I want to start a conversation with all faiths about belief. I'm particularly concerned with understanding how people from different faiths view each other.
I'm not religious in the typical sense of the word, although I do believe in a creator. Whether or not he/she has any effect on humans here on Earth, I'm undecided. But it's difficult for me to understand why people are so obsessed with pronouncing their God the one and only God. If you take a second to think about it, it doesn't come down to whether there's a God or not, but what that God might be. Despite your religions interpretation, that God would be the same for all of us.
So, back to my question. Why is the belief in God prioritized below whom that God is? I think it's an amazing thing to have faith because it makes you contemplate life. There are a lot of people who try to skim by with their religious ideologies, but people can usually pick their arguments apart fairly quick.
How would you find faith in a higher power without your books? Why can't we all come to our own (and possibly same) conclusion by mere contemplation? Why do so many people have to be told what to believe?
i believe it offers people a means of answers and hope. not a bad thing, it helps many people. i personally cannot bring myself to believe in anything, and have tried. Whether it be i am looking for proof or something that won't dictate what i must do, i am unable to trust.
This is no judgement on anyones religious beliefs, it would not change my opinion of anyone. i wonder often if this would ever change. but let's allow others to believe what they choose to.
Yeah, I'm not trying to tear apart anyone's religion whatsoever. I too don't follow any religion myself and so it's a bit difficult to understand the absolute faith that I observe in others.
There are so many different religions praying to different Gods. The funny thing is that they're all looking and praying to the same thing, yet feel more comfortable not acknowledging it. Why is that?
I don't understand what I stated that made you upset? I wanted to have a discussion on the various beliefs. Yes, I am stating my own opinion in order to challenge others, but that's how you learn WHY people believe what they do.
I do apologize for stating that anyone is 'ignorant' in their religious beliefs. It was clearly the wrong word.
I just think it's all interesting and fun to talk about, that's all. There are no ramifications of a 'wrong' belief, or lack thereof.
Same reason they do not believe what they are told or believe what they are not told; even more tell others what they believe is not what they are told or told not to tell others what to believe -it is called the human condition. The endless parallel of the Need To Know aka the human consciousness.
In my opinion: Two assumptions, 1) what we can observe is all there is. It constitutes "reality". 2) what we can observe is not all there is. It's does not constitute "reality".
The theism/non theism debate boils down to these assumptions. Atheists/anti-theists make the first assumption. Theists make the second assumption. Entire belief systems and approaches to truth are built on top of these assumptions.
Both are guesses. Subscribers to each will argue their guess is a "better" guess because of convoluted arguments involving X,Y and Z. They remain just guesses. Subscribers to each will characterise the other as flawed in some way for making the assumption they are making. They remain just guesses. Subscribers to each will characterise the other as being the cause of problems in the world. They remain just guesses.
These two assumptions remain just guesses. However those making the assumptions generally tend to refuse to acknowledge they are in fact just guessing. Why? Because that would mean they are the same as the others who are just guessing. Human beings need an "other". It's a biological imperative. We have a greater chance of survival if we form groups that co-operate. Exclusion is a prerequisite of groups. Those "groups" would have once been the equivalent of a school of fish or a pack of wolves. They became tribes. They are now countries, political parties, religions etc. They allow for the characterisation of "others". People who don't belong in our group.
The key factor in all these groups is that essentially they are the same, because we are the same. We simply construct "others" because it's in our nature to do so. If it was not republican vs democrat, theist vs non theist, north korea vs south korea, it would be something else, e.g. blue eyes vs brown eyes. The need for "others" is no different to the need to reproduce in that they are both biological imperatives. And the ultimate expression of exclusion is violence towards "others". Most acts of violence and/or war are perpetrated not in the name of religion or politics, but in the name of "otherness".
In a nutshell our beliefs and social constructs are intimately intertwined with our biology. That doesn't make a case for against theism/non theism. It just suggests that our behaviour and beliefs are not as independent of our biological nature as we'd like to think.
I find a flaw in your thinking, just to let you know.
Your two assumptions isn't actual truth.
Your first claim on assumption (1) is wrong. There is no assumption that what we can observe is all there is, simply on the basis that science continues to explore the unknown. Thus, leaving people not only to observe what has been discovered, but open to more things being found out.
On that basis alone, your theory(post) falls apart.
Just a thought.
For accuracy's sake the first assumption constitutes the theory of knowledge known as empiricism, not science. Although science is based on this theory of knowledge.
By 'what we can observe' I mean assertions for which empirical evidence is possible. Not every assertion fits that category. Some assertions preclude such evidence. So the first assumption is the assumption that everything we can have knowledge of in a particular way constitutes "reality" and anything we can't have knowledge of in that way, doesn't.
In other words there are some assertions that an empirical approach to knowledge can't discover the truth of, not because we haven't developed sufficiently to do so, but because of the nature of the assertions.
Even by your description, it sounds like you are running yourself in circles. But, I'll leave it at that.
Fair enough. It can be tricky though. Think of this way. Empiricism as an approach to knowledge is limited in scope. Some people make assertions that fall outside that scope. Those assertions are considered by empiricists as not part of reality, therefore unknowable, therefore not justified. So the assumption is that nothing outside the scope of empiricism is knowable. Don't know if that clarifies things for you. Was worth a try.
I am not exactly sure that is accurate. But, okay.
Well, if something is unknowable, that would mean that it does not exist within reality, which is knowable, based on the existence of things that which are real or exist already.
Reality exists. Reality exists free of thoughts, desires, will or wishes. Reality is all knowable.
That again sounds like you are running in circles. I understand that something that is unknown, isn't knowable presently, but does not mean it cannot be known or disproved.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but my education is limited in itself, so some things take longer to grasp. And, again, it appears as if running in circles, as I said above and before.
So, I guess it's beyond my grasp. *I don't really believe anything is beyond my grasp, but via your explanation just isn't doing it.
I do appreciate the effort, but I'll have to look into it further on my own.
Hey Figment, interesting "religious" philosophy.
Oh wait .... you wanted to know what I thought about religion and God. People are going to have their own beliefs...some more judgmental than others, some kinder than others. We are all the same in this one one big galaxy - how ever the hell we got here...I have know clue, but I do feel like Mother Earth (my God) is pissed and ready to kick ass.
I am speaking from a basic, basic level of understanding.
If we take into acount the people that have had out of body experiences, seen Ghosts, seen flying sausers, Have been in touch with some sort of higher inteligence than our own
(in any number of ways); I think that this would include a large majority of people today.
To me these things point to a different dimention of reality than what we are unequipted to understand!
Some people are so full of them selves, cause they know everything, that they can not accept the truth if it bit their leg off!!
The God of Abraham would have to be from a diffrent dimention of reality than we are living in! DUH;
He might be the captain of all aliens that fly in UFO's I do not know?
God is that higher inteligence that trys to lead us to a higher plane of existence.
As I said; This is the least of what he is!
Anyone that believes that mankind is on the top of the totum pole deserves only one HA; though I might not be able to restrain my self and they hear a bunch of them.
Since I was five years old I have discovered spirituality. How? By walking out of my body and viewing my solid body laying on the operating table. I have had countless paranormal and supernatural experiences my whole life. It tells me -- in one summary is that there is a divine being, and a spirit world, and we are spirit beings. By life experience alone I believe from my own life journey that there is a maker of the universe, of us and an aspect of that creator lives in all living things. It is our choice to access our God Consciousness or not. That spark.
Human beings are all linked together by the God Head. WE are all connected. We are all spirit beings having a human experience for our soul's growth. That is what I have learned from my own experiences that may appear as hallucinations by some but to me they are called: visions/remote viewing/mediumistic abilities/clairvoyance/ clairaudience/ etc..
Someone can say it was psychosis or some other absurdity but one doesn't go through life having countless supernatural experiences that all equal to a heavenly realm for nothing.
Spirituality leads to love without the religious hate involved. There is a big difference between spirituality and religion. To be spiritual isn't the same as being religious.
If they have a psychosis, they would go through life believing in those things. There are many other explanations that don't rely on things that violate physical laws, but it seems the one most claimed is the supernatural, which does.
Funny how all those other explanations just sit idly by, being ignored.
Don’t have one…but uncle Janus said that anything could fly if it had a big enough motor.
Contemplating to heaven is out. Since God is an Infinite Potential, we can't behold Him at once. It is impossible to please God without faith. Yes, you can pick me apart if you haven't tried the faith. One must accept Jesus' love and teachings. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Contemplation goes as far as listing evidence for and against; pros and con. When one discovers that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer, than faith must be exercised.
Monotheistic God made more sense to me even with my training in science. Jesus simply made all the sense in the world to me. I can defend my faith until the cows come home, but the other person must choose faith in his own spirit.
I see what you're saying, but it's not really the response I was looking for. The Bible doesn't have all of the answers and you never knew Jesus. Regardless, you follow his 'teachings' and believe you are a good person. Is this really the only way?
There has to be something more to life than being told what to believe and what to do.
But - you are asking for a "religious" philosophy - which means getting it from "religion."
Perhaps if you ask for a "philosophy" instead?
Yea, but specifically pertaining to the religious claims such as God, the afterlife, good and evil, etc.
Cultural and tribal influences. I don't believe in a god, am pretty sure there cannot be a conscious "afterlife," and do not recognize the concepts of "good" and "evil" outside the constructs we have made society-wise. This bothers a lot of religionists when I say that - because they recognize "inherently evil," Acts and I do not.
Let's face it - following what you were told is a lot easier than thinking it up for yourself.
I agree with you about good and evil. People don't like believing that humans exhibit human characteristics (good and evil) when they can easily justify them as supernatural. But, if there isn't a God, then why does anything exist whatsoever? To me, it seems the only person that can answer that question is God.
Ask yourself one question, so you can judge whether or not, your previous question is actually valid or need be answer.
Why would it matter to know to your own personal individual existence?
Life does not require a god or worshiping of a god to be lived.
No, no one needs a God to worship in order to experience life, but the problem I have with atheism is that it asserts the same thing that religion does, in the opposite sense. We won't ever figure out if there is a God or not. You can believe in one if you'd like, but to be entirely certain that there isn't a God is, in my opinion, more ignorant than to assert there is one.
It's easy to criticizes religion for many of it's wild claims, but atheists don't provide much inspiration for being alive...
It isn't ignorant to support the belief that there is no god. Reality dictates the truth of no god. Those make the claim of something outside of reality known to humankind, is the chosen ignorance of believers. To focus on anything outside of reality is foolish.
Inspiration comes from within, not from some group. Meaning of life and purpose of life is not a guidance from others people are supposedly to undertake. Both are for people to put in place in their own life.
Ah - now we are getting to the nub of things. Despite the fact that you are "not religious in the typical sense of the word," - you need to believe in a god to have inspiration for being alive and not believing in one is "ignorant."
Why can't you just enjoy being alive?
I enjoy being alive very much.
I understand now why you both are atheists: You've focused your attention solely on what can be known in this reality. That is obviously perfectly fine and I have no reason to believe either of you have bad intentions.
I enjoy believing that we aren't the most intelligent, superior beings in existence even if I don't have any evidence to back it up.
Neither of you can be convinced of any other ideology, but what's so bad about agnosticism? Why would you rather choose absolute knowledge of God's non-existence over simply stating that you cannot know?
Because of people like you who claim to know. You who make bold assertions that there must be a god and then attack others and call them ignorant for saying they do not believe.
Why do you choose absolute knowledge that something you cannot define, could never understand and cannot see exists?
And assert that any one who does not agree with you is ignorant?
Well, that makes about as much sense as anything - oh wait - you don't have an ISM do you.
I thought you'd like that.
She is a poster of all theology put together (science/religion) See, natural selection IS available in all sizes and colors.
damn, peed my pants again, btw been trying to find time to email you back but your email, totally made my day and on a day so frustrated trying to build my site
thanks for getting me motivated again.
J, hope you join eventually, should be ready by 2012
With your outlook, I cannot even see how you enjoy your life in any manner.
I would rather YOU did not put Mark and myself in the same category of "atheist", because Mark is one and I am NOT one.
Yes, it's understood that you refuse to deal with the facts of our existence even at this point in time. As for life on Earth- there is no other conscious life form on the planet, equal to that of human consciousness, and to say there is actual higher intelligence than humanity at this point is foolish and error filled.
I consider ALL mystical religions bad for the health and wealth of the world.
Absolute knowledge? In your opinion. Not based on facts.
Haha I was hoping you could define my outlook...
Define your outlook? You are kidding right.
I do not need to define your outlook, your actions speak volumes.
My actions? As far as I know, I've merely been discussing religion and philosophy...
You're the one with the intent to insult...
We are dust, we are water, there is something else, because otherwise we are mudpies. At the moment of death, the human body loses a small portion of it's net weight. Not making it up. Used to transport cadavers from critical care to the morgue. What is that weight? Not even Drs. know. it's not much, a hair under an oz. Further, our understanding of energy is still in the infancy stage. Definitions of exactly WHAT constitutes "life" still elude us, and the possibility that it can be constructed on some basis other than carbon cannot be ruled out. Dark matter constitutes most of our reality. No one knows what it is. Not atheists, not the pope, not our own scientists. String theory almost necessarily predicts the possibility of A) A reality where God exists and B) A universe where no God exists, it also predicts the possibility that there is a reality where we don't exist. That's the cutting edge of theoretical physics. Oh. and Cag, my agenda? Veni, Vidi, Vici. LOL
There could be alien species living in other galaxies that are far more intelligent than us. We wouldn't worship them, would we?
Simple answer. If we started to accept the possibilities of the existence of gods, even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support their existence, we then have to accept the possibilities that anything one can conjure from their imaginations exists.
And, isn't that where gods really reside, in the imagination?
create your own inspiration, or draw it from the people you love, and the sense of purpose you have every day.
Well - that is where religion comes from. You are just at the first step, because - having assumed this god - now you need to give him characteristics. I see you already decided He needs to be Capitalized, and is a Person. All you need to do now is tell us what He wants.
Why does there have to be a god for anything to exist?
Your logic is sound but your conclusion is merely what you want it to be, not what it in fact is, for that cannot be known.
I did not draw any conclusions. Merely made an observation.
I have observed that:
You have assumed a god.
You have decided He needs to be capitalized and is a person.
He knows the answer to why things exist.
I merely pointed out that this is the past progression of religious development and you are being true to form.
You replied to me in the exact opposite way about what i said?
The answer you weren't looking for yet you say curious of peoples thoughts?
I thought it could be an interesting thread until now.
Thanks for not reading my post and just saying YOUR opinion, clearly what your looking for, no different than the behaviors of those you are starting to insult. Judgement is just fabulous.
This is the smallest amount of power, I have ever seen go to someone's head
Good Bye, no disrespect
Have a good day, sorry you missed my views
LOL I am a bit hungover and was being distracted by my roommates while I was writing this haha. As you can tell, my train of thought was a bit sporadic. Sorry about that!!
and the smart ones take the blue pills not the red ones that seem obvious to others when taken
Yeah but we usually dont get the blue pill
You must know where to seek and bring your sword as it can be dangerous, that and twenty bucks
"You can tell you have created God in your own Image when God hates all the same people you do".
The final level of matter consists of Bosons which are made up of charges[not anything physical]that maintain there relationships due to the influence of the Higgs Boson...also known as the Strange-let or God particle...What ever the Higgs Boson consists of...is God.
Or it could be"Some old dude with a beard that does things for you if you pray hard enough".
The behavior of Bosons is the cutting edge of Quantum Physics.It will be interesting to see what this baby branch of Physics will reveal about the nature of"Being"and consciousness...and where the hell is the"Observer"located in the body?No one seems to know.
There is a deeper understanding, the path I try to follow. The connectivity that all things in this particular universe share. On earth, we are in an ecosystem, and to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, therefore, whatever we do to our peice of the world, has a bearing on every other peice. Man disrupts the balance because we are caught between what we were, and what we are becoming. Our wold is in a solar system, much the same as the ecosystem, and that is in a galactic system. Each is effected by our presence. The universe, as a whole, is a massive energetic, entity. We cannot define what life really is because we veiw it from the perspective of a very small species, on a very small planet, in an unremarkable solar grouping. The symbiosis which is a requirement for our existence, is akin to the forest which one cannot see, because the trees obscure our vision. My veiw is simply this. Life is a characteristic of this universe, therefore the universe contains life, therefore the universe IS alive AND connected. We just don't comprehend at this time what amounts to something Jesus said God is in you, and you are in God. Scientists will tell us the same thing. We are in the universe, and the universe is in us. Finally, A body in motion tends to stay in motion, and a body at rest, tends to stay at rest. Tells us that in all likelihood, the universe has ALWAYS been in motion. Eternal Spirit I.E. "God"
Well stated! I like the forest analogy: our vision is obscured by the trees. It's amazing how little we know...
Very well said...now try to explain it to others.
Solipsism is the order of the day...find your way out and you will be famous!...And please explain the solution to the measurement problem.Once you do that perhaps we can move on to reality...if reality even exists as an absolute.I like the way you think...at last,a worthy mind to banter with.
Boy am I with you!The organisational essence that keeps this universe..esss in relationship and therefore our existence is God in my opinion.The term God removed from the"old guy with a beard" stereotype is the ineffable unknowable ultimate ISness that Christ was trying to get people to understand IMO."for have I not told ye that ye are All gods"Don't remember chapter and verse or even new or old testament but that one was burned into my mind.In a very real and physical Quantum way we Are all one.The photo show of the molecular changes in water when emotions were focused on it are Spectacular![done in Japan by a Zen master I believe].they beg the question...If thoughts can reform the shape of water molecules...What do they do to Us...and others?...apparently Love really is the answer to the worlds problems!
I'm gonna go to Scullys Pub Right Now!...And Find Somebody to LOVE!!!
Yeah, I just realized that this was posted in the "Christianity, the Bible and Jesus" category... my bad.
I heard that Martin Luther was anti-Semitic. Is that true whatsoever?
S'o.k. by me, I just go to whatever intrigues.
In WW2, the papacy sat silently by as Hitler eradicated all those he felt ere inferior.
Actually, he considered himself a christian.
Since Martin Luther wasn't Greek Orthodox.. he wasn't REALLY Christian, so it doesn't matter
"There could be alien species living in other galaxies that are far more intelligent than us. We wouldn't worship them, would we?"
Well actually, I think a lot of us would lol..
not more intelligent than me though, eh?
Certainly nowhere near as sexy!
Seriously though I find it amusing that people would even bother sharing their personal religious beliefs in a place where many use nothing but a screenname.
As far as aliens go, anyone hear of the Ancient Astronaut theory? It's quite interesting. I wouldn't say it's impossible but hard to imagine. If aliens descended upon Earth, they would be the closest thing we could possibly know to Gods.
I cannot conceive of a species that is so advanced as to cross interstellar space to build stuff out of stone blocks. I look for another answer, unless someone digs up an X-wing fighter someplace!
As my ex girlfriend used to say to me...
"The are living beings that come out of Uranis that can just not be explained"
Space travel really isn't possible for the great distances that have to covered and the fact that any space vehicle cannot attain light speed or beyond. Way too many other issues arise when we take into consideration biological entities living in space for very long stretches of time. Add to that the fact that any alien species traveling in space would only come across the earth by sheer chance with astronomical odds against it.
We are part of the Universe in the same way as our brain is part of us - we are the Universe becoming aware of itself.
Maybe we will start to grow up soon.
When we consider the proponderence of 10,000 pieces of circumstancial evidence one piece at a time and exclude it, for lack of absolute proof, Do this one piece at a time and we will never grow up.
Hey Jerami, not to butt into your conversation...however, I found something interesting in what you said.
I'm just want to see if I can take it a step further...?
"When we consider the proponderence of 10,000 pieces of circumstantial evidence one piece at a time and exclude it, for lack of absolute proof" I would like to point out that absolute proof is the only foundation to build or work on growth. Otherwise, everything is conjecture or supposition, based on assumptions. What is real? Everything built or developed or discovered, is our objective reality. All knowledge known to humanity is all knowable. Which means it can be learned by all.
"Do this one piece at a time and we will never grow up." There is a reason for many branches of science, each working on a different part of reality. Each exploring new areas to bring new knowledge to others. We discard only what's not needed or useful and incorporate everything new.
Just a thought.
Lets say that my neighbor was murdered in his home.
He and I was seen fighting two days earlier. That is absolute proof of nothing so we have to forget about it.
He was shot with a shotgun, I own a shotgun. A lot of people own shotguns so this proves nothing. So we forget about this cause it is proof of nothing.
My other neighbors believe that my wife was having an affair with my neighbor. No proof, just suspicions. Do not consider this as any proof so we must didmiss this.
My fingerprints were found on a glass that was sitting on his coffee table. It might have been left from two days earlier?
proves nothing so we disregard this fact.
Gun powder on my hands ... I had just gotten home from hunting. Proves nothing so forget it.
Each individual piece of evidence in itself proves nothing, but put all of them together, and the timeline fits, and it appears to prove my guilt.
So my question is ... when is it enough circumstantial evidence to be considered as Proof?
My point is that in Daniel 9 Gabriel says that 62 weeks is the same as 568 years. How do I prove this to be true or untrue?
And what difference does it make?
If this concept were to be tested... There will be 10,000 pieces of circumstantial evidence that fit together like a jigsaw puzzle making a complete picture.
But when each piece is examined in and of itself, it will not carry enough weight to prove anything. One brick does not a building make!
But when they are ALL gathered together as a whole and put in the right order, ya wouldn't want to jump off of that building cause it would be so tall.
I am not speaking of proving the existence of God.
That is a different subject to be considered after the facts as written in the bible are understood in their correct prospective. "Uninterpreted"
Does it tell a story that can be considered as coherent. My answer is YES!
But it isn't the same story as "Religion" has been teaching it for the last 1600 years.
My question is WHY does theologians NOT want to even consider the 62 weeks in prophesy = 568 years?
I believe it is because it is too revealing.
Not in my book he doesn't. Gabriel says no such thing in Daniel's dreams. Where are you getting this Jerami? Is an angel telling you into your head?
Daniel 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the Commandment came forth.
9:25 know therefore that from the going forth of the commandment ... until Messiah the Prince shall be 69 weeks.
9:26 and it shall be 62 weeks then he will be cut off (killed)
Daniel had this vision in 538 BC.
568 years later Jesus was killed.
Right. So you are making it up when you say "Gabriel says that 62 weeks is the same as 568 years."
You are "interpreting" it, based on a date which is by now means agreed upon by anyone. I thought you were against that sort of thing?
You also have a bad translation - because my book says "know therfore and underftand that from the going forth of the commandement to reflore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Meffiah the Prince, shall be feven weekes". 7 weeks - not 69 weeks.
You are also interpreting "cut off" to mean killed and neglecting to mention that the city was supposed to be destroyed by a flood and "the ende therof shall be with a flood " and "unto the ende of warre" (I still do not know what that is supposed to mean.)
The Jews do not agree that Jesus was the "messiah," and I have never ever found anything to prove the man even existed. So - what do you have in that case?
What is belief? Is belief a fact or is it a supposition in how a person feels about their faith in God? What is faith? Faith is the substance of things hoped for. What is the substance of what is hoped for? Obviously the thing the person believes will give them a cause of what they want because they cannot supply this for themselves. Religion is thus a way to define the substance that God will supply for us because we do not know how to supply this for ourselves. What do we believe we cannot supply for ourselves that God can supply for us? This is called religion. Whatever works best for the faith to attain the substance or purpose for a cause is what religion is for.....now, spirituality, that is a different matter.
I have been in every spectrum I would say in my 56+ years from ultra-religious to non-religious and I do believe that religion is something that is very personal to all of us.
To me, religion means that you believe in something greater than you and that you understand that being here is a gift. It is not something to be wasted or taken lightly - it is an opportunity to do something to mark the time that you were here. Not meaning that you are to be famous or well liked - just that you did 'the right thing' and you did it almost always without fail. We all know what 'the right thing' is I feel.
My philosophy is basically that of medicine, etc. I guess - do no harm - that means to others, that means to the environment, that means on every level in life. And I believe that we are supposed to take care of and nurture what we were given - whatever corner of the earth we live on. It is our 'job' to give back, to take no more than we give, and to always, always think of people less fortunate than we are. I hope God whoever he or she is is happy with my religion!
When saying that seven weeks, and three score and two weeks is 69 weeks; would this be interpreting this statement?
It is commonly understood that "Cut off" does mean killed.
One of the reasons that the Jews did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah is because from their "Interpretation" of prophesy; they thought that he wouldn't come until the 14 king of the fourth kingdom (Beginning with Babylon) to be given dominion over the earth (Israel).
Jesus came during the reign of (I think) the third emperor of The Roman Empire. Jesus was early according to their understanding.
Concerning the FLOOD ?? Rev. 12:15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood.
Is this actually talking about water?
12:16 and the earth swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
I believe there are many scriptures stating that nothing comes out of his mouth that isn't lies and deception.
A flood of deception and the earth took it all in
Is it an interpretation when we cross reference different statements or is it using analytical deduction?
Ah - semantics.
You saying "Gabriel says that 62 weeks is the same as 568 years." when it said no such thing is not interpretation?
You changing what the bible sez to suit your self is exactly what all the religionists do - and what you argue against.
But - it is OK when Jerami does it? Then you call it "analytical deduction," and I call it "lying for Jesus."
What I know for sure is that the bible was written after the events and attempts to retroactively fulfill a number of prophecies. It has also been aggressively defended when challenged because of this. Hence the wars and conflicts.
Sure - call it a flood of misinformation instead of water - why not? Say "destroyed" actually means "invaded by Romans a few years before, they just got the date wrong" - why not? "Unto the ende of warre," can mean a nuclear holocaust if you like and it is 2,550 years really - not 568. Why not? The Shroud of Turin (that you have never seen) is proof enough for you that Jesus was the One And Only Son of God - so yeah - why not?
Technically - Jesus (if he had existed) would have been born in the rule of the first Roman Emperor.
Interesting fact for you - I am doing some research for a book I am writing with some one else. The Holy Roman Emperors go back to 800. Their line is unbroken, except for a gap between 1313 and 1328, when there was no Holy Roman Emperor. Why not?
What a mixed up load of gobblie goog that that was. That had little if anything to do with what I was talking about.
Mercy ! The prophesy that was given to "that" Hebrew Nation 500 to 600 BC was talking about those emperors that had dominion over that Hebrew nation. 14 emperors were spoken of and that is all that there were until those prophesy was fulfilled and that Nation ceased to exist.
That is not interpreting the facts.
If I said that there was going to be 12 moon cycles and then I am going to retire and 310 days later I did, it would be an anilitical deduction NOT an Interpretation, to say that a moon cycle was 28 days.
Call it whatever you have to as long as you get to keep stiring up conflict.
There is a clear difference between translation, interpretation and analitical deduction.
But you can mix them all up as much as you can while you keep your fight alive. Keep your faith alive at any cost!
60,000 thoughts per day x (Gregorian) 365 = 21,900,000 annum x 75 years (average human lifespan) = 1,642,500,000 thoughts per person.
Multiply that by just the present 7 Billion humans on the planet. 11,497,500,000 thoughts. Lets multiply that by the Hebrew Calendar system: 5770 = 66.340575 Trillion thoughts. Add to that the words spoken, written concerning those thoughts.
Yet not one -from any religion or science- has done anything to unite, validate, prove, explain, let alone express the full epistemological critique of its purpose.
The human condition:
I need to know; I am man; I am not a slave but my thoughts are all I am. I rule myself, but don't know a single elements name or purpose and how it came to be. I die. I think no more. Before that event, I need to know why I am man and my purpose so I can die in peace and never know the answer, passing on this dilemma to my offspring, so they may face the same 'fate'.
Going for coffee. Good Morning Human Kind
Faith in God is the breath of our soul. When we look into the Bible we can see that our soul exist and it is our soul who will be judged on the last day Judgment Day. However, there are many faith in this world from many different people who have many different beliefs. What faith must we have? Definitely, we must have the true faith on the true God first. We must press on to know God because the Bible says that God's people are destroyed from their lack of knowledge about God. In order to have true faith, let us know God. First, why did God said Let US make man in Our image in Our likeness? This verse from the Bible implies thatvour Creator is not singular but plural. This have been a mystery from the Bible for ages. However, this is only a mystery to the people who have a fixed idea that God is one. Actually the Hebrew word for God on this verse is Elohim. Elohim means plural Gods. Then if God is plural,not singular, how many Gods are there? Actually the next verse tells us the answer. Genesis 1:27 says, then God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. Here let us not forget that God refers toElohim, a plural Gods. Here when God created man, God created it according to the image of God itself. And according to the image of God, the man that was created are male and female. It means that God has two images. The male image of God which brought forth a result of male being and female image of God which brought forth a female being. It means that God is not one but two. Some insist that Us refers to the Trinity. If that were right, then there must be three images of man who came out of creation. First, a man who was created in the image of the Father. Second, a man created in the image of the Son and Third a man created in the image of the Holy Spirit. However these are all male images. How about the female image? This is the greatest mystery in the Bible that up until now became a mystery to those who have a fixed idea that God is one. The male image of God was called God the Father for centuries. Then what should we call the female image of God? Shouldnt we call Her, God the Mother? The reason why we call God, Father indicates that there is also a Mother God. The reason why we are called the children of God is because we have a Mother in heaven. Why onlyknowbdo we have a knowledge of God the Mother? Well, it is because it was already prophesied in the Bible that in the last days She will appear. We can find it in the Book of Revelation.
Quite a claim there.
Chapter, and verse(s) please.
Yeah right. I've read Revelation a hundred times. There's nothing about a "Mother"
I've heard a pretty famous preacher on tv (Joseph Prince) talk about how God's grace is a "third person in the Trinity", as though "grace" were an actual person or entity separate from God. And I heard a Catholic priest "preach" about how Mary the earthly Mother of Jesus is a part of the Godhead. All nonsense of course. I don't think this is a very prevalent philosophy; just was wondering where those false ideas came from! Maybe the truth can be pointed out to this poster.........
What I'm wondering is if they actually even READ the Bible
yes I wonder!
Doesn't look like they've read it at all.
And while Revelation is kinda complicated to understand (I don't claim to understand it all myself), it's also true that a lot of people make parts of it complicated when it's actually so simple. Even some Evangelical preachers and people do that.
by VendettaVixen6 years ago
A child is baptised, receives first communion, and is confirmed before they even fully understand what religion is, and what consequences it will have on their life.Would it be better to wait until a person is... say...
by noturningback5 years ago
Why are there so many rude responses to Hubs in the Religion and Philosophy topics?When we disagree, must we be rude and condescending?
by PhoenixV2 months ago
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
by ngureco2 years ago
Why Are Most Atheists More Intelligent Than Religious People?
by Jeffrey Maskel2 years ago
What is the difference between living and existing?
by The Donkey10 months ago
Tons of people get upset, uncomfortable, or edgy when you bring up the subject about Jesus, God, or religion. Why do you think that is? Everything about Jesus is good. So why do we love to hate him so much?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.