Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The "Nature" of the Christian God

Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 10:38:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This forum post is in response to a question below:

At 11/17/2011 9:38:09 PM, corynski wrote:
Greetings Gileandos,

You said:

"Given the evidence of God's claim throughout History, which I myself validate,
I have interacted with a Metaphysical God and I have met Jesus, we can easily conclude design."

Hmmmm........Pretty heavy stuff......so you are a man who knows God, how interesting. Would you be kind enough to answer a few questions? Such as: 'What is God's (or Jesus') Being'? We humans are flesh and blood, but what could be the essence of a supernatural deity?

God is properly defined as a Metaphysical being. He does not have a physical body.
It is why it is claimed in the Bible we cannot "see" God.
"We" were made in God's image in that we were given a metaphysical mind as well (in addition to the generation of Adam and Eve below). Our souls are metaphysical what we call properly our mind. It is a proof of the unphysical nature of God's divine essence. (Another metaphysical object would be number values)

Jesus Christ share's God's divine essence.

To understand the Triune nature of God is explained in this way, which I affirm.

In the same way Eve was taken, begotten from stuff of Adam (but not the person) and Seth was born of their physical union, which is begotten of the same stuff of them both but not his person, this relationship describes the nature of the Triune nature of God.

All three people, Adam, Eve and Able are made of the same "essence" of "man".

You could imagine a scenario where you reach up and carve out a piece of a star. What do you have? Two stars of the same star "essence" right? Imagine that you carve out a piece from the first two and combine those two separate carvings into one. What do you have? Another star made of the same essence as the first two.

The person of Jesus was taken and formed of the same "divine essence" of God the Father. The Father and Son came together in unity and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the union.

God taught this to me independent and directly through the speaking of the Holy Spirit.
He confirmed it through the teaching of St. Gregory and St. John Chrysostom, who had taught this same thing back in the 300's and has been the teaching of the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church since.

To quote Gregory:
"XI. What was Adam? A creature of God. What then was Eve? A fragment of the creature. And what was Seth? The begotten of both. Does it then seem to you that Creature and Fragment and Begotten are the same thing? Of course it does not. But were not these persons consubstantial? Of course they were. Well then, here it is an acknowledged fact that different persons may have the same substance. I say this, not that I would attribute creation or fraction or any property of body to the Godhead (let none of your contenders for a word be down upon me again), but that I may contemplate in these, as on a stage, things which are objects of thought alone."

Sources:
http://www.newadvent.org...... Part XI
http://www.newadvent.org...... Homily 12


And how exactly have you "interacted with a Metaphysical God"? I would think that a 'god or goddess' who created this universe could, and should, at least Show Up, and make Itself known to all the creatures that It created. Are you saying that you have in fact witnessed, or 'validated', both a God who has shown up, and Jesus too?

I completely agree, for a designer to be properly true, it necessarily follows that He must interact with His creation in a meaningful way.

The Bible makes a first instruction:
Hebrews 12:14
"Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord."

This is a summary of the Old Testament commands. If you do not live a Holy life you will not see God or have His interaction in your life in an obvious way.

The Holiness denominations, Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Pentecostal etc… will have these teachings as a core and you will see they advocate meeting and interacting with God on a regular basis.

My personal experience started with the illumination of God. Then proceeded to the "Gong" of the Holy Spirit.
Once I became familiar with His voice he then taught me via the Urim and Thummim we have today. We also call it "Baptist Roullette" as it was coined in the 1700's. It is asking God a question then opening the Bible and studying how the particular story in the Bible directly answers your question.
It requires already having the Holy Spirit's Illumination to be able to use today's Urim and Thummim.

The spiritual life is easy to duplicate by anyone. It merely requires steps.
1: Holiness
2: Spending time in contemplation, study and prayer.
3: Seeking the directive will of God, through the Biblical avenues.


In the Bible I read that Jesus talked about returning, such as at Matt 10:23: "....I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.", and at Rev 1:1: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place....... because the time is near."

So, after all these years I'm head to head with someone who knows God, and Jesus. I guess once, in my early youth, I too believed in their reality, that they must be real, how could it be possible they weren't real? Then it occurred to me that there wasn't any real evidence, evidence that could be corroborated or measured, for the existence of any god or goddess, it was all, well, sort of circumstantial.

As to evidence, I have found a good bit of evidence and I will just name a few top ones. There is even physical evidence that is scientifically verifiable.

First we see that Historically, a multitude of people have claimed to interact with little gods (fallen angels and demons) and also many have claimed to interact with the various aspects of the Christian God.
There are literally countless claims. You could spend your entire life sifting through these claims.

Second, we see that observable is consciousness that is more than mere firing of your brain's electrical "circuits". Science has failed to explain consciousness/sentience at a quantum level even.

Third, we see the intrinsic mathematical background to all of physical reality.

Fourth, We see the fine-tuning and logical arguments that follow like the teleological arguments for design.

Fifth, I personally could interact with God when I tried.

Hopefully these things begin to aid you in your pursuit of the answers to your questions.
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 10:21:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thank you, Gileandos

Hopefully these things begin to aid you in your pursuit of the answers to your questions.

Predictably your post has raised more questions than it has answered. For example:

God is properly defined as a Metaphysical being. He does not have a physical body.
It is why it is claimed in the Bible we cannot "see" God.


Hmmmm..... I can understand the word metaphysical, but your use of the word 'being' makes no sense to me. The verb 'to be' requires a predicate in the english language, being is physical. Not having a physical body constitutes 'not being' to my mind, or 'being' in a sense that I cannot measure or define. At Job 42:5 we read "My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.", and at Amos 9:1 I read "I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said....", and others, such as Noah, at Gen 6:8, "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." 'Eyes of the Lord'? So God is a non-physical being that has eyes and ears? And 'made in God's image' means only that we have a metaphysical mind? Hmm...... I regret I have no access to a 'spiritual' realm as you do, and in general I agree with George Smith, 'Atheism - The Case Against God', when he says "The full nature of god is not merely unknown, it is unknowable....... God, by definition, is that which man cannot understand...... To exist beyond the sphere of natural law means to exist beyond the scope of human knowledge; epistemological transcendence is a corollary of supernaturalness........ If God can be known, he cannot be supernatural."

Our souls are metaphysical what we call properly our mind. It is a proof of the unphysical nature of God's divine essence.

So my mind is my soul, and is a 'proof' of something 'unphysical', such as God's divine essence. How would you know that? It may be proof to you, but it remains nonsense to me.

In the same way Eve was taken, begotten from stuff of Adam

All three people, Adam, Eve and Able are made of the same "essence" of "man".


'Begotten from stuff?' 'Essence of man?' But not the same 'stuff' that God is made of? You've got collections of words that have no referents in reality, so I have no idea what you're saying. You have some very esoteric ideas here for sure.

The person of Jesus was taken and formed of the same "divine essence" of God the Father. The Father and Son came together in unity and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the union.

'Taken and formed'? 'Came together in unity'? 'the Holy Spirit proceeded from the union.'? You're losing me mate....... These ideas are so vague and devoid of any referents in the real world I live in I can't relate to them.

God taught this to me independent and directly through the speaking of the Holy Spirit.

'The speaking of the Holy Spirit'? Would this be audible such that perhaps you could tape some for me to hear? Or is it an internal, soundless speaking?

Once I became familiar with His voice he then taught me via the Urim and Thummim we have today.

Hmmm......'Familiar with His voice'? Hearing the voices are you? Is that an audible voice, or an inaudible voice?

Well, in summary, you're living in a different world than I am, my friend. I try to stay pretty close to science and the scientific method to ascertain what is real or not. You appear to have another scenario you're living, another source of knowledge that I'm not tuned into.

charley
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 12:18:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 10:21:59 AM, corynski wrote:
Thank you, Gileandos

Hopefully these things begin to aid you in your pursuit of the answers to your questions.

Predictably your post has raised more questions than it has answered. For example:

God is properly defined as a Metaphysical being. He does not have a physical body.
It is why it is claimed in the Bible we cannot "see" God.


Hmmmm..... I can understand the word metaphysical, but your use of the word 'being' makes no sense to me. The verb 'to be' requires a predicate in the english language, being is physical. Not having a physical body constitutes 'not being' to my mind, or 'being' in a sense that I cannot measure or define.

Strictly speaking "to be" is a future state of being.

Being is the state of existence. Physical is not the only thing in existence. We see clearly meta-physical objects exist as well. This includes numerical values and human minds/consciousness/sentience. You will see that Merriam is clear.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

1
a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : life
2
the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality
3
a living thing; especially : person
See being defined for English-language learners »
See being defined for kids »
Examples of BEING
1.a social movement that was brought into being in the 1960s
2.I knew it was true in the core of my being.

At Job 42:5 we read "My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.", and at :Amos 9:1 I read "I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said....", and others, such :as Noah, at Gen 6:8, "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." 'Eyes of the Lord'? :So God is a non-physical being that has eyes and ears? And 'made in God's image' means :only that we have a metaphysical mind?

- In theological study we see anthropomorphisms – God being merely "described" to have human attributes. Gen 6:8

- Additionally, God is a physical being in the person of the Son. These are called Old Testament Theophanies. Amos 9:11 was a vision of meeting this transcendent person.

- There is also metaphorical speech like any statement Job 42:5

Hmm...... I regret I have no access to a 'spiritual' realm as you do, and in general I agree with George Smith, 'Atheism - The Case Against God', when he says "The full nature of god is not merely unknown, it is unknowable....... God, by definition, is that which man cannot understand...... To exist beyond the sphere of natural law means to exist beyond the scope of human knowledge; epistemological transcendence is a corollary of supernaturalness........ If God can be known, he cannot be supernatural."

Everyone has access to the spiritual realm when you pursue Holiness.
I would agree that God is unknowable by a limited being.
The good news is that first God gaves us a mechanism to understand him, we also have a metaphysical mind to come to know God with.
Second, God revealed himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

It is great news that we as limited beings can now know, that which was once unknowable.

Additionally, St. Gregory Palamas in the 1300's discussed these logical arguments of knowing God in His essence being distinct in knowing his energies/actions.


Our souls are metaphysical what we call properly our mind. It is a proof of the unphysical nature of God's divine essence.

So my mind is my soul, and is a 'proof' of something 'unphysical', such as God's divine essence. How would you know that? It may be proof to you, but it remains nonsense to me.

In the same way Eve was taken, begotten from stuff of Adam

All three people, Adam, Eve and Able are made of the same "essence" of "man".


'Begotten from stuff?' 'Essence of man?' But not the same 'stuff' that God is made of? You've got collections of words that have no referents in reality, so I have no idea what you're saying. You have some very esoteric ideas here for sure.

You are right in that, Christianity and philosophy apparently has whole collection of ideas and words that you are unfamiliar with. I would recommend learning theological concepts before critiquing them.

I at one point did not know these things either and was a heavy agnostic. Education was the source for my understanding the fathers of the Church that came before me.

Every "complaint" against religion and Christianity has been addressed in previous generations many times over.


The person of Jesus was taken and formed of the same "divine essence" of God the Father. The Father and Son came together in unity and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the union.

'Taken and formed'? 'Came together in unity'? 'the Holy Spirit proceeded from the union.'? You're losing me mate....... These ideas are so vague and devoid of any referents in the real world I live in I can't relate to them.

As stated above, without a Theological background you should avoid critiquing these concepts we are discussing.
I had thought you said you were once in the Church. If you have never heard of these things at most you were an occasional visitor? Easter and Christmas? Very young childhood?


God taught this to me independent and directly through the speaking of the Holy Spirit.

'The speaking of the Holy Spirit'? Would this be audible such that perhaps you could tape some for me to hear? Or is it an internal, soundless speaking?

Lol, if it was audible do you think there would countless tapes to date? It is God's meta-physical mind speaking to ours. When you pursue Holiness and pursue God, He will start with the simple communications and proceed to the complex.

Once I became familiar with His voice he then taught me via the Urim and Thummim we have today.

Hmmm......'Familiar with His voice'? Hearing the voices are you? Is that an audible voice, or an inaudible voice?

Well, in summary, you're living in a different world than I am, my friend. I try to stay pretty close to science and the scientific method to ascertain what is real or not. You appear to have another scenario you're living, another source of knowledge that I'm not tuned into.

Any religious person has a different worldview and even experience than a naturalist. I myself am working a High School Post Bacculaureatte to teach High School physics.

Nothing about my love of science precludes my interaction with God.
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 7:45:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Greetings

I would recommend learning theological concepts before critiquing them.

Every "complaint" against religion and Christianity has been addressed in previous generations many times over.


Hey, not everyone can have all the answers as you and WLC do, I can tell you've worked long and hard at it. But reality isn't created with logic and words and theories, we all know that. And I'm sure there is a good reason the 'complaints' against religion don't go away, and always arise in each new generation.

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Reality requires measurable evidence and corroboration, something more substantial than words and arguments. The world of reality works, we engage it every day. On the other hand theologians have had centuries to create their gods, and of course no one can agree, we have the Jains here and the Shinto over there. Only when the gods show up will we know they are real.

You must have done some time in a religious institution to think and talk the way you do. You're reminding me now of Paul Tillich and his 'self-transcendent' god:

"....the question of the existence of God can be neither asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by its very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer - whether negative or affirmative - implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being." Paul Tillich, "Systematic Theology, 1967

So tell me, why would a god make such a game or puzzle out of everything when he could just show up? What intelligent god would create two sexes of humans? A god powerful enough to have created itself and travel an infinite universe surely could create some humans without screwing it up. And then to tell me that the supposed 'Son of God' will take the load of my mistakes off my back, well that's fiction. It's another religious illusion, just like telling people they will see their family in a 'heaven' somewhere. If a god would show up maybe the Jews could stop persecuting the Arabs and the US could stop killing Iraqis or Afghans or whoever it is this year.

As Christopher Hitchens put it, "After creating humans, why did god wait 100,000 years before showing up on earth? The notion that a god would travel millions of light years across the universe to give the Canaanites land to the Jews is preposterous. But as long as no real gods or goddesses actually show up you're safe to argue whatever comes to your mind.

We 'little people', who always like to see what we're buying, have a resistance to words and arguments when evidence is what is required. Having studied anthropology instead of theology, I confess to having some knowledge of the thousands of gods and goddesses men have created. And none of them have showed up.

I'm rambling, since I don't know your particular 'theological concepts', and can't discuss that which cannot be perceived by the ordinary person. Obviously you're hallucinating a lot of heavy stuff, and since you can't give me any real evidence for a god I've not got anything more to say.

And by the way, micro and macro evolution are the same thing, only different time scales......

charley
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 11:15:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 7:45:59 PM, corynski wrote:
Greetings

I would recommend learning theological concepts before critiquing them.

Every "complaint" against religion and Christianity has been addressed in previous generations many times over.


Hey, not everyone can have all the answers as you and WLC do, I can tell you've worked long and hard at it. But reality isn't created with logic and words and theories, we all know that. And I'm sure there is a good reason the 'complaints' against religion don't go away, and always arise in each new generation.

Sure it comes with a beginning of a pursuit.
That response, seems to me, to be a response akin to why do five year olds ask 3,000 questions a day? You would think after 1,000 years it would stop.

A person who is uneducated will naturally ask the questions before receiving the education.
Thus, presuppositions are formed and complaints remain.


"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

Reality requires measurable evidence and corroboration, something more substantial than words and arguments. The world of reality works, we engage it every day. On the other hand theologians have had centuries to create their gods, and of course no one can agree, we have the Jains here and the Shinto over there. Only when the gods show up will we know they are real.

Well, religions are created because there are a multitude of demons and fallen angels creating their own religions. It is actual power sources involved.

I have no idea why you are saying logic and argumentation is not real.


You must have done some time in a religious institution to think and talk the way you do. You're reminding me now of Paul Tillich and his 'self-transcendent' god:

"....the question of the existence of God can be neither asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by its very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer - whether negative or affirmative - implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being." Paul Tillich, "Systematic Theology, 1967

So tell me, why would a god make such a game or puzzle out of everything when he could just show up?

He does I have met Him. It requires Holiness.

What intelligent god would create two sexes of humans? A god powerful enough to have created itself and travel an infinite universe surely could create some humans without screwing it up.

God's first creation was the Angels, which were only Male.
The humans that were created to resolve the Angelic rebellion needed two sexes to play out the Angelic Conflict.
Second, Freewill. God allows for dissent. God wants humans to choose for Him or for Satan/independence from God.

And then to tell me that the supposed 'Son of God' will take the load of my mistakes off my back, well that's fiction. It's another religious illusion, just like telling people they will see their family in a 'heaven' somewhere. If a god would show up maybe the Jews could stop persecuting the Arabs and the US could stop killing Iraqis or Afghans or whoever it is this year.

First - You seem to ask a question then assert knowledge. At this point you seem to be pretending you want an answer.
Second - Jesus takes the burden of the original sin.
Third - You statements about U.S. Killing Iraqis and Afghans are patently false. We killed the Iraqi Political Party that propped up Sadam. We also killed the Taliban another evil system. These happen to be Afgans and Iraqis but we are not at war with the Iraqi "people" or afgan "people".
Fourth - The Jews have been persecuted by the Arabs and Persians, not the other way around.


As Christopher Hitchens put it, "After creating humans, why did god wait 100,000 years before showing up on earth? The notion that a god would travel millions of light years across the universe to give the Canaanites land to the Jews is preposterous. But as long as no real gods or goddesses actually show up you're safe to argue whatever comes to your mind.

This is factually wrong considering that those are not Biblical claims.
Complete Strawman.
Angels had the "run" of the universe until the Angelic Rebellion of Satan and One Third of the Angels.
Humans were then created/chosen.

The Land became important because it was a promise of His plan for the nations that Satan wanted to stop.

Everything is in view of more factual data. The earth is important as the two sides battle out their accusations in the court trial of Heaven.

Satan slandered God's patience, mercy, justice and love.
The Earth is setup to prove those qualities are inherent in God. Hence the evil in the world and freewill of men.

The entire human history is God centric.

We 'little people', who always like to see what we're buying, have a resistance to words and arguments when evidence is what is required. Having studied anthropology instead of theology, I confess to having some knowledge of the thousands of gods and goddesses men have created. And none of them have showed up.

Why do you claim there is no evidence? I have met God and you can too.
Additionally, all of the little gods are real. If you meet a demon or worse fallen angel you will understand.

I'm rambling, since I don't know your particular 'theological concepts', and can't discuss that which cannot be perceived by the ordinary person. Obviously you're hallucinating a lot of heavy stuff, and since you can't give me any real evidence for a god I've not got anything more to say.

What do you mean I cannot give you evidence of God?
Would you like a video of God?
Want recordings?

You would claim they are all fake.

If I gave you an "in-person" experience like a faith healing you would doubt it as a presuppositional naturalist.
If you saw someone's limb regrow (them having lost it prior) you would exlaim "Proof of evolution! Humans are linked to Lizards. This man has a limb regeneration gene."

If you want evidence that is scientific it is not hard to find. Go attend a pentecostal church for a while. It will not take long.

And by the way, micro and macro evolution are the same thing, only different time scales......

Macro is postulated only. It has little corroborating evidence, if you can call a squished fish evidence.

Micro is typically considered natural selection which is proven to even have elastic qualities.
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 8:34:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
God's first creation was the Angels, which were only Male.
The humans that were created to resolve the Angelic rebellion needed two sexes to play out the Angelic Conflict.
Second, Freewill. God allows for dissent. God wants humans to choose for Him or for Satan/independence from God.


You must be joking...... You're over the edge mate. I almost hesitate to ask if you have any actual evidence of any satans or devils.

Well, religions are created because there are a multitude of demons and fallen angels creating their own religions. It is actual power sources involved.

'Fallen angels'? So, what evidence have you for demons and fallen angels?

God's first creation was the Angels, which were only Male.
The humans that were created to resolve the Angelic rebellion needed two sexes to play out the Angelic Conflict.


You're making this all up aren't you?

Second - Jesus takes the burden of the original sin.

'Original sin'? What nonsense, why would anyone believe that?

We killed the Iraqi Political Party that propped up Sadam.

What? Check the number of civilian deaths and injured. Oh yes, and they even have a cute name for it -- 'collateral damage'.

Angels had the "run" of the universe until the Angelic Rebellion of Satan and One Third of the Angels.
Humans were then created/chosen.


Now how in the world would you know that to have happened?

Satan slandered God's patience, mercy, justice and love.
The Earth is setup to prove those qualities are inherent in God. Hence the evil in the world and freewill of men.


You're making this up, aren't you? You're putting me on.

What do you mean I cannot give you evidence of God?

You haven't presented any credible evidence for any gods or satans, you've given me your opinions.

If I gave you an "in-person" experience like a faith healing you would doubt it as a presuppositional naturalist.
If you saw someone's limb regrow (them having lost it prior) you would exlaim "Proof of evolution! Humans are linked to Lizards. This man has a limb regeneration gene."


Actually I would expect a god to regrow limbs. So why doesn't your god grow new limbs on those who are praying for them? If a god will answer prayers to cure cancer why aren't prayers for new limbs answered?

If you want evidence that is scientific it is not hard to find. Go attend a pentecostal church for a while. It will not take long.

Really? What kind of scientific evidence would I find there? I have never doubted for a minute that the people want gods, just as much as they want Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Macro is postulated only. It has little corroborating evidence, if you can call a squished fish evidence.

This one sentence tells me you don't understand evolution. Are you aware that somewhere around 95% of all species have gone extinct? And that god has created thousands of beetle species?

Regarding macro evolution, you might consider our own human evolution from homo habilis to homo ergaster to homo erectus to homo neanderthalenssis to homo heidelbergensis to homo sapiens as an excellent example of macro evolution.

Or perhaps the sequence leading to whales, from Mesonychids to Pakicetus to Ambulocetus to Rodhocetus to Basilosaurus to Dorudon.

Here is a short video about the 'missing link' tiktaalik

http://www-news.uchicago.edu...

charley
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 4:12:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 8:34:53 AM, corynski wrote:
God's first creation was the Angels, which were only Male.
The humans that were created to resolve the Angelic rebellion needed two sexes to play out the Angelic Conflict.
Second, Freewill. God allows for dissent. God wants humans to choose for Him or for Satan/independence from God.


You must be joking...... You're over the edge mate. I almost hesitate to ask if you have any actual evidence of any satans or devils.

If I am over the edge then every Christian theologian is at the precipice with me.


Well, religions are created because there are a multitude of demons and fallen angels creating their own religions. It is actual power sources involved.

'Fallen angels'? So, what evidence have you for demons and fallen angels?

I do not think you have ever been in the Church. There are countless testimonies of these 4th dimensional spatial entities interaction throughout History. Plato asserted his cave of Shadows theory until todays mathematical theory.
You will see on this page the claim of 4th dimension and Christianity has been around for a long time. This painting of Jesus on the Tesseract was done in 1954.
http://im-possible.info...

The description of Angels matches the exact proposed existence of 4th dimensional beings.


God's first creation was the Angels, which were only Male.
The humans that were created to resolve the Angelic rebellion needed two sexes to play out the Angelic Conflict.


You're making this all up aren't you?

Lol. Christianity has all of the answers.


Second - Jesus takes the burden of the original sin.

'Original sin'? What nonsense, why would anyone believe that?

Lol, only a presuppositionalist would not.


We killed the Iraqi Political Party that propped up Sadam.

What? Check the number of civilian deaths and injured. Oh yes, and they even have a cute name for it -- 'collateral damage'.

That is the proper definition for civilian casualties. That is a far cry from claiming Iraqi's as a "people" were intended targets.


Angels had the "run" of the universe until the Angelic Rebellion of Satan and One Third of the Angels.
Humans were then created/chosen.


Now how in the world would you know that to have happened?

You will have to read the Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees and a multitude of Judaic literature.


Satan slandered God's patience, mercy, justice and love.
The Earth is setup to prove those qualities are inherent in God. Hence the evil in the world and freewill of men.


You're making this up, aren't you? You're putting me on.

Ezekial 18 points out that Satan wanted to be God. So he made accusations. The book of Enoch tells the story with quite a few more details.


What do you mean I cannot give you evidence of God?

You haven't presented any credible evidence for any gods or satans, you've given me your opinions.

Actually, I have given religious viewpoint that is supported by countless witnesses.
The only response from you seems to be summarized in the following quote:
"Because I have not experienced it.... it does not exist."


If I gave you an "in-person" experience like a faith healing you would doubt it as a presuppositional naturalist.
If you saw someone's limb regrow (them having lost it prior) you would exlaim "Proof of evolution! Humans are linked to Lizards. This man has a limb regeneration gene."


Actually I would expect a god to regrow limbs. So why doesn't your god grow new limbs on those who are praying for them? If a god will answer prayers to cure cancer why aren't prayers for new limbs answered?

We as the Christian church claim things just like that. You can take a tour with a Pentecostal group across rural India and see such miracles.
Brains have regrown, lung tissue, that are documented in this country alone.


If you want evidence that is scientific it is not hard to find. Go attend a pentecostal church for a while. It will not take long.

Really? What kind of scientific evidence would I find there? I have never doubted for a minute that the people want gods, just as much as they want Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Yes because five year olds want Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, the vast majority of the world's adult population want God?

That is a fallacy called misleading vividness intermixed with a biased sample.
There is no comparison.

Macro is postulated only. It has little corroborating evidence, if you can call a squished fish evidence.

This one sentence tells me you don't understand evolution. Are you aware that somewhere around 95% of all species have gone extinct? And that god has created thousands of beetle species?

Yes? I do not see this as support for Evolution as a Macro concept. What degree do you have that asserts a positive evolutionary theory?


Regarding macro evolution, you might consider our own human evolution from homo habilis to homo ergaster to homo erectus to homo neanderthalenssis to homo heidelbergensis to homo sapiens as an excellent example of macro evolution.

Each of these species are not species but racial differences or they are clearly apes. There is non theist rebuttal to these trait identifications as not.
Much is even known to be faked over the last 100+ years, which leads the remaining portions to be dubious.

Even living examples would be the aborignal natives of Australia. Very clear skeletal differences but not cognitive differences.


Or perhaps the sequence leading to whales, from Mesonychids to Pakicetus to Ambulocetus to Rodhocetus to Basilosaurus to Dorudon.

ROFL, a giant rat to a whale. Sure I buy that. Did you ever see the UC Berkley website? It was hilarious before they pulled it down from ridicule of just the above claim with pictures.
The ridicule came from the scientific community.


Here is a short video about the 'missing link' tiktaalik

http://www-news.uchicago.edu...

I did not watch the video but I have seen the first news report from Nat Geo. Nat Geo actually called into question the archeologist's find, on character grounds.

As the Nat Geo report went:
First, he was out in the canadian wilderness on a hunch.
Because he found nothing for three years he was going to lose his Grant and would likely never hold a position again in the field.
One month before he was jobless he finds what amounts to a squished fish.

They had many scientists refuting his interpretation of his find.
It was amusing and I believe a great trend from Nat Geo.

So many scientists from Global warming to phsycology have been "faking their results" due to pressure to perform and make a name for themselves.

Evolution is one of the most prolific sources of forgery in the history of science outside of phsycology.

I do not mind if Macro-evolution proves to be true but with all the lies and fakery, the feckless psuedoscience involved I remain heavy agnostic to Macro-evolution.
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 9:42:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If I am over the edge then every Christian theologian is at the precipice with me.

And that sounds about right to me. I quoted some mumble-jumble from Paul Tillich, and here's some more from St. Augustine to show they're all over the edge:

"What then brethren, shall we say of God?  For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God.  If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God.  If thou hast been able to comprehend Him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself.  This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou hast not comprehended it." --  Augustine, Sermo LII,vi.16

I do not think you have ever been in the Church. There are countless testimonies of these 4th dimensional spatial entities interaction throughout History.

Hey, I played it by the book. I got a Bible with my name in gold on the front for never missing a sunday school class, and I was 'confirmed' I think they said, when I was 14. I received the 'standard' treatment I would guess, as a youngster, but got out when I started thinking about it more deeply. No, I didn't take it seriously then or now. It's all fiction, myth, wishful thinking, whatever.....

Lol. Christianity has all of the answers.

Hmmmmm....... You wish....... How about Uzzah? What was his sin? And what do I make of this concept of 'original sin', as presented here by Wiki:

Original sin[1] is, according to a theological doctrine, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man.[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]
The doctrine is not found in Judaism,[4] and its scriptural foundation is in the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle. (Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22)[2]
In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits.

I personally think the Church puts all this stuff out just so they can control people, that's their real purpose. So, here's the church trying to make me feel guilty for 'original sin', what nonsense. Sure, the Church wants to save me from myself.

Ezekial 18 points out that Satan wanted to be God. So he made accusations. The book of Enoch tells the story with quite a few more details.

I find no mention of Satan in Ezekial 18. But I did notice verse 20 where God is pouring out a little more wrath, of which he has enough for all.

Ezekiel 20:33, "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I will rule over you with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with outpoured wrath.

And if I may express myself further, here is a classic that makes these Church fathers look like the ordinary people they probably were:

Speculations concerning the rotundity of the earth and the possible existence of human beings "with their feet turned towards ours" were of interest to the Fathers of the Early Church only in so far as they seemed to encroach upon the fundamental Christian dogma of the unity of the human race, and the consequent universality of original sin and redemption. This is clearly seen from the following passage of St. Augustine (City of God XVI.9):
"As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man." -- A.D. White, 1894, 'A History of the Warfare.....'

Actually, I have given religious viewpoint that is supported by countless witnesses.
The only response from you seems to be summarized in the following quote:
"Because I have not experienced it.... it does not exist."


Well, yes, almost. I find it very difficult to believe anything a religious person tells me, because I know the history of religion, I know their agenda. It's not a comforting history. Here's a cute one from AD White regarding St. Augustine that illustrates my point:

"There are three classes of numbers -- the more than perfect, the perfect, and the less than perfect, according as the sum of them is greater than, equal to, or less than the original number. Six is the first perfect number: wherefore we must not say that six is a perfect number because God finished all his works in six days, but that God finished all his works in six days because six is a perfect number."

Right........ these men were real geniuses.

We as the Christian church claim things just like that. You can take a tour with a Pentecostal group across rural India and see such miracles.
Brains have regrown, lung tissue, that are documented in this country alone.


Sure, so why are there no glass eyes, wooden legs or pacemakers at Lourds?

What degree do you have that asserts a positive evolutionary theory?

B.A in Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, 1965.

Much is even known to be faked over the last 100+ years, which leads the remaining portions to be dubious.

Of course, there are always individuals who, for personal recognition, will say or do anything. And those in religion are no different, to my mind. But that can't change what is right. As Theodore Dobzhansky said:

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

The notion of the "light of evolution" came originally from the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom Dobzhansky much admired. In the last paragraph of the article, de Chardin is quoted as having written the following:
(Evolution) general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a curve that all lines must follow." p.219 of Phenomenon of Man
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 5:27:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The assumptions you make are truly odd. How do you square all the evidence of the last 75 years which points to MYTH in your assumptions, ie Angels and Zoroastrianism and Knowing a metaphysical?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 8:53:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 5:27:40 AM, logicrules wrote:
The assumptions you make are truly odd. How do you square all the evidence of the last 75 years which points to MYTH in your assumptions, ie Angels and Zoroastrianism and Knowing a metaphysical?

I have made no assumptions.
Scientific evidence of the last 75 have only supported the evidence for the existence of demons and Angels.
The beings are clearly capable of being 4th dimensional beings and share all of those attributes of a conceptual being.

Mathematical theory has made a great deal of strides in understanding the 4th spatial dimension.
Here is a quick outline.

You will see that a 4th dimensional being will be right next to us, but unseen and unfelt. That 4th dimensional being as it passes through our space will display itself only as a 3d object.

I know of no evidence that does anything to confirm these beings as "myth".
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 9:41:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Scientific evidence of the last 75 have only supported the evidence for the existence of demons and Angels.

And what scientific evidence would that be?
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 9:47:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Science is founded on the conviction that experience, effort, and reason are valid; magic on the belief that hope cannot fail now desire deceive." -- Bronislaw Malinowski, "Magic, Science and Religion"
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 1:34:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 9:41:44 AM, corynski wrote:
Scientific evidence of the last 75 have only supported the evidence for the existence of demons and Angels.

And what scientific evidence would that be?

Mathematics and 4th dimensional space.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 1:37:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 9:47:38 AM, corynski wrote:
"Science is founded on the conviction that experience, effort, and reason are valid; magic on the belief that hope cannot fail now desire deceive." -- Bronislaw Malinowski, "Magic, Science and Religion"

Eh?
Are you attempting to show this gentlemen is cognitively deficient?
You have suceeded.

He makes a philosophical claim about science.... can you scientifically verify his claim lol?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 2:04:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The 4th dimension as described in this video isn't even known to exist in the real world, it is a mathematical invention.

Now, are there many things that are outside of our range of perception? Undoubtedly. Does the existence of this type of 4th dimension support the existence of angels and demons? Not at all, and that would be considered a huge stretch.

You consider mathematics to be a metaphysical reality, but even mathematics is a type of grid that we place over the world in order to make sense of it. The 4th dimension literally is a grid system.

I've said before that our minds work in a way that requires us to compare something to something else in order for it to make sense to us. Mathematics is interesting in that we are comparing a rather solid mental construct to something else. Mathematics is by far the most accurate way in which we can measure the world, and it's usefulness is apparent in technological advancement.

However, even though mathematics is a grid that is useful and closely lines up with reality, you still inflate it to being something more than it is.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 2:30:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 9:42:36 PM, corynski wrote:

I do not think you have ever been in the Church. There are countless testimonies of these 4th dimensional spatial entities interaction throughout History.

Hey, I played it by the book. I got a Bible with my name in gold on the front for never missing a sunday school class, and I was 'confirmed' I think they said, when I was 14. I received the 'standard' treatment I would guess, as a youngster, but got out when I started thinking about it more deeply. No, I didn't take it seriously then or now. It's all fiction, myth, wishful thinking, whatever.....

Wow! I missed that! The whole purpose of religion was to get the engraved letters on my Bible! How could I have gone so wrong....

I would make a suggestion to you. Perhaps your "14 year old self" was not prepared to answer the "big" questions if you felt the above was a valid response...

I was not raised a Christian and was a heavy agnostic.
I did not pursue until I was 23. I did not allow myself to be programmed from either viewpoint and was open to wherever the evidence led.

Mayhap you should have waited until your cognitive maturity was a bit higher before drawing conclusions.

I personally think the Church puts all this stuff out just so they can control people, that's their real purpose. So, here's the church trying to make me feel guilty for 'original sin', what nonsense. Sure, the Church wants to save me from myself.

So not only are you a presuppositional naturalist,
You are also presuppositional anti-religionist with conspiratorial presuppositions.
Wow, impressive.


Actually, I have given religious viewpoint that is supported by countless witnesses.
The only response from you seems to be summarized in the following quote:
"Because I have not experienced it.... it does not exist."


Well, yes, almost. I find it very difficult to believe anything a religious person tells me, because I know the history of religion, I know their agenda. It's not a comforting history. Here's a cute one from AD White regarding St. Augustine that illustrates my point:
Yep anti-religious conspiratorial presuppositionalist. Yea!
"There are three classes of numbers -- the more than perfect, the perfect, and the less than perfect, according as the sum of them is greater than, equal to, or less than the original number. Six is the first perfect number: wherefore we must not say that six is a perfect number because God finished all his works in six days, but that God finished all his works in six days because six is a perfect number."

Right........ these men were real geniuses.
A conspiritorialist complains about a numerologist… what is the world coming to?

We as the Christian church claim things just like that. You can take a tour with a Pentecostal group across rural India and see such miracles.
Brains have regrown, lung tissue, that are documented in this country alone.


Sure, so why are there no glass eyes, wooden legs or pacemakers at Lourds?
Lourds is a mystical location that has documented healings with no known mechanism.
Prayer is a documented mechanism that produces healings.

What degree do you have that asserts a positive evolutionary theory?

B.A in Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, 1965.
Ouch. Poor guy. Notice I pointed out Berkely's complete inability to be objective concerning evolution.
Berkley = programming, not the pinnacle of independent thought.
Just admitting that fakery is common does nothing to dampen the fact that Evolution is the single greatest scientific field affected by the greatest amount of fraud.
Though I agree that every institution is susceptible to fraud, including religious ones.
The fraud riddling Evolution has beaten out all but psychology.
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 7:21:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Good grief, you've got me in a box already. Forcing me to learn all these new words and ideas. Poor me, how could this have ever happened. And here I thought I had some idea of what was going on, when all of a sudden I'm just a stupid presuppositionalist.

Just admitting that fakery is common does nothing to dampen the fact that Evolution is the single greatest scientific field affected by the greatest amount of fraud.

Impressive, very impressive. My god, how could I have been so stupid to have gone to Berkeley and wasted all my time? And you said you're going to teach, yes, how fortunate your students will be, just to sit humbly at your feet, sucking up your bullsheet.

Notice I pointed out Berkely's complete inability to be objective concerning evolution.

Did I notice? Hey, if you think of it that way, it must be true. Well, thanks for your time, you've really impressed me so much ........
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 11:37:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/21/2011 7:21:36 PM, corynski wrote:
Good grief, you've got me in a box already. Forcing me to learn all these new words and ideas. Poor me, how could this have ever happened. And here I thought I had some idea of what was going on, when all of a sudden I'm just a stupid presuppositionalist.

Well the point was not to insult you, but to gesture at the fact that you did not have any of these understandings but already had drawn a conclusion.

You already stated the evidence, agreeing it was unknown to you, was irrelevant. That is a presuppositionalist.

You also stated you believed religions were "out to get you". What am I supposed to think with all of your conspiritorial statements.

If you feel I am misreading your "Cause" then by all means let me know where I mistakenly read into your statements.


Just admitting that fakery is common does nothing to dampen the fact that Evolution is the single greatest scientific field affected by the greatest amount of fraud.

Impressive, very impressive. My god, how could I have been so stupid to have gone to Berkeley and wasted all my time? And you said you're going to teach, yes, how fortunate your students will be, just to sit humbly at your feet, sucking up your bullsheet.

You simply could not be oblivious to the reputation that UC Berkely has to being the MOST liberal college in the entirety of the world.
You also could not be oblivious to the ridicule Berkely has received over its "teachings" on evolution using obvious fraudulant evidence.

I pointed out the ridicule from the scientific community before you claimed to have UC Berkely Anthropology degree.

This is only proven more by the fact that you spouted off about how great the arabs are and how evil the Jews are when discussing the nature of God.

You sound like a Liberal Billboard.


Notice I pointed out Berkely's complete inability to be objective concerning evolution.

Did I notice? Hey, if you think of it that way, it must be true. Well, thanks for your time, you've really impressed me so much ........

You have no reason to be offended or claim I bashed your education as I was critical of UC Berkely as the only school remaining, that would Teach the Pakicetus fossil, from a Giant rat, evolved into a Whale.

I pointed to this before you brought up your degree.

If you feel that going to a liberal college that programs its students and uses fraudulent evolutionary teachings is legitimate.... then by all means learn away!

However, it is hypocrital to complain that religion just programs people and uses fraudulent teachings and is out to control everyone, when you go and study under exactly the same system and then in turn espouse its teachings.

Presuppositionalism and hypocrisy at its finest.

You did not really want to know about he Nature of the Christian God as explained by a Christian?
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2011 1:31:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
However, it is hypocrital to complain that religion just programs people and uses fraudulent teachings and is out to control everyone, when you go and study under exactly the same system and then in turn espouse its teachings.
Hardly the same, and the presuppositional stuff sounds like nonsense. Everyone has presuppositions unless they have no position.

I'm on holiday now, my daughter is coming in. I confess I agree with Voltaire, who said he'd be happy when the last stone from the last cathedral falls on the head of the last priest.

You did not really want to know about he Nature of the Christian God as explained by a Christian?

I do very much want to know if your 'god' is real or not, I'm searching for the truth. I say there are no real gods, they're all imaginary, but you come along and tell me you've intimate with a god, so what am I to think? But you have no evidence for a god, all you have are words.

The gods refuse to show up.......
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2011 12:34:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/23/2011 1:31:01 AM, corynski wrote:
However, it is hypocrital to complain that religion just programs people and uses fraudulent teachings and is out to control everyone, when you go and study under exactly the same system and then in turn espouse its teachings.
Hardly the same, and the presuppositional stuff sounds like nonsense. Everyone has presuppositions unless they have no position.

I'm on holiday now, my daughter is coming in. I confess I agree with Voltaire, who said he'd be happy when the last stone from the last cathedral falls on the head of the last priest.

How is that not an anti-religionist?
How is that not a presupposition if you refuse to interact with religious people?
It would have been easy to support your belief by say becoming Catholic and see how they operate daily in "controlling" people. You will find this accused control simply does not operate.
Heck the Pope openly demands that Catholics not vote for Obama due to his Pro-abortion stance and nearly 40% of Catholics vote for him.


You did not really want to know about he Nature of the Christian God as explained by a Christian?

I do very much want to know if your 'god' is real or not, I'm searching for the truth. I say there are no real gods, they're all imaginary, but you come along and tell me you've intimate with a god, so what am I to think? But you have no evidence for a god, all you have are words.

The gods refuse to show up.......

This seems quite unfair. You search for God, find this website, where you find an evangelist, minister who is a scientist and familiar with every opposing stance to naturalism.

Do you not see the possibility that I might have the answers you are seeking?
That I also once sought and God sent me a messanger to whom I listened?
That just possibly that God would work through a messenger?

Maybe God just said "Hello!"
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 12:38:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This seems quite unfair. You search for God, find this website, where you find an evangelist, minister who is a scientist and familiar with every opposing stance to naturalism.

Do you not see the possibility that I might have the answers you are seeking?
That I also once sought and God sent me a messanger to whom I listened?
That just possibly that God would work through a messenger?

Maybe God just said "Hello!"

Well, you've not come up with any serious evidence for any gods or goddesses, but rather you've scoffed at the evolutionary sequences I've suggested, leading me to think you're clueless regarding anthropology. Instead you've given me some stories about your 'talking' with a god, which requires you to attack evolution and evolutionists, so I'm about convinced you're part of the 'Answers in Genesis' crowd mentality pushing for less science and more 'inner conviction'. You don't seek truth, you seek confirmation of your 'feelings' perhaps, and are satisfied when you 'feel' a god moving within you.

You simply could not be oblivious to the reputation that UC Berkely has to being the MOST liberal college in the entirety of the world.
You also could not be oblivious to the ridicule Berkely has received over its "teachings" on evolution using obvious fraudulant evidence.


Au contraire, I am unaware of Berkeley's current reputation, as I am unaware of the alleged 'fraudulent' evidence being suggested. Perhaps we could return to the subject of your evidence for a 'god'. I do remember receiving a 'B' grade from Laura Nader for a paper I submitted.

Yes, I can't relate to the 'presuppositionalist' label you're giving me. It's a whole 'nuther can of worms and BS to my mind. I do have some conclusions I've arrived at over the years, and I don't recall what evidence you're referring to as irrelevant, but you have a way of distorting what I say. If I was 74 and didn't have any conclusions wouldn't that be a little strange?

Religions are out to 'get' everyone, yes, that's about how I feel. They need my money to support pederast priests and other bums. Are my statements any more conspiratorial than yours regarding Berkeley and anthropology? You give no references for your accusations against anthropology, it sounds like gossip to me.

As I stated earlier I am simply interested in finding truth and reality. I don't have an agenda, but I believe you do.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2011 9:44:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/25/2011 12:38:29 AM, corynski wrote:

Well, you've not come up with any serious evidence for any gods or goddesses, but rather you've scoffed at the evolutionary sequences I've suggested, leading me to think you're clueless regarding anthropology.

Please be fair:

I did not scoff. I expressed the well-known disdain for the UC Berkely's use of fraudulent evolutionary evidence to support its teaching model.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

I happen to believe in a Super-Evolution model not in a sudden generation model.

-Second:
You asked about the nature of God. You did not start asking about evidence for God.

Instead you've given me some stories about your 'talking' with a god, which requires you to attack evolution and evolutionists, so I'm about convinced you're part of the 'Answers in Genesis' crowd mentality pushing for less science and more 'inner conviction'.

-You can talk to the Christian God too.
-Nothing about talking to God brought up evolution. That was you who brought it up.
-I do not agree with AIG's conclusion, but I am unable to disprove their evidence and interpretation. It is superior to my belief of how evolution occurred.

You don't seek truth, you seek confirmation of your 'feelings' perhaps, and are satisfied when you 'feel' a god moving within you.

You misunderstand. I did not "feel" God. I have met Jesus. I have "known" the Holy Spirit.
I have met Angels and demons and interacted with them.
I have known the mind of countless priests and pastors.

You simply could not be oblivious to the reputation that UC Berkely has to being the MOST liberal college in the entirety of the world.
You also could not be oblivious to the ridicule Berkely has received over its "teachings" on evolution using obvious fraudulant evidence.

Au contraire, I am unaware of Berkeley's current reputation, as I am unaware of the alleged 'fraudulent' evidence being suggested. Perhaps we could return to the subject of your evidence for a 'god'. I do remember receiving a 'B' grade from Laura Nader for a paper I submitted.

Well, I encourage you to review critics of Berkely's teachings.

As to evidence for God.
Great discussion:
First:
Cosmological Argument
Then
Teleological Argument
Then
Intrinsic Metaphysical God.

All of these were sufficient to ground my faith.

Which do you have questions about? Do you feel one to be particularly strong?


Yes, I can't relate to the 'presuppositionalist' label you're giving me. It's a whole 'nuther can of worms and BS to my mind. I do have some conclusions I've arrived at over the years, and I don't recall what evidence you're referring to as irrelevant, but you have a way of distorting what I say. If I was 74 and didn't have any conclusions wouldn't that be a little strange?

I do not mind conclusions but a presuppositionalist will not allow those conclusions to change ever.

If you feel I am distorting then you perhaps are not being very clear. You may want to articulate better.


Religions are out to 'get' everyone, yes, that's about how I feel. They need my money to support pederast priests and other bums. Are my statements any more conspiratorial than yours regarding Berkeley and anthropology? You give no references for your accusations against anthropology, it sounds like gossip to me.

I have been intimately within the Church for over a decade.
This accusation is completely unfounded. You yourself admit that you have not been in the Church and do not know of its teachings.

This is an unfounded accusation. You offer no evidence for this and just bring the moral character of Christians into question with zero evidence.

As to Berkley, I do not know if they are "conspiring". However, they have taught fraudulent evidence as fact well after proven to be inaccurate.

They still "Justify" Pakicetus in a different way now that is purely speculative.


As I stated earlier I am simply interested in finding truth and reality. I don't have an agenda, but I believe you do.

Yes the salvation of your soul!!! That you would be in Heaven, the perfect state of existence, with God, the perfect being, for all of eternity!!!!
I am pure wholesomeness!!!!

Fear me…?

Despite my sarcasm, what do you believe my agenda is if you put a nefarious agenda upon me?
If you do believe I have an agenda is it evil? What is the agenda?
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2011 2:29:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Do you not see the possibility that I might have the answers you are seeking?

In a word, no. So far, you have told me that you have a relationship with God and Jesus, of which I am very interested. Many people who talk with the gods are living in restricted quarters under supervision I'm told.

But our discourse shifted to evolution and Berkeley, involving a claim that teachings from Berkeley on evolution were using 'obvious fraudulent evidence.' Stop the presses......

I did not scoff. I expressed the well-known disdain for the UC Berkely's use of fraudulent evolutionary evidence to support its teaching model.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu......

I happen to believe in a Super-Evolution model not in a sudden generation model.


It's 3:02 in the morning, and I have no idea what a 'Super-Evolution" model is. Or a "sudden generation" model. But the Berkeley gossip is so insignificant as far as the whole of evolution is concerned that perhaps a little background will instill a sense of respect and perspective for the discipline, until I'm back tomorrow to learn more regarding your relationship with the deities:

From: Ernst Mayr, Professor Emeritus in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University.

We still have only a very incomplete knowledge of biodiversity. Although nearly two million animals have already been described, estimates of the number of still undescribed species go as high as 30 million. Fungi, lower plants, protists, and prokaryotes are even more poorly known. The phylogenetic relationship of most of these taxa are only poorly understood or entirely unknown, although molecular methods now make daily new contributions to this understanding. The fosil record of past evolution is still woefully inadequate, as illustrated by the hominid fossil record.

The way organisms are structured, evolution is inevitable. Each organism, even the simplest bacterium, has a genome, consisting of thousands to many millions of base pairs. Observation has established that each base pair is subject to occasional mutation. Different populations have different mutations, and if they are isolated from each other, these populations inevitably become more different from each other from generation to generation. Even this simplest of all possible scenarios represents evolution. If one adds further biological processes, such as recombination and selection, the rate of evolution accelerates exponentially. therefore, the mere fact of the existence of genetic programs makes the assumption of a stationary world impossible. Evolution is thus a plain fact, not a conjecture or assumption.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://scienceblogs.com...

by PZ Myers

I just learned (via John Lynch) about a paper on cetacean limbs that combines developmental biology and paleontology, and makes a lovely argument about the mechanisms behind the evolution of whale morphology. It is an analysis of the molecular determinants of limb formation in modern dolphins, coupled to a comparison of fossil whale limbs, and a reasonable inference about the pattern of change that was responsible for their evolution.

This retention of major genetic pathways should be obvious just looking at a whale. They evolved from four-limbed tetrapods, and lost their hindlimbs as more and more locomotor function was committed to the tail and flukes, yet they still retain forelimbs. It is the same set of genes that operate in the hind- and fore-limbs, so of course you can't just get rid of them—this is a case of selective limb loss. In addition, the genes have multiple functions making simple gene loss untenable. Shh, for instance, is a critical signaling molecule involved in the specification of midline structures in early development, and loss of the gene as a whole is lethal. What evolution did was to modify the domains of expression, selectively inactivating limb genes in the hindlimb region.

One other curious feature of cetacean development is that they start by making perfectly respectable hindlimb buds, at about the fifth week of gestation. As is typical, they go through a period of phylotypy where their embryos resemble the embryos of other vertebrates, and they initiate the formation of the full four limbs. What happens next, though, is that the hindlimbs regress and their remnants become imbedded in the body wall. This gives us a clue about the change: the molecules involved in limb initiation are still active, but the ones responsible for limb maintenance in early development have been shut down.

Cetaceans form the AER for both the fore- and hind-limb. They express Fgf8. This is the normal tetrapod pattern.

Cetaceans form a ZPA for the forelimb. Hand2 is expressed broadly at first, and then is restricted to just the posterior part of the fore-limb; Shh is expressed in a perfectly ordinary fore-limb ZPA.

Hand2 is not expressed in the hind limb region. Shh is never activated. No ZPA forms for the hind limb, and the structure arrests and ultimately regresses.

Looking at the evolutionary history of whales, the authors think they can pin down when this downregulation of Hand2 occurred. Shutting off that gene causes a complete loss of the limb, so older fossils that show a gradual diminution of the hind limbs must have retained an active Hand2/Shh combination; the complete loss occurred about 34 million years ago, so that would have been the 'moment' when this restriction would have caused the final disappearance of the whale's posterior limbs.

Simplified phylogeny of cetaceans discussed here with evolutionary events indicated. Hind limbs represent fossil ambulocetid Ambulocetus, fossil basilosauroid Basilosaurus, and two modern mysticetes (Bowhead Whale and Sei Whale, respectively). In most odontocetes, the only hind-limb element preserved is the innominate, as in the Sei Whale. Labeled bony elements of the hind limb are innominate (inn.), femur (fem.), and tibia (tib).

A promising correlation in the fossil morphology is that there was a concurrent reorganization of the vertebral skeleton at the same time that the hind limbs were lost. The distinct identity of the sacral vertebrae was lost, and the caudal vertebrae became more homogeneous. This implies a change in the expression pattern of the Hox genes, which are responsible for anterior-posterior positional information. That suggests that we ought to look upstream of Hand2, and ask what's going on with Hox gene expression in cetaceans—the changes that streamlined the vertebral column may have simultaneously induced the changes in Hand2.

How do you make a whale? Clearly, you don't just "lose" the genes required to make hind limbs. You have to revise and add to the control information for existing banks of regulatory genes involved in limb formation.
corynski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2011 8:06:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Greetings

I hope you had an enjoyable holiday, I certainly did.

I imagine you've tired of my same old complaints about religion, as you know they likely don't change much over the years. But each time I go through this exercise hopefully I do learn something, and in this case I've learned that even a man as intelligent as yourself has no new answers, no new information. And in response to your question regarding what I think is your agenda, I would say it is to enjoin other humans to accept the same religious images and stories that you have accepted, in an effort to achieve consensus of opinion and universal acceptance of Christianity in general.

But since I've not heard the voices or seen any images, I am still without belief. Likely the fact that my parents and sister were not believers weighs heavily upon my decision, as are the books and teachings of evolution that I've covered in school, plus the fact that there have been thousands of gods and goddesses throughout history, a god for each tribe. I am more impressed with ideas such as found in Julian Jaynes book "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" than I am in the Bible.

I personally believe that the desire of humans for such a supernatural power, as an answer to all the questions they have, such as why thunderstorms, why death, why evil deeds, etc. is why they continually create new gods and goddesses. Men create gods, not gods create men, seems to be the correct version. That is the result of my 50 plus years of inquiry.

My conclusions are based firstly upon the fact that no god has shown up, to me, and taken responsibility for this world. Secondly, the humans simply cannot agree upon anything with regard to religion, and thirdly, considering the three religions we are most familiar with, Chrisianity, Judaism and Islam, we realize that these are the three most violent religions that exist, to the point that they are killing each other. Three religions who all claim the same God, yet they are killing each other. In a word, I find religions preposterous, regardless of how much benefit some people derive from them. Yes, religions do good, but they also do wrong, to the detriment of us all. Religions look backward, science looks forward, thus they are different ball games to me. Science is valuable because it predicts, religion does not.

To answer a few of your questions specifically:

You asked about the nature of God. You did not start asking about evidence for God.

Basically the same thing, you would require evidence in order to express the nature of the gods and goddesses.

If you do believe I have an agenda is it evil? What is the agenda?

No, it's not evil, just mistaken. The agenda is to build a consensus, so that we're all on the same page and not in serious disagreement. If I believe differently than you, it likely means one of us must be mistaken.

I do not mind conclusions but a presuppositionalist will not allow those conclusions to change ever.

Doesn't that depend upon what the conclusions are? If my studies yield the same results over the years, why would I change my thinking? Take any example, such as Mother Theresa, who all her life believed strongly, only to voice doubts at the end. That strengthens my beliefs.

And regarding my accusations towards the Christian churches in general, I believe that in exchange for tithing and professions of belief you expect to have your sins taken on by Jesus, and you will have a reservation for a place in Heaven. If I am correct and there are no gods and goddesses then this routine would constitute fraud. Not to mention the fact that churches don't pay property taxes in general. What a deal........

charley
kjw47
Posts: 1,624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2011 12:29:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/27/2011 8:06:56 AM, corynski wrote:
Greetings

I hope you had an enjoyable holiday, I certainly did.

I imagine you've tired of my same old complaints about religion, as you know they likely don't change much over the years. But each time I go through this exercise hopefully I do learn something, and in this case I've learned that even a man as intelligent as yourself has no new answers, no new information. And in response to your question regarding what I think is your agenda, I would say it is to enjoin other humans to accept the same religious images and stories that you have accepted, in an effort to achieve consensus of opinion and universal acceptance of Christianity in general.

But since I've not heard the voices or seen any images, I am still without belief. Likely the fact that my parents and sister were not believers weighs heavily upon my decision, as are the books and teachings of evolution that I've covered in school, plus the fact that there have been thousands of gods and goddesses throughout history, a god for each tribe. I am more impressed with ideas such as found in Julian Jaynes book "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" than I am in the Bible.

I personally believe that the desire of humans for such a supernatural power, as an answer to all the questions they have, such as why thunderstorms, why death, why evil deeds, etc. is why they continually create new gods and goddesses. Men create gods, not gods create men, seems to be the correct version. That is the result of my 50 plus years of inquiry.

My conclusions are based firstly upon the fact that no god has shown up, to me, and taken responsibility for this world. Secondly, the humans simply cannot agree upon anything with regard to religion, and thirdly, considering the three religions we are most familiar with, Chrisianity, Judaism and Islam, we realize that these are the three most violent religions that exist, to the point that they are killing each other. Three religions who all claim the same God, yet they are killing each other. In a word, I find religions preposterous, regardless of how much benefit some people derive from them. Yes, religions do good, but they also do wrong, to the detriment of us all. Religions look backward, science looks forward, thus they are different ball games to me. Science is valuable because it predicts, religion does not.

To answer a few of your questions specifically:

You asked about the nature of God. You did not start asking about evidence for God.

Basically the same thing, you would require evidence in order to express the nature of the gods and goddesses.

If you do believe I have an agenda is it evil? What is the agenda?

No, it's not evil, just mistaken. The agenda is to build a consensus, so that we're all on the same page and not in serious disagreement. If I believe differently than you, it likely means one of us must be mistaken.

I do not mind conclusions but a presuppositionalist will not allow those conclusions to change ever.

Doesn't that depend upon what the conclusions are? If my studies yield the same results over the years, why would I change my thinking? Take any example, such as Mother Theresa, who all her life believed strongly, only to voice doubts at the end. That strengthens my beliefs.

And regarding my accusations towards the Christian churches in general, I believe that in exchange for tithing and professions of belief you expect to have your sins taken on by Jesus, and you will have a reservation for a place in Heaven. If I am correct and there are no gods and goddesses then this routine would constitute fraud. Not to mention the fact that churches don't pay property taxes in general. What a deal........

charley

God has never used more than 1 religion on this earth--Why? because there is only 1 truth--there seems to be thousands of different religions calling themselves christian--there is something wrong with that picture-- Jesus told us who were the head of his true religion--- The faithful and discreet slave--Jesus appointed these to give spiritual food at the proper time--- obviously Jesus taught- Love,peace,unity--- Not only would the fds teach that they would also live by those teachings and so would all true christians.
Science makes many errors. The work of imperfect mortals.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 6:42:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/28/2011 12:29:52 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 11/27/2011 8:06:56 AM, corynski wrote:
Greetings

I hope you had an enjoyable holiday, I certainly did.

I imagine you've tired of my same old complaints about religion, as you know they likely don't change much over the years. But each time I go through this exercise hopefully I do learn something, and in this case I've learned that even a man as intelligent as yourself has no new answers, no new information. And in response to your question regarding what I think is your agenda, I would say it is to enjoin other humans to accept the same religious images and stories that you have accepted, in an effort to achieve consensus of opinion and universal acceptance of Christianity in general.

But since I've not heard the voices or seen any images, I am still without belief. Likely the fact that my parents and sister were not believers weighs heavily upon my decision, as are the books and teachings of evolution that I've covered in school, plus the fact that there have been thousands of gods and goddesses throughout history, a god for each tribe. I am more impressed with ideas such as found in Julian Jaynes book "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" than I am in the Bible.

I personally believe that the desire of humans for such a supernatural power, as an answer to all the questions they have, such as why thunderstorms, why death, why evil deeds, etc. is why they continually create new gods and goddesses. Men create gods, not gods create men, seems to be the correct version. That is the result of my 50 plus years of inquiry.

My conclusions are based firstly upon the fact that no god has shown up, to me, and taken responsibility for this world. Secondly, the humans simply cannot agree upon anything with regard to religion, and thirdly, considering the three religions we are most familiar with, Chrisianity, Judaism and Islam, we realize that these are the three most violent religions that exist, to the point that they are killing each other. Three religions who all claim the same God, yet they are killing each other. In a word, I find religions preposterous, regardless of how much benefit some people derive from them. Yes, religions do good, but they also do wrong, to the detriment of us all. Religions look backward, science looks forward, thus they are different ball games to me. Science is valuable because it predicts, religion does not.

To answer a few of your questions specifically:

You asked about the nature of God. You did not start asking about evidence for God.

Basically the same thing, you would require evidence in order to express the nature of the gods and goddesses.

If you do believe I have an agenda is it evil? What is the agenda?

No, it's not evil, just mistaken. The agenda is to build a consensus, so that we're all on the same page and not in serious disagreement. If I believe differently than you, it likely means one of us must be mistaken.

I do not mind conclusions but a presuppositionalist will not allow those conclusions to change ever.

Doesn't that depend upon what the conclusions are? If my studies yield the same results over the years, why would I change my thinking? Take any example, such as Mother Theresa, who all her life believed strongly, only to voice doubts at the end. That strengthens my beliefs.

And regarding my accusations towards the Christian churches in general, I believe that in exchange for tithing and professions of belief you expect to have your sins taken on by Jesus, and you will have a reservation for a place in Heaven. If I am correct and there are no gods and goddesses then this routine would constitute fraud. Not to mention the fact that churches don't pay property taxes in general. What a deal........

charley



God has never used more than 1 religion on this earth--Why? because there is only 1 truth--there seems to be thousands of different religions calling themselves christian--there is something wrong with that picture-- Jesus told us who were the head of his true religion--- The faithful and discreet slave--Jesus appointed these to give spiritual food at the proper time--- obviously Jesus taught- Love,peace,unity--- Not only would the fds teach that they would also live by those teachings and so would all true christians.
Science makes many errors. The work of imperfect mortals.

Are you referring to the different denominations?

Jesus himself prophecied that indeed the Kingdom of Heaven would have many branches.

Here is the prophecy:
He said, "How will we liken the Kingdom of God? Or with what parable will we illustrate it? It's like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, though it is less than all the seeds that are on the earth, yet when it is sown, grows up, and becomes greater than all the herbs, and puts out great branches, so that the birds of the sky can lodge under its shadow."

Jesus has no problem with the denominations within the Universal Christian Church.
kjw47
Posts: 1,624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 6:26:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 6:42:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/28/2011 12:29:52 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 11/27/2011 8:06:56 AM, corynski wrote:
Greetings

I hope you had an enjoyable holiday, I certainly did.

I imagine you've tired of my same old complaints about religion, as you know they likely don't change much over the years. But each time I go through this exercise hopefully I do learn something, and in this case I've learned that even a man as intelligent as yourself has no new answers, no new information. And in response to your question regarding what I think is your agenda, I would say it is to enjoin other humans to accept the same religious images and stories that you have accepted, in an effort to achieve consensus of opinion and universal acceptance of Christianity in general.

But since I've not heard the voices or seen any images, I am still without belief. Likely the fact that my parents and sister were not believers weighs heavily upon my decision, as are the books and teachings of evolution that I've covered in school, plus the fact that there have been thousands of gods and goddesses throughout history, a god for each tribe. I am more impressed with ideas such as found in Julian Jaynes book "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" than I am in the Bible.

I personally believe that the desire of humans for such a supernatural power, as an answer to all the questions they have, such as why thunderstorms, why death, why evil deeds, etc. is why they continually create new gods and goddesses. Men create gods, not gods create men, seems to be the correct version. That is the result of my 50 plus years of inquiry.

My conclusions are based firstly upon the fact that no god has shown up, to me, and taken responsibility for this world. Secondly, the humans simply cannot agree upon anything with regard to religion, and thirdly, considering the three religions we are most familiar with, Chrisianity, Judaism and Islam, we realize that these are the three most violent religions that exist, to the point that they are killing each other. Three religions who all claim the same God, yet they are killing each other. In a word, I find religions preposterous, regardless of how much benefit some people derive from them. Yes, religions do good, but they also do wrong, to the detriment of us all. Religions look backward, science looks forward, thus they are different ball games to me. Science is valuable because it predicts, religion does not.

To answer a few of your questions specifically:

You asked about the nature of God. You did not start asking about evidence for God.

Basically the same thing, you would require evidence in order to express the nature of the gods and goddesses.

If you do believe I have an agenda is it evil? What is the agenda?

No, it's not evil, just mistaken. The agenda is to build a consensus, so that we're all on the same page and not in serious disagreement. If I believe differently than you, it likely means one of us must be mistaken.

I do not mind conclusions but a presuppositionalist will not allow those conclusions to change ever.

Doesn't that depend upon what the conclusions are? If my studies yield the same results over the years, why would I change my thinking? Take any example, such as Mother Theresa, who all her life believed strongly, only to voice doubts at the end. That strengthens my beliefs.

And regarding my accusations towards the Christian churches in general, I believe that in exchange for tithing and professions of belief you expect to have your sins taken on by Jesus, and you will have a reservation for a place in Heaven. If I am correct and there are no gods and goddesses then this routine would constitute fraud. Not to mention the fact that churches don't pay property taxes in general. What a deal........

charley



God has never used more than 1 religion on this earth--Why? because there is only 1 truth--there seems to be thousands of different religions calling themselves christian--there is something wrong with that picture-- Jesus told us who were the head of his true religion--- The faithful and discreet slave--Jesus appointed these to give spiritual food at the proper time--- obviously Jesus taught- Love,peace,unity--- Not only would the fds teach that they would also live by those teachings and so would all true christians.
Science makes many errors. The work of imperfect mortals.

Are you referring to the different denominations?

Jesus himself prophecied that indeed the Kingdom of Heaven would have many branches.

Here is the prophecy:
He said, "How will we liken the Kingdom of God? Or with what parable will we illustrate it? It's like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, though it is less than all the seeds that are on the earth, yet when it is sown, grows up, and becomes greater than all the herbs, and puts out great branches, so that the birds of the sky can lodge under its shadow."


Jesus has no problem with the denominations within the Universal Christian Church.

Gods kingdom isnt on the earth right now, so that scripture does not apply to divided religion. Jesus taught us to pray for Gods kingdom to come, he also said that his kingdom is no part of this world--- After Jesus wipes all wickedness off of the earth, thats when Gods kingdom comes.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 8:58:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 6:26:09 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 11/30/2011 6:42:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/28/2011 12:29:52 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 11/27/2011 8:06:56 AM, corynski wrote:
Greetings

I hope you had an enjoyable holiday, I certainly did.

I imagine you've tired of my same old complaints about religion, as you know they likely don't change much over the years. But each time I go through this exercise hopefully I do learn something, and in this case I've learned that even a man as intelligent as yourself has no new answers, no new information. And in response to your question regarding what I think is your agenda, I would say it is to enjoin other humans to accept the same religious images and stories that you have accepted, in an effort to achieve consensus of opinion and universal acceptance of Christianity in general.

But since I've not heard the voices or seen any images, I am still without belief. Likely the fact that my parents and sister were not believers weighs heavily upon my decision, as are the books and teachings of evolution that I've covered in school, plus the fact that there have been thousands of gods and goddesses throughout history, a god for each tribe. I am more impressed with ideas such as found in Julian Jaynes book "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" than I am in the Bible.

I personally believe that the desire of humans for such a supernatural power, as an answer to all the questions they have, such as why thunderstorms, why death, why evil deeds, etc. is why they continually create new gods and goddesses. Men create gods, not gods create men, seems to be the correct version. That is the result of my 50 plus years of inquiry.

My conclusions are based firstly upon the fact that no god has shown up, to me, and taken responsibility for this world. Secondly, the humans simply cannot agree upon anything with regard to religion, and thirdly, considering the three religions we are most familiar with, Chrisianity, Judaism and Islam, we realize that these are the three most violent religions that exist, to the point that they are killing each other. Three religions who all claim the same God, yet they are killing each other. In a word, I find religions preposterous, regardless of how much benefit some people derive from them. Yes, religions do good, but they also do wrong, to the detriment of us all. Religions look backward, science looks forward, thus they are different ball games to me. Science is valuable because it predicts, religion does not.

To answer a few of your questions specifically:

You asked about the nature of God. You did not start asking about evidence for God.

Basically the same thing, you would require evidence in order to express the nature of the gods and goddesses.

If you do believe I have an agenda is it evil? What is the agenda?

No, it's not evil, just mistaken. The agenda is to build a consensus, so that we're all on the same page and not in serious disagreement. If I believe differently than you, it likely means one of us must be mistaken.

I do not mind conclusions but a presuppositionalist will not allow those conclusions to change ever.

Doesn't that depend upon what the conclusions are? If my studies yield the same results over the years, why would I change my thinking? Take any example, such as Mother Theresa, who all her life believed strongly, only to voice doubts at the end. That strengthens my beliefs.

And regarding my accusations towards the Christian churches in general, I believe that in exchange for tithing and professions of belief you expect to have your sins taken on by Jesus, and you will have a reservation for a place in Heaven. If I am correct and there are no gods and goddesses then this routine would constitute fraud. Not to mention the fact that churches don't pay property taxes in general. What a deal........

charley



God has never used more than 1 religion on this earth--Why? because there is only 1 truth--there seems to be thousands of different religions calling themselves christian--there is something wrong with that picture-- Jesus told us who were the head of his true religion--- The faithful and discreet slave--Jesus appointed these to give spiritual food at the proper time--- obviously Jesus taught- Love,peace,unity--- Not only would the fds teach that they would also live by those teachings and so would all true christians.
Science makes many errors. The work of imperfect mortals.

Are you referring to the different denominations?

Jesus himself prophecied that indeed the Kingdom of Heaven would have many branches.

Here is the prophecy:
He said, "How will we liken the Kingdom of God? Or with what parable will we illustrate it? It's like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, though it is less than all the seeds that are on the earth, yet when it is sown, grows up, and becomes greater than all the herbs, and puts out great branches, so that the birds of the sky can lodge under its shadow."


Jesus has no problem with the denominations within the Universal Christian Church.



Gods kingdom isnt on the earth right now, so that scripture does not apply to divided religion. Jesus taught us to pray for Gods kingdom to come, he also said that his kingdom is no part of this world--- After Jesus wipes all wickedness off of the earth, thats when Gods kingdom comes.

That is very strained interpretation.

We can see clearly that God does not intend the "birds" (evil people) to be in Heaven. Evil people will not be allowed into heaven.

The next few are even more clear. I will just focus on one more.

"Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"

Clearly the Revelation is timeline and showing that the Kingdom of Heaven is a Kingdom of People not an earthly Kingdom of land.
That shows that the Kingdom of Heaven is present but one of People.
kjw47
Posts: 1,624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 5:51:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 8:58:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/2/2011 6:26:09 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 11/30/2011 6:42:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/28/2011 12:29:52 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 11/27/2011 8:06:56 AM, corynski wrote:
Greetings

I hope you had an enjoyable holiday, I certainly did.

I imagine you've tired of my same old complaints about religion, as you know they likely don't change much over the years. But each time I go through this exercise hopefully I do learn something, and in this case I've learned that even a man as intelligent as yourself has no new answers, no new information. And in response to your question regarding what I think is your agenda, I would say it is to enjoin other humans to accept the same religious images and stories that you have accepted, in an effort to achieve consensus of opinion and universal acceptance of Christianity in general.

But since I've not heard the voices or seen any images, I am still without belief. Likely the fact that my parents and sister were not believers weighs heavily upon my decision, as are the books and teachings of evolution that I've covered in school, plus the fact that there have been thousands of gods and goddesses throughout history, a god for each tribe. I am more impressed with ideas such as found in Julian Jaynes book "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" than I am in the Bible.

I personally believe that the desire of humans for such a supernatural power, as an answer to all the questions they have, such as why thunderstorms, why death, why evil deeds, etc. is why they continually create new gods and goddesses. Men create gods, not gods create men, seems to be the correct version. That is the result of my 50 plus years of inquiry.

My conclusions are based firstly upon the fact that no god has shown up, to me, and taken responsibility for this world. Secondly, the humans simply cannot agree upon anything with regard to religion, and thirdly, considering the three religions we are most familiar with, Chrisianity, Judaism and Islam, we realize that these are the three most violent religions that exist, to the point that they are killing each other. Three religions who all claim the same God, yet they are killing each other. In a word, I find religions preposterous, regardless of how much benefit some people derive from them. Yes, religions do good, but they also do wrong, to the detriment of us all. Religions look backward, science looks forward, thus they are different ball games to me. Science is valuable because it predicts, religion does not.

To answer a few of your questions specifically:

You asked about the nature of God. You did not start asking about evidence for God.

Basically the same thing, you would require evidence in order to express the nature of the gods and goddesses.

If you do believe I have an agenda is it evil? What is the agenda?

No, it's not evil, just mistaken. The agenda is to build a consensus, so that we're all on the same page and not in serious disagreement. If I believe differently than you, it likely means one of us must be mistaken.

I do not mind conclusions but a presuppositionalist will not allow those conclusions to change ever.

Doesn't that depend upon what the conclusions are? If my studies yield the same results over the years, why would I change my thinking? Take any example, such as Mother Theresa, who all her life believed strongly, only to voice doubts at the end. That strengthens my beliefs.

And regarding my accusations towards the Christian churches in general, I believe that in exchange for tithing and professions of belief you expect to have your sins taken on by Jesus, and you will have a reservation for a place in Heaven. If I am correct and there are no gods and goddesses then this routine would constitute fraud. Not to mention the fact that churches don't pay property taxes in general. What a deal........

charley



God has never used more than 1 religion on this earth--Why? because there is only 1 truth--there seems to be thousands of different religions calling themselves christian--there is something wrong with that picture-- Jesus told us who were the head of his true religion--- The faithful and discreet slave--Jesus appointed these to give spiritual food at the proper time--- obviously Jesus taught- Love,peace,unity--- Not only would the fds teach that they would also live by those teachings and so would all true christians.
Science makes many errors. The work of imperfect mortals.

Are you referring to the different denominations?

Jesus himself prophecied that indeed the Kingdom of Heaven would have many branches.

Here is the prophecy:
He said, "How will we liken the Kingdom of God? Or with what parable will we illustrate it? It's like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, though it is less than all the seeds that are on the earth, yet when it is sown, grows up, and becomes greater than all the herbs, and puts out great branches, so that the birds of the sky can lodge under its shadow."


Jesus has no problem with the denominations within the Universal Christian Church.



Gods kingdom isnt on the earth right now, so that scripture does not apply to divided religion. Jesus taught us to pray for Gods kingdom to come, he also said that his kingdom is no part of this world--- After Jesus wipes all wickedness off of the earth, thats when Gods kingdom comes.

That is very strained interpretation.

We can see clearly that God does not intend the "birds" (evil people) to be in Heaven. Evil people will not be allowed into heaven.

The next few are even more clear. I will just focus on one more.

"Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"

Clearly the Revelation is timeline and showing that the Kingdom of Heaven is a Kingdom of People not an earthly Kingdom of land.
That shows that the Kingdom of Heaven is present but one of People.

Why would God bother with a new earth( new system of things, not a new planet) if it wasnt to be inhabited?? Which is why Jesus said--Happy are the meek( mild tempered) for they will inherit the earth(land) and the psalmist said--The righteous will possess the earth( land) and reside forever upon it--- this means the great crowd---The little flock = the bride of Christ = the 144,000 have the hope to enter heaven to be kings and priests alongside of Jesus.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 6:30:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 5:51:39 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 12/2/2011 8:58:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/2/2011 6:26:09 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 11/30/2011 6:42:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/28/2011 12:29:52 PM, kjw47 wrote:
At 11/27/2011 8:06:56 AM, corynski wrote:
Greetings

I hope you had an enjoyable holiday, I certainly did.

I imagine you've tired of my same old complaints about religion, as you know they likely don't change much over the years. But each time I go through this exercise hopefully I do learn something, and in this case I've learned that even a man as intelligent as yourself has no new answers, no new information. And in response to your question regarding what I think is your agenda, I would say it is to enjoin other humans to accept the same religious images and stories that you have accepted, in an effort to achieve consensus of opinion and universal acceptance of Christianity in general.

But since I've not heard the voices or seen any images, I am still without belief. Likely the fact that my parents and sister were not believers weighs heavily upon my decision, as are the books and teachings of evolution that I've covered in school, plus the fact that there have been thousands of gods and goddesses throughout history, a god for each tribe. I am more impressed with ideas such as found in Julian Jaynes book "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" than I am in the Bible.

I personally believe that the desire of humans for such a supernatural power, as an answer to all the questions they have, such as why thunderstorms, why death, why evil deeds, etc. is why they continually create new gods and goddesses. Men create gods, not gods create men, seems to be the correct version. That is the result of my 50 plus years of inquiry.

My conclusions are based firstly upon the fact that no god has shown up, to me, and taken responsibility for this world. Secondly, the humans simply cannot agree upon anything with regard to religion, and thirdly, considering the three religions we are most familiar with, Chrisianity, Judaism and Islam, we realize that these are the three most violent religions that exist, to the point that they are killing each other. Three religions who all claim the same God, yet they are killing each other. In a word, I find religions preposterous, regardless of how much benefit some people derive from them. Yes, religions do good, but they also do wrong, to the detriment of us all. Religions look backward, science looks forward, thus they are different ball games to me. Science is valuable because it predicts, religion does not.

To answer a few of your questions specifically:

You asked about the nature of God. You did not start asking about evidence for God.

Basically the same thing, you would require evidence in order to express the nature of the gods and goddesses.

If you do believe I have an agenda is it evil? What is the agenda?

No, it's not evil, just mistaken. The agenda is to build a consensus, so that we're all on the same page and not in serious disagreement. If I believe differently than you, it likely means one of us must be mistaken.

I do not mind conclusions but a presuppositionalist will not allow those conclusions to change ever.

Doesn't that depend upon what the conclusions are? If my studies yield the same results over the years, why would I change my thinking? Take any example, such as Mother Theresa, who all her life believed strongly, only to voice doubts at the end. That strengthens my beliefs.

And regarding my accusations towards the Christian churches in general, I believe that in exchange for tithing and professions of belief you expect to have your sins taken on by Jesus, and you will have a reservation for a place in Heaven. If I am correct and there are no gods and goddesses then this routine would constitute fraud. Not to mention the fact that churches don't pay property taxes in general. What a deal........

charley



God has never used more than 1 religion on this earth--Why? because there is only 1 truth--there seems to be thousands of different religions calling themselves christian--there is something wrong with that picture-- Jesus told us who were the head of his true religion--- The faithful and discreet slave--Jesus appointed these to give spiritual food at the proper time--- obviously Jesus taught- Love,peace,unity--- Not only would the fds teach that they would also live by those teachings and so would all true christians.
Science makes many errors. The work of imperfect mortals.

Are you referring to the different denominations?

Jesus himself prophecied that indeed the Kingdom of Heaven would have many branches.

Here is the prophecy:
He said, "How will we liken the Kingdom of God? Or with what parable will we illustrate it? It's like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, though it is less than all the seeds that are on the earth, yet when it is sown, grows up, and becomes greater than all the herbs, and puts out great branches, so that the birds of the sky can lodge under its shadow."


Jesus has no problem with the denominations within the Universal Christian Church.



Gods kingdom isnt on the earth right now, so that scripture does not apply to divided religion. Jesus taught us to pray for Gods kingdom to come, he also said that his kingdom is no part of this world--- After Jesus wipes all wickedness off of the earth, thats when Gods kingdom comes.

That is very strained interpretation.

We can see clearly that God does not intend the "birds" (evil people) to be in Heaven. Evil people will not be allowed into heaven.

The next few are even more clear. I will just focus on one more.

"Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"

Clearly the Revelation is timeline and showing that the Kingdom of Heaven is a Kingdom of People not an earthly Kingdom of land.
That shows that the Kingdom of Heaven is present but one of People.


Why would God bother with a new earth( new system of things, not a new planet) if it wasnt to be inhabited?? Which is why Jesus said--Happy are the meek( mild tempered) for they will inherit the earth(land) and the psalmist said--The righteous will possess the earth( land) and reside forever upon it--- this means the great crowd---The little flock = the bride of Christ = the 144,000 have the hope to enter heaven to be kings and priests alongside of Jesus.

In Christian Theology there is a distinction concerning the Kingdom of Heaven (a group of people) and the Future "newly recreated earth".

Bride of Christ = All Christians within the Kingdom of Heaven.
144,000 = Jews that are devoted to the Messiah at the end of times in Revelation.
Priest and Kings = All Chrisitians devoted to Holiness while on earth.

Perhaps that offers more clarity?