- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 26 2013,01:22) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2013,00:57) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 26 2013,00:44) Hi Colter, Procreation and evolution are two very different things. Besides,
what are you calling 'bible worshipers' – what does that even mean?
God bless
Ed J
(1)Either way life on earth would have had to totally re-evolve after Noah's flood.(2)Bible worship mean's people believe that Bible to be the infallible written word of God, (3)believers substitute a personal relationship with God for a relationship with the Bible.
(4)In this way people come to believe things that are absurd, not because they sound remotely plausible, but because they are in the Bible book collection. So they are then forced to bend reality, (5)rationalize and even distort their own sense of right and wrong. (6)The result is a warped view of history and of the Loving character of God.
Colter
Hi Colter,1) 're-evolve': what is that suppose to mean?
2) Do you not believe “God's word” is infallible?
3) How so?4) What things?
5) Does not God determine what is right and wrong?
6) Eyewitness testimony does not form our view of History?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No, the Word of God is not fallible. The Bible says that the Son of God is “The Word”, the very human authors of the Bible never claim to be writing Gods Word.God word is alive
The later books of the Bible are more factually accurate then the earlier.
“But the greatest error of the teaching about the Scriptures is the doctrine of their being sealed books of mystery and wisdom which only the wise minds of the nation dare to interpret. The revelations of divine truth are not sealed except by human ignorance, bigotry, and narrow-minded intolerance. The light of the Scriptures is only dimmed by prejudice and darkened by superstition. A false fear of sacredness has prevented religion from being safeguarded by common sense. The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God-knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see.”
In Babylon the Hebrew priest were under tremendous, devastating pressure to save Judaism, they elected to convert ordinary secular history into miraculous history.
So, when they put these words in Gods mouth “I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish” then that leaves us with no choice then to believe that all the millions of living things had to rapidly repopulate the earth and new races evolved from Noah's children.
None of that passes the laugh test!
Colter
Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2013,00:49) “Technical analysis does not reveal what a person or a thing can do. For example: Water is used effectively to extinguish fire. That water will put out fire is a fact of everyday experience, but no analysis of water could ever be made to disclose such a property. Analysis determines that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen; a further study of these elements discloses that oxygen is the real supporter of combustion and that hydrogen will itself freely burn.”
We've discussed this before. It's wrong. A chemist certainly could derive that water would put out fire from more fundamental principles.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 26 2013,01:25) When thinking of evolution by natural selection would you insist that biologists should consider cameras and aircraft as comparable to biological machines? Cameras do not reproduce without engineers but living things evidently do.
Stu, to better make a comparison think robots.Robots today can mimic some things we can do. But it is possible that one day we could create humanoid bots that could reproduce and self heal and use them to terraform planets like Mars for example.
Cameras and other single function devices can only compare poorly to body parts of biological life forms.
Also, nanobots could compare to micro-organisms one day.
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 26 2013,01:25) So no facts then. Your bald assertion is just what is convenient for you to believe.
Perhaps you are not aware that humans haven't mapped the whole Gene Pool of living organisms. We have quite a way to go. I only point out the obvious, that for a feature to appear, there has to be DNA code that makes it happen. The code doesn't write itself, it was there to begin with. But let's say that we found proof of new code coming from nothing, well that would only reinforce a creator hacking into the Matrix he created.Quote (Stu @ Mar. 26 2013,01:25) So you believe such machines would be infallible in their reproduction? What if the raw materials began to run out (the environment changed in a way not anticipated by the original designers) and the robots knew to substitute other materials, whatever they were, as they found them?
To survive that extinction event, they could reinvent themselves. Similar to what humans may do to themselves through genetic engineering.Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,08:30) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 26 2013,01:25) So no facts then. Your bald assertion is just what is convenient for you to believe.
Perhaps you are not aware that humans haven't mapped the whole Gene Pool of living organisms. We have quite a way to go. I only point out the obvious, that for a feature to appear, there has to be DNA code that makes it happen. The code doesn't write itself, it was there to begin with. But let's say that we found proof of new code coming from nothing, well that would only reinforce a creator hacking into the Matrix he created.
You don't know what you are talking about, do you. Who do you think you are bluffing?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,08:32) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 26 2013,01:25) So you believe such machines would be infallible in their reproduction? What if the raw materials began to run out (the environment changed in a way not anticipated by the original designers) and the robots knew to substitute other materials, whatever they were, as they found them?
To survive that extinction event, they could reinvent themselves. Similar to what humans may do to themselves through genetic engineering.
That sounds like a biological fantasy to go with your religious one.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 26 2013,08:27) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 26 2013,01:25) When thinking of evolution by natural selection would you insist that biologists should consider cameras and aircraft as comparable to biological machines? Cameras do not reproduce without engineers but living things evidently do.
Stu, to better make a comparison think robots.Robots today can mimic some things we can do. But it is possible that one day we could create humanoid bots that could reproduce and self heal and use them to terraform planets like Mars for example.
Cameras and other single function devices can only compare poorly to body parts of biological life forms.
Also, nanobots could compare to micro-organisms one day.
So, from technology we know currently, you would say it is better not to compare synthetic machines with biological machines?Stuart
Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2013,02:38) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 26 2013,01:22) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2013,00:57) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 26 2013,00:44) Hi Colter, Procreation and evolution are two very different things. Besides,
what are you calling 'bible worshipers' – what does that even mean?God bless
Ed J
(1)Either way life on earth would have had to totally re-evolve after Noah's flood.(2)Bible worship mean's people believe that Bible to be the infallible written word of God, (3)believers substitute a personal relationship with God for a relationship with the Bible.
(4)In this way people come to believe things that are absurd, not because they sound remotely plausible, but because they are in the Bible book collection. So they are then forced to bend reality, (5)rationalize and even distort their own sense of right and wrong. (6)The result is a warped view of history and of the Loving character of God.
Colter
Hi Colter,1) 're-evolve': what is that suppose to mean?
2) Do you not believe “God's word” is infallible?
3) How so?4) What things?
5) Does not God determine what is right and wrong?
6) Eyewitness testimony does not form our view of History?God bless
Ed J
No, the Word of God is not fallible. The Bible says that the Son of God is “The Word”, the very human authors of the Bible never claim to be writing Gods Word.God word is alive
The later books of the Bible are more factually accurate then the earlier.
“But the greatest error of the teaching about the Scriptures is the doctrine of their being sealed books of mystery and wisdom which only the wise minds of the nation dare to interpret. The revelations of divine truth are not sealed except by human ignorance, bigotry, and narrow-minded intolerance. The light of the Scriptures is only dimmed by prejudice and darkened by superstition. A false fear of sacredness has prevented religion from being safeguarded by common sense. The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God-knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see.”
In Babylon the Hebrew priest were under tremendous, devastating pressure to save Judaism, they elected to convert ordinary secular history into miraculous history.
So, when they put these words in Gods mouth “I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish” then that leaves us with no choice then to believe that all the millions of living things had to rapidly repopulate the earth and new races evolved from Noah's children.
None of that passes the laugh test!
Colter
Hi Colter,So then, God didn't mean it when it is recorded that God said:
“But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book,
even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro,
and knowledge shall be increased.” (Daniel 12:4)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 26 2013,16:57) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2013,02:38) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 26 2013,01:22) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2013,00:57) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 26 2013,00:44) Hi Colter, Procreation and evolution are two very different things. Besides,
what are you calling 'bible worshipers' – what does that even mean?God bless
Ed J
(1)Either way life on earth would have had to totally re-evolve after Noah's flood.(2)Bible worship mean's people believe that Bible to be the infallible written word of God, (3)believers substitute a personal relationship with God for a relationship with the Bible.
(4)In this way people come to believe things that are absurd, not because they sound remotely plausible, but because they are in the Bible book collection. So they are then forced to bend reality, (5)rationalize and even distort their own sense of right and wrong. (6)The result is a warped view of history and of the Loving character of God.
Colter
Hi Colter,1) 're-evolve': what is that suppose to mean?
2) Do you not believe “God's word” is infallible?
3) How so?4) What things?
5) Does not God determine what is right and wrong?
6) Eyewitness testimony does not form our view of History?God bless
Ed J
No, the Word of God is not fallible. The Bible says that the Son of God is “The Word”, the very human authors of the Bible never claim to be writing Gods Word.God word is alive
The later books of the Bible are more factually accurate then the earlier.
“But the greatest error of the teaching about the Scriptures is the doctrine of their being sealed books of mystery and wisdom which only the wise minds of the nation dare to interpret. The revelations of divine truth are not sealed except by human ignorance, bigotry, and narrow-minded intolerance. The light of the Scriptures is only dimmed by prejudice and darkened by superstition. A false fear of sacredness has prevented religion from being safeguarded by common sense. The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God-knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see.”
In Babylon the Hebrew priest were under tremendous, devastating pressure to save Judaism, they elected to convert ordinary secular history into miraculous history.
So, when they put these words in Gods mouth “I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish” then that leaves us with no choice then to believe that all the millions of living things had to rapidly repopulate the earth and new races evolved from Noah's children.
None of that passes the laugh test!
Colter
Hi Colter,So then, God didn't mean it when it is recorded that God said:
“But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book,
even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro,
and knowledge shall be increased.” (Daniel 12:4)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Ed,Not everything the prophets said came to pass.
Daniel also said: Daniel 7 -13 “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”
In the UB this was one of several problems among the followers of John the Baptist:
“That day, as Jesus and his four disciple-apostles departed for Galilee, there was a great tumult in the camp of John’s followers. The first great division was about to take place. The day before, John had made his positive pronouncement to Andrew and Ezra that Jesus was the Deliverer. Andrew decided to follow Jesus, but Ezra rejected the mild-mannered carpenter of Nazareth, proclaiming to his associates: “The Prophet Daniel declares that the Son of Man will come with the clouds of heaven, in power and great glory. This Galilean carpenter, this Capernaum boatbuilder, cannot be the Deliverer. Can such a gift of God come out of Nazareth? This Jesus is a relative of John, and through much kindness of heart has our teacher been deceived. Let us remain aloof from this false Messiah.” When John rebuked Ezra for these utterances, he drew away with many disciples and hastened south. And this group continued to baptize in John’s name and eventually founded a sect of those who believed in John but refused to accept Jesus. A remnant of this group persists in Mesopotamia even to this day.”
There are a number of reason's why Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. The problem wasn't Jesus, it was how the Jews conceived of the cumming Son and their own false concept of a “chosen people.”
Colter
Have you guys noticed how iPhones have evolved lately? They are still looking highly competitive in the eco-system they exist in.
Stu, what say you? Do you agree that the evolution of the iPhone has been outstanding?
Quote (Colter @ Mar. 27 2013,00:31) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 26 2013,16:57) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2013,02:38) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 26 2013,01:22) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2013,00:57) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 26 2013,00:44) Hi Colter, Procreation and evolution are two very different things. Besides,
what are you calling 'bible worshipers' – what does that even mean?God bless
Ed J
(1)Either way life on earth would have had to totally re-evolve after Noah's flood.(2)Bible worship mean's people believe that Bible to be the infallible written word of God, (3)believers substitute a personal relationship with God for a relationship with the Bible.
(4)In this way people come to believe things that are absurd, not because they sound remotely plausible, but because they are in the Bible book collection. So they are then forced to bend reality, (5)rationalize and even distort their own sense of right and wrong. (6)The result is a warped view of history and of the Loving character of God.
Colter
Hi Colter,1) 're-evolve': what is that suppose to mean?
2) Do you not believe “God's word” is infallible?
3) How so?4) What things?
5) Does not God determine what is right and wrong?
6) Eyewitness testimony does not form our view of History?God bless
Ed J
No, the Word of God is not fallible. The Bible says that the Son of God is “The Word”, the very human authors of the Bible never claim to be writing Gods Word.God word is alive
The later books of the Bible are more factually accurate then the earlier.
“But the greatest error of the teaching about the Scriptures is the doctrine of their being sealed books of mystery and wisdom which only the wise minds of the nation dare to interpret. The revelations of divine truth are not sealed except by human ignorance, bigotry, and narrow-minded intolerance. The light of the Scriptures is only dimmed by prejudice and darkened by superstition. A false fear of sacredness has prevented religion from being safeguarded by common sense. The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God-knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see.”
In Babylon the Hebrew priest were under tremendous, devastating pressure to save Judaism, they elected to convert ordinary secular history into miraculous history.
So, when they put these words in Gods mouth “I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish” then that leaves us with no choice then to believe that all the millions of living things had to rapidly repopulate the earth and new races evolved from Noah's children.
None of that passes the laugh test!
Colter
Hi Colter,So then, God didn't mean it when it is recorded that God said:
“But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book,
even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro,
and knowledge shall be increased.” (Daniel 12:4)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Ed,Not everything the prophets said came to pass.
Daniel also said: Daniel 7 -13 “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”
In the UB this was one of several problems among the followers of John the Baptist:
“That day, as Jesus and his four disciple-apostles departed for Galilee, there was a great tumult in the camp of John’s followers. The first great division was about to take place. The day before, John had made his positive pronouncement to Andrew and Ezra that Jesus was the Deliverer. Andrew decided to follow Jesus, but Ezra rejected the mild-mannered carpenter of Nazareth, proclaiming to his associates: “The Prophet Daniel declares that the Son of Man will come with the clouds of heaven, in power and great glory. This Galilean carpenter, this Capernaum boatbuilder, cannot be the Deliverer. Can such a gift of God come out of Nazareth? This Jesus is a relative of John, and through much kindness of heart has our teacher been deceived. Let us remain aloof from this false Messiah.” When John rebuked Ezra for these utterances, he drew away with many disciples and hastened south. And this group continued to baptize in John’s name and eventually founded a sect of those who believed in John but refused to accept Jesus. A remnant of this group persists in Mesopotamia even to this day.”
There are a number of reason's why Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. The problem wasn't Jesus, it was how the Jews conceived of the cumming Son and their own false concept of a “chosen people.”
Colter
Hi Colter,That was fulfilled on “Pentecost”.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi T8,
The part I enlarged; sorry if it was confusing to you
as my post was to Colter, who would certainly of understood.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 27 2013,19:50) Hi T8, The part I enlarged; sorry if it was confusing to you
as my post was to Colter, who would certainly of understood.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Well meaning Jewish converts to evolving Christianity attempted to defend their misguided faith in Jesus as “the Messiah” by forcing him into certain OT prophecies. Your contention that Jesus fore-filled this at the end of his human life on earth instead of the beginning is a good example of that. It's the same as making John the Baptist Elijah or putting off the restoration of Israel thousands of years.The gospel, identity and function of Jesus has been contaminated by the false expectations of the Jewish Messiah as a form of priest, prophet, king to restore Davids corrupt throne, defeat the enemies of an ill-conceived “chosen people” and from there rule a kingdom of this world.
Colter
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,18:18) Have you guys noticed how iPhones have evolved lately? They are still looking highly competitive in the eco-system they exist in. Stu, what say you? Do you agree that the evolution of the iPhone has been outstanding?
I wouldn't know. Mine's Android.Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 27 2013,19:50) Hi T8, The part I enlarged; sorry if it was confusing to you
as my post was to Colter, who would certainly of understood.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
One can maintain Faith while letting go of the false doctrine of Bible perfection.Philosophy of Religion
(1129.8) 103:1.1 The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique — no two mortals being alike — it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings.
(1130.1) 103:1.2 When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.
(1130.2) 103:1.3 While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric — circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial.
(1130.3) 103:1.4 Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs — creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.
(1130.4) 103:1.5 That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.
(1130.5) 103:1.6 The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this “sense,” “feeling,” “intuition,” or “experience” which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal — the Adjuster is prepersonal — but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman.
Colter
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 28 2013,00:44) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,18:18) Have you guys noticed how iPhones have evolved lately? They are still looking highly competitive in the eco-system they exist in. Stu, what say you? Do you agree that the evolution of the iPhone has been outstanding?
I wouldn't know. Mine's Android.Stuart
Yes Android too has evolved significantly to the point that it could supplant the iPhone if its competitive features keep evolving at the rate that is has in the last year.Evolution is amazing. No need for a creator at all.
The evolution of the Web is even more impressive.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 28 2013,09:09) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 28 2013,00:44) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2013,18:18) Have you guys noticed how iPhones have evolved lately? They are still looking highly competitive in the eco-system they exist in. Stu, what say you? Do you agree that the evolution of the iPhone has been outstanding?
I wouldn't know. Mine's Android.Stuart
Yes Android too has evolved significantly to the point that it could supplant the iPhone if its competitive features keep evolving at the rate that is has in the last year.Evolution is amazing. No need for a creator at all.
The evolution of the Web is even more impressive.
So you claim that designed objects don't need designers, and living things that were not designed do need designers.Of course you do.
Stuart
Quote (Colter @ Mar. 28 2013,00:06) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 27 2013,19:50) Hi T8, The part I enlarged; sorry if it was confusing to you
as my post was to Colter, who would certainly of understood.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
One can maintain Faith while letting go of the false doctrine of Bible perfection.Philosophy of Religion
(1129.8) 103:1.1 The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique — no two mortals being alike — it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings.
(1130.1) 103:1.2 When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.
(1130.2) 103:1.3 While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric — circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial.
(1130.3) 103:1.4 Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs — creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.
(1130.4) 103:1.5 That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.
(1130.5) 103:1.6 The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this “sense,” “feeling,” “intuition,” or “experience” which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal — the Adjuster is prepersonal — but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman.
Colter
You also have these options:* Don't post screeds of irrelevant trash from your Book of Stolen Intellectual Property (if you must refer to that moronic tome at all, why not link to the screed elsewhere, then we will find it easier to ignore).
and
* Have a stab at staying on-topic in this thread.
thanks,
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
