Atheists claim that God does not exist, show me the proof that backs up this claim.
http://youtu.be/k8NpaG0cAGo I couldn't find part one, but this shows how truly old science realy is. The Upanishads and the rigvedas are the oldest written doccuments on earth and are one of many foundations for modern religion and science.
I saw the video it was definitely interesting, but unless I missed it, I didn't see the part that explains that God does not exist.
God doesn't have to exist. We are God because we create this reality for ourselve's every moment of the day, every day ad-infinitum and there are an infinite number of moments in which to do so. We exist here and there and the easiest way to explain it is with quantum physics.
Does that mean we created this universe and life? That is the God that I think of.
lol, They make me laugh sometimes though..
It's just cute..
"We are God because we create this reality for ourselve's..."
Sounds like my little cousin telling me, "mommy can't see me, she doesn't know i'm being bad" with a big cheesy grin [after i told her] I was going to let mommy know she's hitting the little boy...
But, somehow.. mommy just knew.. how'd that happen??
God is real and no logic can fade this truth.
Please, Claire, explain what you mean by New Ager. I am being serious here, it's not a term I am familiar with.
It's a label the right wing christian government came up with in the 80's. They lichened it to anything non-christian, as if christianity, islam and judaism are the oldest religions on earth.
What are you talking about? New Age, which is actually as old as the hills, started under that name with Alice Bailey.
Alice Bailey was born on June 16th, 1880 in Manchester, England.
"None other than Alice Bailey, the famous occult prophetess who coined the term New Age, made this startling pronouncement: 'It is, of course, easy to find many passages which link the way of the Christian Knower with that of his brother in the East. They bear witness to the same efficacy of method.' What did she mean by the term 'Christian Knower?' The answer is unmistakable! ... occultism is awakening the mystical faculties to see God as the all in all. In Hinduism this is called reaching samadhi or enlightenment. It is the final objective of yoga meditation: God In Everything—a force or power flowing through all that exists." Ray Yungen, A Time Of Departing, p. 34
"The goal of the New Age Movement has consistently been to bring in the Age of Aquarius when all will recognize 'the God within themselves.' A major step towards this in the words of the New Age prophetess Alice Bailey, is 'the regeneration of the churches.' Her vision was that... 'The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as a nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplished.' In a word, she desired the time when the 'Christian churches' would embrace the New Age concepts of illumination and self-realization. The New Age plan to bring in world peace cannot fully establish the Golden Age of Aquarius until Biblical Christianity is outlawed or destroyed."— Richard Bennett, Can Mysticism Lead To God
Alice Bailey, in an address at the Arcane School Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, suggested that the "Shamballa force"-the force from the invisible dimensions led by the Lord Maitreya-will be "destructive." It will also, she said, eject unbelievers from the earth: "The decision to release the Shamballa force during this century into direct contact with the human kingdom is one of the final and most compelling acts of preparation for the New Age. The Shamballa force is destructive and ejective ... inspiring new understanding of The Plan....It is this force ... which will bring about that tremendous crisis, the initiation of the race into the mysteries of the ages. (Alice Bailey, The Externalizing the Mysteries, pt.1 p.171)
Guess who the unbelievers are? When the Church is removed and they think it is because of the new age Christ it is only then their plan will take shape for a new world order. It was Hitler who spoke of a "thousand year Reich" carrying the concept of the biblical Millennium. One will have the choice to accept the New Age Messiah, receive the initiation or they will face the other alternative of being ejected. This means destruction. This doesn’t sound like the love and tolerance we have been hearing from those who criticize the Christians for teaching there is only one Christ.
Barbara Marx Hubbard has written,"Christ-consciousness and Christ-abilities are the natural inheritance of every human being on Earth. When the word of this hope has reached the nations, the end of this phase of evolution shall come. All will know their choice. All will be required to choose..... All who choose not to evolve will die off; their souls will begin again within a different planetary system which will serve as kindergarten for the transition from self-centered to whole-centered being. The kindergarten class of Earth will be over. Humankind's collective power is too great to be inherited by self-centered, infantile people. (Barbara Marx Hubbard Happy birthday Planet Earth.p.17) Read More Of The Plan..."
There is an infiltration of these New Age philosophies to the public which they pick up subconsciously like you have. Alice Bailey called this plan, "The Externalization of the Hierarchy".
How can it be new age, if there is nothing new about it?
New Age is the anticipation of the New Age of Aquarius. The old age is Pisces and 2012 is the dawn of the Age of Aquarius.
How come wicca is considered new age? Isn't it older than most modern religions?
Wicca is witch-craft and that goes way back. They have the same symbols.
Wicca is actually fairly new. There is a hub on it that I could link you to if you'd like. It's very well written and actually explains a bit of the misconceptions people have about Wicca.
I thought the craft(not yet wicca)originated in Africa and has been practiced for thousands of years, by aboriginal societies. Could be wrong though... Or am I thinking of geomancy?
Could be geomancy, but what originated in Africa was Voudoun, not Wicca. Wicca was established around 60 years or so ago. Around the same time that the New Age Movement started. Witchcraft came from Europe but was something else entirely as it's focus was not on any type of religious involvement but was more about Magic.
Wicca is as old as the hills. The term "Wicca" is new.
No, Pagus is old as the hills. The Religion of Wicca and the term Wicca are both very new. Any worthy study could easily reveal this to you.
You can infer anything when it is taken out of context. The "New Age" philosophy is a reawakening of the oldest belief system on earth. When Alice Bailey spoke of "destruction", she meant replacing hate and prejudice with love -- in this way the evil forces would be destroyed. And by the way, we do not wait for Lord Maitreya to come. As I said, you can imply any meaning when taken out of context.
What forces would eject unbelievers from the earth? In all the time that the earth has existed, how can love replace evil when it has never been done? Tell me how! If Alice Bailey, the founder of New Age, says they are waiting for Lord Maitreya to come then I think she is right. I don't know who told you otherwise.
New Age is just another extension of the occult stemming back to the ancient mysteries of Egypt. Freemasons are New Agers and Satanists because Lucifer is worshipped in Freemasonry.
In a nutshell, they are anticipating the arrival of the Age of Aquarius which begins this year. They believe they will achieve "Christ consciousness". The want all religions to merge under New Age and are very anti-Christian. I don't know if that is the case of mischeviousme but he/she has certainly picked up New Age ideas.
They don't just dislike Christians they plan to wipe them out by murder. They are waiting for their Christ messiah, Maitreya, who is the Christian Anti-Christ, to help them achieve this "Christ consciousness".
Funny, because I'm a mason and I don't worship satan. Get your facts straight... Free masonry, is for those that are enlightened, not a worshipper of deities and demons. They don't stand up and say "Dear satan... Can you help us today"... That's about as pointless as anything I tend to say...
Correction... I was a free mason. I've tried everything and none of it suits me.
"Freemasons are New Agers and Satanists because Lucifer is worshipped in Freemasonry." So where did Claire come up with this horse sh*t? I'm not a Free Mason but I'm fully aware that they DO NOT WORSHIP SATAN!
Because Lucifer means the light bearer, research words and you will understand...or not
I came up with this by very prominent Freemasons. Find the comment directed at mischeviousme.
I have books written by freemasons about freemasons that say no such things. And so people know Lucifer is one of those Hebrew words that has a double meaning..it means morning star and day star both.
And what degree are they?
Are you telling me 33rd degree highly influential Freemason Albert Pike was lying? Perhaps you only spoke to those of the Blue Degrees.
Quote from Albert Pike: “The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretation. It is not intended that he shall understand them, but it is intended that he shall imagine that he understands them…Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry (32nd and 33rd masons).”
Lucifer is the light bringer, the bringer of enlightenment.
So what is Freemasonry all about to you?
What degree on you at? Let me explain to you the ignorant and the knowing:
Albert Pike who lived from 1809 to 1891, 33rd Degree Mason and head of the Southern Masonic Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, wrote:
“The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretation. It is not intended that he shall understand them, but it is intended that he shall imagine that he understands them…Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry (32nd and 33rd masons).”
Freemasonry is presented to a philanthropic organization and it is in the lower degrees. It is a front to the public but the true meaning is the worship of Lucifer.
Manly P Hall, another 33rd degree Mason, wrote in his book, "LECTURES ON ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY AND INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY AND APPLICATION OF RATIONAL PROCEDURE, p. 397 [Chapter 19 - Rosicrucian and Masonic Origins]"
“FREEMASONRY is a fraternity within a fraternity — an outer organization concealing an inner brotherhood of the elect. Before it is possible to intelligently discuss the origin of the Craft, it is necessary, therefore, to establish the existence of these two separate yet interdependent orders, the one visible and the other invisible. The visible society is a splendid camaraderie of 'free and accepted' men enjoined to devote themselves to ethical, educational, fraternal, patriotic, and humanitarian concerns. The invisible society is a secret and most august fraternity whose members are dedicated to the service of a mysterious arcanum arcanorum. Those Brethren who have essayed to write the history of their Craft have not included in their disquisitions the story of that truly secret inner society which is to the body Freemasonic what the heart is to the body human.”
He also stated:
When a mason learns the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy.”
- Manly P. Hall, 33°, THE LOST KEYS OF FREEMASONRY, p. 48
“Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled ...”
Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma pp. 104-105
Ooh, that's not a nice thing to say about people like you.
Albert Pike, 33rd degree Mason, Grand Commander, and author of Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, in his Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World on July 14, 1889, reportedly stated that "Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God. ... Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil". *
I just had to add this in because it made me laugh:
The first of the Old Charges, “Concerning God and Religion” begins: “A Mason is obliged, by his tenure, to obey the moral law; and, if he rightly understands the art, will never be a stupid atheist***.” That all petitioners for the degrees express a belief in Deity is a fundamental requirement.
Geesh, a stupid atheist.
In Freemasonry, Lucifer and Satan are the same:
“The Adversary or Satan is no other than Lucifer, the lightbearer, the bright Morning Star: He is the Initiator, awakening the divine faculties of intellect in man. He is the king of the 'Fallen Angels,' spirits from higher spheres, who descended among primitive mankind of the Third Race, '...to develop in man, and endow him with his self-concious mind, or manas.'"
- N. Sri RAM, Theosophist Magazine September 1960-April 1961
Theosophy was founded by Madame Helena Blavatsky, also a Freemasonry who wrote:
"Stand in awe of him, and sin not, speak his name with trembling ... It is Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god ..."
or it is he who was the "Harbinger of Light," bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of automaton (Adam) created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was first to whisper, "In the day yea eat there of, ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil" -- can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An "adversary" to Jehovah ... he still remains in esoteric truth the ever loving "Messenger"... who conferred on us spiritual instead of physical immortality ...
Satan, or Lucifer, represents the active ... "Centrifugal Energy of the Universe" in a cosmic sense ... Fitly is he ... and his adherents ... consigned to the "sea of fire," because it is the Sun ... the fount of life in our system, where they are petrified ... and churned up to re-arrange them for another life; that Sun which, as the origin of the active principle of our Earth, is at once the Home and the Source of the Mundane Satan ...
- The Secret Doctrine, Volume I, page 414, Vol II, pgs. 234, 235, 243, 245
Ok, Ok, hang on a minute. This "Albert Pike," how can he be knowing all these secrets of a secret society? If it's truly a secret society, how can anyone outside of it know the secrets? Logical, huh?
Albert Pike was a 33rd degree Mason so of course he'd know the secrets. The outside don't know exactly what goes on in their lodges of the high ranking Freemasons. Back when the Illuminati was started back in 1776, NO ONE was allowed to know a thing about the society. It did come out by a very peculiar incident. One of the members was riding a bicycle when lightening struck him and the papers outlining the plans for a one world government was discovered which pissed off the Bavarian authorities. The Illuminati was forced to flee to other parts of Europe, Scotland being one of them. They infiltrated Freemasonry and some become members of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.
As I discussed earlier, Alice Bailey, the founder of New Age, wrote the book, "Externalization of the Hierarchy." It means that Freemasonic secrets would be revealed to the public in increments. They have their symbols everywhere and the media promotes their philosophies. The purpose is to slowly get the public to accept their doctrines like getting idea and accepting the New World Order, which will have a one world government. They want people to abandon Christianity by releasing films like Zeitgeist which spouts lies about mythological figures falsely paralleling to Jesus. Many lost their faith because of this film. In the NWO, Christianity will be annihilated. Zeitgeist also promotes Theosophical beliefs for example Christ consciousness. New Agers will resort to the New Testament and say Jesus was teaching us Christ consciousness when they say we know the mind of Christ and that we are actually part of God, you know "Jesus lives in us". This is a misinterpretation of scriptures.
It truly is working because many people are adopting these ideas. Therefore a New World Order will be easier to accept.
I just did, if you were a mason you'd know exactly what I'm saying. Plus I don't talk about being in the order of St. Paul, outside of the lodge. Plus I left most of that crap behind, when I stopped following the crowd....
Did it ever occure to anyone that this Albert Pike is full of crap?
Well guess what? I'm not a Freemason! So how the heck would I know what you mean? What secrets are you hiding in your lodge?
Stuff you would never understand... I gave up the masonic thing though... Now I'm just nobody...
Try me. I've done a lot of research into Freemasonry. If it is rubbish then you won't be afraid to divulge the secrets. What did you give up Freemasonry?
You are not a nobody. You are SOMEBODY who did the right thing abandoning Freemasonry. Since when does a secret society dictate your worth? Power in this world is not a good sign. It means Satan has something to do with it.
Let me give you an example. Aleister Crowley, who was dripping with accolades in Freemasonry, died a crack addict. Near his death he said, "What good have I achieved in this life?" acknowledging his "nobodiness".
You are somebody.
They build social relationships and lubricate palms. Their lower than the military, higher than the president. Really, I'm not supposed to tell... If I told you.., you know the rest.
I've heard Masons have hairy palms. Lol. Yes, they are higher than the president but cannot be lower than the military. I've heard that a Mason will have his throat slit if he divulges any secrets. I suppose I don't want to be responsible for that!!
Claire, just what is your objective here?
You asked me questions and I gave the answers.
It seemed to me that Claire was trying to create fear and frenzy in us, i.e., that Freemasonry was working to take over this world for the Devil.
I would hope that we can have a much brighter outlook. Am I misreading Claire's intentions? In her answers, down through the threads, she has been so long-winded very often, that it's difficult to sort out what, in simplicity, she(or he)is driving at - apart from just stoking the fires of argument. Maybe I am to cynical.
Some of what you write here is true, but most isn't.
You assert that Madame Blavatsky wrote these words: "Stand in awe of him, and sin not, speak his name with trembling ... It is Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god ..."
Well, she _wrote_ them, in the sense that she transcribed them, but she didn't _author_ them. If she were alive today, she would have copy-pasted them, much as you (likely) did here.
I don't need to tell you that copy-pasting something is not the same as affirming it as your own creed.
She quoted these words from "The Perfect Way, or the Finding of Christ," by Anna Kingsford.
I own "The Perfect Way" as an ebook, in mobi, epub, and pdf formats. I can send them to you, if you wish. The quoted passage is on page 360.
Blavatsky makes the fact of her quotation quite clear on page 924 of "The Secret Doctrine," which I also possess (in pdf format). I can also make it available to you, if you wish.
You also misrepresent Albert Pike, but that is a much larger subject.
Thanks for clearly that up for me. Interesting. I appreciate it.
However, she is not merely quoting, she is actually agreeing with the writer immensely therefore making it quite clear what her beliefs are. This is what she wrote:
"The true esoteric view about “Satan,” the opinion held on this subject by the whole philosophic antiquity, is admirably brought out in an appendix, entitled “The Secret of Satan,” to the second edition of Dr. A. Kingsford’s “Perfect Way.” No better and clearer indication of the truth could be offered to the intelligent reader, and it is therefore quoted here at some length: —"
Tell me how I have misrepresented him? I'd like to know.
I purchased "Morals and Dogma" and plowed through all of it, about twelve years ago. I did this not for pleasure, but for purposes of either confirming or debunking. Pike didn't believe about Satan what is frequently maintained; in fact, he believed just the opposite, as is obvious when his words are read in context.
I'm living in South Korea now, without access to any of my physical books, but I can probably obtain "Morals and Dogma" in ebook form. When I do, I will provide the specifics of my counterclaim.
Most of what is alleged concerning Pike today comes a result of the Taxil Hoax. I'm sure that you know of the Taxil Hoax, so I won't reiterate it here.
As for Blavatsky agreeing with Kingsford, I have two points. First, that -- even in context -- I don't think that it is clear that Kingsford is agreeing.
I can interpret Blavatsky's words as meaning, "The true view -- concerning Satan -- of ancient, esoteric philosophers is admirably presented by Dr. A. Kingsford in her book, 'The Perfect Way.' I quote extensively from this work here in order for the intelligent reader to make his or her own decision."
Describing something as the "true _view_ isn't the same as describing it as "the _truth_."
Second, even if Blavatsky wholeheartedly endorsed the viewpoint (seemingly) expressed by Kingsford, why is her belief persuasive?
Note my use of the parenthetical above. I used the word "seemingly" because it isn't clear that Kingsford had much respect for Satan at all..
From the same appendix from which Blavatsky's quote appears, Kingsford wrote:
"Evil is the result of Limitation, and Satan is the Lord
of Limit. He is the Father of Lies, because Matter is the cause
It isn't even clear that she is claiming these words as hers; most of the several appendixes purport to be fragments of ancient texts.
In fact, it isn't clear whether Kingsford considered Satan to be a metaphorical figure, or a literal one.
Anyway, sorry for the digressions, but those are my thoughts on the matter.
I've got the e-book.
Thanks for your very interesting comments. The quote regarding Albert Pike's writings on Lucifer that is in dispute is:
"That which we must say to the world is that we worship a god, but it is the god that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: The masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the higher degrees, maintained in the Purity of the Luciferian doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him?
Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods; darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive....
Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy, and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil."
I'll give you this one because it doesn't cite what books this comes from thus it may very well be a hoax. However, Albert Pike did make it clear that Lucifer is the god of Freemasonry:
The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not! for traditions are full of Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired.
In Freemasonry, Lucifer, or Satan, is never depicted in a "Satanic" way like Aleister Crowley does. Lucifer is packaged as a god who imparts knowledge to the adept and liberates mankind from the evil God of the Bible. He is their emancipator.
What exactly does that paragraph of “Morals and Dogma” mean?
Doc Marquis was raised a child in the international occultic group know as the Illuminati and was involved in some of the most unspeakable acts known to mankind as aresult of his generational involvement and membership.
He explains what that passage means.
The Apocalypse is identified first by Pike as being the Book of Revelation written by the Apostle John. Pike then states that similar books from other religions are just as 'inspired' as Revelation, mentioning Plato, Philo, the Sephar Yezirah, and the Sohar. Pike says all three of these books -- Apocalypse [Revelation], the Sephar Yezirah, and the Sohar, are all identically "inspired." And since the last two books are of non-Christian faiths, Albert Pike is saying that the contents of Revelation are no big deal.
Therefore, it is no big deal that the Book of Revelation denigrates the "pomp and works" of Satan, since the God of that book is known to hate Satan.
Pike then says that these three books "are the completest embodiment of Occultism." [Ibid.] Now, we understand that Pike views the God of the Apocalypse as being the opposite but equal to Satan just as typical Occultists believe and teach!
Secondly, Doc Marquis provides the esoteric, occultic, explanation. Pike is also saying in this sentence that, in the previous 18 degrees, Masons believed that God was the Light-bearer, but now, in this 19th Degree, Pike is giving them new revelation. This insight completely squares with stated Masonic policy of deliberately misleading Masons in the lower degrees until they were really ready for the "truth." This is the truth -- Masonry worships Lucifer.
Concrete evidence is then given by Pike of Freemason's worship of Satan/Lucifer on the very front of the cover of Morals and Dogma. Pike writes a Latin phrase just below the round seal of "God," this is a phrase proven to be Satanic.
Any "Satanic brother" looking at this phrase would know that the contents of this book are Satanic. They would also understand that the entire religion of Freemasonry is Satanic.
"DEUS MEUMQUE JUS" is this phrase. The literal meaning is "God and My Right"
Doc Marquis says this statement is a typical one within Satanism. There is one meaning within another with this statement. The first meaning is that the Freemason can depend upon their God to determine their Right and Justice. The second meaning is, since the God of Freemasonry is Lucifer, Masons are saying that they are "using occult methods," through Lucifer, to achieve their Rights and Justice. This phrase is very powerful and dangerous within Saanism says Marquis. A Satanist knows the content within Pike's book is Satanism just by reading, "DEUS MEUMQUE JUS." They don't even have to read the book, just the phrase to know.
As much as I despise Satan, he is brilliantly cunning. He manages to deceive so many people.
You could interpret that until you read .” [b]No better and clearer indication of the truth could be offered to the intelligent reader[b], and it is therefore quoted here at some length: —
She is not saying that this is the true esoteric view but the truth itself.
What do you mean when her belief is persuasive?
Well, evil people can admire deceit and cunning. Even if they despise Satan, they can still acknowledge him as Lord.
In fact, it isn't clear whether Kingsford considered Satan to be a metaphorical figure, or a literal one.
What does he mean he says we must not sin against Satan and that he is the only God?
No problem. I love your comments.
Claire, my apologies for being slow to respond.
I have houseguests who should head home tomorrow, so I should soon be able to give this dialogue the attention that it deserves.
Now that I know that I can view these comments chronologically -- how I missed that, I don't know -- responding will be MUCH easier.
Thank you for preemptively discarding this one, as it is fairly authoritatively debunked here:
I feel sincerely sorry for Abel Clarin de La Rive.
Thank you, also, for supplying more of the next contentious excerpt than most do:
Let's look at that first sentence:
"The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer."
In this passage, the Book of Revelation is metaphorically described as despising "all the pomps and works of Lucifer." Yet this book is exalted by the initiates of the nineteenth degree as "the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone."
So the Book of Revelation -- exalted by the initiates of the nineteenth degree -- denigrates Satan? Is this supposed to support an allegation of Satanism? I contend that it does the opposite.
Let's look at the next block of sentences:
"LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!"
Lucifer means "light-bearer," which describes the planet Venus as seen at dawn, as does "Son of the Morning." That metaphor is developed in the Old Testament, here:
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" -- Isaiah 14:12
Pike uses this metaphor to describe Satan as blinding "feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls."
Pike is echoing what Paul tells us at 2 Corinthians 11:14, when he warns us of being blinded by false apostles and deceitful workers: "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
Were Isaiah and Paul Satanists, then?
Now lets's look at the final block of text:
"For traditions are full of Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired."
Here, Pike favorably compares the works of Plato and Philo to the Book of Revelation. Shortly thereafter, he enlarges this favorable comparison to include the Sefer Yetzirah and the Zohar.
Based on these favorable comparisons, you write this:
Suppose that I considered William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, Geoffrey Chaucer, Dante Alighieri, and Miguel de Cervantes as all equally inspired. Because the last two were non-English authors, would it make sense for me to conclude that the works of Shakespeare were no big deal?
You then write:
The Book of Revelation is an esoteric work. The Sefer Yetzirah is an esoteric work. The Zohar is an esoteric work. Esoteric works are those with subtly graduated levels of meaning.
"Esoteric" and "occult" are synonyms.
In other words, when Pike writes, "The Sephar Yezirah, the Sohar, and the Apocalypse are the completest embodiments of Occultism," he means only that these three works -- being esoteric -- won't be understood by everybody.
This isn't inconsistent with the Book of Revelation:
"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." -- Revelation 13:18
As far as "Doc" Marquis is concerned, I don't know anything about him that I haven't read here:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_%22 … Criticisms
I have no reason to believe the claims of "Doc" Marquis.
I stand by what I originally said about Blavatsky.
I quote the troublesome paragraph again for easy reference:
"The true esoteric view about "Satan," the opinion held on this subject by the whole philosophic antiquity, is admirably brought out in an appendix, entitled "The Secret of Satan," to the second edition of Dr. A. Kingsford's "Perfect Way." No better and clearer indication of the truth could be offered to the intelligent reader, and it is therefore quoted here at some length:"
1. Blavatsky believes that the opinion held by ancient, esoteric philosophers -- their opinion concerning Satan -- is accurately described by Dr. A. Kingsford.
2. Blavatsky believes that her confidence in the accuracy of Kingsford's description will be obvious to the intelligent reader, after reading evidentiary excerpts from Kingsford's work, which Blavatsky provides "at some length."
Why should I find her testimony trustworthy? She claimed that the entirely of The Secret Doctrine was an annotated translation of the Secret Book of Dzyan. No evidence of the existence of the Secret Book of Dzyan has ever been presented. Why should I believe her?
Sorry, bu I'm not sure what this question refers to. I again apologize for my tardy reply. Lately, life has overwhelmed me, so I haven't responded to anything that required more than a brief time at the keyboard.
Finally, let's clarify the scope of my response. I am refuting only the claims that Pike or Blavatsky have in any way been proven Satanists. I am not addressing the question of Satan's existence.
Let me explain this. In the lower degrees, those below the nineteenth, they are told absolute poppycock; that the God of Freemasonry is the “Christian God”. In fact, Albert Pike writes about this.
Quote from Albert Pike: “The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols is displayed there to the initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretation. It is not intended that he shall understand them, but it is intended that he shall imagine that he understands them…Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry (32nd and 33rd masons).”
When they reach the nineteenth degree, they are taught that God is actually Lucifer.
Why are you using the name Satan and Lucifer interchangeably? Are you conceding they are one and the same? Of course the morning star is metaphoric for Satan because of his “brilliant light” but Pike makes it very clear that Lucifer is Satan because he describes him as the “Spirit of Darkness” which Satan is known as. He is the depth of evil masquerading as good. Pike knows this but still worships him. Go figure.
Lol, Isaiah and Paul were not attempting to deceive. Albert Pike knows that low level masons are deceived until they reach the nineteenth degree. He is by no means warning anyone against Lucifer!
What do other Masons say about Lucifer?
"The day has come when Fellow Craftsman must know and apply their knowledge. The lost key to their grade is the mastery of emotion , which places the energy of the universe at their disposal. Man can only expect to be entrusted with great power by proving his ability to use it constructively and selflessly. When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands, and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy. He must follow in the footsteps of his forefather,Tubal-Cain, who with the mighty strength of the war god hammered his sword into a plowshare." [Manly P. Hall, 33rd Degree, K.T., The Lost Keys of Freemasonry
The give away here is the word “Craft” which is the old term for witch craft which is Satanism.
Who is Tubal-Cain?
"He is the Vulcan of the pagans." [William P. Peterson, Editor, Masonic Quiz Book: "Ask Me Brother", Chicago, Illinois, Charles T. Power Company, 1950, p. 18, 88, 131, 213; also found in John Yarker, The Arcane Schools: A Review of their Origin and Antiquity: With a General History of Freemasonry and Its Relation to the Theosophic Scientific and Philosophic Mysteries, Belfast, Ireland, William Tait, 1909, p. 30; also found in A. R. Chambers, Editor, Questions and Answers, 1972, p. 237; also found in Malcom Duncan, Duncan's Ritual of Freemasonry, New York, David McKay Company, Inc., n.d. 3rd Edition, p. 94.]
Vulcan was a sun deity who was associated with fire, thunderbolts and light. The festival in honor of him was called the Vulcania in which human sacrifices were offered." [Percival George Woodcock, Short Dictionary of Mythology, New York, Philosophical Library, p. 152]. "According to Diel, he bears a family relationship to theChristian devil." [J.E. Cirlot, translated by Jack Sage, A Dictionary of Symbols , New York, Dorset Press, 1991, p. 362]. "It is fascinating to know that he married Venus, another name for Lucifer or the devil ." [Woodcock, op. cit., p. 150-151; Emphasis added]
There is also a sexual connotation associated with Vulcan and Tubal Cain. Former Mason, Bill Schnoebelen, explains:
"For Masons who wish to conceal their membership from non-Masons, but still advertise it to their Lodge brothers, there is a special pin (or tie tack) they can wear. It looks like an upside down golf club with two balls near the top....Many people assume the person is a golfing enthusiast, but it is actually a visual Masonic pun.
"This is called the 'Two Ball Cane,' and is a pun on the secret password of a Master Mason, 'Tubalcain (sic).'...It is also an all-too-obvious pun on the 'god' of Masonry, the male reproductive organ. Nice, eh?...especially when many men wear these wretched things to church on Sunday!"
I think he’s trying to say that many people, like Plato, have claimed to have been “inspired” and the religious texts like Revelations is no better. Revelations shouldn’t have any credibility as it is just another piece of “inspired” works.
That is correct. I would rather use the term “divine revelation” because normally occultists use hidden knowledge to promote themselves. John of Patmos certainly didn’t.
You have no reason to believe any lying Freemason says.
That’s what I am saying! She is agreeing with Kingsford’s view about Satan whom he says is the god of this world and we should not sin against him. Sinning is doing wrong to a divine entity like a god.
Actually, this work was channelled to her through her “teacher” called Kuthumi, an ascended master.
Stand in awe of him, and sin not, speak his name with trembling ... It is Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god ...
When they reach the nineteenth degree, they are taught to exalt the Book of Revelation, a book which denigrates Satan.
I use the name Satan and Lucifer interchangeably because both names refer to the same being.
You next provide an extensive quotation about conquering emotion -- poetically described as the "seething energies of Lucifer" -- in the manner of Tubal-Cain, who "hammered his sword into a plowshare." Tubal-Cain was an artificer; a craftsman. He was a Masonic forefather, working in bronze and iron instead of brick and stone.
We know little about Tubal-Cain that isn't unsubstantiated speculation.
Except that Pike actually reveres these works, as I think is clear when you read the surrounding text.
John of Patmos certainly did use hidden knowledge, though I suspect that it was to protect himself rather than to promote himself.
Concerning "Doc" Marquis, you write, "You have no reason to believe [what] any lying Freemason says." I think you are being sarcastic here, and I am going to respond from that perception.
[If my perception is wrong, please correct me.]
I don't doubt Marquis' claims because of any connections that he might have to freemasonry, but because he provides no evidence.
Actually, re-reading my own (above) statement, it is true whether you were being sarcastic or sincere.
Except that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Blavatsky agreed with Kingsford's description of the views of ancient, esoteric philosophers, not that Blavatsky or Kingsford agreed with those views.
Right, which makes the claimed provenance of the Secret Book of Dzyan less credible, not more. From my experience, people who claim channeling or secret books are usually lunatics or charlatans.
I think that we are standing on opposite sides of an epistemological chasm, and I really don't know if there is any bridge.
Still, thank you for a civil and intelligent exchange.
Does this mean that Tubal Cain was possessed by the energy of the war god Vulcan?
There isn't much to say about Tubal-Cain; he was a character from the origin story of a people in transition from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age.
As commonly happens, his story was embellished over time. Think Robin Hood and King Arthur.
Vulcan was a blacksmith, as was Tubal-Cain, so it isn't surprising that the later embellishers of the fictional narrative conflated their two tales.
Claire try these:
Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Luke 17: 20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you.
Galatians 2:2 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.....
1 Corinthians 2:16 For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 15: 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 27 For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
We've got God in everything, his kingdom in us, his mind aka Christ conciousness, and all will be in all. Looks pretty New Age to me.
You've misinterpreted this scriptures. This is what Theosophy teaches but you believe.
"Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
How does this allude us being God?
"Luke 17: 20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."
There is a more accurate translation from Greek:
"Many modern archaeological discoveries have validated the historical accuracy
of the Bible and have helped Bible scholars understand the meaning of certain ancient words ..... In Koine Greek, the expression entos humon (literally, 'inside of you') often meant 'within reach'. Thus Jesus' statement is Luke 17:21 could mean 'The kingdom is within reach.'" (Philip W Comfort, p 273 The Origin of the Bible).
John the Baptist and our Lord Jesus started off their ministries with the words, "The kingdom of heaven is near"
(Matthew 3:1,17). We also know that our Saviour made a number of statements such as: Matthew 10:23: "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes."
Matthew 16:28: "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will nottaste
death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Such statements as these make it clear that the kingdom was intimately associated with the second coming of Christ. They also show that the kingdom and the second coming were possible imminent events; they were "within reach"; they could come about within the lifetime of that generation (see Matthew 24:34).
"Galatians 2:2 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me....."
It means he has died in sin with Jesus in a metaphoric way and now has the grace from Jesus not of His own merit...
"For to believe in Christ crucified, is not only to believe that he was crucified, but also to believe that I am crucified with him. And this is to know Christ crucified. Hence we learn what is the nature of grace. God's grace cannot stand with man's merit. Grace is no grace unless it is freely given every way. The more simply the believer relies on Christ for every thing, the more devotedly does he walk before Him in all his ordinances and commandments. Christ lives and reigns in him, and he lives here on earth by faith in the Son of God, which works by love, causes obedience, and changes into his holy image. Thus he neither abuses the grace of God, nor makes it in vain.
"Christ in us" is the gift of the Holy Spirit to allow Him to guide us in our lives by faith. It by no means we are Christ.
"1 Corinthians 2:16 For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."
The word “mind” is the seat of consciousness, the faculty of perception and judgment. To pronounce false what God reveals to the believer is to pronounce false the “mind of Christ,” Christ’s perception and judgment. The believer has the mind of Christ because he has the Bible, the revelation of God’s mind.
PRINCIPLE: The believer has the capacity to make judgments about the Bible because he is in tune with the Word of God.
APPLICATION: The believer has the capacity of understanding inspired books of the Bible because the Holy Spirit illumines his mind to do so. The Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. The believer must first understand truth before he applies truth to experience. He has the ability to apply truth to his experience because he has the “mind of Christ.” He does not flop around in his convictions but stands firm on what he believes.
It does not mean WE possess the mind of Christ, in other words have a Christ consciousness. It means God has revealed His nature through Jesus that the Bible tells us about.
"1 Corinthians 15: 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 27 For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."
28 means that God in the end will reign supreme over all not that we are Him. He does not reign over us all on this earth. Many do not worship Him now.
1 Corinthians 15:28
And when all things shall be subdued unto him
For all things as yet are not put under him in fact; though in right God the Father has given to him an authoritative power over all things, and a right to dispose of them at his pleasure; but all things are not actually and in their full extent subject to him, yet they will be when the last enemy is destroyed: and
then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all
things under him;
It's all about interpretation. If we all little Christs now it would not explain why the world is in such a mess.
New Age is a Religious movement, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Occult in anyway shape or form. Some of the religions established under the new age practice magic, which has to do with the occult, but the movement itself has nothing to do with it. Checking facts time and again is always a good thing.
Assuming to know the mind of most New Agers is simply ludicrous. There is no reason for you to feel persecuted. As I know many New Agers myself and know that many of them are nothing like what your claiming here, I can safely say that if any harbour that kind of ill-will towards Christianity, either I haven't met them, or they were provoked into it.
As to the youtube videos that you showed, they do not, never have, and never will reflect the ideals and beliefs of all New Agers. To hold them all responsible for such things would be like the rest of the US Nation to hold all Christians responsible for the ill-informed, malice laced, mal-contented work of the Westboro Baptist Church. Most of us (if not all of us) tend to know that they are a secular group of hate mongers.
If the founder of New Age was an occultist then sorry for me mistaking that New Age pertains to the occult. So you can make up your own branch of New Age if you like but it doesn’t change the facts.
Many New Agers are just plain deceived. They like the idea of everyone coming together as one, religion reconciling with one another and evil coming to an end. That is what they really think New Age is all about. However, it’s a cover for something terrible. So yes, deceived New Agers don’t have a problem with Christianity.
Of course not all New Agers. Just the important ones.
Actually I'm sorry, as ALL Religion pertains to the Occult. The Occult encompasses all belief in the supernatural and paranormal, which includes Gods. Of course I know as soon as I post this it will be rejected as Christians hate to think of themselves in that way. I have come to accept that however as many refuse to study anything but the bible and when they do, it lasts about 30 seconds for them to get just the information they need to support what they want to support and that's it. To date there is no one single founder of the "New Age Movement". It was an idea that gained popularity amongst a wide variety of people. It wasn't even a movement at that time, it was an astrological event that will happen regardless of what people think about it. The New Age Movement is a bunch of people who latched on to an idea of things getting better and continued on from there.
I don't think New Agers are deceived, I think anyone who doesn't use the brain that they were given is deceived. Most of them, if not all of them, do like the idea of a reconciliation of religions in the world. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Or are you a fanatic that believe your religion would be polluted just by knowing someone who is not strictly of your beliefs? Saying it's a cover is as bad as those who believe the Bible is actually the work of Satan. It's a bunch of bs that people choose to buy into because they either need a cause or have a huge lapse in their life that these things tend to fill. All you have managed to do so far is propagate hate against something you actually know nothing about.
Ah yes, there are only a select number of people in the world who are important. No other lives matter but theirs. Sounds like a one-sided bs argument to try and give credence to your argument. That's like saying it doesn't matter what the masses believe, it only matters what those who lead them tend to believe (which in most cases when it comes to religion is unfortunately true and most people don't wish to learn anything on their own). I could hold that against everyone who goes to church instead of being the pastor or preacher or bishop or what have you. I don't however, seem that you will though of course.
That is nonsense.
The word occult comes from the Latin word occultus (clandestine, hidden, secret), referring to "knowledge of the hidden"
Occultism is the term used to describe the study of occult practices including (but not limited to) magic, alchemy, extra-sensory perception, astrology, spiritualism, and divination. Interpretation of occultism and its concepts can be found in the belief structures of religions such as Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Wicca, Satanism, Thelema, and Neopaganism. A broad definition is offered by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke:
OCCULTISM has its basis in a religious way of thinking, the roots of which stretch back into antiquity and which may be described as the Western esoteric tradition. Its principal ingredients have been identified as Gnosticism, the Hermetic treatises on alchemy and magic, Neo-Platonism, and the Kabbalah, all originating in the eastern Mediterranean area during the first few centuries AD.
What in the Christian religion has secret knowledge?
An astrological event? I don't care whether you call it New Age or New Age Movement, it still is based upon the following aspects:
Astrology, Channeling, Hinduism, Gnostic traditions, Spiritualism, Taoism, Theosophy, Wicca and other Neo-pagan traditions, etc.
Theosophy...Alice Bailey who is recognized to have coined the term "New Age" was a student of Theosophy founder, Helena Blavatsky, Freemason and Satanist.
Of course Satan is going to package it up nicely and say, "But it's for the good of humanity! Let's be one and let's be loving!" Is he going to tell you that the end goal is to enslave? Why should I be forced to participate in a one world religion worshipping Lucifer and if I do not I'll die?
Whenever one questions the credibility of a religion or belief, one needs to go back to the roots not how subsequent followers interpret it to be. New Age has always been about Christ Consciousness and doing away with all those who won't participate in the New Age. Those whose beliefs digress from that are falling for the "packaged" version. What I mean by "important people", it refers to those who really know what is going on. Ironically, however, they aren't important enough to realize they are being deceived themselves.
Congratulations on being able to look up what someone else wrote. The problem with wikipedia, though the definition is very close to being correct, is that anyone can go in and write and edit pages as they please. Hence why it's not necessarily a trusted source of content. For the trusted source, you need to study and understand the source. Something you don't want to do because everyone not Christian to you, is a Satanist.
Everything about the Christian Religion is secret knowledge. People do not want to understand anything beyond the end of their nose and Christendom is the only Religion to ever cater directly to that fact. It's easy, it's simple, and the simple minded easily buy into it. The problem comes in when people challenge things with proof, of which Christendom has none. Point in fact, the Church Historian Eusebius in his book Ecclesiastical History states "the Gospels of the New Testament were really the old dramatic books of Essenes, from pre-Christian days." Not taking the time to learn about your Religion beyond the Bible, is quite frankly willful ignorance.
Madame Blavatsky coined the term New Age. She was the first to use it. You've inspired me to re-read all her works though so that I can reaffirm that she does not call herself a freemason or satanist. I know the Church at that time called her a Satanist. She was a free-thinking woman after all and the Malleus Malificarum says that all free-thinking people are Satanists. A view the Church loved having when oppressing others into trying to do their bidding.
Your term "important people" are the ones who actually know what is going on. Your in the realm of Philosophy. All you have is people who have written things in a highly opinionated form and are considered to have done this or that. That's not evidence in any form. Thats a series of opinions. As for questioning the credibility of Religion, all you have to do is find out where it started, who it started with, and what their views and opinions were on the subject. Unfortunately for most religions that's not possible. We have a bunch of allegory from which those who aren't philosophers, have a hard time gathering anything and take it all as fact.
Quote where I said that everyone who is not a Christian is a Satanist.
In Christianity, there is personal proof of Jesus' Christ being the son of God. You don't study it like in the occult and it is not meant to be kept for the adept. I don't have "secret knowledge" because I studied the occult. You are describing Gnostic Christianity whereby those people think that Jesus came to teach us how to become a Christ which clearly He did not. Is there any evidence that Jesus taught people secret knowledge? Or did He not preach the Kingdom of God openly. If you think Jesus was an occultist, then I can't stop you. You can think what you wish. You also assume I haven't heard the claims that the Gospels were from the Essenes.
It seemed as if Blavatsky and Bailey used the term according to their own variation. This is the info I got:
New Age grew out of the treatment revolutions of Emanuel Swedenborg, whose spiritualism became popular in the 1850s. Swedenborg claimed to communicate with spirits, and to travel through the spirit world. However, the language of New Age itself was more fully developed through the Theosophical Society, founded in 1875 by Madame Blavatsky. Much of this was borrowed from Eastern traditions, in particular Hinduism and Buddhism, but also Kabbalah. The Theosophical Society was founded to study spiritual phenomenon. From the techniques of Mesmer, Swedenbourg, G.I. Gurdjieff, and the more experiential teachings of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the New Age developed its practices.
More recently, Aleister Crowley and Alice Bailey developed their own theories and practices, influencing subsequent generations of spiritual seekers. Alice Bailey, in fact, coined the term New Age in the sense we tend to use it, in her book Discipleship in the New Age, written in the 1950's.
Read more at Suite101: New Age Definitions: Describing New Age as a term, a practice and a contemporary spirituality | Suite101.com http://tristram-burden.suite101.com/new … z1p4uzI2qS
You clearly did not read all of Blavatsky's work. This is what she wrote in - The Secret Doctrine, Volume I, page 414, Vol II, pgs. 234, 235, 243, 245
"Stand in awe of him, and sin not, speak his name with trembling ... It is Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god ...
When the Church, therefore, curses Satan, it curses the cosmic reflection of God ...
In this case it is but natural ... to view Satan, the Serpent of Genesis as the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind."
And so it seems just logical to deduce she is a Satanist. If I said Jesus is the son of God people are going to assume I'm Christian. Theosophy did merge with Freemasonry.
"Masonry and Theosophy come together at a point in the formation and work of Le Droit Humain, the French obediance of Co-freemasonry which began in France in the 1880′s. The early prominent members of the Theosophy movement: Annie Besant, George Arundale, Charles W. Leadbeater, C. Jinarajadasa and Henry Steele Olcott soon became prominent members of Co-Freemasonry."
http://www.freemasoninformation.com/201 … eemasonry/
Do you not study the occult based on people's opinion? What do your studies entail? People's opinion of the occult cannot possibly be secret knowledge if it is not based on evidence.
Your right in the fact that you have referred to everyone not Christian as a Satanist. You've been merely implying that if someone doesn't fit your idea of a Christian that they are more than likely a Satanist. At least that's the way it's been coming across to me.
Personal Proof is not factual proof. For your info, Jesus did teach "secret knowledge." He point in fact quite frequently referred to people as being Gods and people being able to perform feats of magic. I find it quite funny personally that Jesus taught these things, is quoted as saying these things, and yet it's the only part of the Bible that people seem not to take literally.
You clearly are quoting directly from a website and have not read the works yourself. Blavatsky quite frequently referred to Science as Satan. All of these mini quotes in fact are points in which she is saying that Science is basically the wave of the future and that it will be the great Satan that people fear. Again this requires actually reading the works and not assuming what you read on some website is accurate.
Yes, the Theosophy foundation and Masonry worked together, as they worked towards a common goal, it only made since that they would come together at some point. Assuming that one became initiated into the other though is nothing more than assumption. Masons have never been that picky about who they work with, but they are extremely picky about those that they bring into their society. Blavatsky was not a member of the Masonic Order.
I study the Occult with a mind of my own. I check what is/can be proven as fact and draw my own opinions and conclusions. The same as any one that has a brain should do.
You are being blatantly dishonest. Have I implied Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc, as being Satanists?
Where did Jesus claim we are Gods? People performed miracles through the Holy Spirit. I told you the difference between miracles and magic.
It has been brought to my attention that the quote I posted was a transcription of the appendix, entitled “The Secret of Satan,” to the second edition of Dr. A. Kingsford’s “Perfect Way.”
She quoted Kingford’s quote. But did she agree with him?
She wrote in “The Secret Doctrine: Volume 2, page 234
The true esoteric view about “Satan,” the opinion held on this subject by the whole philosophic antiquity, is admirably brought out in an appendix, entitled “The Secret of Satan,” to the second edition of Dr. A. Kingsford’s “Perfect Way.” [b]No better and clearer indication of the truth could be offered to the intelligent reader[b], and it is therefore quoted here at some length: —
She is claiming that what Kingston says is the truth and he wrote:
Stand in awe of him, and sin not, speak his name with trembling ... It is Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god ...
Why should science be assigned a gender? Why “he”? Why should we not sin to science? Is science the god of our planet?
You are just proving that you haven’t read this book.
The point is that they worked towards a common goal. Interesting that.
Many times over you have implied Jews and Muslims are Christians with a different name even though they stand aside on purpose. You have also implied that anyone who has not accepted Christ has accepted Satan, which would include Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and pretty much anyone else you haven't lumped into Christianity.
No, you told me your opinion of the difference between magic and miracles. Now your just saying that they were possessed by a spirit which made them do such things. So which is it, they did it, or a spirit possessed them and did it? Your not being clear on this. As for what Jesus said, You can find it in John 10:34 where you find the following:
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Again you show a true lack of knowledge and study. You claim to follow the Gospels, but yet you skip over the very teachings there in. Kinda a sad really when you think about it.
Once again you are showing that you haven't read the works yourself, your just using someone elses interpretations of them. Much like God and Jesus, Science was created by a man. It stands to reason then that it would be likened unto a man. Some do believe that science is the God of our planet. Just ask Ancient Astronaut Theorists, I'm sure they can tell you all about how Aliens created and shaped our planet through the use of science. Even the Church condemned science as Satan or Satans work. Something that still resounds even today amongst the fundamentalists of religion. Since you refuse to read Blavatskys work for yourself and will only take someone elses interpretation from the web, perhaps it's better if you just give up the notion of knowing what your talking about. You obviously won't read the material and are going continue working off what others imply in order to discredit. Common practice but it generally only works on the gullible.
It is quite interesting. I also find it quite interesting that I know quite a bit about the Freemasons, their work, how they came about, and their inner circles, yet you only pretend to know based on the assumptions of someone else. Eventually you have to pull your head out of the clouds and use that brain you were given. Otherwise it's going to continue to rot with misinformation that's been perpetrated for centuries.
I have never implied Jews and Muslims are Christians. What are you talking about? How can they be when they don't believe Jesus is the son of God? Let's clarify your misunderstanding. It is true that it pleases Satan when people do not accept Jesus as the son of God. It doesn't mean the deceived person is a Satanist. When I do wrong I please Satan yet that doesn't make me a Satanist.
Yes, the Holy Spirit possessed them. They did not conjure up spirits through magic spells.
It's pretty sad when people don't know the context to verses. Did you know that Jesus was quoting from Psalm 82?
I said, "You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High.
Nevertheless you will die like men
And fall like any one of the princes."
What does this mean? Well, judges were referred to as gods. See Exodus 22:8,9 and Judges 5:8. That reads, "When they chose new gods, war came to the city gates..."
So by being called "a god", it meant that the judges had a divine commission by God and performed special duties only allocated to them.
Jesus was pointing out their hypocrisy saying in other words, "Your scriptures clearly indicate that people can be called gods because they have special work allocated to them by God, yet when I call myself the Son of God you accuse me of blasphemy! Doesn't Psalm 86 say the judges are sons of the Most High??"
Aren't you calling Blavatsky's supposed view that Satan is merely Science mere conjecture? You still did not explain to me why science is a "he" and why we should not sin against him?" Anyway, Satan means “adversary”. How is science an adversary?
And I suppose you didn’t know she wrote her works through a spirit called Kuthumi whom she referred to as her “Teacher”. She was a mere channeler and did not come up with the material herself.
She does seem to refer to Satan metaphorically often. She doesn’t believe that Satan is how he really is. She thinks he is benevolent. She had a magazine called, “Lucifer” issued from 1887 and 1909. It changed to the “Theosophical Review”.
Is Satan and Lucifer the same?
“The Adversary or Satan is no other than Lucifer, the lightbearer, the bright Morning Star: He is the Initiator, awakening the divine faculties of intellect in man. He is the king of the 'Fallen Angels,' spirits from higher spheres, who descended among primitive mankind of the Third Race, '...to develop in man, and endow him with his self-concious mind, or manas.'"
- N. Sri RAM, Theosophist Magazine September 1960-April 1961
Have no doubt, she knows damn well that Satan is a real spirit. She just paints him in a good light. It is very possible she really believed it because Satan is the Lord of Deceivers.
Are you a Freemason? You know Freemasons are deceived people, right?
New International Version (©1984)
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
Jesus is claiming to be the Bright Morning Star...How can Satan be labeled as the same? Curious...
Hey DS, scuse me for adding my 2cents worth, but just wanted to add that Satan was/is known as the prince of light...
Jesus is the bright and morning star.He is known as many things ..just sayin
Lily of the valley, Yeshua, son of God, son of man, friend,deliverer, redeemer,
Is that a signature? or just a word thought there..
The planet Venus is the morning star .
The most apt name for Jesus - fairy.
In all honesty if I typed what I thought would be apt for your name, I would no doubt be banned-suffice to say I am sure my silence will speak volumes!
Some people can go mad if it turns out that their fairies are, fairies!
I believe you can get help for that condition. I have Mondays free ,give my receptionist a call
Your receptionist name is Jesus too? I can give you an appointment with our hospital psychiatrist!
Book me up for some surgery by way of your feign surgeon, while ya at it...
Heres the thing -I dont always agree with your opinions (damn boring life would be ,if we all did huh)
But your sense of humour makes my day
P.S How did I go from needing a head shrink to receiving shock therapy?
Is there an imposter abound? In fact, I never said anything to you, but yet you replied to me with some "IMAO" baloney.
Head? Really? I'll take some...
Imposter? no , misunderstanding perhaps.
I posted lmao as a response to your answer to jomine ,I thought it funny and appropriate.
I opologise if I was outta line, or simply made a mistake.
Delete the other part. Once again made sense to me (at the time),but not directed at or to you
jomines got me booked in for all kinds of mental health appointments,hence my 'beam me up scotty'
Humour is still my best survival tool and guess what I thank God for it
Anyway ..Peace Insane Mundane, I come in peace.
I bet I know more about medical science than you, just saying...
Nah, shes a receptionist, her main concern this week is whether to go with french or acrylic nails, do not concern yourself with her name.
Hospital psyche? only if he owns that red Corvette
Beam me up Scotty!
...Which is something that you have had, one too many times?
Oh, hell... Scotty, beam me up, as well!
jomine ,may I ask where you are from? as your solutions to dealing with people who dont share your opinions seems a little on the archiac side?
Lucifer is known as the Price of light...Because that is what Lucifer means...Light bringer...
Satan means adversary...
In the first Chapter of St. John...Jesus is also refered to as the Light of the world/ Light of man. This would imply he would also be considered the "prince of light" as well. As only God can be King/Ruler of all.
All the rest is just "titles" we like to attach to certain persona to better our understanding of their underling decriptions of what they mean to us.
Ok, good definations. Thank-you.
It would be so good to have Jesus over for dinner,and one of the things Id ask Him, would be "So whats ya take on the forum on that Hubpages website"..lol
Lucifer, in it's literal translation is Morning/Day Star. And as DS said, he is known as the prince of light and the highest of all Arch-Angels.
The only time the name Lucifer appears anywhere in the bible is Isaiah 14:12. Everything else surrounding this name is pure Dogma.
Jesus, outside of being the Son of Man, as was David, Jesus is considered to be the Son of God. The rest is still nothing more than Dogma.
Christian Dogma is things carried over by the Catholic Church that they stated were facts when the illiterate had no choice but to take their word for it.
The name Yeshua by the way, is a female name. The name Iusa is also a female name. From Iusa comes the name Yeshua.
Ok ,I didnt know that Yeshua was derived from a female name, all I knew was that it was Jewish.
Names are interesting I think.
Dogma, yep that surrounds many topics ,especially popular ones it seems.
Mine (not Eaglekiwi) means 'A song" yet I cant sing in tune and derived of Latin and Spanish origin, yet I was born in New Zealand beside the Pacific.
Yes, it's curious, isn't it? Well, Satan is the counterfeit "morning star" who comes as an angel of light but is actually the Prince of Darkness.
Often the same thing is denotated to both Jesus and Satan. Jesus in Revelations refers Himself to the Lion of the tribe of Judah and Satan is compared to a lion in 1 Peter 5:8, seeking who he can devour.
And why do you think this is?
Also, Both were sent to walk among men. Both are to get a time for "rule" Both have claim to reaching God through them...Lucifer was the Angel who guarded the path to God and no-one could pass unless he allowed it...And Jesus claimed that the only way to the Father was through him...
I have often wondered at these comparisions...
I'm just wondering where in the Bible it says Lucifer walked among men sent by God and other things you mentioned. This is completely new to me.
It doesn't Claire. The only time the name Lucifer ever appears in the Bible is in Isaiah 14:12. It's no where else in there, and it doesn't exist in the apocrypha either. I haven't checked the Epistles yet, but I'm pretty sure it won't be in there either. What people claim to know about Lucifer is pure, unadulterated, dogma.
He was named Lucifer while he had angel status but after the demotion ,thrown out of heaven and down to earth ,was that not when his name changed to Satan?
As DS pointed out in an earlier post Lucifer/Satan is all known as
Adversary...and scripture definately speaks of ..beware of your 'Adversary...
Logically you do not have to look far or deep to see Satans weapons of choice.
Satan is mentioned several times in the Bible. Lucifer is only mentioned once however. The bible also does not speak on a war in heaven of which Lucifer is cast out. This is Dogma. I don't know why everyone is insistent on overlooking that, but it's true.
Just a point you might find of interest...
The word "Lucifer" is only found in the KJV and KJV variant bibles, The Darby, Webster and Douay-Rhiems...
The rest use the term "Morning star, Day star, Star of the morning"
And as a point of reference...The English and American Standard Version Bibles are word for word translations from the original Hebrew and Greek documents and they use the term "Day Star and Star of the Morning" respectively.
Satan walking the Earth:
How you have fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them.
7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.”
Lucifer's Job: Ezekiel 28:13-16
13 You were in Eden,the garden of God;every precious stone adorned you:ruby, topaz and emerald,chrysolite, onyx and jasper,sapphire,turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountingsd were made of gold;on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,for so I ordained you.You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence,and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.
We are not alone...
Sorry, just came across this post from hub search.
This is one of the core bricks in my argument that equation and sensation come from the same rootstock --are in essence identical, at their root. Granted, a massive helix ages old, very tough to decipher the many intervals throughout history, but nonetheless twins --if not the very same thing by various intertwining applications, defined as humanism.
The only thing I will dispute, historically, is Hindi being the oldest documentation.
This is a really old argument.
Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. Prove to me that the Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Prove to me that Santa doesn't exist.
You can't - proving something does NOT exist is looking at it the wrong way around.
There is a possibility that none of this exists. The mind is creating this reality every moment and the moment is creating the mind. All of this is God and God is all things. Even Quantum physicists say the same thing, we are absolutely everything we can possibly observe. Creation is happening all of the time and the moment is a creation, if only a creation of the mind. Buddhism and Hinduism have very much the same philosophy as the truth of quantum field physics.
This is my point exactly, it is an old argument but yet it appears as though Christians can't prove that God does exist, and Atheists can't prove that God does not exist. On this particular forum I am interested in hearing from the Atheist or whoever that claim that God does not exist. If this is true, where is the proof? What makes them so sure that God does not exist.
I think you're missing my point. Can you explain to me why the Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?
All an atheist can say is, "there is an absence of evidence that God exists". It's up to you to provide me with evidence to the contrary. A lot of people believing isn't evidence - a lot of children believe in Santa.
The problem is, the existence of God isn't something that can be shown to another person. As we currently stand, it is a completely personal experience.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the following is true: I have seen and spoken with God.
Now, assuming that to be true, I still can do nothing to prove that He does exist. All I would be able to do is share my experience. It would work 100% for me, but not for you.
So, even though I have 100% proof for myself that He exists, the 'burden' of proof is still impossible.
This simple fact causes too many problems. Everyone talks about proof that can't exist, or can't be used as proof. If we just accept it as personal, then who cares who believes and who doesn't believe?
First, I agree with your "proving" God one person to another analogy.
But on a couple other notes not all directed to you:
Well Jesus Christ does. And so do I.
He won't force anyone to believe, but He came to save, and loves everyone..
Just because the Bible says Hell is real and people go there people "just can't believe" it's true or that the Bible is real, which also means to them it's not true.
That(the Bible) IS the MAIN SOURCE of evidence outside of the fact that materials which don't live and breathe follow orders better than we do.
PROOF, is there...
But then again so is denial, because of lack of understanding.
People in Hell are there because THEY CHOSE IT. If God didn't save them, it was because they REFUSED to accept His help [Jesus Christ].
They are defiant and cause curruption, that God would love to fix... But God is all powerful and all love.
He won't force you to accept Heaven if you don't want it.
Then there are the people saying 'what about if you never heard of Jesus?'
Don't you think God knows they never heard? Don't you think if He is good and loving He would let them know or make a way?
Of course He would.
People don't want God, because that's not fun here with a bunch of rules...
Why not follow the cool bad kid in school and do what you want and have fun?
God isn't here after all right? I don't see Him do you?
It's easy not to fear something if you convince yourself it isn't there..
Birdy head in the sand.
But we shouldn't have to fear Hell. If we love God and do what is just and right and seek and serve Him Hell can't touch you.
Hell wasn't made for people. And God is never wrong.
And God IS there and THERE IS proof EVERYWHERE.
I don't need to show anyone proof, because everyone I tried to show proof to denied it.
Not because it's not proof, but because they are in a mental state of denial.
What about God letting all this bad happen?
Ever heard of time? Ever heard of balance? God has set things in motion and things must be done a certain way to be resolved correctly..
The earth wasn't cursed until we allowed evil into it.
Evil IS the curse. Watch a evil movie and then tell me you want your life like that. Full of everything in the horrer movie.
We say God does bad, but He doesn't and never has.
Evil is the problem and now days we don't even consider evil bad.. Horrer movies are good..
The word 'bad' means good now..
Lies are "normal" and spoken on record daily by presidents and overlooked like no big deal.
PEOPLE are the problem, NOT God.
But then, who expects the liar not to pass the blame right?
No one likes being told they aren't good enough.
But they dig their own grave.. And then jump in head first screaming 'God's fault' the whole way down....
But He loves the people.. Just not the things they do.
People love their children, but I bet they would tell the cops where their son was hiding if he killed their daughter.
Do they not love their son?
Of course they do. They DON'T love the evil he did.
It's not necessarily 100% proof that you saw him. Have you ever been wrong before? Thought you saw something but it turned out to not be true? Of course, we all have.
Those that have supposedly abducted by aliens and a believer are pretty much in the same boat. But I will admit there are a few differences.
Throughout history it's never been law that you had to believe in aliens. There was never an inquisition that if you didn't believe in them you were tortured and/or killed. And by most accounts it hasn't been allegedly going on for a few thousand years in the mainstream.
Do you believe in aliens? Of course not, if you are, you'd be labeled a "nut." Just like you would have been around the time of the inception of Christianity. It takes a few thousand years to breed fear, death, and tradition long enough to make people actually believe it.
Just because it's chosen as the norm to believe in something, doesn't make it true. I'm not quoting scripture in a book, I'm using common sense. People's tendency is to lie and use other people for personal gain, especially if you have the power to do it on the large scale. This has been proven time and time again. This isn't any different......common sense.
I think it's just the Christians getting touchy because they know their religion is in danger from logical thinking.
No, logical thinkers are a danger only to themselves.
If it wasn't for logical thinkers, you would still be a Neanderthal cavemen hunting Mammoths.
Sorry to slap-suzie, but that is nonsensical.
There is no true evidence of humanities activities, intellect or living habits prior to 6800 "b.c.". And secondly, if the theorem evolution is correct, then intellect increasing would happen either way -man would have absolutely no control over its occurrence.
Just because someone designed a measuring scale called 'carbon dating' does not mean it is the actual measure of 'time' from which theorem evolution come and application scientific called 'proof' come.
It's sickening how both sides of theos -equation and sensation- are so stiff, ritualized, indoctrinated into their own thinking, methodology, experimentation and conclusions. But, even though sickening, certainly explains volumes regarding its failure...
Recall "Danger unto themselves..." liken unto weapon of mass destruction and nuclear warheads.
Yeah...theocratic thinking has done so much for us...flat Earth, Earth being the center of the Universe...I see your point...
Billions of persons over the course of time weren't convinced those things existed. Very poor reasoning there.
This is not 'proof', mind you; but the following experiment made me think. Put one tooth under the pillow, with a note to the tooth fairy to leave it and let God get it. I tried it. I found the results to be very, very troubling for the God argument.
I think that if God wanted your tooth that you put under the pillow, he would have taken it.
Just thought of a ridiculous rhyme...
An I for an I
A tooth for a tooth,
A U for a U
Atheists don't believe a God exists...Due to lack of evidence of the existance of one.
The burden of proof doesn't work that way. The believers have to show evidence for their claims. Doubters and unbelievers do not hold any burden of proof and need not show any evidence.
Show me proof that Unicorns DO NOT exist.
Show me evidence that Zeus DOES NOT exist.
Show me evidence that aliens in flying saucers DO NOT exist.
Show me evidence that Genies DO NOT exist.
See what I mean? Those questions are invalid because the burden of proof doesn't work that way. One does not need evidence in order to take up the default SKEPTICAL position.
Maybe the point is that since there is no way to actually prove God does not exist the possibility remains that He might. Often this point is over looked.
So, are unicorns, Zeus, aliens in flying saucers and Genies.
Often this point is over looked.
I'm an atheist, and I don't claim that God doesn't exist. I don't believe that he exists, simply for the reason that I have discovered no reason to believe that he does.
Those that believe in their god claim that God does exist, show me the proof that backs up this claim.
Before you start, please compare this question to the opening one - and no dodging around, trying to look intelligent now!!!
the next time you go out, drop by the pediatricl care unit in a hospital and see how many innocent kids are dying horribly. if you still think there is a loving god out there, i feel really sorry for you.
perfect? surely you jest. kids dying from disease, starvation, child killers etc. earthquakes, tornados, huricanes, volcanoes etc. if there was a loving god, i'm thinking that at least natural disasters wouldn't exist. unless this god isn't as good as they say he is, that might explain a lot. i wouldn't want perfect bud, but wow, this isn't even a close 100th
Like your hollywood horrer movies are helping.. putting wonderful notions in people's minds to dream about killing each other.
It's called evil, and it exists. Indirect clues aren't hard to obtain if you have more brains than a termite.
Physics explains laws which work perfecrly. Water always turns to ice, and evaporates at the right temp.. It does PERFECTLY what God made it to do.
Only the living creations have imperfections introduced by evil, long ago, the thing which you deny.
God is good, don't worry..
Time doesn't stop because some people accepted evil in their hearts and cursed everything.
Another example is the flood, as far as nature being harsh.
Before the flood, the earth wasn't so horrible with natural disasters.
You can't know everything unless you were there when it happened. Or unless the person who WAS tells you.
God gave you a record of history, everyone denies it. Now God isn't good?
If God wanted people to suffer, He wouldn't wait. We wouldn't have ANYTHING good left.. nothing.. nada..
You all make me wonder if you research anything before you come to your conclusions.
I don't think people understand the 'seed' of man became corrupted (way back in that garden).
Simple version..Good apple -good seed
Temptation-Choice made -Sin
Good apple-bad seed
The apple is still the same ,but the seed has become corrupted/tainted.Sin has entered into the DNA if you like.
Now what comes with this bad seed (Sin)
(Born with sin) and the wages (debt)) of sin is death.
Until God sent His son,to redeem, pay that debt.
Hell is prison.
God is the Judge.
You can't pay God back for all evil you've done breaking His perfect law.
He says you won't come out until you have paid every penny.. but you can't pay the first penny.
Only Jesus can pay the debt to save your soul.
"Agree with thine adversary quickly..."
While you are still alive.. before you have to face the Judge.
It just agrevates me how if they would look and search for the truth it would slap them in the face like a brick in a hurricane...
But they just want to 'deny' it and they don't know 5% of the story.
How can you conclude on understanding your destiny after death if you don't have a tenth of the details???
And if they only knew how much He loves them.. goodness......
Hey dude-talking about delusion and illusion.Believing in God is also so.When you were born into the world -you never knew if God exist-has you grew up just like the movie illusion and delusion- your parents or folks at school indoctrinated you to believe he exist!
So it was not an independent finding-it was a social-educational belief implanted. Think of growing without the knowledge of God-and see what would happen.
Going back to the existence of God ,bla bla-have you read the old testament and the new testament. Do you think the God in the old testament was the one in the new testament. If so why the contradiction of been represented as a vengeful, wrathful, dictator in the old testament while in the new testament it was more of God of grace, love sending his only son to die for the globe?
If you think logically considering the differences in the old and new testament- you might get hurt doing so. What i take out of the whole thing is - a compulsory indoctrination from childhood fostered by many pentecostal churches preaching different sorts of doctrines and indoctrinating people in the process.
Anyway i live you to your belief.
If "God" is Spirit, and Spirit is infinite, i.e., without form, unmeasurable, then it is not "de-fined."
You can only give solid, physical proof if what you are proving is finite.
Therefore, you cannot "prove" that "God" exists or doesn't exist.
Next question, please.
An infinite object is a contradiction, for it fills the whole universe with no space, then what gives shape to it? With no space how does we move?
Then god is a concept, and we all know concepts does not exist!
(If "God" is Spirit, and Spirit is infinite)
Infinite simply means uncountable - a being cannot be infinite. You might say he is omniscient or omnipotent, but infinite, no.
It also would help to know what a spirit is. Is it a real object or is it an imaginary conception of some kind of essence?
The discussion about god has nothing to do with proof. It has to do with rationality and reason. Whether someone wants to believe that reasoning is irrelevant.
Atheists don't make any claims, we reject YOUR claims because YOU can't prove them. YOU have the burden of proof, not us because of the claims YOU make. If you give us a description your god and its characteristics, we may be able to prove that THAT god does not exist (i.e. a god that knows the "beginning and end" of everything but allows for free will...those 2 things can't go together) but just the idea of a god in general, is just to vague.
You're asking for a negative to be proven in asking for us to disprove god. That's like asking for you to prove that smurfs don't exist. Smurfs at least have a universal description. I'd put my money on them existing before god(s).
I don't have ANY burden.
Your destiny and fate is YOUR burden.. not mine.
I'm telling you the truth because God told me to tell you.
He didn't say it was my responsibility to MAKE you look for Him.
It's YOUR job to search for the facts of truth.
Though, I've made it quite easy for tons of people, they just deny it because they want to.
The answers are there. But I don't have to do anything but tell those who don't know about Jesus His story and that He came to save and God is real.
It's up to YOU to choose. Everyone is responsible for themselves.
The ones who are trying so hard to PROVE it to you are TRYING to help people who aren't trying to help themselves...
Because they love people. Because they know God. And God is love, and commanded we love God first, and love our neighbor as ourselves.
They don't have to do jack. YOU look, or find out after death on your own.
They are being kind fighting against you to attempt to help you..
"I'm telling you the truth because God told me to tell you.
He didn't say it was my responsibility to MAKE you look for Him."
Wow. Thanks for that. That clears up so much...wait...nope...it just makes me facepalm.
Well you seriously think that because I spent my time and found something out searching from a nuetral perspective for truth I'm now suppose to fight you to help you?
I don't know the poster of the thread but anyone trying to show you God either
1- wants to help you
2- just wants to be right
Now, I know God is real, and do give people my knowledge on the subject.
But I have no burden to prove it to you. The poster might, but that is by his own choice.
People don't get 2 details before spilling flying spaghetti all over their imagination and getting childish on me.
Clarity comes from knowledge and correct application of it.
My POINT was the fact that you don't understand doesn't obligate me to fight against you for you to know.
You and I will both die, same scenario. And if I try to give you information and you stop me at 3% into it, how are you suppose to correctly conclude me wrong?
That is called personal agenda.. personal bias..
Oh, I see, you are being kind by fighting others and God told you to do so.
Please seek professional help, dude.
I do it here because I think you're ridiculous, and I already know you'll never believe. [read some other posts and you'd know that I'm aware of that already]
And, hoping someone will notice your stubborn ill-will to disregard clues that show you what you, with your head in the ground, deny.
Didn't notice "they" and not "I" I guess either did ya?
And free will CAN exist within laws.
More research on systems might clear your muddy water.
People know the outcome of a choice when they choose it.
Like why do people break laws? Because they WRONGLY determine they won't get caught.
They can do TONS of things within the law.. Good things.. Happy things..
Things that require free will...
Your computer doesn't have free will, nor the capacity for it. But YOU do..
Destroying things isn't part of free will, and that is pretty much what God doesn't allow is things of such nature.
You mean you don't choose the channel you watch on tv?
Please people.. this is getting annoying.
This doesn't address what I said about free will at all. You have no understanding of simple concepts it seems. THAT's getting annoying.
simple concepts combined create complex concepts.
seems that is what you lack in understanding.
I've been on this 'free will' trip before and your theory is completely illogical...
Not doing the long explaination AGAIN with yet another person.
It is nothing more than having to break it down to pure single elements, then explain the connections to show the logic flaws..
That is what is annoying. You aren't the first to take it and run.....
Let me know when God says you can't choose Heaven or Hell.
No constraint friend. Your in a designed system that supports life, if you break the system, it must be fixed in order to continue to operate. Unless you allow it to destroy itself in it's entirety taking all good with the broken bad.
You have a choice to go where you wish, eat what you want, follow the law, break the law.
Consequence is NOT constraint which is the requirement to remove one's free will by secular definition.
Therefore your consequence is the result of your choice within your free will.
People who are held at gunpoint and told to do something against their own wishes is an example of lack of free will.
You are not under such constraint.
If your definition of free will is to kill and steal and take everything you want without consequence then your mistaken and confusing free will with chaos.
You have a whole lot of thoughts, but not much logic to bind them together. You see what you believe, not what is true. You don't even seek to find what is true, but instead believe that you know the truth in its entirety. You don't make any sense, you just toss a few good ideas in with some poor logic, add religion, and stir till chunky and unreadable. I can accept your beliefs, but please don't add to the discussions here. You add nothing but a frankly dumb impression to these comments, and that, I believe, is why most people are arguing against you. I apologize for coming across as rude, but I can't think of a kinder way to phrase it at this time.
That is fine if you'd like to be rude.
I disagree with you, obviously, and you added nothing to correct anything or prove anything illogical. Other than smart mouth me, which doesn't look so well on your part. So I'll stand on the objective points stated.
And, I will also post where I so please, thank you for opinion on what you would like me to do, but I believe it is quite illogical you think you have power to command me anything. Because you certainly do not.
So, I'll pass on whatever it is you want me to do, and will post.
You may do the same.
An observation not a conclusion.
Atheism refers to a disbelief in the existence of dieties, deities are regarded as supernatural beings that cannot be completely understood. Theists believe in the existence of at least one supernatural being. (or at least a set of beliefs 'metaphysical' that can govern ones existence)
Theists say prove the supernatural isn't true, Atheists can't.
Atheists say prove the supernatural (most often Bible God) to be true Theists can't
Both sides rely on extrapolation. The strength of either side's extrapolation depends on the parameters set by themselves.
The theist says the universe is too complex to have 'just happened' the atheist says most things can be empirically proven and then employ extrapolation as their 'faith in their hypotheses asserting a 'God' isn't necessary, just the rules of science.
Where does that leave the argument for science/Atheism? They don't have to believe in God, the metaphysical, FSM, ID or anything other than empirical proof and a huge dose of extrapolation, in other words hypotheses, is/ought or 'faith'
Both arguments, deep down for both sides, is a personal experience ( a matter of faith or a reliance on an 'a priori' argument) neither side has a post hoc argument that can't be challenged, because the argument presented is based on their 'own' parameters, not that of the opposing arguments parameters.
Neither Theism or Atheism can assert ownership of the truth, that being said, atheism cannot disprove theism, however this doesn't prove God exists it also doesn't prove God doesn't.
I believe in ID and the possibility that the IDer/s may possibly be supernatural, but can't prove or disprove my assumption because I am bound by human limitations.
Because of my limitations, I cannot know the supernatural (the workings of which cannot be known by the human mind)
Where does all this leave me? I believe we were created, prove I wasn't.
Conclusion then is we don't understand it all, therefore where ever it came from was of a higher intelligence then us.
It is an indicator that something must be really intelligent in order for something we can't understand with all of humanity's effort combined to exist right?
Nothing we get comes about without effort on our part, and in parrallel, why then does science conclude the opposite in the existence of intelligent design of the universe? Since when did that make sense?
Technology is intelligence, and the more advanced it is the more effort it took to design and create by us.
So then how does a universe so complex we can't even figure it out completely come about without effort? That conclusion certainly didn't come from an understanding of idea+work=existence.
Things only come into being when acted upon. Created, just like our technology. But the universe is MUCH more advanced than we are.
It makes just as much sense as placing yourself above all other creation, as if you are something special. If you are special, so is the universe at large, in this sense, it's all unique and beautiful. A beautiful chaos...
If you think the universe is chaos, I believe I'll let my point stand.
Anyone reading this with any KNOWLEDGE of the universe knows that is absurd.
Thank you for futher verification of the logic.
The static model no longer exists, for we know now that it is not fixed like clockwork, hence asteroids and comets or what have you.
If and when mankind creates life from nothing (abiogenesis) or even as we get ever closer to cloning a mammoth or creating 'synthetic life' in one form or another, we can say it just happened right? because that's the argument I'm hearing from atheists relative to Bible God creation or Secularist ID.
God said "BANG" ... then it was ... and is still becoming.
They told me once they were "close to creating life from dead materials...'
I copied.. pasted.. and said:
Anyone want to ask me why this is hilarious???
THEN SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY ASKEDDD!
They run in circles to prove me wrong and then hand me my proof on a diamond infused silver platter...
Aint it rich?
And you are no different? You do the same, only it's from your angle and you believe you are right. What makes you any different then, than any other Tom, Dick or harry?
Would you mind keeping me out of your posts?
I see NOTHING relevant to the thread in a lot of your replies to me.
Might want to quit, as I'm tired of your accusations and ugly attitude, AND it's against hubpages policy...
So how about it?
Do you not see the intensity of the hate you refute? You're one of the bad examples of christian living, damning others of a different view. Shame on you... I hope only the best for you though, even though the feeling will not be reciprocated... Typical hatefulness of the evangelical, baptist, redneck, bumpkin. Sling damnation all you want, but you must first accept the criticism. Hurts, doesn't it?
If you leave now, it might mean you have to look for new employment. We could give you a recommendation from this Hub..... go on Stage as a comedian. You really are good entertainment.
Hello vector. I don't ridicule anyone, but I have read some really funny statements. I was once ask "what if I became alive from some part of a dead animal?" I knew from common sense that life can not possibly form from anything dead.
Oh, that would have been so clever of you...
... if the claim was that Jesus just happened to sprout back into life through chance.
Woow! I am going to recommend trouble man to coach our Olympic track team because "boy, can trouble man run!"
Goodness.. Your master is going to be pretty ticked when he finds you're spreading truth..
Vector7 quote " Conclusion then is we don't understand it all, therefore where ever it came from was of a higher intelligence then us."
I think this puts you in a position that is sad as your beliefs and world must be continually getting more constrained based on new understandings of the world by the scientific community.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it concerning this issue of God.
God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on.
Throughout history God has been utilized to explain the unknown, but it does not mean it is correct, the way, the light, or any other explanation, it just means humans have not figured it out yet, but that has not stopped people from breaking through thos barriers time and time again over the years reducing the belief in a higher intelligence having a a hand in something..
On to another point, that is your burden of proof though as a believer is the existence of a Jesus at all.
As someone that has had extensive exposure to the Bible and many other religious works, I find it troubling when the Bible is used as fact when there is so many agreed inaccuracies even between itself. An example would be to look at just the Gospels, not even including all of the gnostics and others written religious texts at the time that did not make the final human edited cut of the book. Try and refer to any other historians during the time of Jesus and there is none despite being one of the most well recorded periods of human history, no one else mentions Jesus despite covering similar types of people at the exact same time and location, he just isnt there. Our first historical reference of Jesus outside the bible comes from Justifus way after his death and the death of those that would have known him and most scholars agree the written text is a forgery for many reasons such as the words used and style of writing compared the the adjacent texts. Why was no one was writing about him, maybe it was all made up?
Everything is a forgery to the unbeliers, and everything has error to the blind.
What is it you're thinking anyhow? That you are coming at me with something new?
That you've discreditied the Bible in the World's eyes and therefore now no one will believe what you don't believe?
Jesus Christ is about the love of God, and those that believe on Him believe because they all noticed the same things in the Bible. Things that you don't see...
Just because 'you' don't see those things doesn't change anything.
The proof is IN the Words themselves, and if you can't see it then you aren't searching hard enough for God. I don't care what you say, I've heard every argument and they all boil down to 'there's no proof, there's no proof'...
Well all the people I call brother and sister disagree, and we aren't concerned with your worldy scientific proof.
I debate, yes.. but I'm not getting into that mess you posted because I've already done it with the 'famous' atheists who have come and left before you got here..
You're just repeating the same things they debated against me with over a year ago.
You haven't brought anything new to the table.
It wasn't made up either.. You people should give up with that 'discredit everyone' attempt...
It's getting kinda silly.
i'm a bit confused. i thought this forum was started by someone who believes asking for proof from atheists that god doesn't exist but as usual you get your rude little mouth in here and act like you're all high and mighty. you are one of the reason's so many people can't stand christians you ignorant little man. try shutting your mouth and actually caring about what everyone has to say instead of belittling people when they make you look stupid. bud, if i ever met you i would put you over my knee and spank you because you act like a spoiled rude kid.
We do not have to prove anything. The burden of proof is with the one making the claim, the theist. You made the claim of a god, all we did was reject your claim based on the evidence...none.
The Burden of Proof
In legal matters, as well as most other things in the real world, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. If someone accused you of murdering someone and you were charged with the crime of murder, during your trial it would be up to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the murder that you have been accused of. Indeed as it should be the "burden of proof" would be on the person or entity making the claim. It would not be up to you to prove you did not commit the murder, and this of course is how it should be.
Most things in life operate this way...except in the area known as religion. I get asked all the time to prove there is no God, and although I believe the evidence weighs heavily in my favor, I can't prove a negative. I also do not have to because the burden of proof in this lies with the one making the claim, the theist. Someone could not claim to be an atheist had there not been a theist first, so it stands to reason the theist made the claim and has the burden of proof in this matter.
If I were to make the claim that I have little green men living under my bed, and at night they come out and talk to me, most people would assume that the burden of proof lies with me to substantiate this claim. It would not be up to others to prove I do not have little green men hiding under my bed, because it would be impossible for them to do so, you can't prove a negative. I might say they only talk to me or that only I can see them making it impossible for anyone to prove that I am wrong. But since I am not able to prove my statement, most sane and rational people would discount my claim as the ramblings of a mad man.
Should we give any more credibility to someone making the claim for a God without first demanding they give proof to this claim?
I think this sums up what many atheists think----"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." — Marcus Aurelius
Can't have this sort of post here, too much good sound logic.
That's a good thought. And there is some validity to that according to my understanding. But there is something I feel is important to consider. This is something that I have taken into consideration in my own life.
Life for each and every one of us is a personal experience. While there are many outside influences that will affect your choices and beliefs, ultimately we each come into this world and leave this world alone.
According to Jesus in his parable in Luke 12, each person is held accountable according to how well they know and understand the 'law'. Those who knowingly break a law are held against higher standards than those who break the same laws but are unaware.
However, according to this ...
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
... if I understand it correctly, to God his creation, this universe, this planet, all life on it including us, is proof enough.
We, being members of western civilization in the 21st century, are probably in the top 10% as far as knowledge and understanding compared to the entirety of humanity. In this context that can be both good and bad. Bad because we're potentially more aware, thus more accountable.
In the case of atheism, it's been discussed here at great length that science alone cannot prove/disprove God's existence. So, whatever view you choose to accept is still a choice based on something beyond scientific understanding alone. Many I've spoken to seem to have settled on their atheistic views more from a standpoint of rebellion against, or disgust with, what they view was religious oppression of some sort. Not all, but many. Religious institutions are still man-made and are still ultimately no more than other outside influences just like anything else. Parents, churches, governments, they're all still ultimately what we make of them in forming our own personal understanding.
So, long story short, while I think there is some validity to that statement, I think there is still more to consider.
I have a problem with Rom 1:20. Paul was speaking from his own opinion, and to his mind the natural world was the obvious evidence for God as the alternatives were some of the "wacky" Roman/Greek ideas. But today the world has alternative explanations based on science, thus man cannot be held accountable for not believing by use of Paul's argument.
I can see your point. This was ultimately a letter from Paul grounded in his own point of view, but I don't feel it's any less relevant.
What can often be lost in the debate is the simple fact that those scientific explanations don't actually explain existence. They still leave gaps right where you'd expect them to be. It takes justification beyond what many are willing acknowledge to arrive at a Godless existence based solely on our scientific understanding. It's not the common sense kind of conclusion it's often made out to be.
Science has confirmed the universe had a beginning. Science confirms the appearance of life as a truly phenomenal occurrence whether we ever find a fully natural cause or not. Science confirms beyond what was ever even imagined just how delicate of a balance it all is, and just how easily it could have gone a totally different direction.
Depending on your point of view, our scientific understanding could (should) be viewed as overwhelming evidence FOR the existence of God. Just knowing there were natural laws in place even before the big bang. These laws alone took the matter that was basically injected into the space they governed and formed an entire universe of stars and planets and galaxies all on their own. Just because they were there. The slightest change in any of these laws as they are and the whole thing would unravel.
Laws are what scripture talks about as God's domain. He is the creator of laws. And we now know all it took were the laws we know exist, but don't know how they came about or what caused them to be there. We can actually see that these laws shaped the universe and all of existence as we know it.
The broader strokes tend to get lost in the dissidence, as most debates tend to be more about what's been established as true by man-made religious institutions. If we're going to be realistic, it is rather clear.
Proof and evidence are both completely in the mind of the viewer, as shown easily enough by verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial. A number of years ago, millions of people worldwide, along with the best paranormal investigators of the day, were positive that Uri Geller had real psychic power that allowed him to bend spoons - until a little-known professional magician, James Randi, showed the world how the spoon-bending trick was done, and Johnny Carson adopted Randi's suggestions and the world saw on t.v. that Geller could not perform his "magic" when under controlled, testable conditions.
Point being that the best argument the world has ever known will not change the mind of one who is convinced otherwise - so why bother?
Show me proof that a toaster that cures cancer by day and fights crime by night doesn't exist?
The reason people don't believe God is that there is no reason to .
People only believe things that they have any reason to believe. That's fundamental to our survival as a species...
Show me proof that inorganic matter was magically made to come alive! and turn into every living thing on earth.
People only believe things that they have any reason to believe. That's fundamental to our survival as a species...
Nobody needs to prove an alternative creation for yours to be not true. You've created a false dilemma , it's not one or the other.
The miller-urey experiment is reason to believe in the Primordial Soup Theory . Though you may need to understand what cells are and have a basic grounding in science to understand it.
If you think there's no reason to believe in either (despite the miller-urey experiment) then that's perfectly reasonable, there are many intelligent scientists who do so.
I am not convinced, and do not fully believe in God or the Primordial Soup theory. But since there is at least evidence and working logic , if someone were to ask me "which is the more likely origin of life" I would definitely choose the PCT...
That's the difference between the religious and the logical , religious say "THIS IS THIS" and the logical say "this is most likely to be that because..."
So I asked "Show me proof that inorganic matter was magically made to come alive! and turn into every living thing on earth"
and your reply is that "The miller-urey experiment" is reason to believe in 'the soup' and that there are many intelligent scientists who do believe it too.
So let me see if I have this straight. Mankind can make life from inorganic matter, no wait, they can't. um, mankind might be able to make life from non-organic matter and if they do (let's say in another 500 years or so) then in the universe that has no end and no beginning, somehow we humans were the first ones to create life ( a little anthropocentric but I digress) and in the future when little man made creatures are running around on another planet, in another solar system, because pan spermia somehow carried them through space to a planet where they evolve and eventually say Hey! we just happened to be here (on their planet far far away) because of the SOUP!, someone will come along and say Hey! what about the Philanthropy2012-ecoethicalvegan experiment OK so this is a little groundhog dayish, don't ya think?
Can you wrap your head around that analogy? coz in simpler terms, if mankind can create life, then (this is the fun part where you get to fill in the blank, but following is my take on it) so can other intelligent (dare I say 'designers') too, no?....I mean, are you saying that the only way we could have gotten here is by the primordial soup? if so, prove it.
Take your time, I'll wait
oh and btw, please steer clear of any false dilemma's, thanx, coz I'm watching
If we can't prove he does, they can't prove he doesn't exist.
I can't prove that there isn't a vengeful invisible rhinoceros who wants me to kill everyone on Earth, that lives on the moon.
Does that mean that you can't prove to me that he doesn't exist?
Does that also mean that I should listen to the rhinoceros?
God was created, I mean religion was created simply to explain what couldn't be explained at the time. the bible states the earth is 6,000 years old when in fact it is 4.5 billion. the bibles written from the word of god isn't it? well god's wrong evidently and how can an all knowing being or higher power be wrong?
Atheists claim no such thing. At least the rational ones don't. Atheism means a lack of belief in gods, not necessarily a belief in the lack of gods. There is a big difference. Any one or none of the 4000 gods man kind has made up may or may not exit. The probability is that none do.
Based on that there is no reason to believe a god exist until some one can show that one of them does.
As for why they lack belief in gods, it is because there is no evidence for gods.
That's why atheists tell Christians the onus is on them to prove that their god does exist, not on atheists to prove it doesn't.
Do you believe big foot exists? I don't. I don't believe big foot exists, and I don't believe that it doesn't. There is no reason to believe anything about it one way or the other. It is up to those who claim it does to prove that it does.. In the mean time I lack belief that it does exist.
Christians are so wrapped up in belief and believing that they seldom understand someone who doesn't need to believe anything about a subject and is willing to sit back and wait for evidence.
You see, once you have evidence you don't need belief.
In reality society is too wrapped up in thinking belief is something special. We are told to believe! It doesn't even just apply to religion. Belief in itself is valued. But in reality belief is useless. Either something is fact or it isn't.
No point in belief in a speculative idea and no point in belief of facts. So what is belief good for?
Not a damn thing..
I can't. Just can't.
Absolute Proof. No.
The Bible vs. "The Big Bang Theory"
The Big Bang Theory, HHAHAHAHA! Im serious, though. With such a HUGE thing to explain, the best name they could come up with is "THE BIG BANG! PUUULEEEAZE! A intellligent indivual voted YES to that? Couldn't come up with anything 'scientifc, professional, Earth creation sounding than a BIG BANG????
I vote The Bible/
You can't disprove something that hasn't been proven.
Personally, no one on this "green earth" has to prove to me that God does not exist.
The only thing that matters to me is the fact that I know He exists.
show me that he does.................
no one can prove anything..............
Atheists do not claim that god does not exist, they simply refute BELIEVERS claims that he does. The onus is on the believers to prove their claim is more than just wishful thinking. They are the ones claiming that something extraordinary is happening, Atheists are simply saying "ok, if it's true, show me"
interesting question, we are supposed to believe or not, so it depends on whose mind we are searching into...so no proof but an argument that can be used against the other side, prove that God exists...
it is an essential question, I think it is more about the form and the principles that the very existence of the entity.
When attempting to prove something, one must assert that something does exist, and then offer proof to back up the hypothesis. It is something unprovable, regardless, though.
Just out of interest sake, did you know "V" means the victory over the son of God?
That's the first time that I've encountered this claim. Where did you learn it?
Quotes from website:
In her highly regarded encyclopedia of symbols entitled Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, Dr. Cathy Burns explores the meaning of the "V" sign. She explains that the two fingers upward relate to the Masonic and Gnostic Law of Opposites, exactly as the case for the Masonic Lodge's black and white checkerboard floors.
This is the doctrine of bringing order out of chaos, of reconciling the two opposites, evil and good, with Satan reigning over both heaven and hell.2 The "V" sign is also a sign of the Horned God of witchcraft, often called Pan; or Baphomet, the androgynous (male and female) goat God (again illustrating the Law of Opposites)."
V means 5 which Adam Weishaupt used it in the Illuminati to symbolise the "Law of Fives, and V in Hebrew is Vau. Vau means a nail, which "fixes together".
http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthe … etters.htm
'The Nail' is one of the secret titles of Satan within the Brotherhood of Satanism. Satan is letting us know that this is one of his favourite signs. Why else does he like the PENTA-gram (Penta = five!) and the FIVE-fold salute used in Masonry and Witchcraft?''
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20 … e_sign.htm
Nigel A. Cornwall of Britain wrote, "The sign I believe has its origins as a symbol for a pagan horned God."
Cornwall also suggested that when the sign is given with the palm inside, it is recognized as a horribly vulgar and offensive gesture--signifying penetration of both body orifices.
Done in the typical fashion, this sign literally means intercourse by the devil--to be violated sexually by the horned God. The thumb holding down the fingers creates the "vulva," while the two largest fingers pointed up are the horns of the God (Satan).
The horrifying reality is that most symbols have a Satanic connotation.
I took a course at the University of Idaho called "Conspiracies and Secret Societies in History" that covered much of this stuff, and more. It was taught by Dr. Richard Spence, who also taught "The Occult: Its Presence and Influence in History," which I was not fortunate enough to take.
Dr. Spence wouldn't be drawn out as to whether he believed or disbelieved some of the conspiracies that he taught. "Conspiracies and Secret Societies" was a fascinating course, but Dr. Spence was inscrutable.
I finished the course not knowing what to think. I still don't. I am skeptical by nature, so I doubt most of the remarkable claims that you make, but I don't _know_ that they aren't true. The biggest stumbling block is _why_ I should believe them. That someone makes a claim doesn't make it true. This is problematic, especially when claims of these sort are supported by so little evidence. Worse, from my perspective, is that many of these claims require belief in the supernatural, which I have even _less_ reason to believe.
What is the cornerstone of your belief, Claire? What ties it all together? I ask this question with a combination of confusion and sincerity. You believe virtually everything that I don't, after having perused largely the same evidence. I wouldn't ask this if I didn't believe that you were intelligent. So why, Claire, why?
I always say remain neutral until hard evidence comes your way. Til then, keep an open mind which I think you do. The reason why we are interpreting the same evidence differently is because I know the supernatural and you do not. That changes absolutely everything once you realize Satan and God exist. I know Satan. He tries to make my life a misery everyday. It is the truth he exists. Once you know the nature of Satan it is very easy to see how the world would be fooled by him. Satan is the very antithesis of Jesus. He wants the whole world to serve Him where Jesus came to serve. The ideology of Satanism is the self. Nothing else matters but the self. Good is what is good for them and bad is not getting their way and everything they do can be justified to get what is good for them. The root of evil is the adoration of the self. Satanists, New Agers, etc, believe they will attain Christ consciousness in the New Age but all those who do not accept this must die. Here is the worship of the self again. I have a very close relationship with God who reveals His nature of love to me. Many Christians speak about this loving relationship but look at you funny when I say that both God and Satan feature in my life. If you love God, Satan will be there to try and drag you down and that is why it is imperative to know this creature.
When I read about conspiracies and the mind set of the Global Elite, what they say is very credible because it mirrors what Satan thinks. On the flip side, you also see how deceived they are because they don't think for one moment Satan is lying to them. In fact, they don't see Satan like Christians do and who he really is. They don't think he is working against mankind. He has come to bring them Christ consciousness! He has come to free us from evil Jehovah! They wouldn't believe it if they were told Satan has been defeated by the son of God.
And so it only by inspiration by the Holy Spirit that I can discern what is true and what is not. I can get the details wrong at times because I am human but I have the overall picture. I just pray to God for the truth when in doubt.
Have you ever considered the possibility that instead of knowing reality to a finer degree than most anyone else that you have instead mental health problems that lead you to erroneous conclusions about what is real?
I forgot to mean that Satan as the nail represents the nailing of Jesus to the cross.
Yes he does exist and everyone including atheist knows 'bout that truth.
I don't know if anyone has brought this up before but what is God? If you can define something then you should be able to find it, even if it is invisible. If God, Spirits, or ghosts are indeed something that exists at all you should still be able to find it by defining what it is and tracing the qualities of these definitions.... example, glass, wind, illumination, sound, microscopic particles and elements, frequency waves... all are invisible... even black holes are invisible, but what is the difference between these things and the spiritual/supernatural? They can be proven to exist in one way or another and are not debatable. People cannot argue out of existence that which exists. However, what is God? What is the Spiritual? They are actually undefinable, we cannot even calculate their existence mathematically. They have nothing that tells us they are things necessary to exist or have traces of existence other than they are the ideas we have come up with to explain what we are incapable of explaining individually for one reason or another. Science has explained many of the unexplainable to us and God or Spiritual things are not in that explanation.... so why do people still believe in these things? There are two reasons for the most part. One is ignorance, they have been taught generationally that these things are real and important and fear keeps them from learning the opposite. Two Desire, despite what they may have learned they want to believe even if everything says these things are not possible, they believe anyway. Fear and Desire are two elements that keep and define faith in the absurd.
If you cannot prove the existence of God even by defining God and all of science opposes (not willingly but by design) the existence and necessity of such a being and no evidence exists that can be truly connected to such a being then that is proof that such a being does not exist.
What you are missing here is that someone has to be able to prove it. If no one can, does that mean it doesn't exist. I think you are giving the human race too much credit because some things may never be able to be proven, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Prove to me that Odin, Thor and the other Norse gods do not exist, friend. Maybe then you'll understand the nature of your question... Because, if you're honest with yourself, there's just as much "proof" for them as yours... And the idea of having to prove they don't exist would seem ludicrous to you as you are not from pre-Christian Scandinavia ...
The believers never address this challenge, ATW. It's almost as if they feel indignant to be asked to prove other invisible mythical deities do not exist. But they feel okay asking others to prove their own particular god is not real. Hypocritical? Of course!
This is a ridiculous argument. The burden of proof is on people who believe that some all-powerful, invisible, magic, creature exists. Prove to me that invisible flying unicorns with magic powers don't exist.
Here's something to think about. Explain abused or terminally ill children to me. People claim their prayers for winning a football game, getting a new job, or winning a raffle are answered, yet somehow this benevolent being ignores these children. I don't have to look any farther than that. That is proof to me that there is no god. And don't tell me that "God works in mysterious ways" - that is a complete cop-out by people unwilling to accept the obvious.
I tend to agree. Though I see Hinduism and Buddhism to be the closest things to science than any other spiritualy thinking religious group. They had higher forms of thinking than most of us do now, even in the scientific community.
Asking to prove that unicorns exist or these magic creatures you mentioned is changing the subject and doesn't answer the question. Your statement about God ignoring terminally ill children, if he does exist could it be that he has reasons for doing things that we may not understand? Is that possible?
No it isn't.
You are asking people to prove the non-existence of something. I'm saying, it's impossible to prove the NON-existence of something.
Since you seem to disagree, I'm challenging you to demonstrate how it's done, by proving the non-existence of something yourself. I don't mind what it is. If you can't do it, then you've proved my point - and your original post is proven unanswerable.
@Marisa Wright you make a potent and vital point about the "argument to ignorance" fallacy. Bravo!
But you miss out on @zzron's question regarding God's reasons that we may not understand.
Are you being a bit arrogant to imply that you understand everything? I hope not. I hope instead that you merely misunderstood his question in your haste. Such omniscience is rare in this universe. I wish I had it.
When @zzron asked, is it possible? I would have to say, yes! There certainly is a possible reason that you or I have not thought of. But that takes humility to admit and to search out.
There were two issues in @zzron's post. Your "no" cannot cover both, unless you claim omniscience.
This is the question I have been answering:
"Atheists claim that God does not exist, show me the proof that backs up this claim"
Zzron then tried to duck my argument by changing his question and introducing "possibles". I'm still entitled to debate the original question.
No that is still incorrect. I am not claiming that something does not exist, if I were I would make sure I had the facts and the proof before making such a claim. I think you are missing my point. People who say God does not exist, I say to them, okay that is fine now prove it. They cannot prove it so why should I believe they are telling the truth.
I can't see how this is not changing the subject - they are both magical beings that no one can prove the existence of - only the name is different.
@Bill Yovino, the burden of proof is on you. God exists. He doesn't have to prove it. But let me tell you why.
The Real Reason Why We're Here
You and everyone else on this planet is a child of God and He is on a rescue mission. We have become trapped in physical reality -- the dark and cold of space-time-energy-matter. We (the sleeping immortal spirit, within) cannot see without the physical instrumentality of these Homo sapiens bodies. That's right. God's not interested in the Homo sapiens bodies we wear. Just as you wouldn't be too concerned about a wrecked car that your daughter was in during an automobile accident.
Demanding Proof of God is a Cop-Out and a Distraction
The trap is ego. Ego tries to make itself look like it is the real you. And that's the trap. Letting go of this treasured false self is perhaps the most difficult thing we will ever do. If God were to put on a flashy display of power (and there have been a few), those who don't believe frequently will continue with their ridicule and disbelief. The pharaoh did this to Moses despite his proof. The Pharisees and Sadducees did this to Jesus despite his proof.
Not only is such proof a distraction from the real mission, it's frequently counterproductive. That's why it is used so rarely. Ego loves such displays of power, though such a display doesn't often change anyone's mind. Stroking ego only makes the problem worse. Standing up before God and demanding proof is an insult because you are flashing ego in His face. I'm sure there are a few things that when flashed in your face you'd be enraged. Just think of those before you attempt another quip from the ego self.
Putting Suffering into Perspective
On the subject of suffering, miracles have happened. Perhaps you weren't there when they did. But other people do not receive such miracles. Again, God cares little for the Homo sapiens bodies we wear. No matter how many lifetimes we have, the body is still only a tool for learning the lessons of spiritual awakening.
Take the Challenge to Help Relieve Suffering
I tell you this, Bill. You too can perform the miracles to do something about the suffering around you. Are you man enough to take the challenge? Yes, you too can walk on water and heal the sick. And you can do it anonymously so that you don't feed ego.
In your subsequent posting, to @Marisa_Wright, you asked this question: "Are you being a bit arrogant to imply that you understand everything?"
I invite you to look in the mirror, when you write all this stuff from your own point of view as a christian.
When you speak of Ego, you obviously know a lot about that.
Here's the deal. There is no burden of proof . . . one way or the other. Remember what Jesus said, "My burden is easy and my yoke is light."
What could I do? I was a dead man walking. I was blind, but now I see . . . sort of. It is still cloudy from where I am standing.
love it just let people be and be happy, it is my motto now! I have had so many of this discussion which become just accepting or not to be brainwashed and belong or not to a group that makes people feel safe and so exclusive... be Love and Peace
Religious leaders talk of the "Mystery of faith". This is an attempt to avoid explaining the gaping holes in the logic. "Yes, it doesn't make any sense, but accept this crock of crap that we're selling". "Never mind the man behind the curtain".
Someone here wrote a hub about surviving a deadly tornado last year. She said that her family was spared because she prayed. I'm happy that they survived and fine she thinks that's what saved them, but to believe that, you have to believe that the hundreds of people who died (children included) A. Didn't pray, or B. Were unworthy of being saved. This happened in the bible belt, so I'm pretty sure at least some, if not all, of those who didn't make it were praying.
I'm not going to attempt to make you accept it. God will be there after you're dead.
And if God let people that believe die, they went to Heaven.
Only in YOUR view is dying horrible. Many Christians love God, but still find faith hard to obtain because of people like you making them question the obvious.
People that know God is there without doubt at all, like the disciples after Christ's resurrection ARE NOT afraid of death.
Being "saved" does not mean you don't leave earth even though your incorrect perception led you to think such, it only shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.
God can give people much better than what they have here on earth...
AND, they won't have to listen to your incorrect statements about things you're completely ignorant of.
God saves all who seek Him and ask for His help.
Only people who think they dictate above God have pride issues and go the other direction. Pride is what gets the little dog ate by the doberman.....
Don't worry about those who prayed. You should be doing more worrying about yourself after death. Eternity is proven, so why do you disappear?
Are you SURE you aren't going to find something you don't like?
It is eternity after all. You think your work day is long... wait until you die.
There are no holes in the logic. That is in your logic.
Blind people claiming the moon isn't there aren't going to convince the seeing that it isn't.
And the blind tell the seeing they have flawed logic because their sight isn't working?
Sorry, I see something, and you don't. You have catching up to do.
Besides, well over half the world sees what I see. I believe you need to re-evaluate.
I don't know why I respond to these questions. No amount of logic can separate a religious person from his delusions.
I agree and that's why I moved away from religion and started looking at science instead. I am still a philosopher though so I'm not permitted to be religious or otherwise, only that which I am "a thinker".
Wow, @mischeviousme. What a wimp-out. Can't we use both?
That was the original purpose of religion -- to allow us to think of ways to free us from the trap of ego and physical attachment.
Dead asleep immortal spirit cannot free itself from the trap. It's too complex. That's why these Homo sapiens bodies are so vital, but only as a tool to facilitate our escape. I'm sure you're aware of how little you can get done in your dreams. No balancing checkbooks. No studying for calculus finals. Dreams are too chaotic. That's why the continuity of Homo sapiens consciousness is so vital to the mission.
I'm not a religious person by any means, I'm just a thinking Christian who's interested in other peoples opinions and viewpoints. I wouldn't say I have any delusions that I know of but I do know that logic is overrated and illogical matters deserve research.
I agree, they certainly do. But my point is, it's not possible to create a research method that can disprove God's existence. One can only create a research method to try to prove God's existence, and fail. Having failed, one has disproved nothing - there is only an absence of proof.
THAT is sound logic.
I like that post. Very well said Ms. Wright.
Though, I will also say that, denial of actual evidence is not the same as lack of evidence.
Astrologers refer to 'indirect' evidence quite often and they accept tons of things as valid evidence for proof of a large quantity of their information and knowledge using this indirect method.
But here the tongue of science in that regard becomes forked and the same method of understanding clues and insight into God is not valid enough.
People are much more biased often-times than they will admit. Some aren't even aware of their non-nuetral approach.
In case you are wondering, this is where you confuse astrology with astronomy. Like I said, doesn't bode well for your claim of ten years of research in to the subject.
Look science wiz.. I'm not an atstrology or astronomy expert...
I'm a philosopher. And I made a mistake. Ever heard of those?
The point was my aim, which I'm sure was not skewed by the error.
I am aware astronomy was the correct term to use.
How bout dont be petty about things?
I'm sure you don't think I meant horoscopes prove anything..
Don't get desperate ok..
@Bill Yovino, I understand where you're coming from. Thinking that you are only a Homo sapiens body in an action-reaction, cause-and-effect universe and nothing else around. In another couple of centuries that's not going to cut you much slack with the Bill Yovino body lying its grave. What will your name be, then?
I love science, logic and mathematics -- built a career on them. Even graduated summa cum laude. But there is much more in the universe than is dreamt of in your philosophy, dear Mr. Yovino. Who is to say that the prayer of the tornado victim didn't have some effect? Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. Prayer is not easy. Most people get it wrong. Even at their best, they can only muster 85-90% confidence. Faith in prayer requires 100% confidence and utter humility. Only then will true, circumvention of physical law - type of miracles occur.
While it's true that many of the religious are of diminished intelligence or have too much arrogance and laziness, God does exist, we are immortal spirit wrapped in Homo sapiens bodies, and there is a rescue mission ongoing right now.
These bodies mean squat. In a few million years, this planet is going to be toast, anyway. Gradual increase in insolation will slowly burn off the atmosphere and evaporate the oceans, turning this world into an airless desert.
But the rescue mission won't wait around. When the last call goes out, that'll be your last chance. And I would hate to say, "I told you so." That sounds so lame and cruel when I love all of you so much.
Your pronouncements of "delusion" imply omniscience on your part. Claiming to be god? I hope not. But you need more than logic to get yourself out of this pickle. Ego is an equal opportunity enslaver. And nearly everyone on this planet thinks they are their ego. That makes it damn difficult to get rid of. But once you do, you can see again, spiritually.
Only then can you truly see what was really delusion.
I'm not the one making outrageous, completely unsubstantiated claims of invisible magical beings, you are. The burden of proof rests solely with those foolish enough to believe in fairies, unicorns, and all-powerful invisible entities. If you want to believe those things, fine. But don't claim that science backs you up. Faith is based on nothing more than wishing that something is true, despite the complete absence of evidence. Enjoy.
Your questions are reasonable and I don't pretend to have the answers, except this,Christianity is based on Faith,not logic.
For who can know the mind of God?. We look at our world ,through human eyes and we reason with human minds.
God is not a human. God is Spirit.
When we stand before Christ ,asking to receive his forgiveness and gift of redemption ,we are in essence making a decision to be reborn,not in an airy fairy do dah fantasy realm,but spiritually it is a change of heart/mind.
Daily as we learn more, our thinking/attitudes/knowledge transform us,into changed people, with a change of itiniary destination
Agreed Kiwi. No one can use logic to understand a spiritual being or anything spiritual. God is awesome!
True, that requires delusion, dishonesty and ignorance.
Logic does escape those who fear it because it doesn't agree with their indoctrinated beliefs. They soon learn to avoid using logic even in their daily lives it gets so easy. Some even begin to believe there is really such a thing as the Holy Trinity mentioned in the bible, when actually it was merely invented for the weak minded to fully believe. But feel free to prove me wrong, as you never do.
Amen to that W.O.C..AND he rules with power and might
Our God is an Awesome God
If you need help its best to check the book of intstructions The Bible,for He who created you knows you best!
Bible? The story of an ogre who created human beings to drown them later and impregnated another's betrothed (hence committed adultery) just to get birth himself as his son, to save mankind from the terrible faith he himself has ordained, only a psychotic imbecile can take instructions from that book.
But I agree with your jesus, calling you names(Mathew 15:26), your intelligence seems to be sub par with even that animal.
You question my intelligence ?
Hey I dont think I am a dog
Besides ,you exhibit what is known as 'selective learning' lol
No more doggy treats for you!
Sincerely try it in dept in your heart; you might like it! If not, satan will always take you back. Sorry, there is no neutral grounds.
God may be our biggest delusion. But the point is, we are habituated with the concept of God. Even the Atheist don't 'believe' God- the idea is still ruling them negatively. Dragging God out of the court will need just as much effort as required for curing an addiction.
Yes. We have become attached to an archaism and are not willing to release said attachment. I guess I'm lucky to have no god or science to rule my observational abilities, we all have them they've just been made dormant by ego and tricks of the mind.
That makes very good sense Marisa, but I am someone who is a firm believer that anything is possible. You might say that if invisible wind exists and if that is possible then I have to believe that it is very possible that God does exist. Why would I believe that was not possible? I think that was my point.
Yes, but atheists do not say that God is impossible. They only say that currently, there is no evidence that he exists. An atheist believes in logic, and therefore if evidence appeared tomorrow, he would concede the possibility of existence.
This was very nice visiting with everyone and one thing that I can tell you that I definitely do believe is that I am very tired and I need to get to bed. Have a nice evening, see you later.
Interesting how you sign off when the going gets tough.
Would you like to continue in his stead?
I'm sorry Marisa, I believe I'm addicted to hub pages and fooling around on the computer so I had to come back and take another look. I wouldn't say the going is getting tough not for me anyway but I really do have to go to bed I'm tired as all get out. I hope you'll keep the conversation going. Now I'm really going to bed this time and I'm not coming back until probably tomorrow night. So you have a good evening and if you're here tomorrow night, I will look forward to talking to you and hearing your opinion. Okay here I go night night.
You can't show me proof that Bibsy the Magic Flibble Monster doesn't exist either, so that's not a great argument. How can a person prove a negative? Religion isn't about facts anyway, it's about faith. You shouldn't need the approval or others to have faith in something. It should be something you feel from without, which helps you with your life. Other people don't have to believe it though. People find their own path.
Google "Flying Spaghetti Monster" it's a great religion. Their version of heaven has a stripper factory and beer volcano.
I think you're referring to what people 'wish' Hell was like.
It's common for people to make fun of Hell.
It comforts them.
Especially when people start pulling out dismissed facts pertaining to clues regarding intelligence greater than ours and what it indicates.
They should just look for Jesus. Then they wouldn't need to make childish mockeries, but could see something real.
So, Vector7, you say you "believe in" Hell. Do you? If so, what do you think "Hell" is like? Is it a real, physical place? What is the atmosphere like there? Who is there? What happens in Hell?
Access to the internet?
Get a Bible and read what Christ Jesus says. Then you'll know.
oh oh.. and NO CHEATING...
KJV or NJB or ESV.. Scholar's recommendations.
Or you could use the links on my profile..
But then, I don't want to hear the 'biased view' accusation.
I first said to check it out from YOUR personal reading.
Read my hubs I have solid proof that not only does God exist God is proven through science. Like Descartes's says if we think God might exist then God must exist.
Innate thoughts are the proof. An idea is like the Freddy Krueger movies. We live in two states in two different dimensions. One is the organic self, the other is the soul. The soul is in a higher dimension. So when we have ideas such as God they come from that higher dimension. Like I say God is the glue that binds everything together, all dimensions universes and beyond.
To elaborate on the Freddy Krueger analogy, it is like the inventor of the car. The man had an idea, perhaps this idea came from the higher dimension of the soul, and pulled the idea into this organic dimension to create the car. Just as Freddy is pulled out from dream world into the dreamers reality.
Going on that premise anything we can imagine, given enough time in the vastness of space can become reality. I believe that God has created us with certain inevitable truths, the first being that a higher being is responsible for all of this. I could go on all day, you should check out some of my hubs here on Hubpages.
The last thing I will say is that God made it so we can not "believe" in God (God is not him or her). This gives meaning to life; if we all knew we were in a complex simulation to give experience to ourselves living breathing organic beings, then life would not be what it is. We would not fear death, therefore we would not live life to the fullest. Just think about it, every fight we have with a skeptic is a emotional experience. This is what life is about, so let skeptics do their thing for they are the ones who are intellectually stunted. Sadly enough when science solidly shows that God exist this simulation will start over once again. So let the skeptics reign!
This is exactly why tele-evangelists are millionaires. Like taking candy from a baby.
The absolute, bar non worst and most fallacious argument a believer in God can propose is the “negative proof” argument. It goes like this. The non-believer says: “Prove God exists.” The believer say: “Prove he DOESN'T. Obviously, it is impossible to examine every nook and cranny in the universe, or to examine every subatomic particle to find "God". I've run across some that will then go on to say: “Well, then it's true.” This is called the argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy:
Others simply stop there and thankfully don't go on to state that: “Well, then it must be true.” But, there's the implication (or outright claim) that the burden of proof is NOT on the believers. As it's impossible (and unnecessary) to prove a negative, the onus of proof lies on the one making the positive statement: “God exists”.
We can, of course make an analogy to science. The burden of proof is always on the scientist to prove whatever he or she is claiming to exist, actually does in fact exist. If he or she cannot provide such evidence, then it's widely accepted that the assumption of nonexistence is to be accepted. It's called the Laplacian principle. The case for the existence of anything comes from positive proof. Once that has been done, THEN the burden of proof can be shifted to the one continuing to make the claim for the nonexistence. Their task is then to show how the evidence is not credible.
We operate this way in our courts/legal system. One is presumed innocent until he or she is proven guilty. This premise is how investigations are created. Imagine going into a courtroom being charged with a crime you are completely innocent of. You are then given the task of proving you are NOT guilty. How unfair would that be! It's reminiscent of the weapons of mass destruction debacle where Rumsfeld attempted to shift the burden of proof.
Bertrand Russell makes this case beautifully: “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” From Is There a God?
Excellently said. The burden is on the person making the positive claim. Now, excuse me while I call the police and file a false charge against Zzron.
I think that zzron is sufficient a gentleman to easily smile at such charges and say, "Ok...."
I'm sure he is. But he'll have to work hard to prove the negative to the judge!
What judge, you? In reality, we are the only judges in life, but we should realy only be judging ourselve's. Was that not what Jesus meant when he said "judge not lest ye be judged"?
I was talking about a courtroom judge. It was a joke, people. About proving negatives.
If Jesus was referring to having a judgmental attitude or outlook on life, then I agree. But we as rational people can--and should--judge certain things.
That is testiment to written communication, we can't hear the joke for there is no inflection.
Jesus said use righteous judgement.....
'Judge not' was referring to codemning people.
teapot versus entire creation at fingertips...
very flawed in my opinion regarding logical reasoning and analogy construction as well....
poor little tea pot.. all alone in space. lol
that doesn't compare to evidence given regarding God.
not a bad attempt though.
New hubber here with a slight side comment that links together the legal with the biblical - did you know that the lawyer (and Cardinal) who first formulated the "presumption of innocence", Johannes Monachus, based the principle on his analysis of Adam's trial after Original Sin? He claimed that this HAD to be the principle on which jurisprudence had to occur, and even God was bound by it, since God was constrained to be just. 14th century I think.
We teach a class here in Aus at the university about the relationship between Science and Religion mostly Christianity over the centuries - it's a very good one conducted primarily by a lovely colleague of mine who's an Anglican Minister AND a physicist. In my tutorial (population - 1/3 believers, 1/6 agnostics, one 1/2 atheists), I invited the group to prove to me that they weren't terrorists. It was a very instructive tute for all concerned - for both sides (the agnostics just smirked, though so did the atheists initially until I annoyed them by claiming they didn't have any more of a leg to stand on by way of proof than the believers). The believers actually got the point quicker than the atheists, who I suggested might have been out of line in claiming that God absolutely didn't exist, rather than that there was (currently?) no evidence and merely no basis for (empirical?) belief. I scratch my head at what would constitute a sufficient evidentiary standard, of course.
This is my idea;
The universe is life, since we are part of that life, then we are part of the universe. So then, the universe is God and we've been looking in all the wrong places. If the universe is alive, then we are it's eyes and ears. We percieve it, yet we can't name it but it's been here the whole time, every moment. We are the percievable moment of the universe, for we percieve ourselve's and we percieve the universe. The universe is time, so we percieve a concept of time. If we percieve the universe and we are part of the universe, then we are part of God. we are a function of a living universe and we live by the universe, as our blood lives by us. The universe has saccrificed of it's self and of it we are a product, as children are a product of us. We see what we are when we percieve all things, so we are being percieved by the universe. The universe happens in the moment and so then, we too happen in the moment.
Oh and sorry I forgot - just thought I'd throw in this common disproof for zzron to consider. If God is all-knowing AND all-powerful, then he can't exist. Example - God KNOWS the future, but because it is the future (and he knows it will come to pass) he CANNOT do anything to change it. Therefore he is not all-powerful.
And variations thereof. It's all about how God is defined. But He can't be both of those.
God cannot be defined. God "IS." No future, no past, only present.
And that's the fascinating conundrum. How can that be? The trick to determining the eternal is to understand how our existence is perceived in a linear manner. Matter and energy are eternal. Is time tied to that, or not? Probably only while we perceive our existence through physical means. The optical delusion that defines our present understanding of reality.
time is a measuring tool....
time either set with limit to count down, or count up until condition is met.
condition is met=end
Glad to hear someone say they can see the obvious existence of eternity besides me.
God bless Emile
when you start providing evidences for existence of God , satan wins.
What if it is the evidence of my own path and it is my evidence? Does that mean I've been following satan the whole time? It seems unreasonable that a small group of people can dictate my path in life.
So I should not regard for example Intelligent Design as proof of God then medicinefuture? Since Satan would be winning...
God apparently doesn't mind being tested, if the New Testament is anything to go by (1 Thessalonians 5:21 for a start)
Has prayer, or even Jesus himself ever caused a severed hand or limb to grow back? I guess only vague, unprovable miracles are performed. Convenient, isn't it?
Religion to me, is the easy way out. I've had to work hard to find my answers and my path was that of great study. It was when I realized that I was studying myself, that I found my enlightenment.
Agreed. Hence, any person who is "enlightened" could never say of him, or herself "I am God," with the intention that everyone else was to bow down and worship him or her.
This is my answer to the commonly quoted statement of Jesus: " I am the way, the truth and the life." This is interpreted as Jesus saying "I am God."
For me, the essence of that statement is "I AM." The "is-ness." The Here and Now. The Infinite.
"I Am.(period) The Way, The Truth and The Life."
In a sense, exactly. I walk a path that was mine since I was born of this earth. I am and so is this, this moment now. Just as time is of the universe, so am I. I am not special because of this, it is just an answer I have found within my self and it is for my self.
Believers operate on faith whereas atheists, humanists, whatever operate on proof. There is a huge difference between faith and proof, as I'm sure that you would agree.
You cannot offer me faith - and you cannot show me proof either, so please, do me a favour. Make sure that I don't get another bible for christmas, there's enough propping up the table as it is.
That would make sense from the agnostic standpoint, but not atheist. Atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics simply acknowledge it can't be proven. And it can't. If it can't be proven then it's a belief. It's a faith-based belief that science will ultimately prove there is no God, though that will most likely be long after you and I are gone, if ever. There's no difference as much as you want to say there is.
It wasn't very well put by me, HeadlyvonNoggin. I know there is no god, there never has been and there never will be but the control mechanism that it always has been will last for a while yet, losing effect as time passes by. It is amazing just how much people will believe when they are told to.
proof requires faith in the methods and the people who undergo said methods.
not as much difference as you'd like to think.
proof isn't ever foolproof..
if someone wants to dismiss it in their heart, consider convincing them beating a dead horse.
Laws of physics.
Everything that doesn't live and breathe follows complete order.
Universe structure is constructed nearly the exact same way your brain is structured.
The Holy Bible.
NDE (near death experience) testimonies. (thousands upon thousands of them)
Good vs. Evil in every instance of time ever recorded.
Witness of other personal experiences by others with God.
Archaeological facts and discoveries proving accuracy of The Holy Bible.
Intelligent design of interworking, complex, co-operating systems within said life. (such as your body's cells operating like millions of individual factories and machines in unison under your brain's command)
Your turn to deny everything.
Well, I personally don't believe any of those prove that God exists. For the most part, these things can all be explained by science. As far as "testimonies" go - how about all those who claim to be "abducted?" Or those who claim to be the Linburg baby? It's easy for anyone to just go out and say something. Whether they believe it or not. But it's not proof of anything. Just saying.
And, as far as the Bible goes, there is some truth and fiction to it. I certainly believe a man named Jesus could have existed. I believe that he probably did some really great things. And I believe all those other people involved probably existed, too. There's even been proof of some of the architectures found that were mentioned in the Bible. But, all that does is prove that these things existed and could have happened in our history. It doesn't prove anything more than that. The Bible has been written and changed so many times. So some could be legit, but other pieces may not. That's my take, anyways.
You're telling a person who has spent over ten years of his life on pure research of everything listed there and more.
I KNOW you haven't looked, at least not very hard, because if you were to diligently look and attempt to see if God was real.. well.. You Would.
You can say what you like. I've done my homework though and don't have much opinion left. Only facts.
The Bible is the most accurate well kept ancient writing known to man.
NDE testomonies with hundreds of thousands of strangers even from different cultures coming back from death, NOT HEARING JESUS NAME, and then pronouncing to people that would put them to deatn for leaving their own religion the name of Jesus..
That many scenarios with the same outcome versus the possibilies of random imagination 'as scientists claim' is pratically brainless to deny.
Then the stories from the witnesses who claim they know things they couldn't have because they were DEAD.
And abductions? Really? Have you even looked at the numbers? There's none compared to NDE's.....
Another strawman argument pulled out a hat. Been there...
Bible is also verified by science.. No faults whatsoever.
Moses and the Red Sea? Yep, verified too. Did the research.
Jesus alive, dead, then resurrected?
Proven over and over. Denied by "haters" as kids would say..
Facts are there, overlooked.. Or NOT looked for.. lol
Laws of physics? Self explanatory. Dead stuff acting intelligent.. O.. K......
That should be one of the biggest if people used their brain and THOUGHT about it..
Need I go on?
I could spend ten years in China, that wouldn't make an expert on being Chinese.
Like to attempt to prove something incorrect then?
You know.. relating to the thread?
Not seeming to know the difference between astrologers and astronomers doesn't speak well of you ten years of research.
Face it, you have the god meme and you attribute everything to it by default. The world is complex? Must be a god. You have invested so much in belief that any other answer is unthinkable.
What you are missing is that there is a more amazing world out there than your beliefs can imagine.
I'll give you a clue: Chaos is essential to order. It breeds order. It is how and why the simple becomes the complex.
Now that has been proven time and time again. But people who are trying to sell ID just don't get it.
Do research on chaos theory.
Is there a god? Isn't there? If there is, is it the Christian version or one of the many other versions? Who knows?
But what is certain at this point in time is that science has not found that one is required, and ID is not science.
I could take your points one by one but I don't see much of a point to it. You probably aren't that interested. in real science anyway.
But if you are, read some of my hubs.
You have just stated that ID is correct when you said chaos to order and creation of more complex entities. Evidently, chaos is conforming to an existing order predetermined.
I refuted ID's notion that intelligence is required to beget intelligence. It takes a few basic and rather simple principals of nature. No gods required.
"...principals of nature..."? Sounds like a predetermine design to me. But, you say it is not ID?
Predetermined does not imply design. Why would it?
Because it does not logically follow that it must be. It is a speculative possibility but not a given. You choose to interpret determinacy as being the result of "intelligent" design. But there is no evidence of that being the case and no need for it to be the case. So in all probability it isn't.
and gods create themselves. Clearly you don't understand the concept you are discussing
The air you breath in shows that GOD exist because the air is not manufactured
Air, surely, is a mixture of gases, the volume and weight and composition of which can be measured, resulting from a physical phenomenon of Diffusion.
The various components come from:- processes involving living matter; processes of alkali and acid substances acting upon metals; the energy of ultraviolet and other high energy particles acting upon various molecules; --- the list is much longer than my knowledge can recall.
Maybe there is some kind of designer/creator. However, you do good sound logic a dis-service when you try to say "God" made it. Unless you can give us a plausible description of that god's nature and attributes. Factual ones, that is.
Now explain why it follows rules and protocol on it's own though not alive.
In following the laws of physics air moves, changes it's constituents, supports life, denies life, stands still, gets denser then less dense, etc., etc.
Scientists have spend enormous amounts of time and effort studying those laws and trying to predict their effects on air.
Since air can be studied and measured, it is therefore finite, and cannot be considered "god" because "god" is, by definition in-finite.
WHERE did the laws COME FROM....
WHY are they followed by SUBSTANCE that IS DEAD...
AIR DOES NOT HAVE A BRAIN.
WHY AND HOW DOES A MATERIAL WITHOUT A BRAIN FOLLOW RULES AND PROTOCOL LIKE IT HAS INTELLIGENCE?
Really? That answer isn't even on point with my question...
And thanks for telling everyone what I already stated, that air is created, NOT the creator.
I never said it was God. I said God made the stuff.
Now... An actual focused on subject approach maybe?
Or more run around babble verifying my previous statements?
Why do you not answer when, on the off chance, I may be right? Is it because I'm shattering your comfortable, little illusion? Or is it because I challenge you outright?
I have never refuted the possibility, nay probability, that the finite world of which we are a part is/was the result of some kind of intelligence. Being human, we can only try to understand such a concept by applying our human experience and awareness. That Intelligence, (let's give the word a capital letter to denote a higher Intelligence), of itself, being infinite we cannot know first-hand except by way of the finite objects, forms and living creatures we see around us.
The answer to your question WHERE did the laws COME FROM... is that the "laws" represent to us humans the pattern of that Design. We like things and knowledge to be predictable, set out in such a way that we can rely upon certainty, thereby being able to plan our lives more effectively.
Yes, that Intelligence, if all that I have said above is true, would have formulated everything in accordance with the laws which we can be conscious of.
That outlines my understanding of a creator. You cannot KNOW the nature of such a god, nor can I, even if we argue 'til Doomsday.
What I cannot accept, and refute totally, is the idea of that very same god being a judge who is going to spank my butt after I am dead, in retribution for all the misdemeanors which I have committed during my lifetime. This is human desire for control and power, creating fear in people by painting a picture of Hell, Fire and Brimstone. We humans do the judging and administer the punishments. It does not need a god to do it.
It sounds like you have a need for such control. You get easily ruffled, a sign of underlying uncertainty, I suspect. If you think I talk babble, then when you and I get to Heaven, maybe we could have a little dance together, on Cloud Nine.
"A myth is an image of which we try to make sense of the world".
Alan W. Watts
LOL.. You kidding.. I'm having fun with you. At least you have some logic in your posts.. and are trying to think about it with reasoning..
Ruffled maybe.. but frustration isn't from uncertainty.. It's from my certainty.
I'm certain. Done the research and added the facts up.
But why only Hell? You just don't like Jesus or?
God made a way out, AND, it's no different than our system, as you stated yourself.
Where do we get our system? From God. Capital punishment, killing those who have notions to kill other humans - [and other horrible acts] - came from God.
He didn't make Hell for us. He made it to punish another creation who is hateful and destroys everything after trying to take everything God has. A rebel if you will. It's a prison. He has broken God's Law in God's world - God isn't suppose to use judgement there as we do here?
Then, being God's NEW creation [baby brother mindset] he decided to go after something God loves.. Sound familiar? Kidnapper trying to use children because parents carry big guns..
But instead, Jesus Christ was set to come fix us after Satan LIED to Eve and TAUGHT her how to disobey the Law of good. "NOT HARMING OTHERS AND RESPECT" A system, or world cannot operate correctly with people spreading destruction and hatefulness...
The world as it is now is a perfect example. Who says "Our world is so great!"
No, on the contrary.. It's horrible.
What about things people don't do? Natural disasters.. Bible says clearly the flood gates opened.. How did dinosaurs die? The entire world covered in water? That would take more than clouds.. The world wasn't full of natural disasters until after the flood - the flood BEING THE FIRST. The Bible will only reveal the Truth if you know a good portion of it - kind of like trying to build a mansion by custom order.. Can't understand without the FULL INSTRUCTIONS - COMPLETE SET OF BLUEPRINTS.
The more you look, the more it makes sense. If you toss the blueprint out a quarter way into reading it, you can't see the OVERALL PICTURE.
It's not for people who accuse God before they know a tenth of the details.
Blah, blah, blah. That's about the extent of regurgitating such nonsense. Again... You think you are absolutely right, so does every other a-hole out there. I think I'm right, but then I realy don't care if I am or not. That's what separates us. I know I'm stupid and you're pretending to be smart, your pedestal has gotten too high for your own good. "Be humble". Or can you not take your own advice?
Look, last time I'm asking...
Stop making me your subject. Stick to the topic, or don't reply to me.
I'm getting very sick of your personal insults, and don't like informing hubpages.
How about let me be nice and stop putting me as your target. I would rather not do what I will do. There are plenty of insults from you for them to review.
You want me to be humble? Second time I'm asking without reporting.
Quit putting character assertions about me as your post subject.
I'm asking nicely.
In fact air is god. Everything finite IS god. It's the other side of the coin from Infinite, but the same coin.
lol.. what coin jonny..
You've lost me there...
infinite - finite
unlimited - limited
God - Creation
This infinite/finite subject is something which I never encountered in the bible, and during my days as a professing christian.
You would need to look abroad, outside of the biblical scriptures for further enlightenment. Several christian people have done just this and, as far as I know it has enhanced and deepened their spiritual Christian lives. They have found so much more understanding of the New Testament just by learning to meditate and contemplate.
There is no need to be afraid that it will conflict with your faith. You do not need to relinquish anything of your Christianity. The extra knowledge/awareness augments what you know already.
This is offered simply as a gift, nothing ulterior.
The air you breath shows that air exist, not god exist, unless god is air.
This is my opinion.
We are a replica of God, of the universe, as the cells of our body is a replica of ourselves.
Peace to all.
I didn't read the thread completely, man it's long. I figured it would be with anything religion related. I believe a staunch atheist is just as bad as a staunch religious person. Neither really has any proof one way or another. The hardest thing to do for either side is to say "I don't know." But it's the truth.
Look through history, the church has done nothing but lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc...And atheists "know" there isn't a God.
The biggest and only question you need to ask yourself is why do you believe what you believe. I've found once you take off all the tradition and habit it usually comes down someone (parents usually) told you what to believe and you just went with it. Some reject this completely, those are atheists.
I suppose I'd be agnostic because the older I get and the more I know...the more I realize I really DON'T know. When you admit that, you can start objectively looking at things for what they really are.
Here is a good one..
He doesn't know.
So that's the truth.
As lovingly as I could say it..
That is COMPLETELY wrong.
You don't know 90 percent of the universe but that doesn't make the things 'you don't know' untrue if someone who does know tells you about them.
A man tells another man, 'the haulocaust was horrible and the nazi people were full of evil and hate.'
Another man says 'no one knows for sure, the more we know the more we know we don't know. all the evidence could have been made up for a movie for all we know'
The first man looks at the second and says 'I'm a jew. I was there.'
Your quote is good to know and use, but not the way you are using it.
But then.. he can't 'prove' he was there either can he?
geez man, any time I read or look over a question or thread with something to do with god....there you are. Someone says something you and you're book doesn't necessarily agree with and you turn into a small child screaming "WRONG." With no real proof other than a couple thousand year old book. Nevermind....arguing with a devout religious person is like trying to have a conversation with a man talking to himself on a street corner. He won't understand you, and if he does some he'll just quote some made up stuff and yell a lot.
Why do people who believe in God always need to have someone else validate it, by asking the same question ovwer and over again. This is never going to happen unless people can actually see God, touch, or hear him, and even then there will be debate wether he is the true god if he were real. Isn't that one of the reasons Jesus supposedly died on the cross? Because the powers that be did not believe that Jesus was the son of God? Or whatever vwersions of the story there are, as each religion has a different version of events in this area?
Did you know there are historians that would like us to believe that there is a real Santa Claus? Of course he doesn't ride around on a sleigh with a red nosed reindeer, but that there was a saint claus, who delivered toys to children? That kind of story is believeable. But, a being who floods the earth, and is the all powerful descider of who lives and dies, and created the earth in a day. Ummmmm. That's hard to swallow.
One reason why it is so hard for people to believe. For me it's the I love you, and there is a place for you in my kingdom, but if you don't do what I say, I shall cast you into a pit of fire where you will suffer for eternity. To me that sounds a lot like what the kings were doing, pits of fire and feeding people to lions. And, since the two strangely co-existed, how do we know that this isn't all tactics to spread fear among the people? And, maybe all of this god stuff is ancient history.
I don't need anyone's validation.
Maybe rephrase.. suggestion:
'Why do [some] people who... etc.. etc..'
People are just afraid to live, knowing death is in their future, and not knowing what's after it. It comforts them to know that there is something more for them. That's why people defend it to the death.
I've just learned to accept that we're all gonna die and rot away some day
If I say x exist onus of proving it exist is on me not someone who denies its existence...BTW god does exist in human brain which created it..
Where are the angry people when you need them? I'm just sayin this is the first r&b thread I read where no one has gotten nasty.
Is it because they're all currently banned?
Trying to show people that they don't need a book to be decent, is harder than any task I've taken up before. The bible isn't teaching anything, that shouldn't have been instilled by parents. If the parents aren't teaching their children good manners and morality, then they are lazy and could care less for their children. One does not need to be part of a church group or have a hero, if one does have hero, it should be an actual person they know and not a celebrity or a presumably fictional character. Act decent because you can, not because you are told to.
It's kind of true though, right? I mean, hasn't the bible done it's job already? In this society of humanitarianism and science, is it not fair to say that, if the bible can't change the whole world, then it probably isn't going to? The christians fear one world religion, but what is it their trying to accomplish? If a man truly wishes to change, it should be to the accord of his own heart, for all will see the error of their ways and for some it will be too late. One does not need to be preached at for this, for life is a bumpy road and death is a scary thing.
You haven't noticed it changed the world?
It's main subject is Christ Jesus.
Tell me where people don't know who that is..
Here we go again... The tennets preached are the things that should be apparent, to cling to it is to never move forward.
Your claim was the Holy Bible hasn't and probably won't ever change the world...
The TRUTH is it HAS ALREADY CHANGED THE WORLD.
What don't you get about that?
It's pretty straitforward.
I cling to honesty, which is what I just pointed out.
Honesty moves plenty foward.
It changed the world by giving people something to claim, a title above others...
Incorrect again. lol
Jesus Christ taught humility. Said you couldn't get into Heaven without becoming like a little child. Which is willing to listen, learn, love, and harmless as a dove.
Maybe you shouldn't condemn things you have no knowledge of..
"let he who is without sin cast the first stone". You think you are perfect in christ, yet the sin of judgement still remains.
You really are confused aren't you?
I'm sorry, that isn't funny. It's sad. . .
And your christ gave you license to judge? Look at the words exiting your mouth, you will see they pertain little to yourself.
It literally makes me sad. I'm not judging you misc..
That's exactly what I mean, you didn't even get that I meant I'm sorry.
Christ Jesus gave me love and help.
I hope your day goes ok misc.
Vector7, "....without becoming like a little child. Which is willing to listen, learn, love,..." Maybe if you were to follow this recommendation, you would learn a lot of useful things from people who are atheist.
Given half a chance, you might even find yourself agreeing with them if your heart is open and loving.
Thank you for the defense, but those with closed minds are a simple matter. They will live their lives following and they will rarely lead.
I think you're still wearing your shades at midnight..
I know the information you keep trying to repeat to me.
I was doing this long before today......
You on the other hand don't know 3% of the record of history in the Bible.
Maybe explain how you know it's wrong without a full account of it's contents?
And thank you for at least being kind. I can get very frustrated when attempting to convey factual information.
Because the more you defend it, the dumber it sounds. Who can fully argue against that degree of ignorance?
For me to know the full history of the writing of the Bible is out of the question. I have no need to. I don't want to. There is much more to do in life, right now, than waste time on that.
Why concentrate on and argue so much about a book, which many people will never agree upon; which was written so many years ago; when we have a living book to guide us? The Book of Life is NOW. A man called something like "Jesus" said this, a long time ago.
what's there to listen to when it is not in conformity with ones belief? do you like being brain-washed?
@vector....chill man...jesus makes good story.....so does many in different parts of world....but bible didnt stop usa from bombing japan, hitler from killing jews etc........pope from crusade,Jesus is only good creation of authors of bible and feel good factor for people....
It is impossible to prove a negative. All you can do is prove you haven't seen it/found it/heard it YET. Makes this a good question for fun, but not a truly serious question.
God does not exist.
If God existed, why did he let my brother drown at sea, aged just 17?
Why did he put my poor God-believing and church-going mother through weeks that turned into months of agony waiting for his body to be found washed up somewhere (and it never was).
Why did He then take her other son, 30 years later?
God is supposed to be loving and fair, but the God everyone is worshipping these days is a total asshole.
My mother didn't die of the broken heart she has, but she is going to, through old age.
She spent all those years on this planet in pain, and why? A better person I'd be hard-pushed to meet.
And my Dad?
That man who turned white-haired overnight after the loss of one son, is now juts a shadow of his former self.
At least he never believed there was a God to start off with.
His life experience as a medical doctor taught him that people die, accidents happen, and life will go on.
I'm with my Dad on this. there is no answer. There is no magical God to sort things out when they go bad.
It's all part of life's rich tapestry, as they say, and we as human beings need to deal with it, even if we end up crying a lot.
Life is suffering, creating a God will not change the reality of it. God is a placebo for the week of mind and the sick of heart. If one's God belongs to a religion, then it's no God I want anything to do with.
Regardless of any argument Izzy, I feel the humanity you are feeling, and just want to honour that, without any other comment.
I can't help but wonder if there is any significance in that the most unhappy comments about life are from those who claim they know that there is no God? I have had my ups and downs, but 'life is suffering?' How sad.
I never said I had no God, I just referred to a simple truth of life. It's hard, even harder for our forefathers. Life is tuff, religion will make it no easier, it only dulls the pain for a time. But if I'm not an expert, then it shouldn't matter, especially if I'm no expert you'd recognize.
Everything in this physical plane is the product of a single thought that An infinate inteligence thought, which this physical plane is not capable of containing.
And when it thunk it into existance, bang here we are. And with its help, we continue to advance to that place we are suposed to arrive.
Why is it so hard for us to think that there is a plane of existance that we are incapable of beginning to understand especially if this inteigance is smart enough to know what would happen if we understood 1 % of that which we think we understand?.
Everybody is an 'expert' on their own beliefs. The only thing that dulls the paini time, not religion. Religion may help someone tolerate or accept. But there are also distinctions between belief, faith, and religion. I do have my beliefs, and my faith, but I have to confess, I'm a bit weak on the religion. But my belief is that we didn't 'create' god, but that God caused us to come into being. I'm not sure of the divine mechanics of it, or the why. I don't feel llike I need to explain a billion east Indians, or Chinese. I'm sure that is taken care of by Someoneand I don't need to worry. But I have lived harsh at different times, most of the time because of my choices, but life is still too much fun and too interesting to look at and think it was tough, or pain, or suffering. Life on earth is the blink of an eye. Whatever happens here pales when we consider forever. But like I said, I am an expert on my beliefs. You are the expert on yours.
Thank you both, deeply, from the bottom of my heart.
We are here for such a short time...
When I lost my mother, I sometimes wished I could undo my last words for her. I had wished to never see her again, needless to say, I got my wish. She died Thanksgiving day of 2004, I ignored her calls. Boy was I a good son. No?
I learned many years ago the lesson you have learned here.
When it comes to people you love, never leave on a bad word, because if they die, you feel guilty.
My eldest brother had fallen out with my other brother before that awful accident happened at sea, that no-one could have foreseen, but left no room for my eldest brother to retract his words.
We discussed this to death among the family, but my elder brother never was able to forgive himself, even though everyone else did.
Our words can come to haunt us, as the expression goes.
But, in reality, take a step back, and hey these things are said in families. The Walton's were a fantasy TV series and real life isn't like that.
So, lift from yourself any burden of guilt you feel because there is nothing to be guilty about..words said, and not taken to heart, and they weren't.
And I am sorry. I am sorry you lost your mother, and that bad words were your lasting memory when you should be remembering the good times.
The last of my regrets are gone, I cannot regret the past, only mourn a future without my heart. I learned long ago to seal my emotions away, the day my mother died. I miss her, but my heart has grown numb. No doubt the result of a hard life and a hatred of self. But still I stryve to love all and in turn I love myself for doing so. Though the days are few, I have time to change my sour soul.
Thank you for your kind words.
I empathise totally.
My own heart is pretty hardened, probably like my arteries, I find now grieving is something that washes over me, someone else grieves. I exist.
Worse is coming though, for me anyway.
So maybe my mind has set itself in preparation mode.
That asides, (((big hugs))) We all need them now and then
Yes, definitely... Hugs right back at ya... We must all be prepared, for life happens in increments of a series of moments. It's too damn hard to keep up with and just when I think I've figured it out, it changes and I must struggle to gain a foothold.
Alright.. You guys have fun poking around in the dark. lol
I've got little minions chasing me around anyways.
God bless everyone.
Only 4.35pm here, Thursday, so have a good night everyone.
It's only 12:30 am here. I still have a few minutes, if you wish for some more conversation. You're not so bad, for an old guy...
I always feel that god is with me..........God is all around
This is most interesting, thanks everyone for a bit of in-depth discussion.
It seems then that I am a "new ager!"
If you think that means conjuring up a new religion for myself, and ganging up with others against christianity, then you would be mistaken. I care nothing for the "occult," or mumbo-jumbo, or 'isms of various kinds. I care not for the power-hungry, self-appointed matriarchs or masters. These things are all in the nature of religions and an outward display of religiosity.
Through a journey which includes humility (I do not know and want to learn much more); meditation (going into the centre of our being and witnessing, observing what is happening around us); contemplation (opening up to infinite possibilities); finally pure consciousness (being fully aware of all and everything and the vision of what is beyond the physical and finite world).
If there is a valid "11th Commandment" it would be:
Thou shalt not limit the Lord Thy God.
If you type 'Celestial Teapot' or 'Russell's Teapot' into google and click the very first link you will have your answer. Which in short is - The burden of proof lies with the believers, you can't ask me to disprove something there is no proof for, the lack of proof is in fact proof...
Maybe I'm just being dense here, but could someone please explain to me what exactly you would expect proof of God's existence to look like? It seems to me that anything that can be proven to have a natural cause is considered proof that no God was needed to make it happen, and anything where a natural cause can not been seen just means the cause hasn't been determined yet.
So, what's left? What would signify proof of God's existence? Would you expect to see some sort of physical evidence? A giant thumb print on the moon? Big arms floating out in space shaping a planet like a ball of clay? A signature on the bottom right-hand of a galaxy that says, "Yahweh"?
What if I could show you in great detail how the creation story in Genesis 1 accurately describes 13 details and 6 major eras in earth's history in the correct chronological order? Would that be enough? Or would you simply say that's impossible and dismiss it?
Is there any way a believer can be free of this 'burden of proof' short of God physically appearing in front of you?
I suggest that much of the god concept is used by persons who find it difficult to explain their feelings. It allows metaphoric explanations, describing abstract principles.
So does explaining your own conscious mind. By the very same rational used by many here, if you didn't experience life through your conscious mind, you wouldn't believe it existed. Then the 'burden' would be on someone else to convince you because in your mind the lack of proof of this dynamic internal conscious existence this crazy man keeps talking about is proof enough to suggest it doesn't really exist.
I agree, certainly it does not exist in the reality of our finite lives.
The points of view as to its nature are infinite. Yours and mine included.
What about the "god" and "christ" which you worship. Are they finite or infinite? Can you describe them, in ways which others will comprehend? What are their attributes which we should be aware of?
Humans invented god(s) as a repository for intractable human problems. For these believers, the answer to incurable illness was to be found on one's knees, calling out to an imaginary superbeing for help, a being who provided exactly the kind of response one would expect from a lucky rabbit's foot or a proper display of a horseshoe, i.e., nothing, but fortunately, a few radical thinkers rejected the notion of pawning off all of humankind's difficult problems to a superstitious solution and they were the ones who developed the germ theory of disease and found real cures that did not involve touching heads to floors, killing live chickens, or callouses.
Virtually every discovery of science has come at a loss to superstition. Why we continue to talk to these superstitious believers as if their ideas were worthy of serious discourse is a mystery to me.
Agree with wondering why we bother to talk to these guys and I usually don't however I had an answer to the question and a well accepted answer.
I see ignorant and extreme religious posts more than any other, the fact is that these people have been taught from a very impressionable age of their beliefs as many of us were (including me). I guess that its a combination of intelligence and extremes of belief that dictate whether you can free yourself from the indoctrination.
(I guess that its a combination of intelligence and extremes of belief that dictate whether you can free yourself from the indoctrination.)
I agree that indoctrination occurs, and I include myself into the group of ex-indoctrinated. It is not easy to dump those ideas because they are emotionally-based.
However, if one is brutally honest and views self-honesty as the highest calling, then he has no answer when confronted with facts - cognitive dissonance drives one to acknowledge a higher truth.
For example, one of the claims in this thread is that Christianity is valid because so many have believed it over time - but this same argument can be made about Muslims and Hindu. Instead of rationalizing why one irrational belief is superior to another, self-honesty demands acknowledgement that: a) I will choose to continue to believe regardless of the contradictions, or b) that I will not believe.
If one can be led to understand that conflict, then there is a chance for escape from the indoctrination.
If you can show 13 major details ad 6 major eras from the bible it means nothing. I can do the same from nostradamus if you like... but he was wrong about 60% of the time.
Theists will never be free of the celestial teapot question because; yes we do want to see proof, personally (and this is not an attack on you) I think that some of the stuff in the bible is contradictive and repressive, if I'm going to follow something that deep down inside feels wrong then yes I want proof... the bible was written by a group of old roman priests hundreds of years after the supposed death of christ; I have no reason to believe that any potential god had anything to do with the writing of it.
Also, as there is proof in front of me to directly contravene what the bible or god tells us such as carbon dating, physics and particle physics, biology, the big bang and primordial soup etc... so is it that hard to make the leap and state that the burden of proof lies on theists?
There is proof for the big bang, there is proof for the earth being 4 billion years old, there is proof for evolution, we can see these things and track them; blind faith at this point would, and would HAVE set us back in the past and civilization would not be were it is today.
I can't believe in a god anymore than I can believe in santa claus.
Lets look at your own logic though: Why do you not believe in Jupiter, or Mars, or Zeus? Why are they dismissed so easily when your god is not?
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods you will understand why we dismiss yours - (an impenetrable argument)
There is no proof. Thats the prob. There is only speculations. That's about as factual as it gets.
Strictly relying on the scientific process (& statistics, more specifically), it is considered virtually impossible to prove the null set.
Atheists believe there is no god based not on blind faith, as some accuse them, but based on other kinds of faith.
First, there is the desire to avoid living up to a standard. After all, the 10 commandments still stand. Sleeping with your best friends ex is taboo for Christians. Many choose to reject god.
Second, there are the worshipers of academia. Their gods are professors and books. Christians trust in God to provide their needs, introduce them to a good spouse, pay their bills, provide good friends, and bless them with children. Atheists trust a good education to bring them all those things (mostly through money and what it can buy.)
What atheists need to understand is that the text books are almost exclusively printed by people who hate the God of Abraham. They also need to know that Satanists carefully and meticulously recruit the best leaders. Groups like the Freemasons, Rotary, and the humanists are actually farming communities and socialization tools for Satanists.
Such a negative view of people. Do you know any of these people you take such a dim view of or have you just read up on a few hysteria websites?
I do not have a negative view of atheists. (Exception: Richard Dawkins. His visage activates my gag reflex.) I know many of them. The problem remains a lack of knowledge. Most atheists can quickly identify who they believe to be "Christians" (mostly incorrect). However, they fail to see, and commonly outright reject the notion of Satanists, and much more so the fact that Satanists are extremely active in the world and control the great majority of wealth and seats of power.
Check out: Russ Dizdar, Bill Schnobolen, Margaret Sanger, Joseph Engels + Karl Marx, John Todd, Lt. Colonel SC.... and much, much more.
Perhaps then, you also don't agree when atheists fail to see and commonly outright reject the notion of fairies and hobgoblins, too?
I do disagree that the non-existence of "fairies" (spirits found in the forest and other polaces) and hobgoblins (deformed creatures that live under the earth) is a scientific certainty. First, as previously noted, science (reasonable, intelligent thought which can be an art and even a profession) does not allow for proving the null hypothesis, the proposition that something, e.g. a hobgoblin, does not exist.
Do you believe aliens exist? I do. And, I understand them to be the fallen angels (demons) described in the Bible.
The problem for atheists is that the MUST reject blatant evidence. They must ignore it and miscategorize it. The entire earth exists. Everything in our homes was created by a person. All order atrophies to disorder. Yet, in our home are machines and tools- material crafted into something new- order from disorder. Only a sentient being creates order from disorder.
The earth is all around. Even people living in remote areas of jungles understand there is a Creator.
Atheists live and believe a blind faith. They have never seen that there is "nothing" after death.
Contrarily, hundreds of thousands of people have experienced near death and out of body experiences. They understand, first-hand, there is a spirit body, one that can live free of the physical, corporeal being.
Atheists maintain their beliefs only by asserting that the mammoth, massive preponderance of evidence and testimonies all around them do not exist. They live in a deluded state.
Most atheists, if they would be honest with themselves, would concede they have some doubt, that they are not actually confident there is no God, and that they cannot scientifically prove there is no God, and that they cannot both claim to be scientific and simultaneously assert there is no God.
But, the fact that no such things have ever been shown to exist outside of folklore is reason enough for you to accept them as existing, just like anything else that can conjured from the imagination.
That is entirely false.
Creators are believed to exist, just like hobgoblins. Your examples of tools and other crafted items is not an argument in favor of them.
Reality is blind faith?
No one has, you included.
No one has had an out of body experience, that is pure nonsense.
"Mammoth, massive preponderance" of delusion, more precisely. There is no evidence for your claims whatsoever.
Funny how you talk about honesty when there is none in your posts.
So, is it possible that atheists perhaps don't believe in gods based on "other kinds of faith" but instead don't accept the beliefs of believers who make ridiculous, nonsensical claims, such as the ones you've provided?
So if there were no god, you would sleep with your friend's ex/current?
Or, is the thought of god, the only thing preventing you from raping your friend's girl friend?
Are you nuts or are you this morally corrupt from birth?
However bad you might be, others are not like you, at least most theists and atheists.
Isn't that what we've been talking about? The short answer is, no. Like I said before, life is ultimately a personal journey. You enter alone, you exit alone. Everything outside of you is external influence. It can sway you, maybe convince you, but ultimately it is you who decides what you believe. No matter what you make of it, there is a barrier between your internal existence and external existence that is impossible to transcend.
Me describing to you my understanding of God so that you comprehend it the way I do would be just as impossible as you describing to me your internal conscious reality in a way that I could fully comprehend if I didn't have my own internal conscious reality that allows me to relate.
What I can tell you is what I believe and why. In fact, that's what I'm in the process of doing now. My first two hubs are my attempt to convey just that. To start, I am attempting to prove Genesis as a legitimate source of information that deserves further consideration. That it's grounded in real history, yet illustrates knowledge of events humans couldn't possibly have known. If I can do that then we may have some common ground we can agree on that then will maybe lead to answers to your questions that you can arrive at all on your own.
Excellent discussion-like answer, thank you for that, HeadlyvonNoggin. Yes, I am sure we will continue in this.
So, you have some personal understanding of God that is not found in the Bible?
Please share that understanding so that we may attempt to comprehend it. Or, are you just using that as an excuse?
My understanding of God comes from a combination of what's found in the bible, what's found in nature, and my own internal conscious experience. To see it the way I do, you first have to accept the bible as something more than mythology. Without that there's nothing I can say to make you see it.
So I'm starting off with proving Genesis to be something more than mere mythology. If I can prove the creation account accurately describes creation, that should go a long way towards legitimizing it to skeptics.
Our current understanding of existence dictates that people from thousands of years ago couldn't possibly have known about events millions and billions of years before they existed. Without divine intervention of some sort, their depiction of creation would be guess work at best. So, I am illustrating how their ability to list 13 specific details and 6 major eras of earth's history goes well beyond being just a lucky guess.
(To start, I am attempting to prove Genesis as a legitimate source of information that deserves further consideration.)
Therein lies the problem - you are starting off with a bias and are trying to prove that bias correct. This is antithesis of intellectual honesty.
I get what you're saying. But you don't seem to grasp the weight of what I'm suggesting. If the creation account wasn't even close, then it would take quite a lot of justification to twist an interpretation around to make it work. So, no matter my approach, the fact that it's so specific, the fact that it specifically states what it is an account of, if I can illustrate it's accuracy then attempting to dismiss it by calling my methods into question simply isn't sufficient.
(if I can illustrate it's accuracy)
The account is so vague as to make any such attempt laughable - it is like trying to show John Edwards really does communicate with the dead, while ignoring the cold reading technique he uses to solicit information.
It is a similar problem to what are termed biblical prophecies - the original "prophecies" are vague, and it is only later when they are so-called "fulfilled" that details are added. We see a clear case in the gospel of Matthew of an author attempting to show corresponding detail when he wrote that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and a foal at the same time.
If these words were truly the result of the creator of the entire universe, one would think he could give details that were easily verified - in the 20th century man will discover a cure for illnesses and name it penicillin. Instead, we have a cure for leprosy involving slaying doves and spreading the blood around the house.
There is nothing to prove except your bias.
Comparing the creation account in Genesis to the books that depict the visions had by prophets is not exactly reasonable. The creation account was a story told amongst the Israelites for generations. Many believe it was actually a song. It's nothing like the description of a vision given by the one person who had the vision attempting to describe it.
Within the context of the bible, the creation story would have come from God Himself. Early Genesis depicts Him walking and talking with Adam and his family. Visions given to prophets came way later when God communicated more indirectly.
To call the Genesis account vague is ridiculous. Many parts of the bible could be described that way, but not the creation account. It lists the heavens, the earth, light breaking through to the surface, the development of a translucent/oxygenated atmosphere, land, plantlife, animals from the sea through birds, mammals, and humans in the correct order. And not vague titles, specifically named creations.
The point of the creation story was not to prove itself legitimate. Much like many other ancient things, you first have to understand the material to the best of your ability. Where did it come from? Who wrote it? Why was it written? What perspective is it written from? There are many things to consider.
(Comparing the creation account in Genesis to the books that depict the visions had by prophets is not exactly reasonable)
So what you are claiming is that the not all the books of the bible are reliable - only the book that claims direct speech with a superbeing is reliable?
For that to be the case, one must start with the proposition that Genesis is factual and not myth. A little on the circular side.
You're talking like I'm trying to assign events to something vague and cryptic like Revelations. I'm talking about just 31 verses that very specifically state exactly what they are. They're an account of the Earth's creation. And it's not told in some symbolic jargon, it's very specific. Our scientific understanding has only recently reached the point that we can even recognize it. But now we can. Don't be so quick to dismiss it.
Here you seem to be talking about the bible as one complete text. The part I'm referring to, Genesis, is much older. While there are theories that attempt to pinpoint when it was actually written down as we know it now, nobody knows for certain. All we do know is that these stories were at the very least told verbally amongst the Israelites for many generations. Even the best scholarly guesses date it back to somewhere between 950 and 450 BC.
All our current scientific understanding contradicts is the interpretations formed centuries ago by people who didn't know as much about the history of the earth as we do now. The bit I'm talking about, the creation account in Genesis, actually supports all of that. It actually confirms what we've only recently figured out.
No, what I'm saying is that each book of the bible should be considered for what it is. They've vastly different from one another, written centuries apart in some cases.
That's exactly what I'm attempting to do. Showing the creation story matches up accurately is only the beginning. Understanding the humans at the end of Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 are two separate events is what takes Genesis out of the realm of myth and plants it squarely into actual history.
As for the 'circular' argument, do you mean to tell me that if a book in the bible did actually describe something specific like you suggested earlier, like the invention of penicillin, that you still wouldn't consider it? Because your 'circular' argument would nullify that as well. In fact, judging by your Jesus on the donkey scenario, you'd simply suggest somebody later named their invention the same name scripture specified.
God could have given you exactly what you wanted, though it wouldn't have done anyone in humanity that existed before that invention any good, and it still wouldn't have mattered. You would reject it even if it were true.
Only once we fully understand existence can you then rule out anything outside of our current understanding. Not leaving other possibilities open would seriously hamper progress because everyone would basiclally do as you are and dismiss things without actually looking into it first.
You are simply trying to justify your beliefs - don't try to make pretend it is anything more than that.
Most people are not aware of the origins of the Bible. Before the Bible there were what were known as "Canons." These Canons were simply manuscripts that were written by different authors (most of them anonymous) over a span of about 1600 years. There were many Canons, and not all were included in what came to be known as the "Bible." The method to determine what would be included, and what would not be included and left out was the system of voting.
Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.
Emperor Constantine, used what motivates many to action - MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of God" into existence, but The Church leaders didn't finish editing the "holy" scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed.
So, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine!
Constantine ordered and financed 50 parchment copies of the new "holy scriptures." It seems with the financial element added to the picture, the Church fathers were able to overcome their differences and finally agree which "holy" books would stay and which would go.
There are lost books of the bible, which should have been included into the canon. These books are cited by writers of the Bible, and they are: Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jasher, Book of the Covenant, Book of Nathan, Book of Gad, Book of Samuel, Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo, Acts of Uzziah, Acts of Solomon, Three Thousand Proverbs of Solomon, A Thousand and Five Songs of Solomon, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Book of Jehu, Book of Enoch.
Knowing this, and still believing the Bible to be in infallible word of a God, only further illustrates just how intellectually void the mind of the believer is. One might ask themselves, had the vote gone another way, would people of faith be believing something entirely different than what they believe to be the word of God today?
I take all of that into consideration. From a faith standpoint I believe God couldn't be hoodwinked by the actions of man, and that what is there now available to the masses is what needs to be known. But I also understand how that kind of reasoning isn't sufficient for all.
The rest of human history, humanity's involvement, does certainly play a role. That's why I focus on the Books of Moses to start. Every other book written about the Hebrew God were in some way in direct relation to those books. They were ancient even to those that wrote those other books and were often referred to as 'the law'.
Realizing Genesis is talking about other humans in Genesis 6 does rule out the Book of Enoch at the very least. Book 1 specifically says the Nephilim were the result of angels 'the sons of God' and humans 'daughters of man' intermingling.
All through the last three centuries BC there were various attempts to decipher the more cryptic parts of The Books of Moses. The Pharisees, for example.
The Book of Enoch to me reads like a really imaginative story told between the lines. They took that one really intriguing character, Enoch, that Genesis 5 explains as the only one of Adam's descendants that didn't die, but was rather taken by God after 'walking with Him' for most of his life. It takes that little bit and builds this whole story about Enoch being taken to heaven and hell and taught all the intricacies of celestial life behind the scenes, the hyerarchy of angels, that sort of thing.
Really fascinating stuff, but I could just never buy angels ....
a) having free will that allowed them to rebel
b) being 'anatomically equipped' to empregnate a human
So you had a hard time buying into some of this....but virgin births, talking snakes and Jewish zombies seemed practical to you?
Like I said, it's important to know the source information better before rejecting it. The snake, for example, was simply known in the original text as 'the deceiver'. I believe the traditional interpretation of Adam and Eve being the only humans in existence leads to that kind of conclusion.
Jesus as a concept makes sense to me. He also makes the rest of The Books of Moses make sense. Genesis 1 describes the creation of humans and depicts God giving them very specific instructions. Those same instructions were actually realized by early humans. So, if I'm right, the early humans in Genesis 1 did not have free will. They followed God's will to the letter.
The story of Adam and Eve then takes on a whole new context. Right off the bat God's bringing the animals to Adam to see what he'll call them. He just created the first being with a will of it's own ever to exist. Simply naming animals illustrates this. Then God puts them in a very scientific-like experiment. He places them in a garden and gives them just one ground rule to test them. He even explains they'll die if they eat from that one tree. Then the 'deceiver' explained to Eve what she could gain personally from taking the fruit. She then decided on her own free will to eat it. This illustrated they had a will apart from God's.
Then, after the local flood of the Mesopotamian valley wiped out the majority of free-willed humans (wickedness requires free will) born of Adam's bloodline, including humans of both Adam and natural human bloodlines (Gen 6: 1-3), God then dispersed 50 or so free-willed descendants of Noah into a populated world, each carrying their own language, knowledge of building and agriculture, and a really compelling flood story that's echoed everywhere.
Genesis then shifts to the one 'chosen' bloodline. The creator of the entire earth and all life on it is now focused on just this one group. And He gives them all these rules about what they can eat and who they can have children with. Everything had to do with keeping their bodies, and that bloodline, pure. He even had them wipe out local inhabitants in some cases. Seemingly barbaric acts, unless they were to protect the bloodline of the eventual savior that would give everyone a chance. Once Jesus was born, that all stopped. No more direct involvement. The savior was in place.
The fact is, we don't know why or how humans went so quickly from simply learning how to farm to building the first cities sustained by year-round mass agriculture practices that required the understanding of crop rotation and the tracking of seasons. These first cities were built by the Sumerians of Mesopotamia who also invented the first calendar and writing and the first monarchy and laws and jails and many, many other things. Their stories explain they were taught all of these things by immortal, human-like, moody gods. Gifts of civlization, each known as a 'me'. Other civilizations in that region also told stories of immortal beings who walked the earth and had children with mortals in their ancient pasts.
Civilization in itself is an act of human free will. It's humanity living in spite of nature. From that point on human history is full of stories of civlized man wiping out the 'natives' or 'savages' in surrounding areas. The indiginous humans of these various regions who ultimately could not stand up to the more advanced, more inventive civilizations that came in and took over. Even now there are still native tribal cultures that show no interest in anything more than a simple life within nature.
In my mind, all of this is significant evidence that the story being told in Genesis is actually God's introduction of free-willed humans into the world He created. An act that resulted in civilization and led to life as we now know it.
People want to believe in a future beyond the present life. Does not sound unreasonable.
Actually believing can make it so, or at least seeming so. The power to believe is the power to learn, where belief gives consequence to what may not be real but seems so. As in anybody can be anybody.
I believed I did win and played the part and suddenly I was hanging out with millionaires, because I acted just like them.
God loves a winner lol
On a more serious note ,Faith is believing in things unseen
The Webster Dictionary defines faith as:
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
So if we were to combine the meanings given in the second definition it would mean faith is: a belief and loyalty to a God, which is the traditional doctrines of a religion, and a belief in something for which there is no proof, but that you have a complete trust in.
When a theist says they have "faith" in God, they are really saying they have a belief and complete trust in something for which there is no proof of. Faith by definition is a belief in something that cannot be proven, so when a theist claims to have complete faith in a God, they are admitting they believe in a fictional being. How then could they claim to have proof in something that is not real? Faith is just that, faith. If it was anything else it would be called something other than faith. If you are a person who has a faith in God, you are admitting that you believe in nothing.
I wonder how many times the words 'faith' and 'belief' have been defined in these forums. I know I've done it at least once.
The fact is, to operate as a functioning member of society, you have to have faith at least to some extent. Faith in society in general. Faith that the other driver will adhere to the law and stop at that light, or that it's safe to walk up and pull a large amount of money from an ATM. Civilization is faith-based. The economy is faith-based. Law and order is faith-based. Even leaving your house in the morning takes a certain level of faith.
In matters of existence, the fact is there's still a lot we don't know. A lot we simply can't know yet. To even be able to face life each person has to form their own base understanding of life. A foundation of 'truths' to build their concept of reality on. They have to establish definition to the world happening around them.
Many things can be known for certain, but some things cannot. Where we go after we die cannot be known. What caused the big bang, at least currently, can't be known. Why/when/how the human conscious mind came to be isn't known. Who we are/ where we come from/ why we're here / you get the idea.
Unless you just haven't spent any time thinking about it, you've developed some sort of belief where these things are concerned. And you have faith in what you've established. Whether that be because you formed these beliefs through your own research and contemplation, or whether it be because you love and trust the people who taught you, or whatever, the fact is you have to have faith in what you've established as 'truth' to just be.
Believers often apply God to those gaps, sometimes to the extent of delusion which justifies to them rejecting things that actually can be known, yet conflict in some way. Atheists acknowledge the gaps, but feel they have no reason to believe any God is involved. So, until they know better, they have faith that they can go ahead and reject any and all religious beliefs as nothing more than a kind of destructive element that naturally evolved somewhere along the way as a human need. A kind of quirk of the evolution of the conscious mind.
Religious ideas definitely exist. Most of humanity has believed in a higher power of some kind since the beginning of recorded history. So, their rejection of these beliefs in itself requires faith in what they've established to be the truth. Faith strong enough to convince themselves humans that came before simply weren't as enlightened as we are now and therefore must have created these beliefs to cope. That in itself is a faith-based choice.
Everyone needs something to believe in; if not, why would you wake up?
I don't believe in any of this nonsense...yet I wake up every morning.
Same here, we were made from star dust and we all be a part of stars again, I won't feel anything, I don't have a soul and there is no afterlife, I get up quite happily most mornings.
The world is far more interesting and beautiful through the eyes of an athiest; to think that everything made itself - by chance.
No, its the lack of proof that prooves god doesn't exist.
Another one that just does not get it....I realize you have a mental illness (religion) that keeps you from understanding very basic thought, so I do take that into consideration.
Speaking of not getting it....
Reading this redundant, non-productive back and forth, though I've asked before, I'm compelled to ask again....
What exactly would you expect proof of God's existence to look like? Unless you see a physical being floating in the heavens molding celestial objects with his hands, what other 'proof' would convince you?
The bible depicts God as the creator of laws. We can actually see that the laws of physics alone made a universe out of matter. But we don't know what creates those laws. We can see no physical, natural cause that results in these laws existing the way they do. We just know they had to be in place before the big bang for the result to be the universe as we know it.
We also know everything in the universe, including the physical stuff that makes up you and me, started as a singularity. A single point. The universe had a beginning. It all came from that one point light years away billions of years ago. But we still don't know what caused it. Yet this convinces you there's nothing more to it than that?
We ourselves are self-aware conscious beings sitting here arguing about where we come from. Actual physical thinking beings made up of the same stuff the universe is that somehow became aware of itself, reaching different individual conclusions, and arguing about it. Yet somehow the ones that think that this self-awareness we're now experiencing is simply a happy coincidence, a one and only event that never existed anywhere previously yet is undeniably part of our reality today, these are the ones that get it? And the ones that think there must be more to it just don't?
Trying to apply scientific reasoning to something as dynamic as existence is simply insufficient. All this proof versus no proof versus proving a negative nonsense is pointless. You're trying to determine the essence of something that transcends physical, detectable reality using methods only designed to study matter. Matter is everything post-big bang. The bible describes God as existing before the universe. What proof do you ever expect to find?
Somebody, please, explain that to me.
I don't expect "god" to look like anything....no more than I do any other myth...
What would you expect "wshfditoedsnds" to look like? What did I just ask? I don't know they were just random keys I pressed on the keyboard that meant absolutely nothing....just like your god...
Except that my God is believed by half the world's population today, as well as by the majority of human history. Those beliefs shaped life as we know it today. Our american forefathers believed in Him. The Romans believed in him. Most of western civilization was molded in some way based on a belief in Him. The bible that speaks about Him has had a profound impact on every civilization that ever had access to it.
And it still stands up today. It's still relevant. With all we know scientifically we still can't dismiss these writings that are thousands of years old as false. All we find is more evidence that it's still possible. Like learning the universe has a beginning. It still supports this idea of a God that stayed consistent, though each piece was written centuries apart by numerous authors.
That's where all the hypothetical 'spaghetti monsters' and 'teacups' and random key strokes fail. They haven't had such a dramatic impact on humanity as a whole.
Simply assuming you're more 'enlightened' than the rest of human existence and ignoring everything they stood for, everything that meant something to them, though it's their thinking, their inventions, their reasoning, that even allows you to be sitting where you are today carrying on this pointless argument, that's no different than a teenager who thinks they know it all.
Appeal to Popularity and Appeal to Belief fallacies.
And, people wonder why the world is in the state it is in.
Crusades, witch burnings, genocides, holy wars....
And, we are gratefully thankful for that consider that destruction and damage your religion has brought mankind.
Kind of like what you're assuming now?
A book of myths written centuries ago by ignorant men? Is that your proof?
Yes, we do.
Yes, we can.
No, they weren't in place before the Big Bang, they resulted from the Big Bang.
Not knowing what caused the Big Bang certainly shouldn't have us jumping to conclusions that it was an invisible entity waving his magic hand.
But, you do jump to those conclusions, like so many other believers who know very little about scientific theories.
Believers would actually have to apply themselves to learning something about science before they apply scientific reasoning.
It is easily explained, the bible was written by ignorant, deluded, superstitious fools.
Wondering what headlyvonnoggin expects proof of god to look like? Strange over the last few thousand years that the constant divine interventions have completely stopped... just like my imaginary friend stopped appearing when I was over the age of 8!
The bible explains that. I have a hub that explains that. I explained that earlier in this very same thread. Now, explain to me how these ignorant desert dwellers got the creation account right.
It's one of my hubs. I illustrate it in detail. That's my proof. Disprove it.
So, you actually think the irrational beliefs in your hubs are somehow more valid than the irrational beliefs you display here?
This should explain the difficulty we have of keeping creationism from being included into school text books produced in Texas and used throughout the US. What is it with Texas and their extreme radical religious views? It's like we have our own fundie Jihads in this country.
Your referenced hub proves nothing. Humorous in its attempts, but that's about it. Sad really when one compares actually science to old myths plagiarized from other old religious cults and written down by goat herders. Of course, you already know where the flood myth was stolen from, correct?
Ohhh you explained it....well that changes everything...lol.
Sure, yeah, laugh it up. Genesis 1 is a specific account of the formation of the earth and all life on it. We now know enough about the formation of the earth and evolution of life to completely disprove the whole thing. To put an end to this destructive belief. Now's your chance.
I illustrate how it accurately lists 13 specific details and 6 major era of earth's history in order. Disprove it. Show me where I'm wrong. Don't just dismiss it categorically. Don't just laugh it off. Pick it apart. Prove I'm wrong. Considering it's the entirety of earth's history spanning over 4 billion years that should be easy to do.
We are, see --->
Whoa! Hold the phone just one minute there. An "account" would imply someone was actually there watching it all take place and documenting it.
Exactly. And the only being that could be there to see it all, to explain it all, would be God. Any human only account would be pure guesswork. Now you're getting it.
So, how did God tell you all about it?
You mean, like the Bible, a human account? Hilarious.
Early Genesis clearly depicts God walking and talking to Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. Then they passed it on. Easy enough.
You know, your statement earlier about how we do know the origin of the laws of physics actually almost made me use my first emoticon, but I composed myself. You said it with such certainty that I thought I might need to read up, see if I am misinformed, which is always a possibility I am open to. Turns out, I wasn't. You were just wrong.
I think emmaspeaks summed it up pretty good in her comments on that hub...
"This is just YOUR personal interpretation of a very vague text to begin with. This is far from proof of anything. How can you even suggest that this garbage is compatible with science?? You are clearly making a mockery of a very noble field, science."
I also have explained this mental disorder known as religion. I write for many websites myself: http://www.squidoo.com/god-is-just-pretend
Show me the proof that there is not an invisible teapot orbiting the earth.
Already tried the celestial teapot approach
The writings of a superstitious, fearful and ignorant bronze age society is not proof, just conjecture. It has no physical evidence. You would have thought that these enlightened people would have saved one artifact from the times to prove Jesus did any of the things they claim, but again we have nothing but words, just like fairly tales.
And those who think religion has had the bigger impact on society than anything else is again discounting pure science. In less than 100 years, science has improved the lives of millions of people, gave us modern conveniences, technology, extended our life span, fed us, clothed us, educated us and even gave us a glimpse into the workings of the universe. Science and man did that on our own, not God. You would think that an almighty omnipotent creature that loves us so much would have taught us a few things.
There may never be proof that God exists or doesn't exist, but the EVIDENCE leads to the overwhelming conclusion that he doesn't.
I think perhaps the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the other way around. If I tell you I have a city of gnomes living in a cave under my house, but they are invisible to everyone else, would you believe it or would you want proof? Who would the burden of proof fall on?
This statement has multiple problems...
1. Near East Bronze Age (including Mesopotamia) 3300-1200 BC
Obviously, Jesus came way after that.
2. These 'enlightened people' wrote down their eye-witness accounts of what happened. Obviously, this isn't enough for you. I'm not sure what 'artifact' you would expect them to grab and place somewhere for safe keeping so that you could have the proof you want. If only they had captured these events on their iphone. Opportunity missed, I guess.
This idea that science is somehow mutually exclusive to believers is just plain ignorant. Here's a partial list of important figures in the history of science who were Christians ... Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Pascal, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, and Kelvin.
Darwin was also a Christian who believed God's creation to be a kind of clockwork that didn't require his 'hands-on' attention. Though through his research, and especially after the death of his daughter, Darwin did see the process of life to be too cruel for the loving God he thought he knew.
And probably most interesting, the original scientist to first propose the big bang theory (called hypothesis of the primeval atom) was Georges Lemaître, an astronomer, physics professor, and a Roman Catholic Priest. He published his article 2 years before Hubble, who most often gets credit. In fact, in the 20's and 30's most major cosmologists preferred the idea of an eternal steady state universe, several of which complained that Lemaître's suggestion that both the universe and time had a beginning was his attempt to inject theological belief into the landscape of physics.
Yeah, he just created existence for you to live life and learn from. Just as Adam and Eve illustrated, just as every parent can attest, we often can't just be told. We have to learn through experience, the best teacher.
Not exactly. This idea that our scientific understanding actually suggests there is no God is rather new. Just like the example above about opposition to the idea of the universe having a beginning, all we find so far is a complex system that more lends to a conscious deliberate creation than to the idea of our existence being a happy cosmic coincidence.
False premise, you have no idea if they were "enlightened people' or just mentally disturbed or lying.
Hilarious, who wasn't a Christian back then? Muslims. And, they also come here and attempt to align their silly faith with science, too.
Again, so what? Is this supposed to evidence to support the existence of your God or something? What is your point?
Yes, with a talking snake.
'Enlightened people' was a direct quote from what I was replying to. Understanding context is important.
You're right, many were Christians. Many still are. There's a lot of people for you to look down on. Most of humanity is beneath you, including many of those that helped propel science to where it is today.
Again, I was addressing a comment that suggested Christians and science were mutually exclusive and that science had made more of an impact on modern society. Context is key.
You know, I can't help but notice you have 0 hubs to share this incredible wealth of knowledge you have with others. You apparently spend a substantial amount of time just taking jabs at people dumb enough to believe in God. In fact, a quick bit of math tells me you average roughly 22.6 comments a day in the 7 months you've been here under that login. That's just under a comment an hour. For 7 months! Assuming you sleep some of that, your average is probably closer to 2 to 3 comments per hour, since last summer. The few comments I've had the pleasure to read are just as void of substance or constructive arguments as I'm sure most others are, as you obviously don't spend much time confirming your statements.
So, if all you're going to do is troll these forums making snippy comments, at least understand what it is you're actually making fun of first.
Sorry, there is no counter argument to make, except of evidence, that which can be seen, understood and tested. Religion has none but heresay, while science has its entire foundation based on it and to date nobody has held up any evidence to prove there is a god other than a 2000 year old book whose origins are suspect and a bunch of people's beliefs.
If this so called omnipotent all loving entity was there, he either doesn't care or is off doing something else cause there is no evidence he interjects anything into this existence. He created Adam and Eve so he created there weakness too. These two were supposedly cast out and then just one generation later they are killing each other. Yup, great creation there.
To be all powerful all knowing and perfect and yet create such an imperfect flawed thing as a human being in your own image implies the creator is flawed also. Or more likely not there.
I can see your logic. But understand, the point was to create beings with free will. As in, a will apart from God's. If you have your own will, but don't understand the power of it, you can do a lot of damage. So, God created an entire existence for humanity to experience life through. There's no need for Him to interject or take action. Just like the parable says, it's all about how the workers behave when the master of the house is away.
Free will takes knowledge and understanding to properly wield. The implications of our actions often go far beyond what we can even comprehend. So we'll have the entirety of human existence to draw from. A detailed account of what not to do, so in the next life we can wield it properly.
Obviously, this is all conjecture on my part, but maybe something to at least suggest a different purpose than what you see. If this is the case then every life, no matter how short or tragic, will have meaning and purpose. It's kind of beautiful. That's how I see it, anyway.
Good points, but if we were created with free will and our goal is to better ourselves no matter how much suffering that takes and that our creator is going to be hands off, that message should have been a little clearer because its not really evident in the bible. In fact it teaches the opposite, that an all caring watchful father is looking out for us, cares for us and gives a little help now and then.
He does help out. I can attest from personal experience. But not to the level of making is presence known absolutely. Part of having free will is acting freely without a threatening visible parent watching over you.
The bible often talks of the next life. An eternal life. If there are two lives, one of which only last a handful of decades and is full of 'life lessons', which would you think is the priority?
But you have no proof you aren't worshiping the wrong god yourself. Nor can you give anyone else any assurance that by taking your opinion as "gospel," you aren't swaying them towards the wrong beliefs.
Not to mention, your becoming personally responsible for their eventual damnation by the correct gods. Or do you? Quite a responsibility for a self-righteous dude from Texas, I would imagine? Sorta "Cotton Matherish" don'tchathink?
Yeah, tricky, isn't it? Why bother creating an entire universe if you're going to make it a cakewalk? Actually, the bible talks about each person being judged righteously, taking into consideration what they know. Whether or not they know they broke a rule. It even goes on to explain that the more you know, the more accountable you are, as well as being accountable for anyone you may influence. It's all taken into consideration from what I understand. So, yes, I realize.
Like I said in my post right before that one... "Obviously, this is all conjecture on my part".
What I do know is that some of the oldest texts ever written, by the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, The Hebrews, all tell very similar stories. The Babylonians and Assyrians basically adopted the stories written by the Sumerians. The Sumerians invented the first cities, government, astronomy/astrology, calendars, laws, the wheel, writing .... in a rather short amount of time. As writing continued to develop the Sumerians began to write stories explaining how they learned to do all these things. They claim they were taught by immortal, human-like, on the earth, male and female, moody and emotional, gods. They were given the gifts of civilization, each called a 'me', passed down 'from heaven' to the city of Eridu 'before the great flood'.
Modern science has illuminated a glaring error in traditional biblical interpretations. Adam wasn't the first human. It's actually a pretty big element in the story. Cain fears harm from 'others' when he's banished, God legitimizes his concern with a mark to protect him. Then it says Cain settled and built a city right after stating he was cursed and could not grow food.
The Sumerians first 'pre-flood' cities were built around temples where their stories say their gods, the Annunaki, physically lived. The gods taught them civilization, including wide-scale, year-round agriculture, in return the people provided the fruits of their labor to the temple god.
Genesis 6 starts off by saying the 'sons of God' had children with the 'daughters of humans', 'anyone they chose', then explains that humans are mortal and only live 120 years, one chapter after explaining Adam and his descendents lived for centuries. These are the lines explaining why the flood was necessary. A local flood of the Mesopotamian region would be all that's necessary to wipe out the 'wicked' element that arose in humanity.
My faith in the God of the Hebrew bible did indeed come first, but I have many reasons to believe I'm on the right track. And none of this includes the undeniable presence I've felt for most of my life. These are just the clues I find all over the place. Something happened. I think the actually story of early Genesis is explaining what happened.
After the flood came the tower of babel. There God dispersed 50 or so of Noah's descendents throughout an already populated world, each one with free will, wisdom, knowledge of farming and civilization and building, each with their own language, and each familiar with a really compelling flood story. A story you see echoed in many civilizations to follow.
The timeframe in Genesis between Adam's creation and the flood is 1656 years. This is roughly the same length of time that passed between the first city of Sumer, Eridu (5300), and this ...
Ancient Egypt – 3400 – 30 BC
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingLists … ncient.htm – “From around 3500 to 3000 BC there were great and very sudden advances in craftsmanship and technology, which culminated in the working of copper, stone mace heads and ceramics.”
Not long after, the other direction in India….
Indus Valley Culture – 3300 – 1700 BC
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingLists … ulture.htm – “As the first great civilizations took shape in Sumer and Egypt, a people of unknown origin who were centered in the Indus Valley in modern Pakistan and India began constructing their own series of cities. These were as remarkable as any the world had yet seen, and at the same time trade flourished, and a system of writing evolved.”
While there are many gods of many different cultures, only one comes from the birthplace of civilization. Something happened there between about 10,000 BC and now because the people that came from there were different. The reason I say 10,000 BC is because this is roughly when the Baring land bridge that links Eastern Asia and North America together got cut off due to higher sea levels. The humans that crossed and inhabited North and South America did not spawn civilization like what happened across the ocean until civilization crossed the seas and got to them.
Now I understand this may all sound completely delusional to you. I get that. But rest assured, I have my reasons to believe what I believe.
Perhaps it may surprise you, but I'm well aware of the Sumerians and their belief in other beings-- the Annunaki- having a hand in their transition into something other than the ignorant, savage, creatures they formerly were. And, as a collector and longtime Native American artifact collector and history buff, I'm fully aware of the Bering land bridge formed during the last ice age. I've personally found projectile points on my farm which are in the 10-12,000 year old range.(some are exhibited on my hubs if you need further proof of my word.)
And you are incorrect about the ability of these New World immigrants not being able to match intellectual wits with their Old World peers. "Necessity is the mother of invention." In ancient times this was more true than today. During those savage times in the Old World the mere population growth in some areas of Asia and Europe required crops to be grown and cattle herds to be managed to fee everyone instead of the former nomadic form of existence which once fed all. Not enough game for everyone to hunt at some point.
Sedentary groups have more time to discuss their own discoveries and no great architectural wonders are constructed by those ever on the move in search of game. Child's play to figure this out as one reason for the differences in the knowledge between Old World and New.
But consider this. When the Spaniards and their Christian representatives were first "converting" (i.e. enslaving, murdering) the native peoples into the "true faith" in the Yucatan and other New World areas, the Mayans had already plotted the orbit of Venus for 500 years into the future and they were only off a few hours in their calculations, according to today's modern measuring instruments. No supernatural being was required to do magic for them to figure this out.
It's much more plausible aliens had a hand in our development than any supernatural beings using magic powers to punish mankind. I'm convinced we aren't the only living beings in the universe. The odds almost guarantee it.
It's more of a relief than a surprise to see you're already familiar. There's a higher chance of learning something I didn't know.
I'm familiar with the various theories regarding the discovery of farming. Genesis specifically depicts God teaching the Genesis 1 humans farming. While it explains that God provided herbs to be food for humans and animals, only for the humans does it explain the seeds within these that bare herbs and fruit trees. Something that only humans make use of in the way described.
The knowledge of farming itself is not the key. It's the wide-scale, year-round agricultural practices developed in Mesopotamia that allowed for the formation of cities. Full on cities governed by a Monarchy, with kings of each city, and supporting populations upward of 40,000 or more. The understanding of crop rotation and seasons to the point that a surplus of food becomes a kind of economy. And much of this before writing really developed beyond the ability to track quantities of material.
The first actual city of the western world was Santa Domingo, first formed by the Spaniards in 1496.
The Mayans are a definite point of interest to me. They figured out some things unlike anyone else in the new world, central africa, or australia. And they have a flood myth that speaks of giants that existed before-hand. Unfortunately I don't know much about Mayan culture, but being that they were settled on the east coast of south america makes me wonder if the people dispersed in all directions around the world at Babel truly meant 'around' the world.
Boats were in use well before civilization. Homo sapiens reached Australia tens of thousands of years before they were able to pass through northern africa into eurasia. Considering anyone could have crossed the atlantic ocean that early on is admittedly a bit of a stretch. Just something I've considered.
From what I know, I don't see the Mayans as a comparable civilization to what sprang up on the other side of the ocean. Dense population alone doesn't fully explain it. The ability to plant and grow food doesn't either. Civilizations in Mesopotamia and around the Medeterranean Sea sprang up like wildfire. Every one of which surpassed the Mayans in countless ways.
These are fun facts and I am happy that you are enjoying learning about other cultures. Much of primitive life can be learned from the texts of ancient religions, what they believed and such. Before writing though how did people communicate their past and how they got to where they are now? Or were at that time... They couldn't, without writing there is no understanding of the past there is no real communication of knowledge or instructions or thoughts or ideas. Once human civilization learned to write and express their ideas they boomed beyond control. Now here we are! And with science we can learn from the foot steps people made before the advent of writing using evidence and human behavioral psychology.
I understand how accumulated knowledge through writing can hasten advancement. That's something significant about what the Sumerians accomplished. Many of the concepts they first put into practice that forever changed how humans lived were already ancient by the time their writing developed to the point that they could illustrate these kinds of ideas in written form. Like their system of government. The first form of a monarchy. When writing finally developed they wrote stories that didn't give credit to their ancestors for being so inventive. They say they were taught.
Writing alone isn't the cause. Verbal communication played a significant role even before writing. The Sumerian stories were told for generations before they were written down. The same goes for The Books of Moses and probably Job, considering both the Sumerians and the Egyptians have very similar stories to Job. There were people in ancient Greece who traveled from city-state to city-state making a living by reciting stories from memory. Entire tales, like Homer's Iliad or Odyssey, word for word, from memory. Some estimate these people memorized up to a million lines of literature.
Then there are many cultures still alive today that never developed a form of writing. Writing is significant, I agree. But it doesn't tell the whole story. Simply developing a system of writing and communication in itself isn't something that just comes naturally as can be seen all throughout the world. There's more to the story. We have theories that attempt to explain this and that, but it's all still speculation, best guesses, based on what little we do know. If I'm right about Genesis, it goes a long way towards filling in many of those gaps with how it really happened.
1250 AD- Cahokia had around 15,000 residents. Equal to, or greater than, the population of London or Paris at the time. And this was by no means the largest city ever constructed in the New World during pre-Columbian times.
Perhaps up to 90% of the Native American population was infected with Old World diseses they had no immunities to by Gods messengers, the Europeans. Duh..gee thanks god! I suppose that taught those godless--at least lacking your particular favorite deity--savages a lesson.
Consider the areas you mentioned in the Old World. They were not capable of supporting large populations without becoming sedentary because of the aridity of the climate and soil. Not so in the New World where the maya nd other civilizations sprang up. One doesn't till the soil when one can simply pluck food from the wild with little effort. Once again "Necessity is...!
Please understand, I'm not saying these early humans were in any way Godless. They simply lacked the free will to live in opposition to nature if they chose. Survival isn't the same as free will. Survival had been learned over many generations. The invention of fire, tools, boats, weapons, pottery, fish hooks, nets, that's survival. Their will is driven by what God commanded; be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth (all of it, by whatever means), establish yourselves as the dominant species. The human ability to make tools and such is engrained, and very much still God's will. To truly fill the earth, they'd have to adapt to all kinds of challenging environments.
Civilization that originated in Mesopotamia did all kinds of messed up things for personal gain. That's free will. Bringing disease on their voyages to lands they didn't 'need' to live. Taking populations of indiginous humans as slaves. A tell-tale sign of true human free will is when humans are greedy and take whatever they want, often at great cost.
Sure they weren't godless as they had gods just as real as yours. I would also venture to guess they had more faith in their gods than you have in yours. Would you feel honored to have your child sacrificed to appease your god?
Would your faith in him be so strong you would freely donate your child as a sacrifice with a smile on your face? I doubt even your faith in the old dude would allow such. So does that mean their god was stronger than yours? To some I'm sure it would, but then they would simply be superstitious ignoramuses if they didn't think your god was the better, right?
Free will? A catch-all phrase used by religious aficionados to attempt to separate human animals from the lower species. But it's simply another name for "survival of the fittest" on a much higher level. Nothing more than that, no matter how one spins it. No gods needed for this as isolated human civilizations have shown it to be true many times. No gods are needed for either good or bad to take place, and never have been.
Pretty selfless, don't you think? These people would often put aside their own well being, or the well being of their loved ones, for the good of the tribe. Sacrifice.
You actually make a good point without realizing it. This adds a level of significance to the story of Abraham taking Isaac to sacrifice him that I never considered before. This illustrated that the free-willed human God chose, Abraham, was just as willing and selfless to sacrifice his own flesh and blood as humans who did not have a free will of their own. This mirrors the conversation between God and the 'deceiver' in Job.
Survival of the fittest and free will are not one and the same. There's a difference between simply having the strength to survive over another and a will that takes whatever it desires, not for survival alone, but for sport, or out of greed, or spite. This is what sets modern humans apart. Our tendency to force our will on others, not to live, not to protect ourselves, but just because we want to. Or we convince ourselves we're supposed to. Or whatever.
Nope. You are confusing free will and instinct. Also important lessons taught by our parents since childhood. Civilizations existing long before your god was invented have always had a list of commandments--ten aren't needed as some of them cover the others-- which made it possible for groups of people to be able to live together in harmony, for the most part. It's such a simple concept, even a fundie can understand it if they try.
For example-One individual who steals from a group will be punished for doing so, otherwise everyone does the same and chaos ensues. The same may be said for murderers and liars. If such is allowed there will be no harmony and the entire group will suffer for it.
Your god didn't have to give these primitive groups his commandments as those never aware of him/her/it had already developed their own. Did you ever wonder what language your god used to write the commandments on the tablets in? Or even if the illiterate Hebrew tribes could even read them?
Believers often forget what actually determines some things and go the easy route of "goddunit," to their own detriment in most cases.
And what you don't realize is that much of what you're suggesting is speculation too. There were no written documents to confirm this. These are assumptions based on observation. Scientific facts can't tell the whole story yet. Observations can't tell the whole story. We get pieces here and there and try to fill in what came before with best guesses based on other known factors. But it's still speculation. Most understand and acknowledge that. Others speak as if these views are already set in stone and confirmed, though they're not. Your assumptions don't allow for God playing a role. Mine do. That's the only difference.
I'm not confusing free will and instinct. Or even free will and survival beyond instinct. I'm noting a distinct difference between humans born of the civilizations that sprang up in Mesopotamia compared to other indigenous humans. I'm suggesting true free will didn't appear until Adam's creation somewhere between 10000 and 5000 BC in Mesopotamia. The people, the civilizations, that originated there forever changed the world. Our history illustrates it. As all the drama unfolded throughout Eurasia, the indigenous cultures of central africa, the aborigines of australia, the native north and south americans (with the possible exception of the Mayans), all the cultures geographically cut off from the civilization boom, all continued to live much like early humans for thousands of years before. Sure, population growth and climate changes spurred progress here and there, but nothing like the explosion of invention that came from that one region of the world.
The Mayans were no exception in their ability to do complicated math equations nor in the field of astronomy. I recent did a series of articles on a nearby Mississippian mound builders complex in Macon Georgia. Almost every mound, including the oldest complete earthen ceremonial lodge in the US, were aligned with both solar,lunar and planetary orbits.
The Aztecs, Incas, Olmecs, and many other native American cultures were aware of celestial events and included them in many of their rituals. This was not a rare thing. And despite your confusion on the matter, a profusion of game and naturally occurring food sources delays any attempts at raising domesticated animals or food crops. It's as simple as that.
I get what you're saying, and will probably check out your articles because it's all endlessly fascinating to me, but I think you're shortchanging the civilization boom. Even now, looking at the quick advances of the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Indus Valley culture, many acknowledge these advances were rather sudden. There's no progression in the archeological evidence that shows gradual movement forward.
Yes, the Mayans, and I'm sure others nearby, did some pretty extraordinary things that are still a mystery to us. Their calendar, their knowledge of orbits, isn't explained simply by survival instincts and learning to grow food. It's not dependent on the region they lived in. That's why they're a particular point of interest to me. We can't draw a clear line from this to that and explain what all they managed to figure out. We can speculate. That's half the fun. You have your parameters and I have mine as far as what's allowed in that speculation, but we're both trying to make sense out of something that hasn't been determined and confirmed through hard evidence to explain it all.
Webster defines free will as:
1: voluntary choice or decision, I do this of my own free will.
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.
When theists are presented with a dilemma such as all the ones I have raised here, their go to response is "free will". This is not only a cop out, but not even an acceptable answer. A theist cannot truly believe they have free will while at the same time believing God knows their every thought and action.
If God knows what you are going to do before you do it, that would mean it is predestined. It does not matter that you have the option of changing your mind, because in the end, God would still know what your final decision would be. Even if you were to change your mind 1000 times, God would still know what your final decision would be. If God knew yesterday that today I would eat cereal for breakfast, am I free to not eat cereal today? The problem is of course if I am free to not eat cereal today, God would have been wrong in knowing that I would eat cereal today.
If someone knows in advance what you will do, you do not have free will because it was decided ahead of time what you were going to do. Although you might have convinced yourself that you had free will in your decision, you did not because God knew before you did what you were going to decide.
Either we truly have free will and God (or anyone else) does not know what we will do tomorrow, or we do not and our future has already been decided.
Free will does not answer any of the dilemma's I have placed here, so if you use free will to try and explain any of this, I will discredit your answer based on your not having free will and your misunderstanding of the meaning of free will.
Yeah, I've heard that. What I don't get is how exactly God's knowledge of what you're going to do takes away your ability to choose that option of your own free will? If I knew in my soul you were going to have cereal tomorrow, and you did, does that mean that was my doing? My will? My decision?
God's knowledge of past/present/future doesn't mean it's predetermined or static. Just like that old illustration of multiple dimensions. The dimension you reside in appears linear to you, but seen completely differently by someone in the dimension above it. Time, for instance, it's linear to us. It's a dimension we're part of. But if you're the creator of time, if you're outside of that dimension, above it, then it's more like the first dimension is to us. A point. Past/present/future, a single point. That doesn't mean your will dictates what happens in that dimension simply because you can see it.
Free will is our ability to act outside of the will of God, live outside of the natural order, be destructive like we are, tear the place up like we do, create waste like we do, etc. The humans in Genesis 1 did exactly what God said to do all throughout the Homo genus. They took on the image and likeness of modern humans, they were fruitful, they multiplied, the subdued and filled the earth, and they established themselves as the dominant species of the animal kingdom, worldwide, leading right up to the time Adam showed up.
For Adam it was different. He wasn't told what to do, only what not to do. When Adam and Eve broke that one rule they illustrated their ability to act outside of God's will. They had free will. I believe Adam was God's introduction of free will into the world. Spreading Noah's descendants into an already populated world at Babel much like plants spread spores to reproduce. It's like he planted a seed and let it grow.
Free will doesn't mean you have the ability to pull a fast one on God. You trying to explain away with absolute certainty the possibility of both an all knowing God and free will, when you yourself believe in neither, limits your ability to understand it. If you're going to try to speak on such matters, you have to respect the material enough to assume it's perspective, it's view, fully, so that you can honestly understand it, whether you believe it or not.
Yeah...Christians have a hard time with common sense.
You just don't "get it" as most if not all theists don't. If your god knows what you are going to do, you do not have free will. If he knows I will eat oatmeal this morning for breakfast, am I now free not to eat oatmeal? If you say no I am not free then there is no free will, if you say yes I am free, then god does not know. It's pretty simple really, but then so are a lot of things theists don't get.
In other words prophesy negates free will, if God created free will then to have a prophesy showing you that you are destined to do something shows that from the time God created you even before God created you (by definition his omniscience) he knew what you would do all the way up till you died, then you are not free you are written, you are text, you can't change your mind because God put you in place to make these choices to the end as he made it to be, hence, free will is none existent if God exists and the Bible is contradicted.
That only applies to humans. We exist within a linear dimension of time. Scripture says God created the universe, as in exists outside of it, before it, including time. To Him, time is a single point, not a linear progression where speed and direction cannot be deviated from. He just knows. This doesn't mean that every decision we make is His will. Often it's not. But He still knows. It's a matter of perspective.
Well, I am sure that if God knows that a company shall call you and tell you that you have won a millions dollars and tell you the place and time and directions to pick up your million dollars that you would gladly comply. On the other hand, if the police call and warn you of danger, I am sure that you would take heed, and thank them. You had freedom of choice in both scenarios.
Don't blame God for being omniscience.
You call that common sense? Webster's definition of 'will' is ...
The power of choosing; the faculty or endowment of the soul by which it is capable of choosing; the faculty or power of the mind by which we decide to do or not to do; the power or faculty of preferring or selecting one of two or more objects.
You're free to make whatever choice you wish. Just because God knows what you're going to do doesn't mean it's His will. His will would have chosen something else.
Nature is a reflection of God's nature. In life at the cellular level, cells must adhere to the DNA code programmed within them to function properly. DNA in this case is the authority. The lifespan of the individual cell is miniscual in comparison to the ageless DNA refined over numerous generations.
Now, imagine if each cell in your body has the ability to choose for itself whether or not to adhere to what the DNA code dictates. Cells basically have three main functions; divide(make new cell), be what DNA specifies, die. When cells don't die when they're supposed to, they're cancerous. In this way free will is a potential cancer that can eventually endanger the life of the organism as a whole. To save the organism, those cells must be removed.
Like I said before, early human development confirms previous species of the homo genus did exactly as they were told. Then with Adam things changed. From that point on God gave rules. And those rules were often broken. Those rules were God's will. Those rules basically explained that God must be the authority above all others, the rest described how to treat each other. If free will isn't actually free of God's will, then why give us rules and acknowledge we'll break them? God's laws are a form of God's will in writing.
This mirrors the kind of protocol developed in cellular communities from the time multi-celled organisms first appeared. The DNA must be the authority, and behave like they're supposed to. While these laws were meant specifically for the Israelites, they do give insight into God's nature. And it mirrors what's found in nature.
I understand you just think I'm too dense to 'get it'. I'm pretty sure I do. All you seem to be doing is misunderstanding what 'will' really means. God's knowledge of actions and decisions does not equate to His will. He knows we won't follow His will. He knows we don't even have the capacity to fully understand when or how or even if w