Mr.Canada Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Thanks, I needed a good laugh today. Here, let me put on my Biblical Glasses so I can see things better. I truly feel sorry for you and will pray for your soul. I'll look upon you and all the other non believers on judgment day with great sadness. It will be you who must answer to God and account for your life. I wish you the best and I hope that one day you find Jesus and walk on the righteous path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 I truly feel sorry for you and will pray for your soul. I'll look upon you and all the other non believers on judgment day with great sadness. It will be you who must answer to God and account for your life. I wish you the best and I hope that one day you find Jesus and walk on the righteous path. No need to feel sorry for me, or to pray for me. That will just be a waste of time. Put your praying to better use somewhere else. Because, Jesus helps those who help themselves. I've been helping myself for a long time now. God has not answered my questions in any way shape or form. So I feel no need to answer to him if god actually exists. I am agnostic. I answer to myself now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Science is a gift from God to help us understand his great works. If man chooses to misuse this gift well then that is entirely human nature isn't it. Humans will always make excuses to justify there own immoral behaviors. That's just how things are. Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing. This does not appear to have anything to do with my question. I'll ask it, slightly differently. If you have an interpretation of Scripture that appears to run counter to an empirically-derived naturalistic explanation (in short, science), which do you discard or modify, and what precisely is the underly methodology of that modification? Do you consider the possibility that your interpretation of Scripture is wrong, or do you assume that the science must be wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 No need to feel sorry for me, or to pray for me. That will just be a waste of time. Put your praying to better use somewhere else. Because, Jesus helps those who help themselves. I've been helping myself for a long time now. God has not answered my questions in any way shape or form. So I feel no need to answer to him if god actually exists. I am agnostic. I answer to myself now. That doesn't make you correct. That voice that speaks to you inside, that is the voice of God. Many people mistake it as their own thoughts but that is God speaking to you and guiding you. People choose to call it different things but that is the voice of God. Once you realize that things get easier to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 This does not appear to have anything to do with my question. I'll ask it, slightly differently. If you have an interpretation of Scripture that appears to run counter to an empirically-derived naturalistic explanation (in short, science), which do you discard or modify, and what precisely is the underly methodology of that modification? Do you consider the possibility that your interpretation of Scripture is wrong, or do you assume that the science must be wrong? The New Testament is over 2000 years old , while most of the old Testament is over 5000 years old. You expect today's science to directly correlate to this? Give me a break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 That doesn't make you correct. That voice that speaks to you inside, that is the voice of God. This morning THE VOICE said to me, "oy, look at the headlights on that hoochie mama" And verily, I did. And it was good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 The New Testament is over 2000 years old , while most of the old Testament is over 5000 years old. You expect today's science to directly correlate to this? Give me a break. If science was truely given to man by god, then you would have said yes. To me, this says that science and religion are not compatible. Science is from Earth, while religion seems to be from Mars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 The New Testament is over 2000 years old , while most of the old Testament is over 5000 years old. You expect today's science to directly correlate to this? Give me a break. The OT is most definitely not over 5,000 years old. There's no evidence that it existed anywhere older than 1,300 to 1,000 BCE, unless you start counting the sources that the OT imported elements from (the Gilgamesh cycle, the Sumerian cosmography). Those are about 5,000 years old, but they predate any version of the OT by at 2,000 years or more. But as to the main question, I can then assume that you don't actually believe the same things the Hebrews did; that the Earth was created in six literal days, that the Earth is flat and dish-shaped, that the sun stood still in the sky, and other elements that are clearly based upon an ancient understanding as to the shape of the Earth, the age of the Earth and cosmos, and of the general structure of the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology (that was very definitely geocentric). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 The OT is most definitely not over 5,000 years old. There's no evidence that it existed anywhere older than 1,300 to 1,000 BCE, unless you start counting the sources that the OT imported elements from (the Gilgamesh cycle, the Sumerian cosmography). Those are about 5,000 years old, but they predate any version of the OT by at 2,000 years or more. But as to the main question, I can then assume that you don't actually believe the same things the Hebrews did; that the Earth was created in six literal days, that the Earth is flat and dish-shaped, that the sun stood still in the sky, and other elements that are clearly based upon an ancient understanding as to the shape of the Earth, the age of the Earth and cosmos, and of the general structure of the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology (that was very definitely geocentric). Define "a day" at the beginning of time? Do you think that our concept of day would be similar to a record where early people had no concept of time? And when the day concept was added to the story, would the length of day - the cycles of the earth / moon and sun - be consistent with those same cycles today? Things are possible if one can understand the meaning of certain words at the time the story was created, assuming they survived numerous translations and editions, and be able to detach themselves from the bias created since. It is easy to dismiss stories as fables just as in 1000 years it will be easy to dismiss that we were space travelers in the 20th century. It is all in the context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Seeing isn't believing, believing is seeing. lol you can argue for santa's exsistance in the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 lol you can argue for santa's exsistance in the same way. They stole it from Christians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 They stole it from Christians. Who stole it from the Romans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 God, in his infinite wisdom has bestowed the gift of self awareness upon us. It is our duty to choose properly and to listen to the voice of God inside each of us. The voice of God and of Satan is inside each of us it's up to us to listen to the right voice. We as humans have all the tools needed in order to become good Christians it's up to us to listen to His words and His truth. God Bless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) No he didn't we evolved self awarness a few hundred thousand years ago. Do you accept that we are monkey's? Edited December 15, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Define "a day" at the beginning of time? Do you think that our concept of day would be similar to a record where early people had no concept of time? And when the day concept was added to the story, would the length of day - the cycles of the earth / moon and sun - be consistent with those same cycles today? Things are possible if one can understand the meaning of certain words at the time the story was created, assuming they survived numerous translations and editions, and be able to detach themselves from the bias created since. It is easy to dismiss stories as fables just as in 1000 years it will be easy to dismiss that we were space travelers in the 20th century. It is all in the context. This reads like little more than a post hoc attempt to force fit the first chapter of Genesis into a modern understanding. I doubt very much the Hebrews actually thought "Well, due to relativistic effects at the beginning of time, a day could be anything..." It's very clear from reading Genesis that the original writers and redactors believed that the creative days were literal 24 hour periods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 God, in his infinite wisdom has bestowed the gift of self awareness upon us. It is our duty to choose properly and to listen to the voice of God inside each of us. The voice of God and of Satan is inside each of us it's up to us to listen to the right voice. We as humans have all the tools needed in order to become good Christians it's up to us to listen to His words and His truth. God Bless. Whew!!! I am glad I am one of the lucky ones. No voices in MY head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 No he didn't we evolved self awarness a few hundred thousand years ago. Do you accept that we are monkey's? I haven't seen a monkey walk out of the jungle and go get a job yet have you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Whew!!! I am glad I am one of the lucky ones. No voices in MY head. The voice of God and Satan is inside of us all. Some people like to call those little voices consciousness or their gut feeling, womens intuition and a host of other names. Those are the voices of good and evil, God and Satan. If people would come to terms with that their would be more believers but instead people deny this fact and simply explain these voices away as I've mentioned earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 I haven't seen a monkey walk out of the jungle and go get a job yet have you? Is this supposed to constitute a rational critique at evolution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Is this supposed to constitute a rational critique at evolution? "Supposed to" is the crucial component here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 The voice of God and Satan is inside of us all. Some people like to call those little voices consciousness or their gut feeling, womens intuition and a host of other names. Those are the voices of good and evil, God and Satan. If people would come to terms with that their would be more believers but instead people deny this fact and simply explain these voices away as I've mentioned earlier. If that is true, then God is telling me you are an idiot. My gut feeling tells me so. I haven't seen a monkey walk out of the jungle and go get a job yet have you? They are in high demand for circuses!!! Many primates born in urban centers can't walk out of the concrete jungle to get a job, they can't even find a job within the jungle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 I understand what you're saying Mr.Canada those voices, they are not God and Satan. It is your consciousness. You have to realize, there is a global consciousness. It is this, that some perceive as god and or satan. The Global Consciousness Project, also called the EGG Project, is an international, multidisciplinary collaboration of scientists, engineers, artists and others. We collect data continuously from a global network of physical random number generators located in 65 host sites around the world. The archive contains more than 10 years of random data in parallel sequences of synchronized 200-bit trials every second.Our purpose is to examine subtle correlations that may reflect the presence and activity of consciousness in the world. We predict structure in what should be random data, associated with major global events. When millions of us share intentions and emotions the GCP/EGG network data show meaningful departures from expectation. This is a powerful finding based in solid science. Subtle but real effects of consciouness are important scientifically, but their real power is more direct. They encourage us to help make essential, healthy changes in the great systems that dominate our world. Large scale group consciousness has effects in the physical world. Knowing this, we can use our full capacities for creative movement toward a conscious future. http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 (edited) I haven't seen a monkey walk out of the jungle and go get a job yet have you? Since humans are monkeys then yes. Edited December 15, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 No...humans are apes...different family from monkeys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ Ah the good old noosphere! Excellent. But where does that fit in with the logosphere or blogosphere? Oh, to be Jung again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.