Total posts: 327
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The Immortal soul is a Greek concept. It's not Biblical.
That's what I said.
Says you.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2 Timothy 4:3
Baptism - as in the Christian practise was not practised outside of the Bible. Pagans practised FULL immersion. That is a pagan ritual. It's not Christian though.
"And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.” Mark 1:9-10 The Greek word baptisma means to immerse, from the verb bapto meaning dip. The Septuagint, for example, uses the word at Exodus 12:22 and Leviticus 4:6.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Scripture says you do err not knowing the scriptures.
Where does it say that, who does it say it to and who cares? In order for one to look at it like a thinking person who doesn't simply want the world to be like them, in other words who isn't looking at it like a tyrannical ideologue or religious fanatic simply using scripture in an unscriptural way, that is what they have to do. Ask themselves those questions.
If you know the scriptures you wouldn't be saying you don't see a name in this place so therefore it has nothing to do with this individual. That's error.I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't even know what this is about. First of all, knowing your own or some apostate interpretation of scripture the authenticityThen when I brought about the one they say is not in the old testament, that one said himself it's concerning him . Now you're on the spot looking like a liar calling the one you said is not in there a liar .That's why I didn't get a response back on that. Incriminates them real bad.Scripture says they're mouths must be stopped or silenced for false teaching. They've been silenced. of which is dictated in a dogmatic fashion isn't conducive to anything other than the aforementioned ideological and religious fanaticism. Doing that is just an imitation of God. You and I and the Pope or anyone else who would do that are capable only of deceiving in the name of God. But I'm not sure what not seeing a name in this place means or what individual you are referring to.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you talking about disagreeing with someone here on a Biblical subject? I've found that just because people have a different take on the Bible doesn't make them a liar.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I didn't notice the website you're advertising in this forum was yours.
I make websites for my own entertainment. I usually get bored and take them down. When I first started out, I thought SEO and advertising were important in sharing the sites I made, but that's all just nonsense. People used to go to websites that told them what they already believed, now they go to X, Reddit or Facebook to argue about what others believe. Forums like this are relics from the past. I prefer them to the aforementioned. I'm not going to get much, if any, traffic from sharing here. And that's fine.
Why are you doing it? Do you want to create your own religion?
Same answer as above. If I formed a religion within 20 years, if it lasted, it would be the exact opposite of what I intended. Because people want to turn things into what they believe.
I'm putting forth the alien theory based not only on the bible but on other ancient scriptures because, you know, THE BIBLE IS NOT INFALLIBLE.
What is infallible? The Bible, as I've said here, is the fallible and uninspired translation of the infallible inspired word of God. It doesn't need to be fallible to us, it only needed to be infallible in the time and place it was written. You want to believe in aliens. Someone else wants to believe in science, another in tyrany, another in politics, and another in the Bible.
There is no reason to believe the bible is "inspired" by a supernatural being for a simple reason: it has many contradictions and errors.
You're sure about that? And that any alternative doesn't have any of those things?
So, let's just deem it as what it is, a historical book with interesting content to analyze.
Interesting why? To analyze it how? What it says or why we think what we think it says?
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.
Adding aliens is an Ockham's Razor. You would only be taking aliens you want to believe in and superimposing them on angels which you don't want to believe in.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't recall seeing this and I wish I had because it is an interesting perspective. You all have reminded me of where my focus should be with the work of my website. Everything has been disjointed and garbled thoughts in my head that I can't get out fast enough. Pressed for time, but some of this I can comment on.
I don't have time to watch all of the videos you listed, so I decided I would look at them until I seen something I had a problem with. With the first video it was almost immediate. Elohim is a variation of the Hebrew word for God(s). If you've read any of my posts here you have probably heard me talking about what that means. God means anything of anyone who is venerated. Respected or admired due to having some power beyond what the attributor has. I used the vulgar illustration of a man stumbling upon bovine dung. The Herew El (god) comes from a root word meaning strong/mighty. It can be anything, like the dung in my illustration or a phallic symbol that represents fertility. Religions are formal methods for societies to venerate their gods. Elohim is often a plural of majesty. So, for example, when it is used in application to Dagon at 1 Samuel 5:7 it doesn't mean, as it sometimes can, plurality, but with singular grammatical excellence. The angels were also called gods (Elohim). Angel in the Hebrew and Greek mean messenger. So, if it applies to humans, it is rendered messenger but if it applies to spirit beings the words are rendered as angels. Keeping in mind that one way to communicate spirit beings often take on the form of human. Flesh, that is. Physical as opposed to spiritual. For some people the Bible has been so misrepresented they just dismiss spiritual things and grasp for more tangible explanations. Those seem more cerebral and concrete than silly superstitions that got in the way of what was written. In a way, though, it is correct to think of spirit beings such as "God" and "angels" as highly advanced, intellectually superior, extraterrestrial beings, but they are also still Gods and angels. Venerated due to might and messengers.
Even if you subscribe to panspermia or astronaut theory you are still faced with the actual origins of life, whether here or elsewhere. I don't mean evolution which only theorizes on alleged events after life had already originated. In the case of Eden, it was a garden paradise surrounded by a much more hostile environment. So, Adam and Eve were to fill and subdue the earth by spreading the garden globally. That didn't happen and they were ejected from it. There isn't any indication that God assisted them in "civilizing" or "domesticating" humans. Such a proposition supposes they weren't "domestic" from the start. Let us make man refers to how we were created. God created Michael, then Michael (who would later come to Earth as Jesus) created everything else through God's holy spirit (active force). When Jesus walked on water or the prophets and disciples healed etc. they didn't do that with their own power, but through God's holy spirit. Later the Genesis account says they (Adam and Eve) have become like us, knowing good and bad. This means they had come to decide for themselves these things. The spirit beings had already come to the logical conclusion that their creator knows best. Man (Adam) got sidetracked in that regard.
The Bible doesn't rule out the possibility of alien extraterrestrial life forms elsewhere, but it doesn't support it either. Being in the likeness of God, and the angels, doesn't mean physical attributes since God and the angels have none. This misperception is an example on why it's important to recognize what the word god(s) actually means. Not supernatural magic but venerated. Spirit as well, not being superstitious fairies, but invisible to us. I.e. wind, breath, from Greek pneuma for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I forgot to say why. I think it anecdotal because I know very little about science, except for that like theology it's more often wrong than not, and the Bible itself doesn't say. So, to me, it seems anecdotal, but what do I know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
It doesn't.
It does. The first is Genesis 3:15.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The answer to why is that it takes that many stars to form one planet that could create life. Is that an accident or design?
I would say it's anecdotal.
Created:
Posted in:
Actually, a man being Adam. The Hebrew word Adham means man, human, earthling man, mankind. Ish meaning man, individual, husband etc. Woman in Hebrew means female man, wife.
So, humanity. Mankind. The number of a wild beast. Humanity is like a wild beast, by preference, the beast represents incompleteness. Man created in God's image to live forever whereas the beast dies. Sin equals death. God's rest. Then we are complete. Israel contends with God, finds salvation. Then we are complete. The incomplete destroyed like wild beasts.
Does any of this ring a bell? (Isaiah 17:12, 13; Daniel 7:2-8, 17) The numbered kingdoms of man are a poor substitute for the rightful sovereignty of Jehovah God and his kingdom. Satan introduced to us the idea that we didn't need our creator.
Explained in, oddly enough, Raymond Sheen: Desktop or Mobile device for your convenience. But I digress and plug.
Welcome. Welcome to the Machine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
There are 200 sextillion stars in the Universe. Why?
Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
To RaymondSheen: They're in error.
Forgive them for they know not what they do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
On the Monty Python's Life of Brian, I was thinking of that when I responded as well. A great film. I don't think it should be blasphemy just saying the name Jehovah. Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Mathias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath was right, you know. The Pharisees not so much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
How potent a power, then, is the telegraphic destined to become in the civilization of the world! This binds together by a vital cord all the nations of the earth. It is impossible that old prejudices and hostilities should longer exist, while such an instrument has been created for an exchange of thought between all the nations of the earth. - Charles Briggs and Augustus Maverick; The Story of the Telegraph, 1858
The destruction of man, according to the Bible is not with wars and greed and hate because we could easily survive as a whole with those things, but it is rather with the nothing from which they come. The Bible says the number 666 is the number of mankind, and all man can do with that is produce a sort of bad script for a pseudo horror film. A Satanic mythology. It's nothing. The more we have the greater the illusion that we're something but in reality, the more nothing there is. Something supported by nothing collapses. The number 6 represents incompleteness. It's repetition three times indicates the severity of nothing. In every way man is ultimately nothing. Incomplete. Greek numerically 6, 60, 600.
We invented the telegraph with the hope was that no nation would go to war because they could communicate, but the exact opposite is true, unprecedented war; we invented the cell phone - another device for communication - and with it we become more isolated than ever. Ideology without substance runs rampant and everything - supported by nothing - collapses. Your position as an atheist is only that of an ideologue. Nothing. And it collapses.
To the modern man a name means nothing. You can name your child Timothy and have no idea that it means tall grass. My name is David but I didn't know what that meant (beloved) until I became a believer in the Bible at 27 years old. To us a name is just a sound we like. To them, the people who wrote the Bible, the people who laid the foundation for civilization which is the very something all around us that we are turning to nothing - to them, names meant something.
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. To which I say, yeah. I'm incomplete. Timothy doesn't mean tall grass. Timothy is tall grass. Why? Timothy Hanson. Maybe Timothy is a strange name for a female turtle? Well, they didn't know how to sex a turtle when she was named. Timothy comes from the Greek name Τιμόθεος (Timόtheos) meaning one who honors God. Pointless. You can't conclude that only those who honor God are Timothy. Nor can you conclude that to be known as Emmanuel in meaning doesn't apply to a man named Jesus which means Salvation through God or as Michael, the first created by God and the name meaning "Who is like God?"
Do you think Jesus' name was Jesus? Or Yeshua, Joshua, Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς)? In heaven, before coming to earth he is introduced to us as Michael. You haven't even begun to scratch the surface and you think you can challenge me with your ideology? You think Jehovah's name was Jehovah, or Yahweh? Or I Am? These are just nomenclatures we're given to reflect a meaning. In Matthew 1:23 it even gives you the meaning and you missed it?!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
exactly the same level of verification as yours
No. Not even remotely approaching that level.
Created:
Posted in:
you try to invalidate arguments by suggesting they're "missing the point"but you fail to specify exactly what the target isthis is called"an appeal to ignorance"
I see. The statement in question wasn't really a part of an argument, it was a personal suggestion of an ideological nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
appeal to the unknownalso known asappeal to ignorance
Excuse me? What about it? Are you suggesting I'm ignorant of your possible findings in such an endeavor?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The truth, as was told back then, is that Jesus' parents were Mary, and a Roman Soldier named Pantera. In other words, Jesus' father was in fact human.
Really! And you have verification for this?
The name Pantera was quite common back then, but we do have his first name too. He was known as Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera . This was recorded not only in the Jewish Talmud but also in other Jewish writings and Roman records. In it Jesus was referred to as Jesus (Yeshu) ben Pantera, Son of Pantera.
Jesus is a fairly modern take on his real name. He was mainly known as Yeshu or Yeshua, which makes sense as there was no letter J in the Hebrew or Greek alphabet around the time of the Jesus story.
Well, you've certainly done your homework. Now, you said they didn't have the letter J in the Hebrew or Greek alphabet, which makes sense because - well, it's a letter from the English alphabet, but then you give his alleged father's name as, in part, Julius? Did the Hebrew and Greek also have the other letters included in that formidable nomenclature?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
which is what exactly ?
You'll know when you get there. It may not be the same for you as it is for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You don't get it, do you? You have to just let it go. I look down into a valley with a wall going down the center. On one side are idiots who believe in God and on the other side there are idiots who don't. And they're fighting about things they don't care enough about to actually look into. It's like watching a married couple argue about something that isn't the real thing they are arguing about.
So, you have three choices. Walk away from it because it's silly and pointless, stay and argue about a smokescreen and never get to the real point, or learn about it and get to the real point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No. Isiaih was written about 732 BCE, John was written about 98 CE. Let's see that sort of accuracy in science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And lets not forget, the messiah was never supposed to have died .
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?
He was supposed to have freed the Jews from the Roman yoke, FAIL.
No.
Inherited the throne of David, FAIL . Become king of the Jews, FAIL. And bring peace to all earth, FAIL and many other things that was expected of the messiah. In fact, a careful read of the New Testamant, and one can see that between John the Baptist and Jesus, it appears that John was more a Messiah like figure than Jesus ever was. But he was executed too, (Twice!!!) if the bible is to be believed.
Nonsense. First of all you have to explain what you mean, you have to give the prophecy and explain the interpretation. Your criticism are vague, like it's just propaganda you've stumbled across or you were once Christian and are judging the Bible by apostate ignorance.
So let's just start with the first one and go from there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
lets see them then.
Here's some.
Description: Born of the tribe of Judah
Prophecy: Genesis 49:10
Fulfillment: Luke 3:23-33
Description: Born of a virgin
Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14
Fulfillment: Matthew 1:18-25
Description: Descended from King David
Prophecy: Isaiah 9:7
Fulfillment: Matthew 1:1, 6-17
Description: Declared Jehovah's Son
Prophecy: Psalm 2:7
Fulfillment: Matthew 3:17
Description: Not believed in
Prophecy: Isaiah 53:1
Fulfillment: John 12:37, 38
Description: Entered Jerusalem riding an ass
Prophecy: Zechariah 9:9
Fulfillment: Matthew 21:1-9
Description: Betrayed by a close associate
Prophecy: Psalm 41:9
Fulfillment: John 13:18, 21-30
Description: Betrayed for 30 silver pieces
Prophecy: Zechariah 11:12
Fulfillment: Matthew 26:14-16
Description: Silent before his accusers
Prophecy: Isaiah 53:7
Fulfillment: Matthew 27:11-14
Description: Lots cast for his garments
Prophecy: Psalm 22:18 Matthew 27:35
Fulfillment: Psalm 22:18 Matthew 27:35
Description: Reviled while on the stake
Prophecy: Psalm 22:7, 8
Fulfillment: Matthew 27:39-43
Description: None of his bones broken
Prophecy: Psalm 34:20
Fulfillment: John 19:33, 36
Description: Buried with the rich
Prophecy: Isaiah 53:9
Fulfillment: Matthew 27:57-60
Description: Raised before corruption
Prophecy: Psalm 16:10
Fulfillment: Acts 2:24, 27
Description: Exalted to God’s right hand
Prophecy: Psalm 110:1
Fulfillment: Acts 7:56
Description: Elevated and exalted
Prophecy: Isa. 52:13
Fulfillment: Acts 2:34-36; Phil. 2:8-11; 1 Pet. 3:22
Description: Babes killed after his birth
Prophecy: Jeremiah 31:15
Fulfillment: Matthew 2:16-18
Description: His commission from God
Prophecy: Isaiah 61:1, 2
Fulfillment: Luke 4:18-21
Description: Ministry caused people to see a great light
Prophecy: Isaiah 9:1, 2
Fulfillment: Matthew 4:13-16
Description: Zealous for Jehovah’s house
Prophecy: Psalm 69:9
Fulfillment: John 2:13-17
Description: One apostle unfaithful; betrays Jesus and is later replaced
Prophecy: Psalm 41:9; 109:8
Fulfillment: Acts 1:15-20
Description: False witnesses used against him
Prophecy: Psalm 27:12
Fulfillment: Matthew 26:59-61
Description: Lots cast for his garments
Prophecy: Psalm 22:18
Fulfillment: John 19:23, 24
Description: Numbered with sinners
Prophecy: Isaiah 53:12
Fulfillment: Matthew 27:38
Description: Reviled while dying
Prophecy: Psalm 22:7, 8
Fulfillment: Mark 15:29-32
Description: Given vinegar
Prophecy: Psalm 69:21
Fulfillment: Mark 15:23, 36
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
All weren't meant to accept it. Originally only the Jews, but due to religion and politics they rejected it. Unbelievers weren't meant to accept it. It's about faith. Those who have faith want paradise. If the unbelievers accepted it that would spoil it because they wouldn't be doing so out of faith but personal gain.
The Bible contains a relatively brief prologue from Genesis 1:1 - 3:14 which gives the account of the creation of the universe, earth and the living inhabitants, concluding with man and his fall from God's favor. Then Genesis 3:15 - Revelation 22:21 gives the account of Jehovah's plan for salvation through Christ.
The tree of the knowledge of good and bad represented, to Adam and Eve, Jehovah God's sovereignty. That is, his right, as our creator, to decide for us what was good and what was bad until we, like children, matured to the point where we could do that for ourselves within the parameters of that sovereignty. Knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. The knowledge in this case is experience. Good and bad had been defined by Jehovah and at that point it was very simple. Fill the earth and subdue it, that was good. Don't touch or eat the fruit of the tree, that was bad. The knowledge Adam and Eve had acquired was the decision to decide for themselves what was good and what was bad. That's why they suddenly considered nudity to be bad. (Genesis 2:25; 3:6-11)
The footnote to Genesis 2:17 in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible explains it really well: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, Genesis 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God's sovereignty, a sin of pride."
God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. (Proverbs 8:22-31; Colossians 1:15-17; John 8:23; 17:5) The word Holy means sacred, or belonging to God. Spirit means an invisible active force, like wind, breath, mental inclination. Something that we can't see but that produces results that we can see. So, the holy spirit is God's active force, invisible to us. The first thing that Michael, through Jehovah's holy spirit, created, was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels. (Job 38:4-7) Then the physical heavens, or universe, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon and finally everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve.
The angels existed for a very long time before man was created, and they had time to mature, like children, so that they knew what was good and bad from their creator. (Genesis 1:26; 3:22) It is important that you understand that being created perfect is much like being born a baby. Parents see their newborn children as perfect, but think about it. They can't walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom properly - they are bald, toothless, chubby, defenseless little creatures. Perfect in the sense that they have great potential and innocence.
By the time man was created the angels had likely already reached their potential.
On the seventh day, when the creation was complete, God "rested." Not that God was tired or that he stopped working, it means he set aside a period of time in which we were allowed to mature, as the angels had done. When we would have accomplished this, we could, as the Bible says, enter into God's Day of rest. In other words, the seventh "day" or more accurately, period of creation, continues to this day. So, the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is the eventual possession of that maturity. The ability to decide for ourselves what was good and what was bad, predicated upon an acknowledgement of our own accord, of our creator, Jehovah's rightful sovereignty. (Psalm 95:11; Isaiah 40:28; John 5:17; Romans 8:22; Hebrews 4:1-5)
Once Adam rejected that concept by deciding for himself what was good and bad on his own before he had matured enough to best do that, Jehovah had to shorten his life from living forever to eventually dying. Apparently because if he and his offspring, mankind, were allowed to live forever under those conditions, they would never reach that maturity and they would bring about an endless series of chaos and destruction.
So, in effect, Satan charged Jehovah with the crime of withholding some knowledge from mankind. He knew this wasn't true, but he wanted to try and seize control of the power that Jehovah's sovereignty represented even if it meant destroying all that it represented and everything else in the process. Even destroying himself. Like a jealous child breaking a toy so no one else can have it.
But to Jehovah justice is very important. You can't just wave away a crime due to the damage that has been incurred. So, he allowed the charges against him to be tried, as in a court of law. He allowed Satan's theory to be tested in a manner of speaking. With the stipulation that 1. he wasn't going to allow it to prevent his original purpose for the angels and mankind from being fulfilled beyond what was necessary to establish his defense. That they should live forever in peace, in heaven and on earth respectively. And 2. that justice would be done.
That is why immediately after Adam's sin Jehovah put in motion the plan for all of this to take place while Satan's theory was being tested. In a basic sense the steps were as follows.
1. Select a group of people.
2. Form a nation for those people.
3. Demonstrate to them what was going on by establishing a law which they couldn't keep due to their imperfection, or the incomplete nature; their lack of the aforementioned maturity.
4. Provide a way out through a Messiah or Christ, namely, Michael, who volunteered due to his love for mankind and his father, Jehovah's purpose. So, Michael came to earth as a man, Jesus the Christ.
From Jehovah's perspective the life he created, the life he gave us, is sacred. Belonging to God. According to the Bible our soul is our life, represented by our blood, so blood is sacred. To kill someone, or take their soul, requires the payment of the killer's own soul because it is taking something sacred to Jehovah. The blood sacrifices represented a respect for or acknowledgement of his created life granted to us. For example, if a person was found murdered and no one knew who did the killing then they had to sacrifice a bull and spill its blood on the ground as a symbolic acknowledgement of God's possession. Sacred life. A sort of gesture of justice. (Deuteronomy 21:1-9)
Since we inherited sin through Adam then the only man who could pay the price for the blood of Adam, which had been perfect and without sin from the start until he did sin - was the blood of a man who was without sin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This just comes down to whether we are speaking the same language.
In every language ever known to mankind it's the same.
I know of not a single atheist who defines a god as anything other than a powerful supernatural being (at minimum). If you are calling anything else a god and using that redefinition of the word in your definition of atheism then you may be typing words into your browser but you are not communicating with anyone here.
Then they're wrong.
If as you acknowledge that the "a" in atheism means without, then it literally means without the theory, practice, or doctrine.
Early on in the thread I pointed out that the majority of atheists were apathetic. Not interested in theology, gods, the Bible, prayer in school, 10 commandments at the courthouse, evolution vs. creation, in God we trust on the money, abortion, gay marriage, bumper stickers, parades, billboards and forums like this. The a in theory, practice and doctrine applies to them but not to the militant atheist wo do, to a greater or lesser extent do care about many of those things. Often the militant atheist will point out, and rightly so, that they know more about the Bible and Christianity than the Christian. In the militant case tthe a is silent.
Like the Rush song says, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
Therefore calling that a theory, practice, or doctrine is every bit as logically absurd as calling ignorance a form of knowledge.
A logical absurdity? Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. A lack of knowledge has nothing to do with knowledge?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
depending on which christian you ask
Depending on what the Bible says. Christianity is apostate. But in a sense you're right because I said it's universal. Earlier - somewhere - I said the God of modern day Christianity is Christ, but that isn't what the Bible presents, it isn't what Christ taught. To Christ, God was Jehovah. Jesus was Lord. Jehovah God almighty and Jesus a mighty god. Both Jehovah and Jesus were Lords. Meaning having authority. Jesus' authority was granted by his father, Jehovah.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
interesting hypothesisi'd evaluate them based on a personalized cost/benefit analysis
Sure, like war or human trafficing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
that's generally the implication when some random person asks, "do you beeleev inn god ?"
Yes. God specific to that culture or whatever. Paul said: "There are many gods and many lords, but to us only one God and one Lord. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 The link I give is the Bible Hub, a good source for comparing scripture, and you can see how they've tried to make it look like the other gods are so-called gods, like they aren't real, but all Paul is saying is that their, the Christian God is Jehovah (almighty God) and their Lord (given authority) is Jesus Christ (mighty god). That's how the Bible presents it and it's universal.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You only need one. If you've joined any religion, you've joined the wrong religion.
Created:
Posted in:
The real meaning of the Bible is very simple. It's about the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.
The Bible: Desktop / Mobile Device.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
how can you tell if a god is "false" ?
It's subjective. They (the uninformed theists), like the same atheists, think God only means one God specifically, and in a sense it does. The uppercase G in God only signifies that within the context of a specific culture that god with the uppercase G is above, before, more significant than any other. So, in Christian culture is probably Jesus, in Jewish culture, Yahweh, in Muslim culture Allah, in Hindu culture Brahma etc. So, Christians and occidental atheists have that narrow unscriptural thinking which also effects translation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Assuming your statement as factual, you know how we know that the Bible was right on that and the doctors were wrong? Because of science.
Which was created by theists to learn more about God's creation.
Science is nothing more than a method of learning about reality. It gets things wrong because we get things wrong, because we can only know things to the extent that we have information on it and we gather more information as time goes on. The fact that science corrects itself is a good thing, religion would never correct anything.
Religion has been correcting itself since before science was born. And perhaps more importantly, both are powerful tools that have been corrupted for destructive porposes.
Sorry. Purposes. Obviously not porpoises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I see. And what are your findings and or conclusions as regards to religion, gods and the scriptures after "doing this for 30 fucking years"?
Specifically?
I've concluded a great deal. Learned a lot about the Bible, religion, gods, people and myself. About religion I've learned not one has ever stayed true to itself, and that it's corrupted as a tool for destruction out of greed and a thirst for power socially and politically, that gods are misunderstood, the scriptures are the fallible and uninspired translation of Jehovah God's inspired and infallible writings to people in certain times and places and useful to us as an example. About people I've learned they are xenophobic, myopic, ideologues and that affects their ability to think if they aren't careful and about myself, I've learned I am a person as described as such. The first step in solving the problem is acknowledging there is one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes. Specifically henotheism, like the Bible writers. Henotheism is the believe in one God above all, but other gods as well. Theist often make the mistake of thinking God is true and all other gods are false, but that isn't Biblical thinking. Jehovah made Moses God to Aaron and Pharaoh. Said the judges (of Israel) were gods. The angels he called gods. Jesus was a mighty god.
Scripture:
Exodus 7:1: Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.
Exodus 4:14-16: Then Jehovah’s anger grew hot against Moses and he said: “Is not Aaron the Levite your brother? I do know that he can really speak. And, besides, here he is on his way out to meet you. When he does see you, he will certainly rejoice in his heart. And you must speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I myself shall prove to be with your mouth and his mouth, and I will teach YOU men what YOU are to do. And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.
Psalm 82:1, 6: God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One; In the middle of the gods he judges: “I myself have said, ‘You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High."
Which Jesus quoted at John 10:33-34: The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?
Jesus himself prophetically called mighty god at Isaiah 9:6.
The angels at Psalm 8:5.
The Bible mentiones many gods. Some real, some not, some supernatural, some not, some creators, some not, some just idols - wood and stone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
@baggins
Abstinence is a form of sex
Ignorance is a form of knowledge and silence is a form of noise
Correct. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, silence is a lack of noise, atheism is a lack of gods, apolitical is a lack of politics.
I'm apolitical. I lack politics. I know it exists, but I don't get involved. I don't trust (believe in) politics. I'm asexual, I like - sorry lack - sex, I'm asocial I lack social interaction, I'm irreligious, I lack organized religion, I'm theist I have gods. Everyone has gods, though, in some sense, everyone is theistic, but militant atheists have no part of it, don't trust specifically in the God of their culture. So much so, apparently, that they know little about it. Which is fine. BUT the word literally means the theory, doctrine and/or practice of no gods. Atheist. The prefix a, in this context, means without. Theos means god and ism means theory, doctrine, practice. Atheism is the theory, doctrine and practice of lacking gods. All gods. God means, literally, mighty/venerated. My silly illustration of the man on the planes with the bovine dung as a god wasn't a joke. The shit literally saved his life when he was powerless to do so on his own. Fertility gods, probably the most common gods, are about sex and crops. Procreation and agriculture. Noting to do with creator of the universe the Bible.
Theism is the theory, doctrine, practice of gods, a is without it, but in some sense that is a theory, doctrine or practice of gods as well as theism is. Just the alternative. Consider atypical. If you are atypical, you are typically not typical in a general sense. All atypical things have a lack of being typical in some sense in common.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
That may be what atheism is to you, and most of the militant atheists I've encountered online, but it doesn't make sense to me and it isn't what atheism has always been. Basically what you're saying is that only Christians, Jews and Muslims are theists and that isn't at all true. BK said somewhere, jokingly I assume, that he/she/it was theist because he believed in Thor. People who believe in gods are theists. It doesn't have to be anything but a god and a god can is anything or anyone that is venerated. I don't see how anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the Bible doesn't understand that. It seems just the thinking of an ideologue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
buddhists do not believe in immortal beingsand they seem nice enough
Yeah, sure. Weird, huh? But careful, boy! Behind closed doors they must be evil baby eating book learnin' folk. Unwashed heathens and godless canibal space aliens or something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheist: Atheism means no gods.
Theist: Is the Big Bang a god?
Atheist: Yes.
Theist: Then you are a type of theism.
Atheist: I have no gods.
Theist: That's okay, you don't have to have a god for theism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Atheism is a form of theism. Like monotheism, henotheism, polytheism, deism, agnosticism. From the Greek theos (god/s) and ismos (doctrine, theory, system, or practice) like racism materialism, coloquilism. It is the doctrine or theory of no god/s. Without god/s. Monotheism is 1 god, polytheism is multiple gods, henotheism is 1 God plus gods (Bible writers), atheism is 0 gods.
Atheists believe they have no gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Doing this. Discussion and debate with atheists in online forums.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Robotics can do pretty much anything humans can do and do it much better. More precise and efficiently. Delicate surgery and manual labor in every aspect of the industrial and service arena. You wouldn't think so, though, would you? If you've ever had to talk to any of the son of a bitches on the telephone. The thing is, though, getting rid of money is the key. People tend to think that you have to have it, and up until about the 1970s it was a good system. Since then, robotics can do pretty much everything and money only suppresses advancement. For example, gas powered cars and cancer cures. Cancer is big business but the treatment is only about as efficacious as placebo. It has stayed pretty much the same for about 50 years. There have been cars invented that run on water and 10 or 15 cures for cancer that have been suppressed that are 50 - 60% more effective than the industry standard.
Would you make religions illegal, so atheists like me have to practice their satanism in secret? Thats kinda, I guess I could live with it, but wouldnt that be a waste of resources?
Very little would be illegal. You could do whatever you like without hidden taxes like licenses. Any stupid thing you like as long as you don't interfere with anyone else's rights or safety. You could do whatever drugs, sex, work, religion or anything you wanted. The thing is, money is a big incentive. So, things like politicians, preachers, entertainers etc. who do things just for money wouldn't have the incentive. People would do things they wanted to do and they wouldn't need the money to do it. They also would have no reason to corrupt, for example, science and technology. To suppress its advancement because to do so would diminish their profit.
If you want to make money, use some non-governmental sort of currency (bit-coin, for example) and hoard it and feel superior or "independent" then go for it. But what would be the point when you wouldn't have to? Anything you wanted you could get supplied to anyone free of charge.
I guess you dont support things like forced marriages, but do you support circumcision?
It doesn't matter what I support, that's sort of the point. No one would tell you how to live your life. No one would have that control over anyone else. As long as you don't screw with anyone else's rights. An example. Remember the big fuss a few years back over some cake maker who refused to make a gay themed wedding cake? The law said he had to. He wouldn't have to. To say he has to is a violation of his rights. So, modern democracy takes the individual's rights and sacrifices them for the rights of certain groups. That isn't fair.
And how will people fight each other in your society? Will it just be verbal fights where people insult each other until one of them cries?
That would be up to them. Let's say there was a physical altercation, a person asaults another. That would be a punishable crime. But if two people agreed to a physical fight, let them have at it.
I prefer tyranny, of course, but one can understand why people like being able to make choices in life, even tho I oppose to that, personally. I think one man should make choices and others are just supposed to blindly obey. That is fair and makes sense.
It doesn't make sense at all. But it's subjective, isn't it. If, for example, you wanted to be a tyrant and have that control, and others wanted to be controlled in that way, go for it. But, it wouldn't be likely, would it? You would likely only be tyrant of yourself. If someone tried (and I'm sure they would) to force their own tyranny that would be a violation of other's rights. A punishable crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I don't think I'm particularly good at scripture. I've met children and mentally retarded people (adult with the mind of a child) who knows the stuff I know about the Bible. I've also known elders in the congregation who I've had to correct in, not only the Bible but also their own religions teachings and doctrine. But that isn't saying much. It isn't what you know because you can find anything they or myself say free online and you can find an equal amount or more that disagrees with me. And some of it make excellent points. I once knew a guy who I thought "I wish I knew that much" and he ended up turning atheist. I've known people, atheists and theists, online, who disagreed with me about nearly everything and I respected their degree of knowledge.
Many atheists know more about Christian doctrine than I do because that isn't my interest and I hardly know anything about Jewish tradition and practice. I have only a cursory knowledge of Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Shinto and Taoism. Mostly history and I've read some texts. I've translated the Quran from archaic with footnotes on references to Muslim specific terminology but know very little on the subject.
Every single post I've ever made on any forum, including this one, contains mistakes. Some grammatical and spelling, but also scriptural. I am trying not to go over and over them like I used to, finding mistakes and kicking myself for them. To just let it go. I may seem very confident and knowledgeable to you but I consider myself a student with great interest. Even if I became an unbeliever, I would still find the Bible and religion very interesting. I'm all about learning, from anyone who will talk to me. Even if they don't know as much as I do, I still learn from them. From you and everyone else. That's why I'm here. Not to impress anyone with what I think I know.
So, PTHththhhhhht!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
What's real isn't important.
Well, I could have stated that better. Contextually what I meant is that what we think we know is "real" more often than not isn't, so although it can be very important in the debate of the subjective it isn't, at least, as important as we think. It's much like what Solomon said. Everything is vanity.
I was born in the USA in 1966. At that time a person could be arrested, with his name, address and reason for being arrested announced in the newspapers - for just visiting a common gathering place of homosexuals. That isn't the reality now. I was 20 years old before medical science realized that babies felt pain, so until then they only temporarily paralyzed them if they were performing, for example, open heart surgery. Just so they wouldn't squirm. The Bible stated that the earth was spherical 700 years before science, and it said that you should wash your hands after touching the dead. Ignaz Semmelweis was committed to an insane asylum and beaten to death by guards for suggesting that postpartum infection was the cause of death in mothers and the solution was to wash the doctor's hands and surgical environment.
The doctors said a gentlemen's hands can't be contaminated and refused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
They could correct each others nonsense alllllllllll day long hey.
That doesn't even scratch the surface. I've been doing this for 30 fucking years. I woke up 10 years ago and said to myself what am I doing?! I've got to stop this. And then kept on doing it. That's just humans being. Don't pay it to much mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
ButbYou are correctNice post man.
Alright, then. I'm not suggesting that every atheist or theist has to be educated on the subject. That's their call. God gave everyone the choice, and he didn't do that with a stipulation that ya' have to be educated on the subject if you're not interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, I care about reality. And when one decides that their first priority is to reality, that’s where an interest in logic and epistemology comes in. If you don’t care about that, then you are by definition irrational and therefore unworthy of an attempt at a rational conversation.
Ideologues often confuse ideology with reality in an insistence upon their own perceived reality. Reality, in reality, is subjective and temporal.
Reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality" or "Laura was losing touch with reality"
a thing that is actually experienced or seen, especially when this is grim or problematic: "the harsh realities of life in a farming community" or "the law ignores the reality of the situation"
a thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind: "the paperless office may yet become a reality"
the state or quality of having existence or substance: "youth, when death has no reality"
Ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy: "the ideology of democracy"
the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual
archaic: the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Maybe there shouldn't be a wotd then for not believing in god/s
I don't have a problem with the word or concept of atheism. They are, as I've said, completely rational and logical excursions. I only have a problem with the dictionary definition and the average ignorance of people who claim to be atheists. I was an atheist until I was 27 and I had no idea about what that meant except for the observation that religious people were nuts. I haven't changed in my estimation of religious people, in fact, the more I learn the more that estimation is confirmed. BUT, atheists are ideologues which is just as bad if not the same or worse than religious.
Like the same for poeple that dont belive in unicorns.Its not like atheists made up or want to be called atheists.We would ratherJusttt ( dont believe in god )Thats all.
But you don't know what god is. Not a clue. The fact is that your very unsophisticated ideology, is all wrapped up in an emotional response to - as I call them, religious nuts. Yeah, they're nuts because they are uneducated. But so are atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
No gods ever been ruled in
You just ruled in one yourself, right here! The sun.
Thus Bringing us to the word ( believe ) and or belifeAnd its more sillyer brother word Faith.
Faith only means trust. You trust you will be paid on payday; you trust or have faith in, your spouse, child, friend, or government. Or not.
I can belivd All i want but hey, and it dont changd shit
Exactly.
And the word atheist and theist deals with the word ( belive )
Yes, and the question is, does that belief imply existence or trust? I believe Joe Biden and Donald Trump exists, but I don't trust them. I have no faith in them or the government. You trust, or have faith in the sun. To do what it does. "Rise" and "set." But that doesn't mean you worship it. It is a god. To some it is God. Not to you.
Does any of that make sense to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Do theist belive everything ?
No. As a theist I believe a relatively small portion of what I'm told. Skeptic by nature.
How do you rule out something not being real.
Depends on the context. I use Zeus and Santa Claus as good examples. Zeus is the Greek mythological human god of sky and thunder. Humans exist. That doesn't mean he did. He's mythological. So, he was concocted from the imagination to entertain and educate. Like animals in Aesop's fables. So, in that sense he existed. But Roman leaders were also given the name Zeus, so in these cases Zeus were real humans in a literal sense. Santa is interesting in that parents teach their kids that he is real then teach them he isn't and the kids buy into it very easily. I imagine a child being told there is "no such thing as Santa" on the way one last time to the mall to talk to one and passing up half a dozen on the way. Santa is real in that sense. Probably, but not certainly based upon some legend of a true man, commercialized, mythologized.
Like ummmm. bigfoots not being real ?Talk us through the steps of hearing about these bigfoots and then coming to belive that they dont exist.
I don't know. You all seemed obsessed with bigfoot. Maybe they exist, maybe they don't. I've never seen one, but I've never seen a whale either. Whales and giant squid used to be considered supernatural sea faring mythology like mermaids.
How did you rule out allah not being real. ?
Same as Zeus. Allah is Arabic for the God. All that word says is that some people think of the Abrahamic Bible God to be the God. Islam is much like Mormonism. Islam and Mormonism were, respectively, an aberration and addition to the Biblical teachings. With Islam the sociopolitical protestation of Muhammad, and with Mormonism the, well, sort of delusional cultural appropriation of Joseph Smith.
Can I PROVE Allah or Jehovah are REAL? No. And no one can PROVE they aren't. It's opinion or faith. Usually uneducated on both counts.
Created: