. (Matthew 4:8-10; John 6:15; 17:16; 18:36; James 1:27; 4:4; John 14:30; 1 John 5:19)
Christ's early followers thought of themselves as no part of the world. They had no choice but to live in the world but were not active participants in political and social struggles of their time. Following the example of Jesus, they respected the position of authority Satan and political forces had been granted. (Jude 1:9; John 19:11; Matthew 22:21; Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 2 Corinthians 13:1-7; 2 Corinthians 4:4) They obeyed the laws of the countries in which they lived unless those laws conflicted with the will of God. Jesus and his disciples referred to the world as having been founded upon the blood of Abel. (Luke 11:50, 51; Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Revelation 13:8; 17:8; Hebrews 9:26)
The term founding of the world comes from the Greek word katabole. Katabole, somewhat ironically, has the exact meaning of the modern-day English word fuck, which is a throwing down of seed. Katabole is used 11 times in the Christian Greek scripture; 10 times it has to do with kosmos. The English words cosmos and cosmetics comes from this word, and basically means adornment. The other occurrence of katabole is at Hebrews 11:11 in reference to Sarah conceiving. The founding of the world doesn't mean the creation of Earth, it means the founding of the world upon the conception of Cain, the first offspring of Adam and Eve. The world will be destroyed but the Earth will last forever. (Psalm 37:29; Revelation 11:15)
The offspring of the first human couple, after their sin, was the beginning of the world, which is in opposition to God and will be destroyed. All of the kingdoms of men will be replaced by Jehovah God's kingdom with Jesus Christ as prince of everlasting peace, security and life. Without sin or death.
The founding of the world, the conception of Cain, was the beginning of "the end times."
Its almost like the bible was created without the important things that happen in the year 3283.Its out of date is what im saying.
If that were true we wouldn't be still talking about it, now, would we.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The old testament is essentially BS.
Correct. The term old testament is a Latin mistranslation (testamentum; Vulgate, i.e. KJV) of the Greek diathekes (covenant) at 2 corinthians 3:14. There is no Old or New testament, there is only the holy scripture.
In so much as it is a mythical hypothesis based upon a common fantasy GOD theme.
Unpacking . . .
Mythical = a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. Hypothesis = a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Fantasy = the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable. God = 1. In Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. In certain other religions, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate. 3. An adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god. 4. Informal: the gallery in a theater.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Take two.
Science wasn't created, it was discovered.
By who?
And was so long before the events the bible describes.
Before the creation of the natural world, science, a method of investigation of the natural world, was discovered?
It is only in recent ages that we have truly embraced its power.
Oh, I see. The same power as religion.
That's like the vaccine for Covid being patented before Covid.
Then can you provide an updated version of the bible?
All Bibles are updated versions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Let's clarify. My position on Christian baptism is that it involves full immersion and your position is specifically that it isn't, meaning sprinkled with water, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Science wasn't created, it was discovered.
By who?
And was so long before the events the bible describes.
Before the creation of the universe science, a method of investigation of the natural world, was was discovered?
It is only in recent ages that we have truly embraced its power.
Oh, I see. The same power as religion.
That's like the vaccine for Covid being pattented before Covid. https://rumble.com/vk4znu-2021-jul-09-fauci-pharma-rico-usa-manufactured-illusion.-dr-david-martin-wi.html
Then can you provide an updated version of the bible?
All Bibles are updeated versions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It kind of sounds to me like Christianity is everything you think is great and wonderful. Are you thinking about becoming a Christian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
this will be fun to watch unfold
Not if you've already seen it unfold a thousand times or more already.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Angels not only take the form of men, they also take the most primitive animal instincts of men.
The most primitive animal instincts of men are the same today as they were then. The angels also took form in pigs, you know.
Do you think this is logical? Is it logical for you that the angels fuck with the most beautiful women in the earth and have children with them? Well, it seems to me that these angels are common people of flesh and blood that get horny and aroused everytime they see a good chick.
I think the problem, as is often the case, is that you are coming at this in preconceived notions instead of the more practical use of words which I keep suggesting. I watched a little more of the first video you linked to and that's what they're doing as well. Notice that I'm not disagreeing with your general OP. We have the Bible which spawned all sorts of crazy unrealistic intepretations of angels and gods and we have anecdotal reports and philosophy of aliens. This is just a mixing of the two by misapplying ancient language and text.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't want to believe in aliens. It's the reason and evidence that leads me to think the aliens are behind all this.
That's what everyone says.
There is enough evidence to think aliens exist because of not only the UFO sightings but also the testimonies of people being abducted by them. You can say these people make up stories but there are so many testimonies and they are very similar that is quite difficult to deny it.
Words. The words UFO means unidentified flying object, the word alien means foreign, the word angel means messenger. I have no idea that these things exist, the question remains, what are they. What evidence is there? Anecdotal and scripture.
I mean, whether believing in angels or aliens, I think the most logical alternative is to believe in aliens. Just read the bible without fanatism, angels even fuck, literally. They find women beautiful and have no doubt to bang them. Do angels do that if they are supposedly "spiritual" beings? I don't think so. Lol.
I'm a spiritual being. You are a spiritual being. We are all spiritual beings.
Fuck? Yes. That's what the Bible says. Angels took the form of men and - as you say - fucked. (Genesis 6:1-4; Jude 1:6; 1 Peter 3:19-20)
I think you're commiting the big mistake of relying only on the bible. Do you know the bible has many stories adapted from the sumerians? If you keep doing it you're showing us that you're a believer instead of an open minded person. If you want to reach the truth, you have to consider other ancient scriptures for the analysis. Be open minded!!
I know the Bible, which you get the expression angels from, and I know the Summerian texts. I explained that in my response.
"So - with a fairly accurate Biblical chronology they knew exactly when Jesus would appear. You can roughly gauge Adam's creation in 4026 BCE, the flood in 2370, the division at Babel in Peleg's time (2269-2030) and Moses writing Genesis in 1513. So, all you have to do is figure out how much time there was from Peleg to the writing of Genesis and that's how much time there was for the mythologies, for example of Nimrod who was the Sumerian king Tammuz (Dumuzid), who was the first to use the phallic symbol the cross (Mystic Tau) and accounts like the flood, giants (Nephilim) to transmogrify into global mythologies with a common theme though separated by geography and language."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Jesus said err, not lie. He was talking to the Sadducess about the resurrection. They didn't believe in resurrection. They weren't lieing because they believed it to be true. To err isn't to lie. The people you are addressing here aren't lieing, they believe what they say to be true. What you are saying is that if someone doesn't agree with your belief they are liars. That prevents you from being reproved by scripture. You make your own error a lie because you speak the error as if it were God's error. Leviticus 19:17; Oriverbs 9:7-8; Matthew 18:15
Created: