some people se themselves as a son of God , while some see themselves as a servant of God. how do you see yourself , do you see yourself as a son or as a slave? let us know.
Hi Eng M long time, we are all his salves. And gods as well
you need to understand that you are not a slave but a son of the most high God
I am a daughter not a son and I am a servant, well trying to be, I am just busy getting right and working on me.
I am a prince of the most high and brother to all men
And with help from a silly book, a legend in your own lunch time! lol
there is order in the heavens and it was put there by god!!!a big explosion would only bring disorder!!!
Back to science class for you then. Have a look at what happens to particles when gravity acts on them!
theory only !!!what caused the beginning?
science changes from day 2 day but the word of GOD never changes
Exactly, the reason is called scientific method. Look it up.Religion on the other hand is stuck with a 6000 year old planet, sometimes flat (taliban) and no explanations for the lifelong work of those who would subject their beliefs to scrutiny from every branch of the sciences using a method that has proved imperically that it is the only way to think that avoids all the loonies..
science is really just religion with numbers and uniform methods i think. no?
i mean are these methods you proved for yourself, or just things you take to be true. Weren't those same books written by the "evil" man? why do you hold steadfast to them so dearly?
I did not invent scientific method. Nor do most books threaten their reader!
well the underbelly of the argument was that you believe in books written by other men. Is that not the same symptom found in religion? what makes them "looney" and you sane?
And as a matter of fact, during the African Diaspora, science was used to prove that indigenous people, especially people of African descent, had smaller brains, in order to justify their maltreatement. Since they weren't human, there was no need to give them rights. Isn't this a threatening science?
Atomic theory used to create weapons of mass destruction. Is this not "looney" behavior?
the only thing looney around here is you!!!if the same primative gas that made our sun and all our planets,then how are they all so different?wouldnt they all be made of the same stuff ,or at least be close to being the same ?but they are all so defferent .they dont rotate the same way!!!spin the same!!!4 planets have rings!!!the rest do not!!!if they where formed by crashing into 1 another they would not even spin!!!gas disapates fast in space but we have big gas planets that keep there gases!!!
All you need to know is out there, you do not even grasp the fundamentals. Read!
i see what you're trying to say, but you got a little bit of studying to do.
wow earnest. you dodge questions constantly and insult the intelligence of others. not very nice.
I am very well schooled in science and its manipulative aspects as well as its positive aspects. As well as religion, and you sound more like a religionist than a scientist most times that you speak. You have no intuitive sense of science and you refer only to books and methods, much like people of faith refer to scriptures and traditions. You are no different yet you treat yourself as if you have a huge sense of entitlement, to just belittle people who do not take science at face value.
I won't refute how much faith you have in scientific method and its fail safe approach to your life. I respect your opinions, but the constant spew of hatred and need to condescend. I wonder what makes you react like that?
maybe its because you're smarter than us all? no, you're just another person at the end of the day.
As are you, and your opinion of me is none of my business.
you're correct. so please don't make your opinion of me, my business.
are you done trying to take the high road and prepared to defend this impenetrable fortress you call science?
what makes it better than religion?
For starters it is not psychotic, well not all of it anyway.
Sexism, homophobia, racism, un needed cruelty, hate, fear, impossible contradictions are not the main stay of science.
You have a book, when you read it the words inside the book are not nice OK? They were not written by any gods directly or indirectly assuming a god could get past playing psych games that would not get past a four year old today. But then you see, I am wrong aren't I? you are much older!
well part of it is psychotic. as part of religion is. So you concede that.
but all of those things ARE the mainstay of science. Cruelty to animals facilitates new shampoos, conditioners and all types of goodies. Hate fuels the weapons industry. Fear is fueled by law and politics, derivatives of science.
Science has gotten passed you and everyone else. Clocks you follow were built on someone else's belief about how time is measured. Your diet, [if you're trying to be healthy] is based one what other people measured to be nutritious. Your infallible belief in these systems created to enable your utilization of their methods to achieve ultimately predictable ends.
Even Einstein was Jewish - i don't know how devout, but he believed in something other than numbers and equations. His science was based on beliefs as well.
"I think that only daring speculation can lead us further and not accumulation of facts." - Einstein.
"A man of science is a poor philosopher." - Einstein.
My aim is not to disprove science, but to express that it is nothing more than a system of beliefs, based on one man's judgment appealing to the common sense of all. And is not deserving of your harsh attacks.
Don't really want to get involved here, but can't resist. 1. Why did you even involve yourself in this post if you were just going to pick a fight? and 2. Every time science answers a question, it causes another question. Which it is MY belief that my version of God is behind all of it. God would have to be the greatest "scientist" ever.
Which, with science seems "empirical evidence" can be disproved in 20 years. It happens. However, I would assume he has faith in that evidence until it's disproven. I have faith in what I believe. Not sure if that meant anything, but ok.
Now ya talkin! Get that religious hate out! Project it on someone else!
No Hate, just cannot believe how insulting you always are to people it is truly among the most horrifying I have seen on here, your total lack of any human who believes in God
People are people. Just because they have faith in something, doesn't make them perfect. Why must you antagonize? I would think if you're wanting to be the bigger, more knowledgable person, you wouldn't do that.
well i only said this to point out the inconsistency of you telling me I need to study and spelling that word incorrectly minutes before. if you're going to use a word, try to spell it right.
and when you wrote it, it wasn't a typo
Seeing is not believing. Faith is subjective. I have a choice and I choose to believe. It's an existential decision, a matter of my own subjective will. Science can know a lot more about the human brain then the human mind. I choose to believe as a matter of placing faith in one greater and more perfect than myself.
why is so many people trying to convince ernestshub when nobody knows his past?
Being a slave contradicts being an individual. Were you born a slave or an individual?
well, when you were born, it is true that your will was not your own? Were you not slave to your caretakers guidance? Individuality, that didn't become manifest until you were legally separated from your parents or became an independent.
i think it is an intimate mixture. Are we not slave to the world, to others, to God's will? Slave to the waxing and waning of our families, our friends, our governments and even our desires? Are we not all descendants, built and born from the primordial sludge? The sons and daughters of Father God and Mother Nature?
I agree with you on the first half up until "Are we not slave to the world, to others, to God's will?"
If we were slaves, how free would free will be? If there was no free will, what would be the point of learning or doing anything new if you believed everything was already planned for you? Just because I have parents and people I learned from doesn't mean I am their slave, lol. Maybe we have different definitions of the word.
Servant meaning giving yourself up for a higher cause.
What is the definition of that higher cause?
Work for god.
Then also by giving myself up the guidance I get is very clear ,my life makes sense, I am in states of joy.Giving up here is losing the outer garb of man and going within to the essence, the self which encompasses everything as well..
I am a Son. The Holy Spirit in testifies to this and my Bible comfirms it.
when did you find confirmation in the Bible?
13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.[a] And by him we cry, "Abba,[b] Father."
1What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba,[a] Father." 7So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I see myself as a carbon based life form, and that is the only reality I need. But I think religionist are slaves, because God requires that they get on their knees and, slavishly, worship him! The fascinating part is that their god is imaginary.
God is this force this energy within and without me ,the basic energy in everything.
You can pretend just whatever you want. You are a carbon based life form. Anything on top of that is fantasy.
So are you saying protons, neutrons and electrons are fantasy? Carbon is made up of 6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons.
I don't think you really comprehended the statement. I wasn't talking about the composition of carbon. Just that carbon is the name, given by scientist, of the element we are mostly composed of. What have you done to conclude that god is an energy within and without you? That's where the fantasy comes in. But I'm quite sure you have a clever explanation for your interjection.
So do you believe that energy comes from nothing? You are right though, carbon is just a name given to 6 protons, 6 electrons, and 6 neutrons.
I don't know. But I'm not one to take a giant leap of faith, just because some questions are perplexing. And I will never subscribe to the fantasies of another human being guessing at reality.
It doesn't take a leap of faith to understand 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons make up carbon. Humans and all life is primarily composed or has traces of carbon in it. Unless of course this is fantasy and you don't subscribe. That's cool by me.
You missed my point completely. I was referring to the question about energy, that you asked...and the whole point here is that Mohit suggested that god was energy within and without him. That is the fantasy I will not subscribe to. Remember the premise, please!
I understand protons, neutrons, and electrons. That is a non-issue. You are creating a strawman.
So you are saying that because Mohit believes in energy that it is a fantasy?
The biggest project by science till date are the particle accelerators which are trying to find he building blocks of this universe or the god particle.Knowing is not pretension.
But, you may want to ask that question to the tens of thousands of starving children, before they die.
You best hurry to learn how they see themselves in the light of being a son or a slave.
Perhaps, they ARE the slaves and that is the distinction.
I am the son of my father. I am the son of my mother. I am a servant to my own self-interest. That same self-interest leads me to help others.
I don't serve a "GOD" or the "GOD" concept.
I see myself as God's daddy. I'm gonna be a better parent in 2010.
I am anything and everything God wants me to be. I'm limitless and not constricted by any label used and created by man. :}
I am a son. I can`t be a slave as I follow willingly and voluntarily.
I am my happiest when I am performing work that I enjoy. These things are the same as those that we will be doing in our service for the Lord. We are all slaves to our desires.
If we are smart, we will choose our desires wisely.
A daughter...unless that whole bit in the gospel of Thomas is true about all the women being turned into men.
(I don't think it's true)
I'm a son by adoption, and having been set free from slavery to the world, I chose to become a bond slave to our Lord Jesus Christ.
I believe we were given free will. Which by nature would mean I am a son, not a slave.
Here is my take on it all. (note this neither suggests that God does or does not exist, just what I feel/know science to be at it's heart)
Science is a belief system just as much as any religion or philosophy by which an individual may choose to make decisions by.
The main reason it is not viewed as such is due to the general misunderstanding of what all scientific thought and theory is based on. Science is based on probabilities derived from our observations. Due to the inherent limitations of our perceptual apparatus; ie. senses, these probabilities or "facts" are always tentative and subject to modification.
For example, illness and disease were thought to be caused by spirits or "humors" flowing through our bodies, among other theories of disease. With the advent of the microscope and other techniques which essentially expanded our power of observation, these theories gave way to the idea of viral or bacterial causes. That is a simplified example yet I feel it illustrates the concept well.
Some of these probabilities occur with such frequency and consistency that we come to rely on the high probability of such and such occurring that it is given the status of a "scientific law". That in no means invalidates the fact that it is still based upon a probability based in our ability to observe said phenomena.
Each one of us take actions of faith based on these observed probabilities.
Every time you step on the brakes while driving is a faith based action rooted in the probability that they will stop the car as they have in prior observations. There is always the probability that they won't stop the car. The reason we so readily adopt and have such high confidence in scientific "facts" as such is that daily life would be rather impossible to conduct if we didn't. So we go throughout our day carrying out thousands of "faith based actions" without giving it a second thought or even recognizing such actions as faith in a probability.
I know I am one that is always stressing the "facts" over myth and conjecture. I also am always stating that I am very open minded when it comes to possibilities.
Some have taken that to be a contradiction. It's not, it's accepting the reality that all science fact or any knowledge is tentative and subject to change and modification, while at the same time accepting the high probability of an occurrence based upon observation.
Which brings me back to my original hypothesis;
Science is a belief system just as much as any religion or philosophy by which an individual may choose to make decisions
"Science is a belief system just as much as any religion or philosophy by which an individual may choose to make decisions by."
Already lost me and anyone else who knows the slightest thing about religion and science! (Unless you choose to pump a belief based originally on caveman then pagan ignoramuses then "updated" compares with all that scientific knowledge that allows you to write rubbish on the net!
this is completely contradictory to what you wrote in "If God were Proven, would you believe in Him" about scientific knowledge and self awareness against so called "sin" or "devil in the corner" thinking.
back to good ol' earnest.
Science is most definitely a belief system as is religion. Both are rooted in experience and observation. Just because you personally may not have experienced anything that could be considered spiritual that would lead you to a belief in a "higher power" does not automatically negate the experiences of others. I have a suspicion that you are more opposed to religion and it's practitioners than you are towards the actual belief systems themselves.
If I lost you then maybe you do not understand scientific process and theory as much as you believe you do. What I stated is 100% accurate. Science fact is based on probabilities based on observations and is always tentative. What part of that do you have an issue with? Newtonian physics gave way and were modified by Einsteinian physics and the whole scientific paradigm shifted. The same is occurring now with quantum physics.
Science attempts to answer all the same questions of any religion.
1) Where did we come from.
2) What is our relationship with the rest of the universe.
3) Where are we going.
If you boil down all the rhetoric and language those really are the main questions both science and religion try to answer.
You really should be a little more open minded. I'm not saying you need to convert just that all knowledge is tentative.
Your dogmatic stance opposing religion is just as narrow minded as those you choose to criticize.
Why would I not have experienced anything spiritual? Do I have to believe your tripe to be spiritual? I don't see too much spirituality here. Lots of side stepping and futile "god did it" arguments, nothing to refute a scientific view.
What tripe do you think I am asking you to believe?
I personaly think that there is more than enough room for both science and spirituality to co-exist, as a matter of fact they have to, it's all part of the same universe and all the pieces have to fit to get the complete picture.
You seem to be making the assumption that I am coming from a traditional Judeao/Christian perspective, which is something I never stated either way.
Trust me, the universe I live in is a lot bigger than petty squables such as these would indicate.
scientific method as the base approach to all matters concerning life. This is modern thinking at its best. Devoid from tradition, free from obligation, disregarding the lessons of the past.
In a way, it was religion that gave birth to science? was it not?
maybe they never really existed apart from each other until someone created the language, with the intent to divide the methodologies used to attain information.
this wholistic view. i like it.
You did not address the other issues I raised, why not?
number and list your issues specifically and they will be addressed promptly. cut and paste should save you time.
1. You resorted to referring to me in the third person.
2. Your next post it was "good ole Earnest"
The third time I picked you up on it.
i didn't "resort to" calling you the third person. I was making a joke, trying to lighten up the situation. this has nothing to do with religion or science. why are we talking about it?
Because your intent was obvious and now you don't want to own it it's a joke?
what was my intent? something you made up to justify your continuing to defend yourself against perceived personal attacks in order to take the focus away from the debate.
and hide your own intentions, as subtle as you think you are. You are no different from me.
can we get back on topic?
where do you think science was developed from?
We have workable knowledge now without resorting to "The Fairy did it"
I think maybe you are misunderstanding me and my intent.
Yes we have workable knowledge and I'm a real hardass when it comes to sticking to verifiable facts and scientific process.
BUT, I am also very keenly aware of the vast effect language, intent, methodology, and expectations have on that workable knowledge.
Dude, just because we have made such huge gains in science and knowledge in general DOES NOT mean the fairy doesn't exist.
There is always that possibility.
intent? language? methodology? what's that?
What possibility? The bible is a patchwork of manipulative lies to control and subjugate. Simple. No proof of any god exists, and religionists are stuck using words from a book of fiction to support "facts"
Science on the other hand is subject to scrutiny from all sides of itself as well as the loons who believe talking in tongues is more scientific than gravity. I am well over this.
science has been used to manipulate as well, has it not? to control the masses and subjugate them? Can you prove black holes exist? Can you prove global warming?
And why are these books all fiction? Can you use science to disprove the stories found in religious text?
Science is a subject ripe with elitism. Which person thinks speaking in tongues is more scientific or has anything to do with science? What do you say to people whose traditions are much older than modern science?
Earnestshub, a question for you.
Why did you make the assumption based on my first post in this thread that I was one of "them"? My post was very neutral and I even stated that it had nothing to do with the God question at all, but rather about the nature of scientific thought. Next thing I know you have me stuffed into a box of your making and definition. Then you start to throw insults my way based more on what you perceived I said rather than the actual words I used to convey my meaning.
I never stated any religious position whatsoever, yet you took my post to be one "attacking" science and defending religion.
What I said is that science is a belief system, albeit different from religious ones, but a belief system none the less. Belief systems don't always entail some type of religious or spiritual aspect. Most often they do, but not of a necessity.
As far as your experiences, spiritual or otherwise, I stated you MAY not, not that you didn't have any such experiences. Everyone has a different definition of what spirituality is and what a spiritual experience is.
Don't make the fallacious assumption that if someone such as myself makes reference to spirituality or questions science that they are automatically opposed to your viewpoint.
Same goes for you wesleyacarter.
I'm not taking anybodies side in this, I thought my original post was pretty neutral.
You both crack me up. It is interesting how you both got something completely different from what I posted based on your own personal bias and prejudice.
Here is your sentence PB_Smith.
Just because you personally may not have experienced anything that could be considered spiritual that would lead you to a belief in a "higher power" does not automatically negate the experiences of others. I have a suspicion that you are more opposed to religion and it's practitioners than you are towards the actual belief systems themselves.
Now how am I supposed to understand this again?
Again, I said "may not have". I don't know you other than what you have written. Based on that I feel my comments aren't to far off. I could also be completely wrong, though I doubt it in context of other posts you have made.
But still, why did you just make an assumption that I was attacking science and defending religion? Nothing in my posting said anything of the sort, you just allowed your personal bias to interpret what I had written rather that taking it at face value. Wesley did the exact same thing, which in an odd way confirms that my post was really neutral.
wow, you really didn't understand where I was coming from. so let me educate you.
I was agreeing with your statement as science as a belief system. I am not with nor opposed to science. No one was confused about what you said, not even earnest. I said this to him last week, so it's nothing new, and i'm sure others have as well.
you might want to seek to Understand my opinion before you categorize it. When did I assume you were attacking science? or defending religion? Where did I express ANY personal bias?
just because earnest and I butt heads, does not mean i tread blindly when talking to him, nor does he.
PB you ignored the implications of scientific method as if that was not a valid argument. You either do not know what it is, your you misunderstand something. You cannot compare "evidence" from the bible with that obtained with scientific methodology.
he's saying that maybe you can.
maybe it was the Biblical "methodology" toward evidence that developed the scientific method. The works of science, in the civilized kingdoms, were governed by religious law, were they not?
I'm confused. Could you elaborate on what implications of the scientific method I don't understand.
And when in the hell did I ever mention comparing anything in the bible with scientific methodology?
You compared the voracity of each. You do not seem to recognise that the bible is not falsifiable, therefore not subject to or available for the application of scientific method to be applied to it, therefore no scientific proof.
Could you please quote me where I said anything whatsoever about the bible or comparing the voracity of it against scientific methodology.
You have yet again put me into a box in order to more easily categorize me. Maybe you should go back and actually read the words I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
Not once did I mention anything about the bible except that you make the assumption that my viewpoint is a Judeao/Christian one, something which I never said. I guess that you assume that if I use the term "spiritual" or "God" that I then must be talking about the Biblical interpretation of such.
Yeah, I'd say your prejudice and bias are really coloring you perception.
Are you sure your replying to the right person?
Lets get clear. I assumed you are religious as you profess a belief in a god do you not? The only sources of gods on this planet that I know of is through the belief in one of two tomes. I disagree with both of them.
Where did I say that?
I just posted my viewpoint on science as yet another type of belief systems.
I generally avoid getting into religious debates due to the fact that regardless of what you or I believe it remains just that, our personal beliefs.
Such things cannot be proven through scientific means nor can they be disproven.
You would do well to keep that in mind as you do appear to have a real issue with those who profess to believe in some religious Deity and practice.
If you think the concept or belief in a God or higher spiritual being is only derived from two sources than I would suggest that you are not informed enough to comment on the topic as vehemently as you do. Maybe your idea of God is very,very limited and small.
I'm pretty much done with this topic now.
I resented the fact that you just discounted what I had said offhand based on your incorrect assumption of what you thought my personal beliefs were.
As someone who writes here on hubpages I would like to think you actually read what someone writes, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if someone read the first few lines of one of your hubs and then went on to comment and insult you based on what they thought you said rather than the actual words you wrote.
Oh well, critical reading and thought are not in abundance here I'm beginning to notice, regardless of religious affiliation.
You have no hubs! You mention religion on your profile. Again YOU HAVE NO HUBS! Did you not notice? You do not write on hubpages. you have been here posting on forums not writing.
UHH, So what if I haven't published any hubs yet, does that invalidate everything I have said?
So what if I mention religion is one of my many interests?
It is obviously an interest of yours as well otherwise you wouldn't post in all the religious threads that you do.
I am working on a series to publish soon, but still what f*** does that have to do with anything, or is that your way of diverting from what I just posted. From a lot of hubs I have read I've illiterated more intelligent, coherent thoughts in these few forum posts than some people have in numerous hubs.
Hubpages is cool, but it is also just a platform for a lot of people to spout thier own opinions and pass it off as "good writing". Don't mean to be insulting, just honest. Like I said critical thinking, reading and writing seems to be a fading art. Sad.
Oh well, I guess I'll just slowly walk away with my head hung in shame for I have no hubs, and everyone knows only the "important" people with any intelligence have hubs.
Damn, I'm a nobody because I have no hubs.
You seem to get things a bit mixed up at times. You say tose of us who write here, then I see that you do not. How am I supposed to know you when you do not have but a few words on a profile and a few posts?
If you are not a god botherer then I apologise.
Earnest, once again, why did you come in here and leave your 2 cents when the question was obviously religious related? I don't think anyone here has said that science is a bunch of bologne. We all (I hope all) know the world is round and gravity keeps our little feetsies stuck to it. Yet, it SEEMS to me that you are trying to make us all sound like idiots because we believe something different than you. Can I please get a rational explaination?
All of Earnests' chums have been banned, so where else can he go?
Besides which, no debate about Christ or religion would be complete without Earnest making his statements, if he were not here we'd probably all agree and have nothing to get banned about, shucks we may even stop debating about Christ if nobody kept telling us that we were idiots for believing.
I know my faith has increased exponentially since I started on the forums, all these atheists are great for building faith and trust in God.
I have to go out now. I will respond to anything else later tonight.
Why would a god need to be worshipped? A neurotic psychopath may need to feel worshipped, but a god that demands to be worshipped?
by Ahmad Usman6 years ago
"Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years. He passed away, to no one's regret, and was buried in the City of David, but not in the tombs of the kings. (2...
by Laurel Rogers6 years ago
I love my son, sometimes I don't like who he seems to have become. Am I the only one? He's loud, bossy and unfriendly, someone I would never consider being friends with.I'm hoping this is only a stage, that...
by Mizzery Chick7 years ago
My favorite story to tell is how my 5 year old poured an entire bottle of dish detergent in the back of our toilet "just because" and when he flushed a few times it spilled foam all over our carpet. It was...
by hinazille28 hours ago
...when Jesus clearly said 'My Father is Greater than I' in John 14:28?Nothing can be greater than God, so by Jesus' own words, we can deduce that Jesus did not profess to be God, because he professes that there is a...
by Roberta McIlroy4 years ago
My 12 year old recently went on a camping trip with some of his dads friends. While on this 'camping' trip the following happened. The old ladys grand-daughter was 'upset' so the woman gave her car keys to...
by Claire Evans4 years ago
Atheists often ask for proof of Jesus being the son of God. If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God, would you still reject Him as your saviour?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.