- This topic is empty.
- Posts
The church is even named after a biblical event that never happened.
Unless exodus church means the place you go to leave christianity by the back door?!
Stuart
Prince,
I thought you would have liked the position on god they have, not claiming god to be anything other then what humans invented.
However, I find your metaphor quite amusing.Take care Prince Stuart.
From that article, “The Rev Kirsten Slattenaar, Exodus Church's regular priest, also rejects the idea – widely considered central to Christianity – that Jesus was divine as well as human.”
That must be why Paul said that women should be quiet in church.
Tim
Tim
Someone should start rethinking christianity, tis a bloody mess.
I must say, that I have been talking to Stuart for such a time, that i had not been posting up in the believers section, then when not in conversation with Stuart, I had been reading up on a few things, and then for a time of late i had went to the believers section and have come to find that I do not even believe as I once did and I have been on this board for a number of years.
I do not know where things started to change or why they started to change, however, there is a change. that whatever theory we hold is based on our experiences rather then simply told to us. example my theory of truth, that it can be found anywhere, and it is not a belief, it is my current understanding, and when my current understanding changes due to experiences then i will be happy to change with it, as long as it stays within the basics of life.
Much love to you Tim.
Princess,
I have witnessed a metamorphosis since you first
started posting. It was evident in your posts.You do however, still remain, and will always be, a PRINCESS.
Tim
Quote (princess @ Aug. 13 2011,19:45) Tim I must say, that I have been talking to Stuart for such a time, that i had not been posting up in the believers section, then when not in conversation with Stuart, I had been reading up on a few things, and then for a time of late i had went to the believers section and have come to find that I do not even believe as I once did and I have been on this board for a number of years.
I do not know where things started to change or why they started to change, however, there is a change.
Did you ever consider that bad association spoils useful habits, Princess?There is a reason God forbade the Israelites from marrying the daughters of the other nations, right? Even Solomon, the most wise man in the world, was not immune to the minions of the Adversary. Why would you think YOU would be?
Perhaps God has given this revelation of how your beliefs have changed as a warning?
peace,
mikeMike, for you to imply that Stuart or Tim are bad is not fair play, perhaps you should establish conversation with them as you do with WJ/KJ/LU then return with experience leading your opinion.
I do believe that god also gave one permission to marry a whore, not saying I would marry Stuart, nor am I implying he is a whore, nor Tim for the matter. So the playing field seems to be even.
I do appreciate the compliment of being compared with Solomon, however, his intentions were for greed/lust, which is a far cry for the love I have for Stuart, Tim or humanity.
Thank you for your concern, tis taken with love.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 15 2011,06:12) Did you ever consider that bad association spoils useful habits, Princess? There is a reason God forbade the Israelites from marrying the daughters of the other nations, right? Even Solomon, the most wise man in the world, was not immune to the minions of the Adversary. Why would you think YOU would be?
Perhaps God has given this revelation of how your beliefs have changed as a warning?
peace,
mike
And you Mike? What is your response in situations where there is an apparent contradiction between the beliefs you have held and facts that are self-evident?My memory of our last encounter was that you retreated, all the time pointing your gun back, and shouting “bang”.
But I should not prejudge your answer. Perhaps you too have changed.
Stuart
Prince Stuart,
I came across something today, and wanted to share with you.
But let us ask whether there is a creator or not, if not how can he create things, if there is, he is capable of materializing all the forms. therefore, before we can talk about creation we must understand the fact the all forms materialize by themselves. If we go through the entire realm of existence, we shall see that there is nothing, not even the penumbra that does not transform itself beyond fundamental world, hence everything creates itself without Creator, since things create themselves, they are unconditioned this is the norm of the universe.
Quote (princess @ Aug. 20 2011,14:05) Prince Stuart, I came across something today, and wanted to share with you.
But let us ask whether there is a creator or not, if not how can he create things, if there is, he is capable of materializing all the forms. therefore, before we can talk about creation we must understand the fact the all forms materialize by themselves. If we go through the entire realm of existence, we shall see that there is nothing, not even the penumbra that does not transform itself beyond fundamental world, hence everything creates itself without Creator, since things create themselves, they are unconditioned this is the norm of the universe.
Well indeed. You confront the question that few god-believers confront: what actually is a creator, and what did it do?We now live in an era in which we have robust explanations completely supported by concrete evidence for most of the things that, even 200 years ago, would have been put in the too hard basket labeled “god”.
We know how matter and energy arose and that explanation is exactly the same whether or not you use the word “creator”. Those who do claim creators are never able to explain why they need that word in there. They do not say what they mean by a creator, or what it actually did.
We don't know exactly how the first cell arose. Does that mean automatically we need to have a god to fill that gap? It doesn't explain anything at all, it is just a word. We may never have enough evidence to reconstruct the very specific even of the appearance of the first cell. There is no problem with not knowing. It makes little difference to anything.
We know exactly how complexity arose in the variety of life on the planet, there is no mystery there anymore. There is no excuse for anyone claiming that we cannot know because it is the realm of a mysterious creator. That is just intellectually dishonest, and lazy, which is what creationists are. Of course creationists have single-handed failed in their attempts to discredit that robust knowledge to even the lowest standard, and when asked what a creator is and what it did, they are silent. No explanation there either.
So, good questions! Who invented the word creator? What did they mean by that word? How does it help explain anything? It doesn't, of course, it is just the name written on the “too hard” basket.
Of course there are some clearly identifiable evolutionary advantages to having tribal humans follow a leader who preaches mysteries that keep everyone in line. Those with the “there is a creator I should fear” genes will certainly be favoured. Is inventing the word creator to impress people for political reasons justified in the light of the amount of lying that the concept of a creator apparently generates in some humans? Is this what it appears to be, that devout adherence is the result of the action of genes?
No one can establish that there is no such thing as a creator of the kind some imagine, but it is pretty shabby thinking that gets you to that claim, in my opinion. Strip everything back to fundamentals, and then rebuild your knowledge. At what point MUST one insert the word “creator”, and why must it be inserted?
An even more extreme version of that, which appeals to me, is to remove everything from life then reinstate those things which are essential, in order of critical need. We would need oxygen, water, food, shelter, warmth in winter, companionship…
How far down the list would you be when you just HAD to be told that you were born imperfect in the eyes of a “creator” but could be saved in the view of that creator by accepting the judicial execution of an ancient Jewish preacher?
I mean, really! There are people who will live perfectly good lives never having heard of that.
Now, give me your royal pronouncements on these issues princess.
Stuart
Prince
The quote is from 'the elements of taoism' (martin palmer). I had been reading 'the elements of qabalah' however, when the author started in colors and tarot cards, lost my interest quickly, and I move to taoism, and I will admit, the book is having a hard time keeping my attention. The passage above however, caught my attention, as did another story, i do not know why however, when I read this other passage, it reminded me of when you speak of the emporers new clothes.
The village had a man prone to walk around naked in his house, the elders of this village thought this type of behavior to be unacceptable, so one day they decided to visit the man at his house to tell him such, with shock and disgust the man meet them naked, so then the elders told him what they thought, the man was astonished at their comments and replies, the whole universe is my city, the world is my local area, my city is my home, and my rooms are my clothes, what are you doing in my trousers?
Sorry for side track, however, I still have not grasp the understanding how matter and energy came about without a host of some sort.
Creators in most sects are males, this is difficult to accept due to me being female, trinitarians will agree that male and female were created together as equals, due to it falls in line with their theory of jesus and god are equal, others accept the man was made first and woman the sub servant of the male, however, religions that have a male deities are ones who have ignorant views on treatment of women. Perhaps we should keep this subject for another time, I could write a thesis on the matter.
I am not so interested in how the first cell came about, what interest me is how it knew to divide itself into male and female.
Quote An even more extreme version of that, which appeals to me, is to remove everything from life then reinstate those things which are essential, in order of critical need. We would need oxygen, water, food, shelter, warmth in winter, companionship… you forgot lip gloss, moisturizer, shoes and clothing. does this list only reflect human needs or other species as well.
You must excuse me Prince, I will end here, tis late and my son has orientation with his school tomorrow. Will continue tomorrow, my apologies for not keeping our conversations current, please forgive.
Quote How far down the list would you be when you just HAD to be told that you were born imperfect in the eyes of a “creator” but could be saved in the view of that creator by accepting the judicial execution of an ancient Jewish preacher? You know I have thought about something similar, is regarding circumcision, then in the same text, it is told not to cut the skin. Personally, my friend you find me once again, with tired eyes. Perhaps tomorrow, I will have something of substance for you. Take care of yourself Prince.
OK, so maybe my list of essentials was for men. Would you put the contents of a woman's handbag ahead of companionship? Oxygen? I would be quite happy to believe either!
The appearance of sex in evolutionary history is an enormous question, but it is far easier to tease out than the origins of life to begin with. But the problem of sex is not necessarily how it arose but rather why did natural selection keep it, and in fact make it so widespread?
As to the appearance of matter and energy appearing by the expansion of space-time, it may not be easy to understand, but by comparison try Judeo-christian mythology. That is completely silent on the question of mechanisms! It all goes in the too-hard basket with that three-letter word emblazoned on it. Talk about a cop-out.
Stuart
Prince
Your list was complied correctly, I just added a few to it. Prince, no one carries their shoes and clothes in their hand bag, tis what a tote is made for. You are quite silly at times.
The appearance of the sexes eludes science, I find that hard to believe there is not some concept of such. I would most likely conclude sexes were kept to continue the species, or nature would have nothing to select from.
Where has this phrase of 'too hard basket' with the three letter word, for the earliest of writing in pottery where four letters, so should you not use the 'four' letter word instead?
The Judeo-christian god does not evoke four-letter words from me. It would be insane to swear at something that does not exist!
The point of sex is sexual recombination of genetic material, which bacteria have been doing all along in their own way. The interchange of sperm cells and egg cells is a fancier and more organised way of achieving that mixing. And for what? Apparently for increased variation in the population, which gives more opportunities for at least some to survive changes in the environment.
But sexual reproduction is very expensive energetically for most species, and it takes a lot longer than asexual reproduction, two very large disadvantages. So the question is not how it arose, the bacteria give us some of those clues, it is why has it been kept despite the disadvantages?
I will have to bow to your authority of the matter of what is kept in a handbag. There are some mysteries that even those males interested in science must put to one side.
Stuart
Prince,
The four letter word I was referring is: IHVH (the spelling of the Hebrew God).
Quote But sexual reproduction is very expensive energetically for most species, and it takes a lot longer than asexual reproduction, two very large disadvantages. So the question is not how it arose, the bacteria give us some of those clues, it is why has it been kept despite the disadvantages? Science can be very fustrating at times, keeping up with the thought processing and how it can branch out to many areas at once, with keeping the context as close as possible. Perhaps sexual reproduction is kept through all the disadvantages is due to pleasure out weights the pain. It is better to have love once then never to have loved at all.
Forgive my ignorance to the matter Prince, perhaps a bit of re wording will help so I can fully understand what you want me to.
If natural selection kept aesthetics as a high priority then the biological world would be a very different place. It is functionality that wins every time.
I think this might be as good an argument as any against the Judeo-christian Imaginary Friend. So many creationists wax lyrically about the elegance of the (apparent) design of the universe and of life, but if one cares to look a bit closer it is all very inelegant, a hotch-potch of kneejerk reactions and making do with the nearest solution to hand no matter how crazy it would appear to an engineer. If by some absurdly remote chance there is a creator god, it certainly is not IHVH.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
