Is your intuition right about God?
I read something a while back about how intuition evolved to get us out of dangerous situation and that if you are using it for anything else you are more likely wrong. I then noticed people in these forums say that they just KNOW God is real and that no amount of reason will prove anything different. One person freely admits that intuition is the obvious way for find the truth. I wondered if anyone has ever studied wether intuition get the right answers or wether people who rely more on intuition belief more strong in God. One google search found this interesting link from Harvard University.
What are your thoughts?
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/Gre … JEPG11.pdfTo me - intuition is akin to "instinct." Like the deer that senses a predator or that feeling that your mom is going to call and then the phone rings. It's just one more sense - a type of sixth sense - that science has yet to pin down.
Energy is a fascinating topic and one we don't quite understand yet. You need not be standing by a person to hone in on their energy. It's only "strange" because we don't know how it works.
To many - it probably seems strange that a virus can mutate in two different places of the world - at the same instant. And yet - it happens.
Is is proof of a deity?
I don't think so.Intuition and instinct are similar but intuition is basing your choices on things learned from your environment and instinct is more primal (flight or fight). As the link illustrates some use intuition to do math and get the wrong answer as a result. When we use instinct rather than reason to decide if God exists we seem to come to the decision that God exists. My point is that if reason gives you the right answer to question than why use intuition to decide if God exists?
I agree with that. I shouldn't have used the word 'instinct."
Granted, intuition draws on what we've stored in our brains. Using intuition to verify the existence of a Creator borders (to me) on superstitionism.
Not to mention the problem of when instincts contradict. We see this in competing religions, and we also see it within the SAME religion. All think that they're right, and their confirmation bias confirms that they are, but other competing instincts and religions contradict them. It all comes down to the position of "i'm right, because I feel I'm right, and if you disagree with me, you're obviously wrong. Why? Cause I feel that way and I said so".
That can't be used as proof, and it's the furthest thing from objective you can get. It stops conversation in its tracks. As an atheist, I can say that it's my "instinct" that god doesn't exist. A believer will say their instinct says he does. Where do you go from there?Well, when it is shown that instinct produces the wrong result, we use reason when produces the correct results. That's what was done in the studies.
I'm just saying that relying on intuition and instinct means that you can justify anything, and dig yourself in and insist that your intuition is correct, and competing intuitions are automatically wrong, when they disagree with the one you've already decided on.
couldnt say it better. from there, nothing.
Very interesting, though I wish they'd differentiated between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. The `belief in god' and `religious experience' questions could be applied to both, though perhaps the intrinsically religious would score higher. It seems important for this research though because intuitive beliefs may be more prevalent for the intrinsically religious.
Other lines of research have shown we also have a `hyper-active agency detector' which causes us to attribute agency to unknown phenomena in our environment because it is adaptive to do so. For example, hearing a bush rustle in the wind will produce the intuitive thought that there is some `agent' (person or animal) in the bush. It was adaptive to do this in the ancestral environment because people who did it survived! This may therefore contribute to our ability to form beliefs about gods, spirits and ghosts. I talk about this in my hub "Does God Exist? Ask A Cognitive Scientist".
A section from my hub "What is the relationship between religion and morality?" provides further evidence of intuitive beliefs:
"We have evolved a superstitious trigger for moral behavior, which works for atheists and theists alike. An experiment by Shariff and Norenzayan showed that when people were unconsciously primed about concepts related to gods, spirits, and prophets during a task to unscramble sentences containing those words, they were more likely to be generous in an economic game. Another experiment by Jesse Bering showed that participants were less likely to cheat when they were told a ghost was in the room with them."
Thus, we seem to have an intuitive attraction to religion because it confers pro-social benefits and is parasitic upon our threat-detection systems. Taken together, the finding that religion is often intuitive is therefore not surprising, though it was important to confirm it more explicitly.Kind of an interesting question really. I know for me, intuition isn't something I often rely on. There are a couple of reasons for it. Mine isn't always right. I've had terrible intuition about people the first time I've met them only to become very attached to them later on and to learn that my initial perception of them was entirely wrong. I've also experienced just the opposite: great feeling about someone in the beginning only to discover that they weren't such fantastic folks after all. To say that I never trust my intuition wouldn't be entirely true either, though. As far as spiritual matters are concerned, I tend to, yes, go with my gut. Let me explain why...
I am, by nature, one of those folks who loves to know that I'm doing the right thing. That I'm following truth and that I'm accepting things for what they really are. First, I don't like looking like a fool. Second, it just seems that one would want to align themselves as closely as possible to what we know to be true and real and factual. That said, I've put my faith - my God, however you want to put it - up against reality so many times expecting to see it all come crashing down around me because it just isn't real or rational or logical or whatever. I can't make it go away. I can't comfortably make myself believe that what I have faith in as far as spiritual matters isn't real.
So, for me, although intuition isn't something I generally put a lot of stock into, for my spiritual life, I trust it. I wouldn't go so far as to call it my sixth sense, or use it to confirm I have a third eye, or anything such as that, but I'd sure say that it tells me there is a God, that God did make me, and that God does love me. It also tells me that no matter how I may feel about other people or their attitudes or their weird ideas, I'm supposed to love them. If I didn't follow my intuition as far as that goes and set out to be entirely reasonable and rational with folks, I wouldn't always be kind. So, for me, my intuition is right about God. It doesn't mean it's a provable fact that he exists and that I'm going to be able to suddenly pull concrete evidence out of a hat, but because it is as persistent as it has been for me for so long, I just can't deny it to myself.
What evidences do you have to back up your claims? hahahaha
For most, yes. But ED and I have an understanding. He lets me believe in my bunkum if I don't try to shove it down his throat or make him believe it.
And my intuition has never told me I'm required to do that for God to love me so we're good.Too much reliance on subjective feelings? Childhood indoctrination?
This is quite funny, lol! Do I sound like an atheist? hahaha!Subjective feelings and childhood indoctrination usually produce these kinds of claims:
Are YOU asking me? Or just anticipating what someone else would say? There isn't a need for that. He and I have had many a decent, respectful, and polite comversation about these things.
Well, I was actually asking you these questions just to demonstrate (the true nature of) how atheists on hubpages normally take these subjects. And he is not the only one of them.
That is true, but I've already identified and clarified my views with most of the more vocal ones. We talk a lot.
Well, glad to know you've tamed the rutts around the house.
Never quite thought of it that way. Just saw it as having conversation with people who thought about things differently than I do. That isn't a very nice way to put it.
Being friendly and respectful for people different than you is considered taming? In what world? I thought it was called being a decent human being.
Is there a reason you feel like you have to play an atheist to make a point? We can speak for ourselves, you know.
Yep. And Mo is one of my closest friends, and she's a believer. Why? We treat each other with respect. Try it sometime.
How was it disrespectful? Maybe you perceived it to be disrespectful, but that's not a problem with a post, and there's nothing I can do about how you choose to take things.
And you've demonstrated that attempting to have a conversation with you is useless. Thanks for that. Have fun talking to yourself in the forums.
Don't feel badly, JMcFarland. We've all tried discussing things with him but he doesn't seem to want to engage with anyone. To each their own, I suppose, but I certainly appreciate posters who can articulate their point of view and offer meaningful debate.
On the plus side- perhaps he will read how conversations take place here and decide to come on board and have some fun with all of us.
It takes some folks longer than others, but - where there is life - there is hope.It is very difficult to engage with this particular poster...and I'm generally not too hard to talk to-even when I disagree with someone.
I don't feel bad. It's more humorous than anything else. People think they can come in here, be rude to people, speak for a group of people of which they are not a part and carry on a full conversation with themselves. Have fun with it. :-) Personally I come to the forums because it's fun for me to interact with people who disagree with my view, and others who share it. The forums are going to be a sad, lonely place for people who are only able to talk to themselves. Maybe not the case for someone with a superiority complex, but he can have at it. :-)
Motown - you're actually one of the most gracious posters here. And, I agree, when I see you disagree about something - it's in the nicest way.
That's a talent, girl!Thank you. That's a very kind thing to say and I appreciate it.
"I know for me, intuition isn't something I often rely on.
Mine isn't always right.
I've had terrible intuition about people…"
"So, for me, although intuition isn't something I generally put a lot of stock into, for my spiritual life, I trust it.
So, for me, my intuition is right about God."Hey, you asked!
I've never said it made sense...just that it made sense to me. I'm a woman of contradictions; what can I say? My husband tells me that all the time.
Hi Rad!!!
The whole intuition thing helps at first to drum up enough faith to say yes to God. However, experience with him is required to continue in faith. And the experience is spiritually tangible, but that's it.
Now one may read a lot of books and determine that the stuff that makes up the human mind is tangible but that is a lie. We cannot see what makes those microscopic molecules move around in our brains though the molecules themselves can often be microscopically realized.
When you die, you are a clump of decomposition. But something is missing. The microscopic stuff is STILL there. But there is no animation. The UNSEEN element is gone.
I remember sitting on my son's bed yelling my aunt's name as she slipped away. I saw nothing leave her body. That part of her was gone.
Truth is, we cannot see that animator within us. That's where God is.
I believe in God. Not without proof though. He showed me proof of him in a dream I once had. It was amazing. And I had that exact same dream from start to finish for three nights in a row. Now I cannot replay it for you. But it is etched. I'm convinced. I do not need you to be convinced. Just telling what I know.Dreams are just our brains firing randomly while we sleep, they aren't real.
Right. I can see how you mean that. But the randomness of dreams implies that the same exact dream from start to finish for three nights in a row is something much more.
Recurring dreams are common, but they still aren't real, they're just dreams.
"Recurring dreams are common, but they still aren't real"
What do you mean by real?ED - fair warning. I think that he thinks he's a wanna be presuppositionalist. Have fun with that one.
Good job!
"People think they can come in here, be rude to people, speak for a group of people of which they are not a part and carry on a full conversation with themselves. Have fun with it."
http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2593028
First of all, you are not here to discuss anything, you've made that crystal clear. Hence, it is pointless to answer your questions for that reason.
Secondly, there is this amazing thing called a "Dictionary" and another amazing thing called an "Encyclopedia" for which you're free to use at any time that you're unclear on the definitions of words and concepts.
And last of all, we are not here to teach you anything. It is up to you to educate yourself if you wish to join the discussions.
Thank YOU!
Truth is important. They will all KNOW one day with knees in the dirt. But we must extend the invitation and share what CHRIST SAID. Not what Genaea or Mo or Prodio said. We follow ONE path. Because only one path is laid to the father. Jesus knows the way. I know that.
I did not get my evidence by searching for God in books written by those who search as well. My books were inspired by God to ensure that I am on target. I cannot follow Christ if I do not fully take in what is written there. He came to set the captive free. Slavery is not possible when we accept his gift no matter WHO we get our paychecks from. He has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the "wise".
The battle is almost over.Beautifully said, sister. May God bless you, and always keep you amid health, prosperity and affection.
Geez... nice... Thanks!
I think I heard someone say u were hard to talk to. That aint so strange though. The spirit of the Lord lives within. And it agrees with you. CHECK CHECK CHECK. We must try the spirit by the spirit. It's amazing how that plays out.
So we use intuition to come to a decision that we base your life on, knowing that when doing so intuition is generally wrong. We become emotionally involved with that decision so we don't use reason to access the decision.
Gotcha.
In another forum Rad Man and I were having a discussion which led to a question of intuition, when he began this forum. I'm not sure if I'm the person who allegedly says intuition is the way to find God, but if so, it's an inaccurate statement.
Rad Man wrote in that forum at the time he started this forum: "It's been proven that intuition is wrong when not used as it was evolved to use. Reason comes to the correct answer. You are claiming intuition is correct and reason is wrong? Can you supply evidence that reason and logic produces wrong answers?"
My response:
I didn't suggest we use intuition instead of reason, though I understand that to the natural mind these are the limited options. How can you even say "reason comes to the correct answer" - You really think humans are so all-knowing, they if they just use their "reason" they'll come to all the correct answers?
Reason and logic produce wrong answers all the time, but are only recognized as wrong AFTER new discoveries. So for example, our reason and logic would tell us that drinking the bottled water is healthy because water is known to be healthy. But then we discover that the bottled water was sitting in excessive heat and so is dangerous because of the cancer-causing parts that leaked into the water when exposed to heat.
I haven't seen those strictly adhering to the human-designed rules regarding logical fallacies getting any closer to the truth or demonstrating their cases more convincingly, whether believers or unbelievers. In fact, it looks like the logical fallacies are a distraction and an excuse for avoiding genuine openness to the truth.You clearly didn't read the link. Intuition is telling that logical fallacies are a distraction. I understand you want to protect your beliefs, but to what extent will you go. Read the link before you continue to tell me intuition produces the correct answers and logical fallacies are a distraction.
I agree. "That's just a ____ fallacy!" Is filler. It comes when the point made has no obvious rebuttal at hand. We are all fallacious (atheist incl.) in the face of the many argument rules the "Lord fallacy" thunk up in his worldly mind. He has many devoted "followers" here...
So, is it not your intuition that you rely on when you read the bible and 'feel' something is particularly immoral? Isn't it these intuitive 'feelings' that you then use to build your conclusion regarding the motivations of the writers based on how it reads to you? Things that seem so plainly and intuitively clear to you, leaving you baffled that others don't see it the same way?
No, I use reason to come to those conclusions. Does it make sense? Does it add up? My intuition tells me if a bear is sneaking up on me or if someone is about to attack me.
It's also your intuition that makes you think something is "true" without having anything to actually base that conclusion on. Like when something is deemed particularly "good" or "bad". You can then apply reason to justify your initial intuitive feeling, but when there isn't a clear definition, like in cases of morality, most times its intuition that "makes the call".
I don't base morality on intuition. If I did, I'd be wrong most of the time. We can use reason to determine if it's right to kill someone because they didn't give you their lunch money. Reason tells us if thinks make sense or not. Do you think it's a coincidence that people who use reason to determine the right answer to test question are also more religious?
Reason tells me that an all knowing/powerful/loving God wouldn't say are women unclean after giving birth and would force them to kill goats to cleans themselves of sin and he wouldn't say that giving birth to girls is more unclean or sinful.You're attempting to apply reason to things that have a whole spiritual aspect to them. In Jewish tradition there is a close tie between the state of the body and the state of the spirit.
I realize a lot of the more spiritual aspects don't make logical sense to you, but that's because you discount it all as 'not real' or 'not relevant'. Think about it this way. What if God created a place where people with free will can live out their lives and only do so much damage? The bible makes it clear there are two realms at play, this one and what comes after. The only way to pass from this realm through to the other is through death. You must be spiritually read to make the transition. This is the same transition made by an animal who is sacrificed. There is reason and purpose to it all, but it's not going to make sense if you discount the whole spiritual aspect of the story.
No, I don't think think it's coincidence. I agree that most religious types are happy to accept what was taught to them and generally don't turn a critical eye towards those things. But I don't think that kind of information leads one to any ultimate truths about anything.
What have been your intuitions regarding this thread?
Based on past experience the information provided will be dismissed as invalid and unimportant because it conflicts with a belief.
Intuition is learned - and biological. While an adult might "sense" danger in a certain situation, a toddler doesn't, which is why they run into the street without a backwards glance. Only after we learn and internalize those lessons do we start to draw in them intellectually - giving us "gut feelings." Your study was good and there are many, many more that show intuition isn't some supernatural power - it's a biological construct of our physical bodies.
Male testosterone reduces intuitive ability studies show.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 042314.php
That would explain why women - and less-masculine males feel they are intuitive.Oh dear, if people who use intuition more often are more apt believe in Gods and men who are less masculine are more apt to use intuition does that mean men who believe in Gods are less masculine? That may upset some people. I don't really think that's the case, but it would be interesting to study.
I'd like to add that there certainly is a place for intuition. I've used it several time to stay out of trouble.Interesting and I agree that testosterone cuts down on intuition. The previous definition of intuition was tied to the fight-or-flight response which testosterone provides in abundance. Therefore testosterone and intuition are not really related.
To me, intuition is a knowing without knowing and is very often correct.A couple of points here (hopefully not too critical). Most of us don't imply that intuition is a "supernatural power". Our intuition helps us in many ways (beyond simply sensing danger), but most recognize the limits of intuition. While human "reasoning" may be an obstacle to belief in God (and paying attention to intuition may push toward acknowledgement of God), neither reasoning nor intuition will result in a saving knowledge of the Lord. That is the work of the Holy Spirit himself.
If testosterone "reduces intuitive ability", then that would be why females and "less masculine" males HAVE MORE INTUITIVE ABILITY, not merely "feel they are intuitive", as you stated (showing disrespect for the strengths of particular people).Am I reading that right? Are you suggesting that what we think about Gods wether using intuition or reason has no bearing on wether we believe in God because that decision is left up to something undetectable?
I am honestly trying to understand.Neither the one relying on their own reasoning, nor the one relying on their own intuition (or one who uses a combination), can on their own come to a saving knowledge of the Lord of the universe. This is the work of the Holy Spirit. We seek, we ask, we knock... HE responds. Only when we seek AND he responds do we come to a saving knowledge of the truth.
I see, thanks, you are say that thinking style is irrelevant while the report on the studies show otherwise. Can you please give reason for this that isn't simply an intuitive response?
I'm not saying thinking style is irrelevant when it comes to a general belief in God (so no, I'm not arguing against this finding of the studies). I'm saying thinking style is not the way to come to a SAVING knowledge of the Lord - the Holy Spirit himself is the only way to come to this.
The assumption here is the direction of "us to God"; I'm saying the true direction is "God to us".
An intuitive style, which facilitates a general belief in God, may open us more to the Holy Spirit. In this way it plays its part, but the greater and always needed part is revelation by the Spirit.
Reasoning may hamper a general belief in God. The inflexible use of reasoning may limit someone - they may not allow themselves to be open and receptive to the Holy Spirit.
This would be scientifically accurate. Humans are not 100% conscious as God / Holy spirit is.
That religion, its supporters and its detractors are the biggest cause of discussions on the Hubpages forums..............................
I know God is real and He talks to all of us on the daily. Some of us ignore Him some of us listen. We also have our own thoughts which can over ride His still small voice, but if you get in a quiet enough place, turn off all the distractions, you will know the difference between your thoughts and His voice. He will answer any question and He might even make you laugh. Talk to Him just like you talk to us. "ylynd'
Voices inside your head that can give you information? Hmmm. Prove it.
Next time you are chatting ask him to prove his existence to Rad Man. What was the name of the street I lived on in 1980? Go ahead… make me a believer.
i never like the "i just know God exists". for one, its not what the bible teaches. 2 those some people would make a decision like that with anything else in their life.
I know God exists, but I don't "just" know he exists - I've met him, walked with him, talked with him, heard him, experienced his manifest supernatural presence, witnessed miracles and personal supernatural healings, know numerous others who've experienced the same things, have had shared experiences with others without any influence on their experiences (by not disclosing to them my similar experience before they spoke of theirs), and on and on.
I don't make my other decisions similarly at all and tend to be skeptical about everything. Do aliens exist? Doubt it. Is time travel possible? Doubt it. Did someone really see a ghost? Doubt it. Is the accused guilty? While others may form an opinion based on intuition or evidence (and generally do), to me it's hard to ever get to "beyond a reasonable doubt" because there's so often the possibility of confounding factors, such as the framing of a person. You see, I don't think I KNOW much of anything else. Just that God exists. And that's because the Holy Spirit has revealed him to me and sealed me in him. I can be talked into and out of a lot. In fact I'm really quite a push-over in the majority of ways. Am I sure I'm parenting in the best way? No, not really, got any advice for me? Am I sure that's the best financial decision? No, not really, got any advice? Am I sure that's the best place to move? No, any advice? But when it comes to the knowledge of the Lord, because I am sealed by the Holy Spirit, I cannot be moved by any statements, findings, or anything else provided by anyone apart from God. Praise be to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who in his mercy has chosen to reveal truth to me and I pray to all those who are open and willing to receive it!!i know where youre comin from on that. due to personal experiences and what evidences and philosophical thought has been presented to me over the many years of being a christian, it would be near impossible for me to be convinced God did exist. i would never say "i just konw" either though.
But, we know you're just making that up from your imagination like you do with most everything else.
Yes, as I've mentioned several times, indoctrinated believers will often criticize other aspects of their lives, just not their religious beliefs. And, they will reject or deny (as you do) anything they see that will jeopardize those beliefs."But, we know you're just making that up from your imagination like you do with most everything else." That is the easiest way to dismiss what I've said (and others say), isn't it?
"Yes, as I've mentioned several times, indoctrinated believers will often criticize other aspects of their lives, just not their religious beliefs. And, they will reject or deny (as you do) anything they see that will jeopardize those beliefs." We could be "indoctrinated" into many things. Why is faith the sole one maintained for many who can critically analyze all else? And why are these people who supposedly maintain "mere indoctrination" so often the ones who speak of a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with the Lord?
Do atheists do just what they angrily accuse Christians of doing - imply they are "special" and smarter, the ones capable of analysis who "opened their eyes", while those who follow the Lord are mere indoctrinated fools who should open their eyes and become like the atheist?
I'm not even sure what intuition is.
It seems to be the process of making decisions or judgments based on preconceived notions.
I suppose this could be either good or bad, depending on the situation.
Extra Sensory Perception: We have five senses. We have imagination. We have instincts. We also have a sixth sense. It is the sense of knowing things directly through the use of the third eye, situated in-between and just above the eyebrows. This is actually the seat of the soul. The energy of a person is actually all knowing just like God. (Since we are part of God i.e. "made in his image..."/ we are made out of the pure essence of God. "Heaven is within...") But the other five senses are used almost exclusively when we inhabit our physical bodies. When we switch our focus to the seat of the soul we can perceive reality in the form of truths, knowledge, ideas, and the essences of living beings. We can read auras and comprehend astrological signs of others and perceive information about events, past and present and future. We can perceive the force and essence (felt in the heart as pure love and joy) of God directly.
I could end with Thats The Way I See It, per usual, but no, Thats The Way It Is.
TTWIIProve it! heh.
You're entitled to your beliefs, of course, but I can't help speculating on why you possess them.
Anxiety is an emotion that appears to have four separate sources that were relevant in the ancestral environment - and that are therefore important to our present experience of the emotion. These anxiogenic cues are related to intra-species violence, predation, contamination or threats to purity, and loss of social status. (see Boyer: http://philpapers.org/rec/BOYWRB )
1. You said "The energy of a person is actually all knowing just like God." thus making all people intrinsically good.
2. You said: "we are part of God i.e. "made in his image"" thus making us intrinsically superior to all animals.
3. You said: "we are made out of the pure essence of God" thus making us intrinsically pure and free from contamination.
4. Finally, your beliefs all suggest a special level of perceived knowledge about what would be highly adaptive traits (if they existed), thus averting any concern for a lack of status.
You appear to be addressing the main causes of anxiety. What's more, anxiety is essentially a `fear of the future'. So when you said: "We can read auras and comprehend astrological signs of others and perceive information about events, past and present and future." I couldn't help but make the connection.
I find that many superstitious and religious beliefs are rooted in our concern for and attempts to alleviate anxious thoughts.
I do apologize if this reply seems overly analytical, but whenever someone professes to believe something that can't be proven, my skepti-sense tingles and I can't help myself lol.Me too. I will not believe anything unless proven. My search for the truth began around the age of fourteen and had nothing what-so-ever to do with anxiety. When I was twenty I did not believe in God. Now I am approaching 60 and I know everything I said above is true and proven by myself to myself. I cannot prove it to anyone else. Each to their own.
Indeed. I would say that searching for truth is as admirable as ending that search is lamentable.
That isn't true at all, you have offered a huge list of things you believe that haven't a shred of evidence let alone having been proved, for example:
We also have a sixth sense. It is the sense of knowing things directly through the use of the third eye, situated in-between and just above the eyebrows. This is actually the seat of the soul.
Sorry, but there is no evidence for a sixth sense, a third eye or a soul.
We can read auras and comprehend astrological signs
Sorry, once again, there is no evidence for auras and astrology is pure bunkum.If someone told you there is a third eye and you believed it because you experienced it, and at the same time through understanding the context of what you saw, That in reality is an existence of God. Why because to perceive this, one had to see that eye even if it was explained by someone other than self. That's what I believe.
No, that's just a fantasy that may seem real but it isn't.
That's nice.
If you can't prove it to anyone else reason should tell you that you may want to have another look at what you are thinking.
Did you read the Harvard studies? When we use intuition to make decisions other than times it's evolved to be used for we get the wrong answer and as it turns out people who use intuition rather than reason tend to me more religious.
When we are young children some of us are told Santa is real and most believe what we have been told until we are old enough to begin to use reason. Reason gives us the right answer.firstly .... Gotta agree with Ya. I can't prove any of the reasons why I do, Intuition tells me so.
Where did Einstein learn the things he learned. He knew many of these things that he later proved to himself and then to the rest of the world.
Wonder how he would define intuition, seeing as how he seemed to have had an overabundant amount of it. My intuition tells me he would describe it differently than is commonly accepted today.
Now YOU may be convinced of that. But my dream was not just a dream. Three nights in a row is very significant.
So God speaks to a lot of people through their dreams. I have heard.
have you ever had such a common occurrence?That can't be true. No one can consciously make those kind of determinations while they're sleeping, they are not in a conscious state in which to do so.
What you've "heard" is just hearsay."they are not in a conscious state in which to do so"
What does conscious mean?
And what is a conscious state?Well, you know, it's just like asking a color-blind person to describe how the color golden looks like.
They *think* they can answer it!Without the ear to hear (that you must receive) no hope of hearing. Cannot describe the color golden. Good work!!! What did you say you wanted for Christmas?
The world needs a bit more kindness. And a bit more love. That's it!
But, since the color golden is well known by a great deal of people on the planet, your analogy fails to the tiny minority it refers.
If you wish to use a much larger demographic as an analogy, try using the one attempting to explain reality, facts and evidence to religious believers who deny or reject them. That number is quite a bit larger.
That can't be true. No one can consciously make those kind of determinations while they're sleeping, they are not in a conscious state in which to do so. (Quote)
So my dreams had nothing whatsoever to do with my conscious ability to make up reasons to believe God exists??? That's what I said. It is God.
Since the dream was wonderful; I woke up in amazement. Then forgot about it during the day. And once again I had the SAME dream with no variation. I woke up quickened and thought something like wow!!! Same dream. Freaky...
But THEN for a THIRD morning, I awoke having had the EXACT same dream! I had to take a poll... never happened to anyone I know! Nor a few I DIDN'T know. So maybe it aint socommon. And maybe God showed me my future (in full swing currently) in a dream... as MORE proof that he in FACT is my companion; and I do belong to him. You choose for you. I have already chosen.How can you tell the difference between a god speaking in your dream and the dream itself? How does your conscious mind delineate between the two? Or do you just decide it was a god because you like that answer?
How do you go from "maybe" God showed you the future and saying God spoke? To "proof" that He exists and loves you? You chose, but based on a "maybe" instead of truth and fact?Sometimes - an intuition (this is the word that comes closest to denote it) may be so powerful - it might become self-evident.
Sometimes.
[By the way: Can you tell me what are dreams made of?]Actually, the question was how to know whether it was a god or a dream. Not how to guess...
Hey, we may create our own realities. Mine says God. Yours says different. We are starting to move into turnip phlebotomy here.
Ok, you are my favorite now. That other one is not sure who she/he wants to be yet. But you know.
I am not in a position to explain the spirit to you beyond the fact that it happens BIG in my sleep. My sky daddy gave me a confirmation that he speaks to me via unconscious dreamland. Two years before my daughter was born, I had q dream about her, her father and I in our new home. She was about the age she is now. But this was two full years before she was born. Now how the heezy would I know that I'd have a baby girl with this dude who was far from me at the time; two full years before??? Who'd a thunk it???
So, I got proof. many years AFTER I said yes. I walked in search of God (no way trying to prove he is NOT there) listening to his voice. He rewarded me with an abundance offaith ewith proof that I can put my hands on. He makes it plain after you give yourself. To whom much is given; much is required. He works with us according to our faith. When we believe him; he shows himself plainly.I need to ask you something..
What are your thoughts on scientists? -Satanic spirits? Reincarnated spiritual masters? Deluded God-childs?Scientists? Some good to the world. Heck! They gave us processed cheese and smog.
I have no issues with science. There is much to be learned. Though I wm absolutely no good in science or math which must also be scientific; because I am horrible with Aunt Sally and LxW= I (b4) e accept after c. They can HAVE that junk. And I don't care...
Satanic spirits? We are plagued daily and increasingly. When I was a kid, I had dreams that people, monsters, animals all took turns chasing me. And I was always running and performing miraculous Matrix-type feats in my dreams to get away. I ALWAYS got away. And I always woke up in a sweat or heart palpitations. I was also a devout insomniac. I wonder if one had to do with the other. Nevertheless., I believe my dreams then to be devinely inspired.
Reincarnation? Nah. I think that once you die, there is then the judgment. They spoke if it biblically, but it had been explained from the perspective of the nonGodly. I don't remember Jesus speaking of reincarnation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Child gods??? There is no other God. Some may MAKE gods of many different things. But there is only one.
Please let me explain trinity. (Been kinda long-winded) To me,
God the father, God the Son, and God the holy spirit are three separate entities. The God part is spirit. The father is the head. He allows Jesus to sit next to him and reign. As God. The holy spirit rules our minds/hearts, I mean conscious as a constant reminder of God. Simple really. But one MUST make a big deal out of the foolish (trinity is a man-made word to denote the relationship) things as a deterrent. Self is a very big deal to some.Yeah. That's the spirit part. We may rule our reality. In his image and likeness. When we let God rule our reality and relinquish our will (which is no good anyway) we rule with God. The spirit unifies. It is one-tracked. It is the same from IL. To Beijing. And back again. No argument over "words" and meaning; no better more modern idea than God/Jesus. No denial of his truth. Sameness.
What are your thoughts on television and the media (worldwide)?
Television sucks. If I watch, it's on ID. Seems the most real/just.
The media (that I get) it too sucks. Bad news galore sensational interviews of nothing but who cheated with who; who is gay today; who divorced who. Grandma turns 104. Somebody was killed. Plane disappeared in the most secure... just awful. Used for a purpose.
So you know, but cannot tell.
Unfortunately, that is a common answer from people that haven't a clue, and deserves no respect or belief whatsoever. Because, whatever you might think, it means you can't tell the difference. That you make the call because you wish it to be true, because you like the answer, not because you know it to be true at all.Correction: I know; but YOU cant tell; the color golden because you have no ear.
If you go down and get your free ear, the Lord will whisper in it.I have the same senses you have, I just do not allow my imagination to control my mind. We both have the same ears, the same eyes - we see the same things. You just make up conclusions you wish to be true while I look for truth and fact.
So no, you do NOT know; you only imagine you hear a whisper because you want it so badly.I see things differently. But you know me by now. Things are different for us. And as a man thinketh in his heart; so is he. You will have your way. In HIS image and likeness. Some of us are fooled by such power. Makes us feel...powerful.
You are correct - we are very different.
I have to say, though, that I never considered Christians as being power mad or feeling that their belief gave them power. Most will say their god has all the power, not them, although they DO seem to feel that they can ask for (and receive) special favors requiring that power...The LORD favors the faithful. He allows them to ask... and he gives. The faithful wait in expectation. It comes because he is powerful. None of us may boast in our own power. We know that...
Always with the unsupported claims...but never, ever with any proof or even evidence.
You cannot know when the lord gives, for others get the same without asking. You cannot know your god is powerful for you have never seen him do anything at all, let alone something requiring power, in spite of saying he did this or that, for the things you claim your god has done for or around you happen all the time with no indication of any god involved.Good gifts are spiritual in nature. More love/peace/joy. Not the flimsy stuff money buys. Blessed assurance is available too. God is involved in all that happens in the lives of those who love him. And when God gives a gift, no sorrow comes with it. All these things are biblically supported and proven to many. You put your glory where you like. And I will take the liberty of glorifying where I like.
Meaning you don't get any in the natural world so will make them up in the imaginary world where it cannot be verified. I do believe I mentioned claims without evidence...
The same stuff (all natural world) that other people have in abundance if they will just leave the hate out of their lives. Even some Christians have learned to do this, although there are still many in Westboro that have not.
Priests will bless anyone that comes by with assurances god loves them. Free for anyone and we can hear it with our senses. No need to pretend a non-existent god is doing it.
You have zero way of knowing if that is true; just yet another unsupported claim that you would like to believe is true and therefore will, with or without evidence or even with evidence to the contrary.
As it has never been verified that any god has ever given any gift, the statement is of unknown truth. There is, however, no reason to believe it is actually true, as the god of the majority of the bible gives more sorrow than anything else.
Biblically supported, yes, but if there is a more worthless piece of support in the world I've not seen it. Dr. Seuss has more truth than the Christian bible. The bible "proves" something only to the believer that doesn't care if it is "proven" or not; their faith provides all the "proof" necessary without needing any evidence at all.
Certainly - glorify whatever you like. Just don't expect (or even hope) that others will fall into lockstep with you, believing whatever you do for the simple reason YOU believe it. Most people of the world today use reason and logic rather than desire and want to come to conclusions and are thus not real eager to simply believe because Cgenaea says so.
The Lord favors the faithful? That's quite a beneficial belief for you to have. You must be better off than atheists who do not have the Lord favoring them. How lovely for you to have bested natural selection! To be honest, I think Karl Marx hit the nail on the head when he said:
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself."Hmmm... Marx. That's quite a beneficial belief for you to have.
Well that depends. Do you "pray" to once and for all be done with the God notions??? Marx answers that well; and offers an alternative faith. Enjoy.
I don't pray. Marx gave his opinion on why religion is prevalent. That opinion neither requires faith nor asks for it. I value his opinion and think he may have been right. Faith is for people who need it. There are plenty of religions out there that know they need it, ask for it, and require it.
Listen to this...
I value the opinion of Jesus. You value Marx. We both have faith that they are right. Right???If what I just said about Marx sounds like faith to you, then I doubt our conversation can go much further.
Well, Thomas, I have been having this conversation for a long time, Sir. Faith is faith whether placed in God or man. You "believe" Marx to be on to something. I say Jesus holds the cards. Neither of us can prove it tangibly. Well, I have my daughter; and you have your books. But who's right? We ALL will know for sure...one day.
See now that's the difference. You saying "we ALL will know for sure one day" is faith. Much like your many other comments here, you leave no room for compromise. You only deal in absolutes.
Me saying "I think Marx may be right" is not faith. Marx may be wrong. For one, I don't like the last line of that quote I provided you with. It makes freedom from religion sound like a selfish endeavor, and I don't think it is. I also think there's a lot to be added to Marx's analysis. It's incomplete and needs to be supported by scientific research, such as the article linked to by the OP. Regardless, the premises I like may still be wrong, and I acknowledge that. These are not the words of someone who has faith in Marx.
If you think your religion may be wrong, and that we might never `know for sure one day', then let me know, but everything you've said would suggest that you don't think this.You do not believe any answer that I give. I can tell you why I have faith; but it's not good enough. Know why??? Proof comes from the inside of you. My testimonials may only provide a glimmer of hope. Without further action; the glimmer fizzles. Without one ounce of faith in my assertions you stomp out the glimmer before it glimmers. You consider not that I am a woman with a mind and heart and neither of them owes you a thing but love and common courtesy. I have no reason to lie about my personal experiences with God. It gains me nothing if you come or not. The benefits all go to you. You say, "pass". I can accept that. But then you probe deeper for an opportunity to gain knowledge of him.
Jesus left no room for compromise. "I am the way; the truth; AND the life. Won't nobody get to the father 'cepn through me" or something like that. There was no, "unless you feel that you would rather follow someone else to the father" clause.
Believers frequently elude to biblical truths which go unnoticed or misunderstood by unbelievers. Cgenaea was actually saying quite a lot here, and I believe she was misunderstood. She said "us" referring to mankind, but it was not believers she was referring to who are made to feel powerful. I can see how her use of "us" in her last sentence made this easier to misunderstand. Cgenaea, please correct me if I'm wrong. Here is what I was led to think of by your statements:
Biblical justification for holding all men accountable for knowing God is that all men do, but we are told many embrace false beliefs in order to deny that accountability. Made in the image of God, they have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. They would rather imagine there is no god, leaving man as the most powerful being. They worship creation instead of the Creator, imagining it capable of creating itself. Thinking themselves wise, they become fools.
I can provide the relevant verses upon request, in context supporting this as the biblical contention. These portions are among those often found offensive by unbelievers, as they are most revealing, so careful what you ask for.And I wasn't afraid at all that the LIKES of you wouldn't understand my statement.
"we" who are spiritual know better than to feel "powerful" without God. We know it aint possible to have power outside of the ULTIMATELY powerful. Too busy bein' lowly sheep who listen for the next instruction...
Yous guys do so wonderfully at discerning the "right spirit" because of the "powerful" connection. Bravo!!!"Biblical truths". But the non-believer recognizes very few truths in the bible at all; while it is full of fine platitudes and some probably correct history, the large majority does not correlate with "truth" at all.
So yes, the non-believer does not notice the non-existent, while the believer makes up their own "truth" for the words that were said. Unnoticed, but not misunderstood; I have repeatedly mentioned that the believer makes up their own truths simply because they want it to be true and this is well understood by the non-believer. It just isn't accepted as truth at all, but IS recognized as unsupported opinion."Biblical truths". But the non-believer recognizes very few truths in the bible at all; while it is full of fine platitudes and some probably correct history, the large majority does not correlate with "truth" at all.
The bible SAID you'd say that!
However, some do prefer the lie. (Bible says that too)
By the way... you said NOTHING about unsupported opinions to Marx... now I'm startin' to feel UNspecial and set-apart... thanks
We are perfectly capable of reading the Bible ourselves.
In the same way we observe others who embrace false beliefs.
Deny what power? Where is this power you speak of?
Yes, just like we imagine there are no unicorns or leprechauns.
Sorry, but we don't worship anything, we observe the world around us, it's called science. Ever hear of it?
That's a good point, Wilderness. Most Christians or "spiritual" folks tend to remain faithful to their beliefs, but in a relatively quiet, respectful way. Not in a power-struggle sense.
I guess that's what makes it seem odd that we've had a new poster come in here - insulting - trying to start fights - denigrating and asking for money to spread his personal flavor of spirituality.
It's totally the opposite of what we've come to expect from those who "feel" enlightenment, so it's odd. Little "one liners," ostensibly intended to read as mysterious or cryptic, appear to be just so much foot stomping.
Rarely is it so clear as in this specific circumstance that the atheists are definitely the most tolerant. This has been an educational, if somewhat amusing, experience.Unfortunately, too many are more than willing to exercise "God's power" to further their own agenda - Westboro is an example as is the rallying around the political circus of gay marriage. Unfortunate, but at the same time, the non-believers and atheists of the country are learning that they have just as much right to their own world view as the religious do, and are becoming increasingly adamant that the religious keep their religion to themselves instead of forcing it onto others.
The new poster - I've not seen the cry for money, but have noted the barrage of one-liners, usually without real meaning. I take it as another troll and have ignored it.Please allow me to say:
The bible commands that we who are spiritual would cry loud and spare not. I do not know about the money thing you mentioned, but my guy is on target with the spirit of the Lord. It rarely tastes good to the folks who'd rather not adhere. It's part of the territory. Jesus promised that when you say what he says, people of the world's mindset would throw stones and holler and spit and stuff. But it must be said. Blessed is the one who follows instruction and takes flack. Truth is most important.
"I have the same senses you have"
Do everyone have eyes?Absolutely not! Some people cannot describe "the color golden" to save their own lives.
Which of course, has absolutely nothing to do with showing us your God.
c=0
m=15
y=100
k=15
or
r=223
g=184
b=4
or
dfb804
Will any of these do?Absolutely not! You are gonna have to explain the spirit of cypherin' and go slow! Seems I can't describe the color golden. Lol!!!
However, to me, looks like hash. Could be windows for all I know. Now, you can explain to me why that hodge podge of random numbers is right for golden; but I don't really care if it's right or not. See how that works? I have NO interest in periodic symbols or equals signs. And I promise, if you start a cypherin forum...guess who would DEFINITELY not join you!
That's right! see, you are learning Genaea's spirit little by llittle.All three of these descriptions describe a golden colour to those who understand the descriptions.
How are you going to describe a golden colour so that the colour will and can be seen by the person reading your description?Now you are getting it! The golden color must first be revealed before an understandable description takes place. To the color-blind, the sh*t is green. And no matter how many equals signs you use; they will see it how THEY see it. No sense asking about spirit if you don't know yo colors right.
lol...So you are claiming that those who believe in God have an extra colour receptor so to speak. You have something that the rest of us don't. Why would God do that? I thought he wanted us all to believe, but as you explain it he simply gave some people an extra organ or something, only we can't find it or see it. Did your intuition tell you that?
All people who seek him shall find him. If anyone knocks on his front door, he answers. No specialness needed. Just willingness to realize your vast amount of shortcomings and come. With an empty cup.
Amen!! The seeking must be in truth. To that true seeking, the Lord will respond and reveal himself.
Again, logic and reason tells us something different. Why would a God only reveal himself to those who already believe and reason with intuition?
If God only revealed himself "to those who already believe and reason with intuition", then there would be no new believers! And we know that is not true - new believers have been and continue to be added to the number daily!!
And former believers keep moving away from the faith every day. Your argument from popularity works both ways.
It wasn't a popularity argument, but rather intended to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the claim that we are saying "God only reveals himself to those who already believe and reason with intuition".
In fact, there MUST be a "falling away" of the faith, as you mention there is, in order to fulfill the prophecy of these end times!Christians have been saying that it's the end times and proving it with prophecy for 2,000 years. Each generation had been wrong. There's no reason for you to think you're right. It's absurd to think that Satan comes along and steals the belief in God away from people. There is no proof of that either. You just make assertions with nothing to support them, and it is impossible for you to actually make an argument without fallacious reasoning. Can't your spirit do any better than that?
All the days (over 2000 years) since Jesus Christ rose from the dead are the "end times". Think of a pregnant woman, with the entire pregnancy being the "end times". The pregnancy sure feels a long time. Then the labor begins and we see the time is getting close for birth. But we do not know how long the labor will be - whether an hour or days. The world has been pregnant for what seems a long time to us (waiting to give birth - Jesus' second coming). We see based on the natural disasters, famines, wars and so on (the "birth pains") that the time is getting closer. Perhaps labor has even begun, though we're at this time trying to count contractions. We may not yet be sure we're in labor and we certainly don't know how long the labor will be.
Well if we get complacent we run the risk of forgetting to be ready at all times. My dad's "endtime" came a few years ago.
Notice that the believer is incapable of avoiding contradiction.
My mom calls it jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. People have many reasons for leaving God. He chastises. He convicts the spirit. He shows one his true self; and many do not like mirrors. They like beating their chests and feelin proud of their many many many many accomplishments. They like boasting in themSELVES. They like being in control. They stand on the shore, however. Like birds squawking. When they have the ability to fly away to whatever destinations life offers. They stand on the shore; afraid to fly away??? Not you. The bird; squawking. What is that bird thinking?
"Christianity is the most popular religion in the United States, with around 73% of polled Americans identifying themselves as Christian in 2012. This is down from 86% in 1990, and slightly lower than 78.6% in 2001"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani … ted_States
Sorry, but your organization is shrinking, less and less people are calling themselves Christians.Truly, and this MUST occur to fulfill the prophecy within the Word that there will be a great falling away from the faith.
Nonetheless, while the falling away is fulfilled, new believers have and continue to be added. And those who stand firm to the end will be saved.
We have been through this a million times. 2+ years for us, right???
God chose you when the tadpoles were swimming. He sent the one he wanted. Now, since he made you in his image and likeness, you have no strings. You may do whatever you like with your gift of life and/or reason. Reasoning him out of the equation is highly acceptable. Consequences? Maybe...
Duuuhhh... you'd think someone was talking rocket science or something.
Wow! I missed that one! Who's side is h... nevermind. You are very insightful as well. I'm glad you brought it up.
Nope, it's just a dream you had because you believe in God, so you dreamed about it. I like golfing and often dream about that, too. So what?
Sorry, but your dreams aren't real, you just want them to be real, obviously. Had you any understanding of dreams, you would know your claims are just silly nonsense.Avid golfer. Hey, that's a nice internet persona... I'm just saying.
Uh, you never answered my question. How many times have you had the exact same golfing dream from start to finish three nights in a row?
Before you answer, remember how very important intellectual honesty and nonfallacious statements are to you.Personally, I've had the same dream 3 nights in a row... lots of people have. Lots of people are also able to convince themselves that something is true because they want to believe it. It's called wishful thinking.
I haven't had the same golfing dream, but I've had others, just like everyone else.
Yes, but they are not important to you, which is a big part of the problem.I see things differently.
You are being unclear; and I know there is purpose behind it. You would say that you have had the exact same dream three nights in a row "many times"??? Then consider it truth? Well, if so; grab a pen the next time it happens. God is tryna tell you something. It's only happened to me once in my life. And none to many others I've asked.Yes, I know, you make up fantasies based on your religious beliefs.
If you were honest, you would simply say you hold religious beliefs rather than making up fantasies about God talking to you in your dreams.My honesty is not fallacious or thought up. Your statement here is. To me, one exact dream with no variation is significant to me and I give the credit where it is due. You blame your own mind for having had the EXACT SAME dream THREE NIGHTS IN A ROW.
which means your consciousness works in your sleep! Wow! I guess you must be...powerful.Intuition tells you that God is speaking to you because you had the same dream 3 nights in a row. Reason will tell you that is not the case however relying on intuition gives you more desirable results so reason isn't given a chance even when in this case some people are using reason for you.
Your reasoning does not work for me. I am the master of that, remember? I put it in God's hands. His reasoning works best for me. You put your own in the hands of men smart enough to write a science book and then explain to you why he is right; therefore informing you of what approaches your lines of reasoning should take, using charts and graphs. That would take loads of HIS instructions for you to duplicate correctly (or incorrectly if you forget to put your eye b4 the e). Lol. I will stick with what I know, thanks.
Sure you can still stick with what you think you know, but you can't know for sure if it's correct as you haven't used reason to check to see if the answer is right. It's like how intuition gives us the wrong answer as it does in the math question described in the study. It's only when we use reason do we see that the intuitive answer is wrong.
But I understand. You like your answer right or wrong.Now look who's intuitive!
I was just gonna say the same things to you!That's not true either, you must have used intuition again, as I'd rather think there is a loving God up there and I'd love to think we get to see loved ones again, however reason tells me there is no god or santa.
No God in this life; no God in the next. No prob for me if that is what your soul pants after. What about you???
Numbers have great significance with God (as we see in Scriptures). I too have experienced the same event three times while sleeping (only it didn't relate to my salvation, but the salvation of an unbeliever I prayed for in great faith). Three times I woke in the night with the same vision (hundreds of demons hovering at the ceiling) and the same singular thought (the demons are here, pissed off because of "Gary").
I use three as confirmation, and God gives it! Here's an interesting example - While working as therapist in juvenile detention, I was told that my curvaceous figure was a problem and that I "looked too good for detention". I was then advised to avoid wearing any "church dresses" and to cover my figure with a large sweater. I was offended and distraught and sought God for an answer. That day, out of all the 31,173 (depending on translation) verses, I opened directly to the one precisely relevant one - "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart". Never before had I opened to that verse. Later that day, I turned on my radio and the pastor said, "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." Never before had I heard a sermon on the topic. Though I was so grateful to God for his answer, I dared to say, "Father, you know three times is confirmation for me". And later that same day, yet another pastor quoted, "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart!"
Let the unbeliever who calls it a "coincidence" calculate the chances - one relevant verse out of 31,173 versus times three - a one in 93,519 chance (unless there's an additional variable I'm missing, which makes it even less likely to occur; please tell if so). And such "coincidences" occur routinely for those full of faith!Again, some education on your part in regards to dreams and how the brain works would clear up your confusion.
That's a lie. I've had the same dream more than three nights in a row, coming and going over a period of several years, and I've told you that Before. We've had this conversation before, which makes your last statement completely untrue.
Funny, I remember having this conversation before and as well as my memory usually serves me, I cannot recall this declaration.
So ok, you are powerful too. Ok??? I still say God is responsible for my tri-night dream. You may attribute yours to whatsoever you desire to be true for you.But if I tell you that I know with certainty where they came from, you won't believe me. I can't demonstrate it to you. You choose to attribute your dream to a specific God, but that doesn't make it truth. It's what you believe, but unless you can demonstrably show it, you cannot do anything more than assert that you know and believe it. There's no reason for anyone to believe you without any evidence whatsoever, therefore it's practically meaningless
Yeah...meaningless. I realize that in matters of God, I may as well be speaking to my shoes. You have better things to do. No, wait...
Notice that the believer refuses to acknowledge facts and evidence about themselves and will attribute an event to their god, no matter what the facts and evidence.
To them, it's never a matter of what they're supposed to believe, it's always a matter of what they want to believe. Confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. For example, if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month. A tendency to do this over time unjustifiably strengthens your belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents and other lunar effects.
http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
I had a recurring dream before that I kept trying to get the meaning about. The dream was during a time I watched "Caroline", (I dont know why that movie spooked me). Then for about 3 -4 days and some time after (because I wanted to know why I was having this dream) the dream repeated itself. I finally ended up where this dream showed.
I dont know alot about dreams, but I do know they exist. I couldn't wait to see what it meant then.
Can you then explain how faith (which is such a strong word in holding on to the word) is going to help make those dreams real? You said you went after your dream by faith and the dream came true. Same for everyone?
Now, I know how I speak; and that aint it. I actually said nothing about going after my dream. It was not that kind of dream. This dream came upon me. Golden platter.
I chased nothing but God. He showed me what was to come, and ever will be (for me and mine).
I'm not yet clear on the role of intuition in the general sense that God exists. God has put a sense of himself within people of all times and places, so that they have tended to know of him to some degree regardless of circumstances.
But to know him personally requires more than intuition. It requires meeting him through his Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the one who himself reveals truth to us and who then seals us in that truth.
As for the studies, two thoughts: 1) It is entirely possible that human's own reason gets in the way of belief and truly reason alone cannot be relied on in seeking spiritual truth. Scripture supports the idea that our own reason could blind us and separate us from God: "Because that which the world deems foolish in God is wiser than men's wisdom" (1 Corinthians 1:25); "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." (1 Cor 1:21); "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (1 Cor 2:14)
2) As stated in Psychology Today, "The task used to assess preference for intuitive or analytical thinking actually involves asking people to solve problems where there is an intuitively appealing but incorrect answer, so that to reach the correct answer the person must reject their initial intuition. The nature of the task itself therefore sets up a dichotomy in which intuition and reflection are incompatible. This may well apply much of the time but there is intriguing evidence that the two modes of thought sometimes operate in a parallel rather than a conflicting manner." Looks like the studies are pretty biased and misleading, designed to illicit a certain desired response.Actually there have been tribes of people with no word for God and no concept of any Gods.
Actually all the studies did was show that intuition leads to incorrect answers and people who rely on intuition tend to me more religious.
Sure intuition and reason can exist together, but teaching and practices using intuition for things it will come up with the wrong answer for will lead us to wrong answers. Intuition have evolved to get us out of bad situations, not for doing well on a math test or understanding the universe. When people such as yourself talk about God they speak of him as he is something intuitive and dismiss reason as false.When it comes to that which is of the natural world (e.g., math), you will do well to use what reason you have. But when it comes to the spiritual, supernatural world, no amount of reason can take you where you need to go.
Special pleading.
Sorry, if it's wrong because you didn't use reason it's still the wrong answer. Notice you came to that statement using a logical fallacy, which means you didn't use reason. If using reason for math and science and getting right answers and using reason to check to make sure you have the right answer gets you the right answers how can you be sure the one thing you want to use to determine God exists (intuition) is the right answer?
It's like insisting that insisting that a ball is 10 cents and a bat is $1 and the bat is a $1 more than the ball and then telling everyone else that you are right and we should all think like this.First, I don't use intuition to determine God exists, but rather he through the Holy Spirit has revealed himself and sealed me in him. Your idea looks at it in the direction of us to God (intuition to reach him) but the true direction is God to us (he reveals the truth).
Second, I understand that reason won't work for that which is outside the realm of natural reasoning - you cannot reason your way into falling in love with someone, for example (though you may reason your way to acting in a loving manner). We can use reason when it is called for, use intuition when called for, and go beyond human reasoning or intuition when called for.
On your own, your ability to determine truth is limited by your ability to reason and/or intuit, however small or great that is. God is not so limited and those whose knowledge and wisdom come from him will not be so limited as those relying either on human reasoning or human intuition.
So what to do if you haven't yet met the Lord? No point in relying either on your reason or your intuition. Just stay open and answer when he calls.You are forgetting that I was once a believer in both God and Santa, without knowing it I used reason to consider if they were real. I used reason to understand that we can't have a relationship with someone impossible to contact or find in any way possible.
It's interesting how people who use intuition rather than reason tend to have stronger beliefs in God.Not at all, I remember that you once believed that God exists. But did you know him? Had you met Jesus Christ, the Truth? Did you have the Holy Spirit within you confirming your belief? What were your experiences with the Lord? Had he REVEALED himself to you? Or did you simply have a belief in his existence, a belief that Satan came and snatched away?
Since God is Spirit, we find him when we seek him in spirit and in truth. Spiritual truths come not from reason or intuition, but from the Holy Spirit himself.Those are your opinions. If God wanted to and could reveal himself he would reveal himself to all not just the gullible. It doesn't hold up to reason so you are most likely left with the wrong answer.
God revealing Himself to any and everyone would infringe on free will. Only revealing Himself to those who willfully seek Him does not. It stands up fine to reason.
How is that again? Free will is about choices, are you saying if we were never told about him he is putting us at a disadvantage? And then if we are told and we use reason (he gave us) to understand he doesn't exist he again will put us at a disadvantage? Reason would tell us he would inform us all and then let us decide based on the information given. Reason tells us there is no reason for him to hide.
Reason tells us that an all powerful God would be able to make a bolder bigger than he can move.If God revealed Himself, and removed all doubt that there is a creator that created you, that is solely responsible for you even existing, that loomed on the horizon watching all you do, then yes that would infringe on free will. Remember the parable talking about how the servants behaved when the master was away versus when the master was there? People would not just be themselves if God revealed Himself. Reward wouldn't be reserved for those who through faith chose to seek Him out rather than Him showing everyone. If free will is the point, then it makes sense to stand back and not make it so obvious.
If you were a scientist attempting to study the behavior of a particular species, but realized that you're sitting too close and that your presence is affecting their behavior, then it would behoove you to move back so that what you're observing is their actual, natural behavior.Sure, that would make sense if we didn't have people telling us God has revealed himself to them. We do, does that affect there behaviour? Isn't he then taking away some of their free will? Why write the holy book if he didn't want to reveal himself? According to that book he was revealing himself.
Why again would he be studying us like we study ants? Of all the goings on in the universe God is obsessed with us?It's all about free will. That's what I try to make clear in the story being described. God actually doesn't know what we'll do until we do it. Free will means actually having a mind and a will apart from His. Like His "regret" about placing humans on the earth. Beings with free will did something He didn't anticipate.
Think about it. If you were God, and everything around you worked exactly as you willed it to, would you not want others with their own minds and wills? People who do things you don't expect? Make art and music that wasn't 'of you' but 'of them'?
Free will is what makes sense of the whole thing.Sorry, free will makes sense without any Gods, it's when you add him that it defies reason. He works so hard at hiding himself except to those who he reveals himself to?
He doesn't have to "work at" hiding himself. He is already hidden from the natural mind. It's when the blinders come off and we see, not with our natural eyes but with our spiritual eyes, that the Truth has been revealed to us. This is God's doing, and not "owed" to anyone. Our job is simply to seek in truth. He will reveal himself to all who seek him in spirit and in truth.
No, it really doesn't. Because free will goes against everything we understand scientifically. All the universe works because of how matter behaves in the environment that the laws of the universe creates. There's no choice in the matter. Our brains are made of matter and are not excluded. If that were the case, without a God, without a soul, then none of us would actually have a willful choice we could make. We would have as much choice over our behavior as a river has in choosing its path. It would all be determined for us.
"He works so hard at hiding himself except to those who he reveals himself to?"
Those who willfully seek Him out. There's a big difference.Of course free will is an illusion.
Are saying free will makes more sense with the concept of God when we now understand goes against your concept of free will?If free will is an illusion then all of these discussions about what is and isn't moral, or what's "right" and "wrong" are pointless. That would mean that we had no choice but slavery and murder and all the other things that have happened. If free will is an illusion then imprisoned people could not be held according to their actions because they could not have done differently. All behavior would be determined solely by your genetic make-up and what you experience.
So, acknowledging it's an illusion, would you say we should let everyone out of prison because it wasn't actually their willful choices that landed them there?
The same minds that led them to making choices that landed them in jail will continue to harm others. See, I'm not saying that didn't do anything wrong. If they did something so wrong that we need to be protected from them then they need to stay.
I don't think you are understand this free will thing correctly. People who harm others are still people who harm others.But it's not their choice. That would be like locking you up for being born. You had no choice in the matter. It's the brain you were born with and the experiences that shaped you that cause your behavior. Then again, choosing to let them out of prison would also be a choice. If we're pure material, then we can only do what material things do. The way of humanity would be no different than the way of a river. No actual choice being made, but rather we'd be shaped entirely by our environment. An environment we could not change willfully.
We don't put people in prison because they didn't have a choice, we put them their to protect us from their choices. You see we don't know what the choices are going to be, but we know what's right and what's wrong. To us we are making choices, but since the choices have already been made we can't make another. But because we can't see the choice it's new to us.
Our choices are very much a product of our environments, parent, peers, teachers, television… This we can demonstrate and illustrate. Take for example peoples opinion on gun control, both sides can be reasoned but for the most part it can be predicted that people living in cities are more in favour of gun control and the opinion changes vastly by country.Without free will, there are no choices, no reason. Just inevitable results we are powerless to effect. You said we have an illusion of free will, so now who is living in an illusion?
And again it begs the question, why?Sorry, the concept of free choice doesn't give you any reason in life. We've gone through this many many times.
I'm not about to explain space time to you, you'll have to do some homework.Where are you going with "space time"? Is this something you think we have discussed relevant to the current conversation? Not saying we haven't, I suppose, but I am not recalling it to understand your reference to it.
The current understand of space time is that someone else where in the universe will see our present differently depending on what they are doing. They may see our past or future. It's call slices of time, so it the future can be seen by someone else then it's already taken place. I don't diminish our choices however they have already been made. Now if you don't believe that you can dismiss it however the bible says your God can see all of time. Same thing. done. Doesn't change anything for us, but the future is now for some and therefore pre determined.
I've discussed this many times with Headly and thought you may have stumbled upon it. If not my apologies.No, I hadn't been part of those discussions. I will withhold comment until I review your link. Thanks Rad.
What you're not getting is that the ability for an outside observer to see the entirety of our timeline is irrelevant, and does not mean our future is set. We are participators existing within time. We are the ones creating what happens along that timeline. The only reason there is a future to see is because we were there playing a part within time. From our perspective our decisions were not yet made because we had not made them yet. Just because someone or something can see time doesn't mean our actions were predetermined in the moment they were chosen. That just means that those are the decisions we made in each moment along that timeline. Decisions created by us during the course of time, which then creates that timeline that an outside observer can see. If we didn't create it, in each moment, then it wouldn't be there to see.
I agree with you in that to us we are making decisions. It's real to us, because we are in the time and can't see the future, but if the future can be seen then the outcome will not change. We still have to make our best possible choices.
The only reason there would even be a future to see that includes us making choices is because we existed in each moment of that timeline creating those choices. What you're not getting is that the ability to see the future doesn't mean it's set for us. That just means that observer can see that future. But that future wouldn't be there to see if we didn't play our part in creating it.
Yes, except of course if the future can be seen then our choices have been made. It changes nothing for us, but it's much like looking at the past. We can't change the past and we can see the decisions that people have made. People a hundred years ago were going about their business, but today it's the past and those people can't make any changes. So if someone can see a hundred years in the future, all our decisions have been made, but it changes nothing for us.
You're thinking of it as if it's stagnant. It isn't. The only reason there'd be a future that includes you and your choices in it is because you existed in each of those moments to make those decisions. They weren't set before you made them. They were only set WHEN you made them.
There is no "right" and "wrong" if there is no choice. Saying an action is wrong with no choice is like saying a lion is "wrong" for taking down a gazelle.
No sorry, ethics exists regardless of choices. Especially when we think we are making the choices. Remember that slices of time thing? If the future can be seen then the choices have been made, but just not to us.
That can't be true. If there is no choice then everything we do is "natural". There is no "right" and "wrong". There are no ethics because there is no choice. Ethics only comes into play if you are able to control your behavior. If you can't, then none of that matters.
Everything we do is natural.
I didn't say there is no choice, I said the choice has already been made, but we are unaware and hopefully make the best choices we are able to. We can control our behaviour, we just have already done and don't know it.
Materialism alone can only equal meaninglessness. It cannot account for love, purpose, reason, justice, trust, faith, security, or a myriad of other things which give our lives meaning. As an equation, materialism can never solve for "y".
So, love, purpose, reason, justice, trust, faith, security, or a myriad of other things which give our lives meaning have no connection with this universe and our evolution? Those things are not human nature? We evolved to need and experience those things out of a need to survive. Not all animals needed all those things to be successful so they don't display them.
Without free will, without God, there is no meaning. If the universe was not created for a particular purpose, and we are not free to choose what we do, then there is no meaning to anything. There is no "good" or "bad". There is only what happens. And none of it can have any meaning. It's just playing out the only way it can.
Ultimately there is no meaning to life. It has no effect on what on ultimately where the universe will end up. It's best for focus on the know.
We can invent a purpose if it make you feel better. Intuition will do that for you.See, I disagree. I think there is meaning to life. And I don't think it makes sense that we would need to fabricate meaning where there is none. Why would we need something that doesn't exist? Why does it make us feel better? Why would intuition evolve to give us the illusion of meaning? What does that have to do with survival? The need has to be there before it can evolve. It doesn't make any sense for the need to be there if life is meaningless.
So sorry that you're obsessed with having to have meaning in your life handed to you on a silver platter, most people go out and find meaning in their lives themselves, others who are incapable of that turn to religion.
Finding meaning in life suggests life wasn't an accident. You do get that right? If existence wasn't deliberately created then there is no meaning.
Can you explain this to me? How exactly is meaning connected to creation? I think this connection exists only in your head because you believe it's true.
How can life have meaning if life wasn't deliberately created for a purpose? If it was not deliberately created then there's no meaning. If we fabricate meaning, then that's all that is. A fabrication. Nothing we do will change the course of events or the eventual fate of humanity of this planet. If it 'just happened', then there is no meaning. There's only meaning if it was deliberate.
Your whole point here is just an argument from ignorance? You don't understand how meaning and value can be self created and self fulfilled and man something worthwhile and lasting, so it therefore MUST be created? That is incredibly faulty logic. I'm disappointed.
I promise, it's not. Hold your disappointment. How can we, who only showed up billions of years later, then at that point assign meaning to the lives we live. We are not responsible for this life existing. Unless there was a deliberate purpose to us being here, then our being here can have no real meaning.
Your follow up is still an argument from ignorance. There's really no point guessing. You say the odds are in favor of a god creator, but when asked for calculations, it can't be calculated. You argue in support of a god who interacts in the physical world, but magically cannot be tested in the natural world. You think if your interpretation of twisting of gentrified is correct, that proves God is real. You have got nothing. Seriously nothing. Hypothesis that you have specifically worded so as not to be possible to test. That's not scientific. At the end of the day, you believe what you want to, you just couch it in scientific and intelligent sounding language to disguise the fact that you have just as little as everyone else. It's incredibly dishonest if it's intentional. That's what's disappointing. I think I'm pretty much done with those discussions with you.
I'm not sure what else you expect. The inability to test for God is an expected result if God is as described. We can only determine links in the causal chain. If God is the creator of that chain, then He cannot be a link within it. If He were detectable then He wouldn't be the creator, but rather a product of this universe along with everything else.
Just think about it, Julie. For something to have 'meaning' or 'purpose' it has to have been deliberately created. If it wasn't deliberately created, then there is no 'meaning'. It's just a simple fact. It's like saying the particular patterns created in a spider web have meaning. Unless that spider intelligently created that web in those patterns, there is no meaning.
I'm simply showing how a proper understanding of science and the natural world fits into what we're talking about. We're talking about spiritual matters. The distinction was made long before anyone could possibly know how important it was, between physical and spiritual. Science is the study of the physical. We're talking about things outside of its jurisdiction.
However, we can observe what does exist and ascertain that this was not an accident. The fact that intelligence exists at all, that intelligence is a natural product of this universe, means it's a likely contender to have played a role in how the universe formed. We intelligent beings are only now capable of grasping what was required. Yet we find out that all the parameters were 'just right', right from the start, to result in us being here as we are. The fact that we even have a need to assign 'meaning' and 'purpose' should tell you something. The need has to be there first for it to come about 'naturally'.No, you think about it. Seriously sit and think about it. You have set this all up to be completely scientific, yet it can't be demonstrated scientifically. You're quick to throw out odds that you turn around and admit cannot be calculated. You have created a circular reasoning that you think closes all the gaps, but all it is is a circular argument that you feel you have no burden of proof for, because according to you it can't be proven. This is the faculty logic I would expect from many apologists, but I had higher hopes for you. You've made a system that cannot be falsified or examined, and set your pre existing beliefs conveniently right in the middle. You've found a Way to sound different from the rest, but you're not. Your theory is a hypothesis, not a theory. It will never be a theory, Since you admit you can't test it. You have nothing but your own beliefs and ideas. That's not good enough. If you're ever on Dd again, tell them this part of it. I hope they rip it to shreds.
You don't think I have thought about it? Seriously? I'm sorry if you don't like the conclusion, but that doesn't change anything. If what I were saying could be shown to be false, then I couldn't say it. But that's not the case. Not being provable by the methods in which things are generally proven is exactly what one should expect if we're talking about a creator. That's just true. Logically.
I'm not here to prove to you that God exists. I'm simply sharing with others why I think He does. Why I don't buy that He doesn't. I've yet to hear an argument that convinces me otherwise. I don't want to just be some fool, believing in something that isn't true. What I say is what I truly think. And why. I've laid it all out many times.
I don't know how much more I could possibly give. I've devised a way in which what I'm saying can be tested, and have provided all the information I know to provide to make that possible. 2000 years of well known history that actually cooberates what I'm saying. I don't know what else you expect. The fact is, if there is a way to prove any of this, that will be the way to do it. And I have a considerable amount of evidence that backs up what I'm saying. Over and over, from multiple angles, I always have an answer because it's the same consistent answer across the board. That's no accident.
I would love to do Dogma Debate again. I contacted them about doing that follow-up discussion with Aron, but never heard back. That first time I was trying to address four different people with four very different perspectives, so it was difficult, but I enjoyed it. But I guarantee you, if the people in this forum can't rip apart what I'm saying, they can't either. There's a reason for that.
"You argue in support of a god who interacts in the physical world, but magically cannot be tested in the natural world."
I've actually shown you a way. There are documents that claim to be accounts of a time when this God actually did interact in the physical world. And I have shown you evidence that supports those accounts being true. That's the best we can hope for as far as anything 'testable'.
Most times God does not need to interact with the physical world. He created a physical world that creates itself. It doesn't need His constant attention.That's not evidence, headly. It's still just a twisting of events to line up to what you want to be true. You've. Got. Nothing.
Show me. If that's true then you should be able to show it to be true. There's plenty of evidential material here. If what I'm saying wasn't anywhere close to the truth, then no amount of twisting things would matter.
Curious how willing you are to proclaim I've got nothing, when you yourself have acknowledged in the past you have no desire to even really look. Yet here you are reaching a definite conclusion, in spite of supplied evidence that you admittedly have never really looked at, that supports your view.Show yourself. Get a degree in archeology and sociology Write it up as your thesis for a master's degree and see what the peer review process does to it. You're starting with the answer you want, then looking retroactively for stories you can make line up. You are not an expert in the field, you have not Consulted experts in the field. It's easy to make things line up in reverse. Especially when you redefine omnipotence to NOT knowing what's going to happen, doing verbal Back flips to make Genesis line up, and Going against Christian theology AND science while simultaneously stating that you're both.
I do have the desire to look. I don't have the time. You have not pointed me to any sources or materials or peer reviewed journals. Why? There aren't any. I work full time. I go to school full time. What do you think I should drop to go look into your unproven, undocumented and unsupported hypothesis? Why don't you get it peer reviewed, and I'll read that. Sound fair?
If I went out tomorrow and found a mayan carving of a big bird carrying people flying into twin tree, declared it to be prophetic of 911 and declare the mayan gods true, but otherwise undetectable and asserted that any other explanation is without meaning, would you believe ? How about if I study it in my own on a writing site for a few years?"You're starting with the answer you want"
You just did the same thing. You're proclaiming the answer you want though I've provided evidence to the contrary. You don't like my conclusion, so you proclaim that I "have nothing", based on nothing but what you prefer.
I'll someday get to that point. I've been working for a while now at writing this whole idea up so that it can be reviewable by others. It'll get peer-reviewed at some point. I've consulted everyone available to me. You referred me to dogma debate. I contacted them and went without reservation.
"and Going against Christian theology AND science"
Give me just one example where I went against science. Just one.
"I do have the desire to look. I don't have the time. You have not pointed me to any sources or materials or peer reviewed journals. Why? There aren't any. I work full time. I go to school full time. What do you think I should drop to go look into your unproven, undocumented and unsupported hypothesis? Why don't you get it peer reviewed, and I'll read that. Sound fair?"
A lack of time is something I definitely understand. But given the amount of time you dedicate to these discussions, I'm sure you could find it if you really wanted to. I can give you plenty to start with. What would sound fair would be for you to withhold the conclusion that "I have nothing" until you can show it. Or at least until you've looked. There's plenty of information out there. I can give you a very specific timeline and a very specific series of events. That I've written out many times. Feel free to compare what I say to what's documented. It all fits.No, I'm starting with the fact that the only person ever throughout history to come up with this hypothesis is someone with no degree in any relevant field, who had not presented it to experts in the field or for peer review, who instead discusses it with other lay people in an anonymous forum that are not specialists in the field either, but you expect them to be able to prove you wrong automatically if they don't buy your claims.
I don't want your work. I want the journals and resources that supported your work. Those are potentially evidence. Your interpretation is not. The Bible cannot prove the Bible true. Attempting to line anything in these journals up with biblical stories is retrofitting to form your own conclusion. You have to start without the assumption and see where the evidence leads, not start with the conclusion and then see if you can make everything fit it. That's circular. So show me the journals you started with, and the conclusions you inferred from them.
If you haven't noticed, I haven been here nearly as much as I used to be, and it's usually in short, concentrated bursts. Lack of time. Di you think me trying to falsify your claim is more important than work, my master's degree that I'm working on our my marriage, cause I don't think I can do all four simultaneity.
I can say same back to you. With the amount of time you spend here arguing and trying to convince people with no more qualification than you do, you could be talking to experts and submitting your work to journals. Why don't you?Yet you spend all this time demanding evidence and explanation from the same anonymous forum full of lay people. When someone gives you what you're asking for, this is your reply.
I've given you the info that supports my work. That's a big part of it. Anyone can claim I'm retro-fitting. Anyone attempting to prove the bible true could be said to be doing the same. Doesn't change anything. It either fits or it doesn't.
Once I know the right approach, where to go, I will do so without hesitation. My whole point is that you reached a conclusion, the one you prefer, that I have nothing, based on nothing. I'm asking you to back up your statement. I didn't make the statement. You did. You said I have nothing.
I'm not sure what else you want. I've given you the information. I can type it all out again if you like. The story either fits the evidence or it doesn't. I can only twist things so far. But there's no way I could twist this so that dozens of events line up along the exact same timeline. You're giving me more credit than I deserve.I'm asking you to give me the resources and journals from which you derived your work. Anthropology journals. Archeology journals. And then a list of what you derived from each one, and where specifically within the journal that you got that piece of information. You're the one saying over and over again that you've done all of the research. Show me the research
Nothing I refer to is hidden. It's all widely known, widely accepted information. You can literally look anywhere you like.
pre-flood Genesis - Ubaid culture (Mesopotamia)
post-flood Genesis - Uruk culture (Mesopotamia)
Babel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
"The 5.9 kiloyear event was one of the most intense aridification events during the Holocene Epoch. It occurred around 3900 BC (5,900 years BP), ending the Neolithic Subpluvial and probably initiated the most recent desiccation of the Sahara desert.
Thus, it also triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organised, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC."
I simply looked to see if the story as I was reading it could have happened. If it happened as explained, what would you expect to see. It's really that simple. Here's a book you can start with ...
The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era' by Steve Taylor
Here's another ...
'Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World' by James DeMeo
These two books, though they're not specifically talking about the same thing I am, they do track the same behavioral change that my hypothesis predicted would be there. And they show they started right at the same time and place that my hypothesis predicted.Have the books been peer reviewed? Are they written by people in the field? Do you find Wikipedia to be good resource material? How did you come up with your hypothesis and test it against resource and research material? How did you draw your conclusions? What methods did you use? Are you saying that if I look at this material, all the same material, that I will necessarily come to the exact same conclusion?
I've told you my approach. I re-read Genesis, putting aside all previous held preconceptions of anything I've ever been told it says, and found that it tells a very different story. So, I then figured, these stories are happening during a time that the Egyptians and the Sumerians existed. They happened in a populated world. So, if these events really happened, I should be able to see them. So, I formed a hypothesis that correctly made predictions about everything I've given you. If the world was populated, then these events would have had an impact on them. That's the Sumerians. Didn't know anything about them before I started, yet it turns out they're exactly what I expected to find based on this hypothesis. That behavioral change. I wasn't looking forward to that part because that was going to be the most difficult. Turns out I didn't need to. Those two books talk exactly about what this hypothesis predicted, down to the specific place where it started and when. That climate change, found it the same way. Genesis gives enough information to allow you to build a timeline. So I could tell from that that the Babel story happened roughly a century or so after the flood. Based on my hypothesis, that should have been just after 4000 BC. And there it was. A climate change that had the exact same impact as what I was looking for.
There's a reason I'm so certain. Because this one hypothesis has made prediction and prediction that turned out to be true. That's generally how you know you're on the right track.But you started still with the Bible, and used the Bible to make your predictions, yes?
Why not start with the earlier cultures and see where that lead? Why only look then up as an after thought? Are you not using their mythology backwards to make it line up with what you want to find?Look, I know you don't like the approach, but I'm not going to apologize for it. For years Genesis has bounced around in my head. Even though things we learned through science seemed to contradict, there were always these elements that couldn't be ignored. Specifically, where they take place. This is the "cradle of civilization". This is where it all began. In that same valley that these stories are set in. There were always these parallels that always seemed to bring Genesis back to the forefront. But I never understood how it all fit together until I sat down and took a good look. The way it all came together was mind-blowing.
I don't know what else to do other than start with the bible. As I've tried to explain, you're not going to prove God through science. The only conceivable way would be if these moments in history when these stories claim God directly interacted with the world and with humans. If these events did in fact happen, if these events happened as described, in a region and time frame we actually know quite a bit about, then there should be enough information to either cooberate or not.
Believe me, I never expected to find as much as I did. I figured if there was anything to this, considering how many people have been looking, that it would have been seen by now. I'm still surprised this isn't more widely acknowledged. It's really just a matter of time before the right people see it. I think you'll be hearing a lot more about this. How soon is anyone's guess, but there's just too much here for it just to be me being a delusional believer.But even if a part of these events happen, that doesn't prove god. If proves that people wrote things down. It may wind up as partial evidence to something if it does in fact line up, but that doesn't mean that everything in the book is true by default. You have to examine all of it, and each claim should stand or fall in its own right. Even if all of Genesis was proven accurate tomorrow that doesn't mean that the god of the Bible is automatically real. Don't you see that?
Yes I do, and I agree. I'm just saying that this is the best anyone can hope for. It doesn't 'prove' God exists, but it goes a long way towards that if the stories turn out to be accurate. Much further than any other approach I can think of.
I'm going to jump in here. I'm also going to do my best to duck the arrows that I'm sure will come flying at my head from just about every side.
This thread speaks specifically to intuition and faith. It is impossible, IMO, to ever prove God-at least in our lifetimes with the tools we currently possess. It's also my opinion that there is no need to do so-any more than there is a need to disprove him.
Science is interested in HOW-the process, what happened, how we are currently affected by what has happened in the past or what is happening in the present. Is it possible to make predictions about the future based on those processes and their effects? Certainly. Will they always be spot on correct? Certainly not because things change. New processes begin, old ones end.
Religion is not about how. It is about WHY. Ultimately, it seeks to answer questions that science doesn't particularly give a damn about. Why am I here? What is my purpose? Why go on?
While I respect that you've taken a lot of time to show that the processes recorded in a holy book match up to actual events and processes, here's my question: WHY? Love science and love religion, but at the end of the day, it's like loving two children. They are entirely different, and there is not now, nor will there ever be, a time when their aims, practices, and desires fall in step. Sort of like two very different children-or in our case nearly 7 billion different children.
If you, or anyone else, has true faith that doesn't actually hinge on anything but the word of the God you know and that God's action in your life, then why must you fight and struggle and scrape and claw for anyone else to find it plausible, believable, or to make sure it lines up with known history and scientific parameters. If someone asks for your reasons for belief-tell them what they are. If they don't accept them as valid, you've still made an honest effort to supply the information they were looking for.
To me, science has explained many things that were once thought to be mysterious or supernatural. But, then, it hasn't found a way to cure or prevent the common cold. So, it falls short in some regard, but where religion is concerned-it is NOT going to answer every question when it comes to how things are.
Let science do its thing. Religion will do its thing. God isn't concerned with the one, the way I see it. But you can't make them fit together just because you wanna and neither, to this day, has wiped out the other, and I don't think that's the actual objective on either side. From some individual participants, sure, but not overall.+1
Thank you for posting this. It's refreshing to see open-mindedness.Some might say my mind is too open...as I age and things start to fall out of it, I'm inclined to agree.
But thank you. If God IS, and I have no doubt of that, then he's big enough for it all to make sense in its place.
I appreciate what you're saying, Motown2Chitown. Understand that when I first started this it was for my own personal understanding. I always had a sense that everything fit together, but didn't know exactly how.
Many of the early church thinkers thought this way. That God reveals Himself to us both through the 'book of scripture' and the 'book of nature'. For me it's about context. Using knowledge available to us today that was not available to those who first interpreted these stories. Like St. Augustine once said, "Interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge".
The traditional way in which Genesis is translated, with a global flood and Adam being the first human ever, these interpretations were formed long before any of this other information was available. But there were inconsistencies in the stories if this is how it's to be read. Like the 'others' that Cain feared and that whole bit at the beginning of Genesis 6. These parts only really make sense if Adam wasn't the first human. If there were others around.
So, for my own personal understanding, I went into it like that. Supposing these stories happened in an already populated world, that's already more in line with history because human history goes back way earlier than when these stories are set.
This isn't about marrying religion and science for me. It's about understanding what's actually true. If I hadn't found such consistency then I would never have approached anyone else about it. But if what I'm seeing is right, then everybody needs to know because this is literally the origin story of the modern human race. It actually accomplishes what science is trying to do. It answers the "how". And it explains things that we still to this day don't have a good explanation for.
The way I'm reading this, again if it's right, explains a lot. It clarifies the rest of the story in the bible and it actually offers explanations for things that really did happen. Including a dramatic behavioral change in humans that literally transformed the human race. This is important information, whether you're a believer or not. And this could prove Genesis to be a much more fruitful source of knowledge than it's currently given credit for.
My hope, ultimately, again if I'm right, is that people smarter and more capable than I can take this information and run with it. Maybe it can help us all gain new knowledge. I see it as relevant whether or not you believe the God part of the story.See, I hear you say that it's not about marrying religion and science, but that's really, really what it looks like. While I believe firmly that nature is God's creation, I think science has a clear and well tested understanding of much of nature that religion has never matched. That being said, it doesn't have to match to be true-until either the scientific minds or the religious minds declare that it must. The truths of religion are not necessarily of value in the natural world EXCEPT when it comes to human interaction. Otherwise, there's no need for one to match the other in order for them to both be valuable.
*Edit: Again, I'm seeing from the how v. why perspective.Well it's really about context and understanding. Science is the most accurate picture we have of the past. The past is where these stories took place. In the right context you can often find clarity. This is one of man's earliest philosophical works and there's wisdom to be found here. More so, I think if read in the right context.
I think there is need for the two to match. They tell two sides of the same story. Like in this context, again if I'm right, they offer understanding to what makes us tick and behave as we do. It offers insights about what makes us truly unique on this planet. That peculiar part of us that makes us so decidedly human. By fusing these two together it offers the how and why. It offers a potential explanation to the meaning of life in general. It's put human history in a context that makes sense of who we are and where we come from. It's all about knowledge and understanding. And what more fruitful knowledge is there than a better understanding of the self?I can roll with some of that.
I tend to feel that after centuries of pondering, we're just going to continue to run into places where you have to go one way or another, or continue down the same path with the understanding that there will never be one answer to two questions.
Do you nor see what you're doing? Shifting the burden of proof like this? How long have you said you've been researching this stuff? So you're going to make a shit load of assertions after presumably years of reading, etc, and you're just going to assume they're correct unless a layman can prove you wrong in the space of a single forum discussion? Why aren't you presenting this to people that know more about this than you? Why aren't you pursuing it? Are you waiting for someone to do that for you to, because in all your research you can't figure it out by yourself? And you want me to take you seriously? What a colossal waste of time if you're not willing to poor your money where your mouth is and have it examined. Are you afraid to have it smashed to pieces?
How am I shifting the burden of proof when I've supplied my proof? I'm asking you to prove what you're asserting. That I "have nothing". You're making a baseless proclamation. I'm making statements based on evidence and I'm showing my work. What else do you expect of me?
I don't care if you take me seriously. I'm just giving you my answers. What I'm presenting is exactly what most people here are asking for. Evidence.
And you know better than anybody that I have pursued this by presenting it to people that know better. I don't know what I'm waiting for. I feel like I have valuable information and I feel it's my duty, as a human, to share it. So I'm doing that in whatever way I can. I will pursue this through proper channels as soon as I know how or where to go. I've thought about approaching professors at colleges near me. If I can ever find the time I will probably pursue that.
I'm sorry your stock answers don't apply here. I'm sorry this isn't so easy to dismiss. But I'm giving you and others exactly what you're asking for.The only evidence I've seen is biased opinion based in intuition. When you find the boat, let me know.
Of course. That's because your biased opinion shapes how you receive information. It can't be true, so the only way you've found that makes sense to you is that I must be biased. If you were actually interested in truth, you could easily do a little digging yourself to see for yourself whether or not I'm twisting things around. I can give you whatever you need. Just look at the span of time between roughly 5500BC to about 3500BC. Mesopotamian history. It lines right up. And there are scores of people from that age telling roughly the same story. Countless examples.
Are you saying you are not biased? You don't really care if it lines up or not?
No, I don't. If it doesn't line up, then I definitely want to know, because that means I'm on the wrong track. Wasting time. My faith doesn't hinge on this. This is my own personal search for answers and truth. If I'm wrong, and somebody can show me that I'm wrong, then you're doing me a favor.
So if we show you things that don't line up, you will not change the translations or the meaning to make them fit?
I have been consistent. Same story. Haven't changed. If you can show me something that contradicts that story, I'm all ears. I don't care to change things to make this fit. I'm interested in truth. If I'm having to change things, then that isn't truth. That's a waste of time.
Numerous people have shown you that unless you change definitions and add things that are not in the biblical accounts, creation does not happen in the same order as evolution is known to. You dismiss then. So are you really looking for contradictions, or are you willing to spin things to still shoehorn them into your hypothesis? A hypothesis., might I add, that most Christians don't buy into either? (That doesn't really matter to much, but if you can't convince people who share your faith , how do you hope to convince anyone? )
What DOES your faith hinge on, headly?Yes, creation does line up. Plenty of people have argued with me, yet no one has made a legitimate argument. And I'm not the only one that sees the accuracy of Genesis. Ken Miller is a cell biologist, knows evolution well, and sees the same thing. But you don't have to have that level of knowledge to see it. Genesis breaks up the formation of life into two bits. Those two bits just happen to be the two major groups that animals are categorized in, for a reason. And it's not just the evolution of life. It's the whole thing. The order of everything it describes is what you'd see if you were standing on the surface watching it happen. I know people get hung up on the 'days' thing, but it makes perfect sense that if this were a word-of-mouth story told by bronze age people about an ancient past, then that's the kind of method you'd expect that story to be told in. It's merely a literary devise. The details in between that's what's important. But people are clearly very motivated to show its wrong. So that 'days' bit is enough for them. If one really cared about the truth, and really considered open-mindedly this Genesis possibility, then it would be easy to not get hung up on that and to then pay attention to the other details.
I'm only interested in the truth. I see a lot of truth in Genesis. If I'm right then this, I would think, would be of the utmost importance to any human because what it's describing is our origin story. If Genesis turned out to be way off base, I'd still believe in God, but I'd doubt the legitimacy of Genesis. But that's not what I found.Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
No, you're not interested in the truth, that is obvious. You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over, no matter how many times people here keep telling you it's nonsense, that you need to educate yourself on what science is all about and how it has shown holy books like the Bible are just myths and superstitions believed by folks who were not only extremely ignorant, but were all steeped heavily in myth and superstition long ago. You can be one of them if you wish, but you certainly can't convince us any of your beliefs are valid."Creationism" generally refers to those who buy into the young earth concept, which is what Miller opposes. And "intelligent design", though I like the name in itself, I cannot subscribe to it because it too represents a very particular take that neither Miller nor I accept.
You - "No, you're not interested in the truth, that is obvious. You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over, no matter how many times people here keep telling you it's nonsense, that you need to educate yourself on what science is all about and how it has shown holy books like the Bible are just myths and superstitions believed by folks who were not only extremely ignorant, but were all steeped heavily in myth and superstition long ago. You can be one of them if you wish, but you certainly can't convince us any of your beliefs are valid."
I'm repeating the same things because my answers are consistent. You try to tell me it's non-sense, yet can't put together a coherent argument to illustrate it. You seem to think vague statements alone should be enough. You've yet to ever illustrate how anything I've said contradicts science, which you would think would be an easy thing to do. Instead, you choose to withhold whatever knowledge that you claim to have that makes you so certain that I'm wrong, and instead expect me to just accept your vague declarations that I'm wrong.Yes, consistent nonsense, consistent ignorance, consistent religious belief, the list goes on...
The nonsense you spout here cannot be argued because it is pure nonsense born of ignorance.
Yes, I know you have ignored everything everyone says to you and then repeat this line.
That is because the amount of knowledge required to educate you is vast, way too much to put into posts here. It would require a great deal of study and learning on your part, which is your responsibility, not ours.Yet you consistently fail to be able to say specifically what it is I'm wrong about. You insist I'm wrong, insist it's obvious to you, yet seem to be incapable of saying what exactly. You don't even have to take the time to fully explain and teach. Just be specific about whatever it is you insist I'm wrong about. That's all.
You are wrong about science, specifically. Educate yourself.
Science, exactly.
Science.Science, huh? Entirely? How helpful. Give me just one example where I've contradicted something known via science. Just one thing. Do you think you can do that? I don't think you can. In fact, I challenge you to come up with just one thing. That should be easy to do if you're being honest here.
Pretty much, yes. Start with biology (including evolution), physics and cosmology. You can move on after that to other topics.
Okay, so what if I'm already doing that? Those happen to be three of my favorite topics that I know you know we've all discussed in detail. I've discussed evolution in detail, the big bang in detail, and physics all over these forums. So if I'm so wrong and so ignorant of these topics, as you claim, then it should be no problem to find just one example where I stated something factually inaccurate. Can you do that? Can you actually back up your claim?
It's obvious you're not.
Sorry, but you've done no such thing.Obvious, huh? Explain. What makes it obvious? There must be something in particular you're alluding to by saying that. What's your reservation with actually taking a minute to type out what it is that makes it so obvious to you? Why can't you be specific? Why do you refuse? Usually, a lack of specific examples is a sign to show the person making those claims has no actual leg to stand on. You use entirely too many underhanded tactics like this to be credible. If your viewpoint were credible then tactics like this wouldn't be necessary.
What you don't seem to get is that the viewpoint that your championing, this "scientific" view, much of it is a tapestry of assumptions strung in between established facts. That tapestry has by no means been proven as 'right'. And to assume it is, to not question those assumptions, is to render further progress stagnant. In explanations I've given, while I do not take that tapestry as gospel, I do take the facts that their strung between as truth. Nothing I've said contradicts any established facts. Like your view, my explanations also use those facts as the framework from which I work.
Nothing I'm saying contradicts any known facts. If you know of something that I've said that's factually inaccurate, that makes it "obvious" to you that I'm ignorant of something, then show me that your claims here are legitimate and lay them on the table. Why even bother to take the time to reply to something if you're just going to make general statements like, "It's obvious you're not" and "Sorry, but you've done no such thing"? Is this really time well spent? Did you really accomplish anything by taking the time to share these vague thoughts? Why play so coy? Because the impression it gives from my end is that you've got nothing. Prove me wrong. Show me your statements are based in some sort of relevant context and not just you playing coy because you disagree with me but have no valid argument against what I'm saying.See? You're doing it again, ignoring that fact that I've already told you specifically what you need to learn. But, you just ignore it and repeat ad nauseum the same thing over and over. It's boring, dude.
Most everything you say about your beliefs contradicts established facts, but you wouldn't know that because you have to learn established facts.You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. It's obvious that you don't understand science and need to educate yourself.
Hey, that was easy. Didn't require any thought. I can see the appeal.Sure, if I was the one going around making ridiculous, absurd claims based on ancient myths and superstitions that contradict reality, you too could say that about me, and deserving so.
You are making ridiculous claims that you then seem completely unable to back up. You seem to think your statements alone carry enough weight as to not require any substance to substantiate.
You're free to point them out at any time.
What came first the bird or the mammal? Were birds flying (every single kind) before anything walked or crawled on land?
Have you read this yet?
"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."
Is every bird, spider, fish, shark, animal afraid of humans?
Are they all food for us?
Does the following make any sense at all to you?
"37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."Birds came first. First birds appeared at the end of the Jurassic. Modern mammals first began to appear at the beginning of the Cenozoic Era.
"Is every bird, spider, fish, shark, animal afraid of humans?"
Yeah, I've read that. Well, there's a couple of ways that could be taken. First off, Noah and his sons were not mortal humans like you and I are, so it may have just applied to them. Second, yes, I'd say most animals when they're face to face with a human, they're about as scared as you'd expect. We are rather large mammals. And yes, they are all food for us. We've been at the top of the food chain for quite a while now.
I'm not familiar with that Jacob story, but that's definitely interesting.Do you think that mating animals in front of speckled trees gives you speckled offspring? Were we at the top of the food chain before or after we developed weapons, particularly guns?
I have come face to face with several animals, and I can guarantee you that I was much more scared of them than they were of me, including elephants, Lions and sharks.It wouldn't be the strangest thing I'd ever heard. That story makes me think of a pond that Rachel on Dogma Debate was talking about. Where the water had become murky, changing the colors that could be seen and at what level, which changed the color of the fish.
What I find most interesting about those parts of the story is that this was an important dynamic in the human condition. We could have easily been on a rather low rung of the animal kingdom, but we clearly dominate the planet. The humans in Gen1 were told the same. To fill the earth and subdue it.The difference between that Lake and that story is that in one generation, breeding in front of stripes made the animals striped. In order to cheat someone else, no less.
Well I'd love to see something like that tested, but I can't say I haven't seen things like that happen.
You have seen stuff like that happen? When? Where?
Breeding of foxes, somewhere in the Ukraine I think. They domesticated foxes. They began to choose the less aggressive ones and bred them together. Within a generation their coats began to turn white, and they were smaller. Within a handful of generations they began to see changes in these foxes that you usually only see in domesticated dogs. Looks and behaviors.
Intentional breeding of that time cannot be compared to breeding in front of a striped tree and getting striped offspring. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Intentional selection to enhance certain traits is a science. Striped trees are not.
Here's a fun little read if you're interested ... http://faculty.washington.edu/snoegel/P … 201997.pdf
According to this there were some mistranslations that may have confused matters. Apparently there are things you can do with sticks that aid in the mating effort. What this guy is explaining is that the sticks could have been used in some way to prohibit breeding of certain goats. Allowing him to selectively choose which of the flock would successfully mate. It's a bit of a long read, but interesting.Interesting. The jewish scholars that I've read don't mention it being mistranslated. I wish I could remember the places I've read about that.
Sorry, I'm still stuck on this, and I apologize, but I can't remember if it's Jeremy or Justin or some other J name. (I'm super horrible with names, especially with people who completely fail to mention me on shows I recommended them to). In Genesis 31:11-13, Jacob is saying that an Angel appeared to him, and said "Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you."
Wouldn't that imply that it's not some crazy mistranslated for centuries form of livestock birth control?
This got me to looking around. This is interesting ....
"My fish would develop vertical stripes when guarding a spawn. Otherwise they display a brilliant pattern of metallic colored spots." - http://www.willegal.net/tropical_fish/jack-dempsey.htmA) how reliable is it
B) had it been tested
C) was it guarding a spawn in front of a striped tree?
Are you seriously defending this nonsense? If you and your spouse had relations in splotched light, Di you think your baby would be splotched? Seriously?
Almost every American dairy cow I've ever seen has splotched. Are they all bred in splotched Meadows?Haha.. no, I'm not defending it. I just wouldn't be surprised. And I don't see any reason why this portion of the story would need to be defended. It's not like this is being described as a miracle or anything. It's mentioned just a as a matter of fact. With things I've seen happen, this just doesn't sound strange to me. Fish do weird things. I think it's the clownfish that can actually change sex if need be.
We've gone through this before and I showed you that mammals evolved before birds. Remember? But we aren't talking about just mammals we are talking about all things on land. Did birds come before all things on land? Is that the order of evolution, fish, birds, land creature…?
Polar bears are not afraid of any man, gun or not. They have no fear because they don't need it.
What about the other part. Is every animal for our consumption?
How could you not be familiar with the Jacob story? I thought you were the genesis expert.Yes, small mammals existed prior to that. But there is a definite age in the earth's history, after the age of reptiles and birds, where mammals dominated. You're looking for individual examples. I'm looking at major eras.
We can certainly eat every animal I can think of.
My focus has been on Genesis 1-11. The most relevant bit. Those are the oldest books of all the books of the bible. Those are the books that all the others are built around.What about the poisonous ones? Can we eat those?
Most of them, I believe so. Most only have poisonous venom and such, but can be eaten. Are eaten, in fact, in a lot of third world cultures.
Not to be nit picky, but most is not all. And I'm not necessarily referring to animals who carry venom. I'm talking about animals who ARE poisonous. And plants that are toxic.
Actually, Genesis is widely not considered by scholars to be the oldest book per se. It's just the first one that was listed when the Bible was put together as a whole...
What I'm referring to specifically are the first 11 chapters. The pre-flood portion up through the Babel story. This story existed by itself, apart from the rest of it, long before the rest of it was ever put together.
"The Jahwist presents a theology of history, rather than timeless philosophical theology. Yahweh’s character is known by his actions. The Jahwist picture of Yahweh begins with the creation of human beings and the early history of mankind in general (Genesis 2-11). The Jahwist contributions in this material do not intend to present an exhaustive history, but rather certain episodes with particular importance to later generations. These episodes explain human mortality, the need to work for a living, the existence of many languages, rivalry among brothers, and man’s attempt to break through God’s limits" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
I think the book of Job is generally considered the oldest. Which is interesting because the Sumerians told an almost identical story. And they also told stories that mirrored those told in the first 11 chapters, including a flood and a guy who survived it by building a boat and the confusing of a once universal language.That is also not widely accepted by scholars to be true. If you research this, you will find most vote books of Deuteronomy.
Julie may be able to say better than I, but I was under the impression that the book of Deuteronomy showed up kind of late, in its complete form, in Judea I believe. In fact, when it's said the 'book of the law' was found "in the house of the Lord" in 2 Kings 22:8, that that's actually talking about the book of Deuteronomy.
The whole thing, yes. I was referring to "books" or should I say "sections" of deuteronomy. I meant to say that, it would have been clearer
thanks for speaking up. It is generally not believed to be written all at once. I was referring to certain parts of the whole book. Different Biblical scholars are going to get different things out of the texts to determine when they were written. My point was to simply point out that stating Genesis 1-11 were not indisputably the first chapters (or books) to be written. There's so much dispute about when books were written (in Biblical circles) that it's confusing. Genesis was listed first because it pertained to beginning events. And no book of the Bible originally had chapters either.
Yes! And with error-filled reports who knows how old each telling is? We can guess until Michael Jackson spins again; but knowledge is different.
Sorry, ot sure I understand what you were trying to say here. I don't want to just assume. Can you elaborate?
We use scientific data to determine the age of ancient things and errors are factored in. If such errors are pervasive, the data is untrue. So with all we know right now and no consideration of those things we don't, we cannot tell with certainty that Revelations was not first to hit the telling of the gospel.
I hope this clears things up.Yes it did. Thank you
However, I disagree on that point. in determining the age of certain books, it's usually not ALL scientific (unless you use carbon-dating or something; and even that is not conclusive.)
What we usually go by is statements within the book itself or references from other texts, etc.
We can know that Revelations didn't hit the shelf first if it makes reference to specific verses in earlier books, which it does. Specifically. Therefore some books are easier to date than otheres.Sounds good! But for those not so easy to date; the date us up in the air. But it is not important. God said don't kill. If he said in the year -1436 he says it in 2014. The word is out.
So you think the old testament laws ARE still applicable, since God doesn't change?
God does not change. He feels the same about sin as always. People trivialize the OT. Jesus entered. Many of the laws were misunderstood. Jesus straightened it out and made the final sacrifice which ushered in grace for all. The OT is OHistory. We learn how God feels in the OT. We learn how Jesus fixed the past and brought hope for all in the New. We should concentrate our efforts there.
Can you decide please whether you are under the old law or not? Thou shalt not kill is old law. Stoning disobedient children is old law. Loving God and loving others (all others, not just the ones you agree with) is new law. If you're not under the old law, stop repeatedly bringing it up.
Check Jesus for a good understanding of what laws we are under. Stoning children; he would not do. That's out. Killing? Same thing. Loving God is Old and New Testament. That is in the stay column. When in doubt, check Jesus.
So you don't agree with and don't follow the 10 Commandments anymore, right?
Jesus said there were two. Love God and love others. He didn't honor the Sabbath.
The two most important laws - love God and love others - encompass all ten of the commandments. They all relate to loving God and/or loving others. This includes observing the Sabbath, which is a time of rest and renewal in the Lord. Jesus understood the heart of the Sabbath and did not violate the heart of it, only the man-made laws regarding it.
so when god said don't work on the sabbath, and wrote a bunch of laws about what you were not to do on the sabbath, you're saying those were man made laws?
What were the REASONS BEHIND those laws related to the Sabbath? Rest and renewal in the Lord, a vital component for God's people. Jesus understood the heart of the law and upheld this.
From my recollection, he did acknowledge it. He just ensured everyone knew that honoring the Sabbath should also include doing good. Yes???
But he also broke the Sabbath by doing things considered work as defined by the laws set forward by god in the old testament, which got him in trouble with the Jewish elite, yes?
There is scriptural indication Jesus rested on the sabbath (all day, not just an hour or two)? Or did he, like most preachers I've ever met, double and triple their work load by preaching much of the day? Exhorting others to rest,perhaps, while he worked harder?
We already stated that the men of the time (ESPECIALLY the Jewish elite) didn't understand the spirit of the law. They didn't understand that God was not saying do nothing on the Sabbath. Jesus straightened it out.
So the people that God put in charge of his worship, sacrifice and interpretation and keeping of the law through the Levite law got it wrong, then? The letter of the law specifically no longer applied?
