- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Ed,
Nobody came to my house either.
Listen. The bottom line is that the more I dug into scripture, the more it revealed itself not to be true. It's the exact opposite of what I was expecting when I started my search. I had been taught my whole life that the bible was holy, just and true, but when I actually studied it – with no preconceptions about what it was supposed to be saying – I found that it was no better than you would expect from ancient human minds.
Here's a challenge, Ed. Read from about Exodus 20 to the end of Deuteronomy, and make two lists. The first list should record all of the “divine wisdom” you find as you read – not just things that “God says”, but things that strike you as above and beyond human wisdom. (For example, “Thou shalt not steal!” doesn't count since pretty much every human culture that has ever existed has come up with such laws.) The second list should be of all the things that seem bizarre, wrong, or just plain silly to you as you read. (Of course, you have to be completely honest with yourself on this second list or the whole exercise will be a farce.) Then compare your lists and see which one is longer. Bear in mind that this section of the bible is supposed to be “God's perfect law”.
Good luck!
Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 08 2012,14:45) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 08 2012,01:34) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 07 2012,06:01) Hi WIT, Maybe I can answer in behalf of God – what do want to know?
Who really killed JFK?Seriously Ed, you're asking me to trust that whatever you say is a message from God? Really?
In any case, you're dodging the issue. Do you have an explanation for why this god, who you say responds to anyone who calls out to him, didn't respond to me?
For the record, I came to this site several years ago when I was in the middle of a desperate search for the Truth – hence my user name. I was at the point where I wanted to make sure that what I believed truly lined up with what “God” said in scripture. It didn't matter to me where it lead, or what I might have to give up along the way, (including friends and family). I just wanted to know the truth.
Now, explain to me how someone with the mindset that I had back then could end up not ever hearing from “God”.
Hi WIT,Maybe you did hear from God, but you didn't recognize it was him.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Maybe you didn't hear from any god, but mistook your inner monologue for a god.Or maybe you are channeling Jupiter.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 02 2012,21:04) Quote (Colter @ Aug. 01 2012,03:44) It seems that God wants us to find God honestly; not because some intermediary tells us what’s true. Better to find God at the end of an error then to assume God without experiential validation by way of the religions of authority. “Better to have a God without a religion then a religion without a God” UB
Colter
Would you like me to tell you what I would do to the Judeo-christian god if I ever found it?Stuart
Send 10 teen agers into a museum to observe a work of art, say a piece from Salvador Dali. When they return, ask each one of them to “define” the work. 25 years later, send the same 10 adults back to observe the same piece and interview them again.
None of the participants will have identical experiences with the work, and the second exercise 25 years latter would likely produce different interpretations again.
The Judaio-Christian God is a composite work pieced together by mere men and mans opinion/interpretation of God over different ages. No matter how great the revelations, man tends to dumb down his spiritual experience into something he can understand, doctrine, dogma, theology.
To me there is no greater revelation of God then in the life of Jesus……no matter how backward and primitive the interpretation of the meaning of his life has been since those times. The observations and conclusions are diverse.
Colter
But then there's the theory of Godless evolution, an unguided, purely mechanistic universe of death.
Colter
Quote No matter how great the revelations, man tends to dumb down his spiritual experience into something he can understand, doctrine, dogma, theology. and each doctrine, dogma and theology that someone holds is the right one because they have the doctrine, dogma and theology to back it up.
Quote (Colter @ Aug. 12 2012,22:01) But then there's the theory of Godless evolution, an unguided, purely mechanistic universe of death. Colter
Evolution by the theory of natural selection, in the course of completely explaining in mechanistic terms the diversity of life on the planet, says nothing about gods.Although it sure killed a few gods-of-the-gaps.
Is there any other kind of god?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 13 2012,00:03) Quote (Colter @ Aug. 12 2012,22:01) But then there's the theory of Godless evolution, an unguided, purely mechanistic universe of death. Colter
Evolution by the theory of natural selection, in the course of completely explaining in mechanistic terms the diversity of life on the planet, says nothing about gods.Although it sure killed a few gods-of-the-gaps.
Is there any other kind of god?
Stuart
Yes, there is another kind of God other then the mechanistic God of Atheistic scientist. You will need to find him on your own, if you desire.Colter
and who would that be colter? The Judeo Christian God with a twist or spin on it? Let's just say Stuarts' God is the right God, do you think this God would have mercy on ones that did not believe in it? Most assured the ones that believe in blood sacrifice would be in a world full of hurt.
Quote (princess @ Aug. 13 2012,10:09) and who would that be colter? The Judeo Christian God with a twist or spin on it? Let's just say Stuarts' God is the right God, do you think this God would have mercy on ones that did not believe in it? Most assured the ones that believe in blood sacrifice would be in a world full of hurt.
Jesus didn't teach blood sacrifice, nor was Jesus the founder of the Christian religion.There is only one God but many paths.
Colter
Quote (Colter @ Aug. 13 2012,06:34) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 13 2012,00:03) Quote (Colter @ Aug. 12 2012,22:01) But then there's the theory of Godless evolution, an unguided, purely mechanistic universe of death. Colter
Evolution by the theory of natural selection, in the course of completely explaining in mechanistic terms the diversity of life on the planet, says nothing about gods.Although it sure killed a few gods-of-the-gaps.
Is there any other kind of god?
Stuart
Yes, there is another kind of God other then the mechanistic God of Atheistic scientist. You will need to find him on your own, if you desire.Colter
I explained to you that natural selection says nothing about gods, but you appear to be insisting it does.Perhaps you could explain how you think the word “god” is relevant here, or anywhere. Otherwise you appear to be asking us to take your word for it.
And meantime, evolution by natural selection forms the central principle of the daily working lives of professional scientists across the globe. Whether or not those people are believers, the word god does not appear in their work, and science functions perfectly well without the concept.
Even if one or more gods do exist, they seem to be irrelevant.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 13 2012,19:11) Quote (Colter @ Aug. 13 2012,06:34) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 13 2012,00:03) Quote (Colter @ Aug. 12 2012,22:01) But then there's the theory of Godless evolution, an unguided, purely mechanistic universe of death. Colter
Evolution by the theory of natural selection, in the course of completely explaining in mechanistic terms the diversity of life on the planet, says nothing about gods.Although it sure killed a few gods-of-the-gaps.
Is there any other kind of god?
Stuart
Yes, there is another kind of God other then the mechanistic God of Atheistic scientist. You will need to find him on your own, if you desire.Colter
I explained to you that natural selection says nothing about gods, but you appear to be insisting it does.Perhaps you could explain how you think the word “god” is relevant here, or anywhere. Otherwise you appear to be asking us to take your word for it.
And meantime, evolution by natural selection forms the central principle of the daily working lives of professional scientists across the globe. Whether or not those people are believers, the word god does not appear in their work, and science functions perfectly well without the concept.
Even if one or more gods do exist, they seem to be irrelevant.
Stuart
My point stuu was that, If you are unhappy with the brutality of the inconsistent God concept among Judeo-Christian's, unguided evolution is far more brutal then anything God was said to have done.Some day science may be brave enough or even wise enough to consider the influence of the seven adjutant mind-spirits that “conditions the course of organic evolution.”
Colter
Quote (Colter @ Aug. 13 2012,23:40) Yes, there is another kind of God other then the mechanistic God of Atheistic scientist. You will need to find him on your own, if you desire. Colter[/quote]
I explained to you that natural selection says nothing about gods, but you appear to be insisting it does.Perhaps you could explain how you think the word “god” is relevant here, or anywhere. Otherwise you appear to be asking us to take your word for it.
And meantime, evolution by natural selection forms the central principle of the daily working lives of professional scientists across the globe. Whether or not those people are believers, the word god does not appear in their work, and science functions perfectly well without the concept.
Even if one or more gods do exist, they seem to be irrelevant.
Stuart[/quote]
My point stuu was that, If you are unhappy with the brutality of the inconsistent God concept among Judeo-Christian's, unguided evolution is far more brutal then anything God was said to have done.Colter
Absolutely. Nature is uncompromising in its brutality. The key point is that it is unguided: there is no intent behind that brutality, it just is. On the other hand, you attribute intent to the brutality of the Judeo-christian god, which makes it a question of morality, or rather immorality.Quote Some day science may be brave enough or even wise enough to consider the influence of the seven adjutant mind-spirits that “conditions the course of organic evolution.”
I've absolutely no idea what you are banging on about here, and I'm confident that you don't know either.Stuart
Quote The key point is that it is unguided: there is no intent behind that brutality, it just is. “That’s been my point with you Stuu, the above is your religion, it is your foundation, it is your bias. That is NOT the attitude of a true scientist. Because of this bias you sort, sift and sensor information to buttress you “belief” that there is no mind behind mind. You ONLY consider the apparent material facts of the observable universe, ONLY those facts which appear to validate your mechanistic religion. I call it your religion because you cannot prove your contentions; further the hypocrisy is that you make super material value judgments all while claiming pure mechanism, predictable, testable chemical reactions of mind as the preposterous explanation for Love.”
Love is superior to your “uncompromising brutality”. Your brand of evolution has contracted the virus of Love. God is Love and it will eventually replace the brutal mechanisms of your mechanistic religion.
Quote Some day science may be brave enough or even wise enough to consider the influence of the seven adjutant mind-spirits that “conditions the course of organic evolution.” I've absolutely no idea what you are banging on about here, and I'm confident that you don't know either.
As the mind of the animal kingdom has evolved it has been influenced by the 7 spirits of God the “spirit of wisdom, the spirit of worship, the spirit of counsel, the spirit of knowledge, the spirit of courage, the spirit of understanding, the spirit of intuition—of quick perception.”
But because these can’t be viewed under a microscope, weighed in a balance or repeated in a test-tube, you conveniently cannot include them in your mechanistic, purely mathematical world view….even though you use them all the time.
I believe that the spirits have influenced evolution not the other way around. I would imagine you do not agree.
I consider both the science of the material world and the science of the spiritual world. You focus on one and mock the other.
Colter
Quote The key point is that it is unguided: there is no intent behind that brutality, it just is. “That’s been my point with you Stuu, the above is your religion, it is your foundation, it is your bias. That is NOT the attitude of a true scientist. Because of this bias you sort, sift and sensor information to buttress your “belief” that there is no mind behind mind. You ONLY consider the apparent material facts of the observable universe, ONLY those facts which appear to validate your mechanistic religion. I call it your religion because you cannot prove your contentions; that there is no God. The hypocrisy is that you make super material value judgments all while claiming pure mechanism, predictable, testable chemical reactions of mind as the preposterous explanation for Love.”
Love is superior to your “uncompromising brutality”. Your brand of evolution has contracted the virus of Love. God is Love and it will eventually replace the brutal mechanisms of your mechanistic religion.
Quote Some day science may be brave enough or even wise enough to consider the influence of the seven adjutant mind-spirits that “conditions the course of organic evolution.” I've absolutely no idea what you are banging on about here, and I'm confident that you don't know either.
As the mind of the animal kingdom has evolved it has been influenced by the 7 spirits of God the “spirit of wisdom, the spirit of worship, the spirit of counsel, the spirit of knowledge, the spirit of courage, the spirit of understanding, the spirit of intuition—of quick perception.”
But because these can’t be viewed under a microscope, weighed in a balance or repeated in a test-tube, you conveniently cannot include them in your mechanistic, purely mathematical world view….even though you use them all the time.
I believe that the spirits have influenced evolution not the other way around. I would imagine you do not agree.
I consider both the science of the material world and the science of the spiritual world. You focus on one and mock the other.
Colter
Stuu, not sure if you ever read and considered this:
UNIVERSE MECHANISMS
“42:11.1 In the evaluation and recognition of mind it should be remembered that the universe is neither mechanical nor magical; it is a creation of mind and a mechanism of law. But while in practical application the laws of nature operate in what seems to be the dual realms of the physical and the spiritual, in reality they are one. The First Source and Center is the primal cause of all materialization and at the same time the first and final Father of all spirits. The Paradise Father appears personally in the extra-Havona universes only as pure energy and pure spirit—as the Thought Adjusters and other similar fragmentations.
42:11.2 Mechanisms do not absolutely dominate the total creation; the universe of universes in toto is mind planned, mind made, and mind administered. But the divine mechanism of the universe of universes is altogether too perfect for the scientific methods of the finite mind of man to discern even a trace of the dominance of the infinite mind. For this creating, controlling, and upholding mind is neither material mind nor creature mind; it is spirit-mind functioning on and from creator levels of divine reality.
42:11.3 The ability to discern and discover mind in universe mechanisms depends entirely on the ability, scope, and capacity of the investigating mind engaged in such a task of observation. Time-space minds, organized out of the energies of time and space, are subject to the mechanisms of time and space.
42:11.4 Motion and universe gravitation are twin facets of the impersonal time-space mechanism of the universe of universes. The levels of gravity response for spirit, mind, and matter are quite independent of time, but only true spirit levels of reality are independent of space (nonspatial). The higher mind levels of the universe—the spirit-mind levels—may also be nonspatial, but the levels of material mind, such as human mind, are responsive to the interactions of universe gravitation, losing this response only in proportion to spirit identification. Spirit-reality levels are recognized by their spirit content, and spirituality in time and space is measured inversely to the linear-gravity response.
42:11.5 Linear-gravity response is a quantitative measure of nonspirit energy. All mass—organized energy—is subject to this grasp except as motion and mind act upon it. Linear gravity is the short-range cohesive force of the macrocosmos somewhat as the forces of intra-atomic cohesion are the short-range forces of the microcosmos. Physical materialized energy, organized as so-called matter, cannot traverse space without affecting linear-gravity response. Although such gravity response is directly proportional to mass, it is so modified by intervening space that the final result is no more than roughly approximated when expressed as inversely according to the square of the distance. Space eventually conquers linear gravitation because of the presence therein of the antigravity influences of numerous supermaterial forces which operate to neutralize gravity action and all responses thereto.
42:11.6 Extremely complex and highly automatic-appearing cosmic mechanisms always tend to conceal the presence of the originative or creative indwelling mind from any and all intelligences very far below the universe levels of the nature and capacity of the mechanism itself. Therefore is it inevitable that the higher universe mechanisms must appear to be mindless to the lower orders of creatures. The only possible exception to such a conclusion would be the implication of mindedness in the amazing phenomenon of an apparently self-maintaining universe—but that is a matter of philosophy rather than one of actual experience.
42:11.7 Since mind co-ordinates the universe, fixity of mechanisms is nonexistent. The phenomenon of progressive evolution associated with cosmic self-maintenance is universal. The evolutionary capacity of the universe is inexhaustible in the infinity of spontaneity. Progress towards harmonious unity, a growing experiential synthesis superimposed on an ever-increasing complexity of relationships, could be effected only by a purposive and dominant mind.
42:11.8 The higher the universe mind associated with any universe phenomenon, the more difficult it is for the lower types of mind to discover it. And since the mind of the universe mechanism is creative spirit-mind (even the mindedness of the Infinite), it can never be discovered or discerned by the lower-level minds of the universe, much less by the lowest mind of all, the human. The evolving animal mind, while naturally God-seeking, is not alone and of itself inherently God-knowing.”
Colter
Quote (Colter @ Aug. 15 2012,00:54) Quote The key point is that it is unguided: there is no intent behind that brutality, it just is.
“That’s been my point with you Stuu, the above is your religion, it is your foundation, it is your bias. That is NOT the attitude of a true scientist.
What is a “true scientist”? You? What a rank hypocrite you are. How old does the UB tell you the universe must be, at a minimum? 987,000,000,000+ years. How old is it actually? 13,700,000,000 years. Please look up the word religion then tell me how it applies to a person like me who does not have a delusion of Imaginary Sky Friends. Tell me I have biases when you are about to quote poorly-written science fiction in all earnestness to me.There is no unambiguous evidence for any claims of “intent” anywhere in nature, apart from that exhibited by living species. That leads to the provisional scientific conclusion that those who make such claims are deluded. That is certainly the attitude of a scientist. Sorry, but I don’t think you have the first idea what science really involves. You are interested in a book that stole intellectual property from scientists then mixed it up with mystical fantasy nonsense written by religious crackpots.
Quote Because of this bias you sort, sift and sensor information to buttress you “belief” that there is no mind behind mind. You ONLY consider the apparent material facts of the observable universe,
And that is all you can do too. The rest is you making up stories, or copying others who made up stories.Quote ONLY those facts which appear to validate your mechanistic religion.
You have provided me with NO data to indicate any differently. I’m not going to accept “what you just reckon”, just as I would hope you would never accept that from me.Quote I call it your religion because you cannot prove your contentions;
Well under this definition the only people who are not religious are mathematicians, for they are the only ones who can prove anything. So much for intelligent discourse with you, you don’t even understand how to use a dictionary. You certainly are fundamentally ignorant of the philosophy of science. That is clear in your poor use of language.Quote further the hypocrisy is that you make super material value judgments all while claiming pure mechanism, predictable, testable chemical reactions of mind as the preposterous explanation for Love.”
Sorry? What the hell is a “super material value judgment”? Please tell me what you think love means to you, and we can discuss that word. You are trying to equivocate and appeal to emotion. That’s cheap.Snipped the rest. What a load of drivel. You do not have a monopoly on the understanding of love.
Stuart
Quote (Colter @ Aug. 15 2012,03:31) Stuu, not sure if you ever read and considered this: UNIVERSE MECHANISMS
“42:11.1 In the evaluation and recognition of mind it should be remembered that the universe is neither mechanical nor magical; it is a creation of mind and a mechanism of law. But while in practical application the laws of nature operate in what seems to be the dual realms of the physical and the spiritual, in reality they are one. The First Source and Center is the primal cause of all materialization and at the same time the first and final Father of all spirits. The Paradise Father appears personally in the extra-Havona universes only as pure energy and pure spirit—as the Thought Adjusters and other similar fragmentations.
42:11.2 Mechanisms do not absolutely dominate the total creation; the universe of universes in toto is mind planned, mind made, and mind administered. But the divine mechanism of the universe of universes is altogether too perfect for the scientific methods of the finite mind of man to discern even a trace of the dominance of the infinite mind. For this creating, controlling, and upholding mind is neither material mind nor creature mind; it is spirit-mind functioning on and from creator levels of divine reality.
42:11.3 The ability to discern and discover mind in universe mechanisms depends entirely on the ability, scope, and capacity of the investigating mind engaged in such a task of observation. Time-space minds, organized out of the energies of time and space, are subject to the mechanisms of time and space.
42:11.4 Motion and universe gravitation are twin facets of the impersonal time-space mechanism of the universe of universes. The levels of gravity response for spirit, mind, and matter are quite independent of time, but only true spirit levels of reality are independent of space (nonspatial). The higher mind levels of the universe—the spirit-mind levels—may also be nonspatial, but the levels of material mind, such as human mind, are responsive to the interactions of universe gravitation, losing this response only in proportion to spirit identification. Spirit-reality levels are recognized by their spirit content, and spirituality in time and space is measured inversely to the linear-gravity response.
42:11.5 Linear-gravity response is a quantitative measure of nonspirit energy. All mass—organized energy—is subject to this grasp except as motion and mind act upon it. Linear gravity is the short-range cohesive force of the macrocosmos somewhat as the forces of intra-atomic cohesion are the short-range forces of the microcosmos. Physical materialized energy, organized as so-called matter, cannot traverse space without affecting linear-gravity response. Although such gravity response is directly proportional to mass, it is so modified by intervening space that the final result is no more than roughly approximated when expressed as inversely according to the square of the distance. Space eventually conquers linear gravitation because of the presence therein of the antigravity influences of numerous supermaterial forces which operate to neutralize gravity action and all responses thereto.
(Part of this paragraph was stolen from Sir Isaac Newton, a real scientist and not a space-being. The other part is nonsense. Even if dark matter and dark energy turn out to have some “antigravity effect”, this paragraph makes no explanation of those ideas whatever. So much for there being revelation here. It's mostly stolen goods up for sale).
42:11.6 Extremely complex and highly automatic-appearing cosmic mechanisms always tend to conceal the presence of the originative or creative indwelling mind from any and all intelligences very far below the universe levels of the nature and capacity of the mechanism itself. Therefore is it inevitable that the higher universe mechanisms must appear to be mindless to the lower orders of creatures. The only possible exception to such a conclusion would be the implication of mindedness in the amazing phenomenon of an apparently self-maintaining universe—but that is a matter of philosophy rather than one of actual experience.
(nearly a whole paragraph of completely meaningless nonsense, as always written to appear grand – the very definition of platitude)
42:11.7 Since mind co-ordinates the universe, fixity of mechanisms is nonexistent. The phenomenon of progressive evolution associated with cosmic self-maintenance is universal. The evolutionary capacity of the universe is inexhaustible in the infinity of spontaneity. Progress towards harmonious unity, a growing experiential synthesis superimposed on an ever-increasing complexity of relationships, could be effected only by a purposive and dominant mind.
42:11.8 The higher the universe mind associated with any universe phenomenon, the more difficult it is for the lower types of mind to discover it. And since the mind of the universe mechanism is creative spirit-mind (even the mindedness of the Infinite), it can never be discovered or discerned by the lower-level minds of the universe, much less by the lowest mind of all, the human. The evolving animal mind, while naturally God-seeking, is not alone and of itself inherently God-knowing.”[/color]
Colter
Yes I read it about 3 years ago. I did benefit somewhat from it via the joy of laughter.I think it might have had the highest density of platitudes per paragraph of anything I had read up to that point.
I've bolded the platitudes for you. That highlights the phrases that actually mean nothing. You understand what I am saying Colter? The words don't actually convey any useful cognition. Not to me, and not to you either. If you are impressed then I think the only conclusion is that you are deluded into thinking it means something. It doesn't.
I particularly deride “Extremely complex and highly automatic-appearing cosmic mechanisms always tend to conceal the presence of the originative or creative indwelling mind from any and all intelligences very far below the universe levels of the nature and capacity of the mechanism itself.” This paragraph is a sure sign of someone trying to start a religion. I'd bet you can't rephrase it in alternative language, which for an English speaker is a sure sign of someone who has been completely taken in.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,
How much of the UB did you read 3 years ago?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote What is a “true scientist”? To me a true scientist has an open mind in the assessment facts and is willing to go where the truth may take them.
But as you know, some of the statements made by the UB in 55' that were not proven have in fact been found to be true.
Stuu, you focus on half of reality and insist it's ALL possible reality. You are self limiting in your intolerant attitude.
I think it's accurate to say that you are FIRST a philosophical Atheist who uses science to validate your preconceived notions.
The scientist, as such, is limited to the discovery of the relatedness of material facts. Technically, he has no right to assert that he is either materialist or idealist, for in so doing he has assumed to forsake the attitude of a true scientist since any and all such assertions of attitude are the very essence of philosophy.
I will let you have the last word.
Colter
Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 15 2012,20:23) Hi Stuart, How much of the UB did you read 3 years ago?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
About 60% of it.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
