A challenge to our dear Christian friends.

[Dexter Sinister]

What form do you expect that evidence to take?

Certainly something better than descriptions of people's feelings about belief and various purely mental experiences, such as the epiphany you (at least my memory is that it was you) described. I really have no access to those things but people's reports on them, and that's not evidence, it's anecdote. If I had witnessed that epiphany, for instance, what would I have noticed? Nothing, really, except possibly someone in a highly charged emotional state. I would not have seen the hand coming down to envelop, nor would I have heard the voice. I'm not denying something significant happened, but I can't detect such things, nobody can but the person experiencing them, and that just isn't evidence.

Something better than biblical citations too. That's one of the weakest ways to argue for belief, because it presupposes a special status for the Bible, which both begs the question and amounts to no more than an argument from authority. Some of the scripture you cited is certainly true, if Christ is not risen then your faith is vain, but the only evidence Christ rose from the dead is in the text itself, there is no independent corroboration of that claim, and the same claim has been made for others--Osiris, for instance, and more recently a contemporary of Jesus named Appollonius of Tyana--with no better evidence. I presume you don't believe those claims, and you shouldn't, there's no evidence to sustain them, but as I more or less said somewhere else, when you really understand why you don't believe those claims, you'll understand why I don't believe the biblical claims about Jesus.

The statement "There is a god" is really an empirical claim about the nature of the cosmos, in that a cosmos with a god in it ought to be detectably different from one without, essentially because if it's not, then there's no point in or need for god's existence, he's not making any difference and thus his existence is irrelevant. I've read arguments in support of that claim that span thousands of years of human history, and heard or read probably hundreds of people making the arguments to me personally, and none of them hold water on close inspection. They're logically flawed, often by begging the question as the argument from design does, or they're merely anecdote and hearsay, or they're just plain silly, like St. Anselm's ontological argument.

There ought to be some evidence if the claim is true. Asking me to specify beforehand what form it should take is to prejudge it. It is, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the evidence. Best I can give you is a vague generalization: it requires some very well attested event that admits of no other conceivable explanation. Stopping and restarting the earth's rotation without causing any damage would do it, and I know the Bible claims that happened at least twice, once in fact reversing it briefly, but that's not well attested enough, nobody else on the planet noticed. One could argue of course that god arranged it so nobody else would notice, but that kind of argument goes nowhere. It means god hides the signs of his existence from reason and evidence, and if he really wants us to know him it doesn't make sense that he'd do that. I have little doubt you'd argue that god endowed us with intelligence, the capacity for reason, and the ability to evaluate evidence, but it seems pretty senseless to me that the only path to him that he allows involves denying them.

 

[s_lone]

Man did have the information figured out and it was embodied in the myth of Horus. Mosses came down from the mountain and claimed that knowledge as his, when clearly, it wasn't.

Here is a movie that will explain it: Zeitgeist. The first part on Christianity and astrology (starts at 10:30) is just excellent. The rest is good too but not on topic.

I have posted this movie because it covers what would take hours to post.

Watch it if you dare.

The rest is not on topic you say? It's about 9/11 being an inside job and world government conspiracies... Do you believe it Scott Free?

 

[Scott Free]

The rest is not on topic you say? It's about 9/11 being an inside job and world government conspiracies... Do you believe it Scott Free?

The rest isn't on topic for this thread (religion) so I'll try and keep my reply brief as I don't want this thread to get hijacked (pun intended).

My knowledge of the political elite is sufficient that I am compelled to know that nothing they say can be taken at face value. They rely heavily on misinformation, lies and abstractions of language that people find difficult to decipher. This is their bread and butter if you like.

There is an amazing amount of evidence that suggests 9/11 was a false flag operation. There is also ample evidence to suggest the political elite are capable of carrying out such an operation.

It is also evident that a proper investigation has not been performed. Many of the facts in the mainstream explanation defies reason, logic and what we know of how the physical world works. There are also hundreds of top intellectuals that have confirmed this with their own independent investigations.

The question of whether I "believe" 9/11 was a false flag operation isn't quite accurate. The overwhelming evidence suggests that many people benefited from the events. The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that a proper investigation was purposefully opposed and, indeed, the opposition to such an investigation was launched immediately after the attacks in violation of US law. There is also overwhelming evidence that these courses of action are not without precedence. There is overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was immediately used for political purposes that, without a proper investigation, defy logic.

So I have concluded that 9/11 was a false flag operation simply because it was used as one. Regardless of the actual facts (which are overwhelming) the event was used in a diabolical way to invade and enforce foreign policy that would otherwise have been impossible to employ. I don't believe it but rather, I know it.

Where I become skeptical is in the whys, hows and whose. Here there is much less evidence for conclusion because there was no proper investigation. There are many possibilities. Some very disturbing some less so.

So we have: Precedence, opportunity, motivation, evidence and illegal activity to thwart realistic investigation. Without a proper investigation, which is now impossible, the real culprits and the scope of culpability can not be known.

My conclusion: our system, Canada because of it's use of 9/11 as a false flag operation too, has become so corrupted that I can no longer support the political system; it is immoral to do so; the US system likewise is corrupted. Since it is impossible to know who was responsible for the false flag operation the entire system needs to be revamped. I can not in good conscious support a political system that can have such things occur. Our systems need to be reworked and probably completely destroyed. The corruption is that complete. It isn't possible for it to correct itself.

How should we fight back? The political elite get their power from us, the dizzy little sheep, that have neither the time nor ability to fix the problem within the available framework. We do however have the ability to remove their validity through a process known as agorism; where we participate in the system as little as possible and seek alternative methods to our means than those provided to us. This will fundamentally remove relevance from the political elite and to recover their power they will need to change their system. I now engage in this to the best of my ability:

I don't watch TV because I don't want to participate in the proliferation of their propaganda. I understand the power of propaganda and misinformation well enough, also I know much of the psychology used to create the propaganda, that I know no mind can stand up to its power to persuade. So for my own health I must ignore it.

I do not take on debt because the elite loan money they do not have. If, for example, I take out a mortgage, I give the bank of Canada the ability to create the money for me to buy the house. If I fail to pay off the bank they will take the house. They get a house for nothing or they get my interest payments for nothing! This is completely unacceptable.

I circumvent, maneuver around or flat out ignore any law I can.

I try and use barter and trade for my consumer goods. I also try and buy my goods locally.

I vote for the most subversive political party I can.

I mock and belittle the political elite at every opportunity. This is fundamental in removing their power and relevance.

 

[MHz]

There ought to be some evidence if the claim is true.

That would certainly clear things up.

In the meantime, is there any use for Scripture? I don't read them as a way to support if there is or isn't a God. I read them to clarify what is being said, not as easy as it sounds. I also read them to verify what others say Scripture means. Say a person promotes 'theory A' as being some sort of truth, I can take their word for it or go and read the passage that their supporting verse comes from for myself. Some of the time, if not most of the time, there is another verse that disputes that same claim, if not in that passage then another passage.

That movie didn't portray anything as being what Scripture said, it was a total deflection.

The more that kind of 'understanding' is promoted, and 'mainstream religion is the most guilty' today than anybody. The more 'mystery' they can introduce (in that what is understood as plain language would be understood) the more they can discourage people from reading for themselves (it's just too complicated for the 'unlearned'). It would suit their purposes just fine if they were the only ones allowed to have those texts.

One example, in Re:22, John and Christ are on a high mountain watching that huge New Jerusalem descend. The picture promoted by most, if not all, mainstream Churches is that it descends to a world that is as beautiful as Eden ever was. That isn't what reading some verses would indicate, it would point to a desolate world, void of even a single blade of grass. The last event for the Earth before New Jerusalem coming down is the fire from Heaven that takes out Satan and all the fallen angels. The new earth will be like Eden but that just starts after New Jerusalem exists on this Earth.

Try to run that by any Church, or friends that believe in the Bible, and see just how quick you get condemned.

 

[MHz]

Many of the facts in the mainstream explanation defies reason, logic and what we know of how the physical world works. There are also hundreds of top intellectuals that have confirmed this with their own independent investigations.

I particularly like the way that steel spike turns to vapor in the early part of one of the collapses.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

. Some of the time, if not most of the time, there is another verse that disputes that same claim..

That's one of the points I made earlier, that the Bible's not consistent, and you apparently denied it.

 

[MHz]

That's one of the points I made earlier, that the Bible's not consistent, and you apparently denied it.

But that is where you stopped, you didn't care enough to consider that what was promoted is what was inconsistent.
I asked you two questions about Daniel that you just blew off, I don't know if you saw them as just saw them as plain stupid to begin with and not worth answering or it was something subconscious that made you ignore them.
One was, do the verses in Ch:8 that are attributed to one of the 4 kings that came after Alex describe in any way shape or form Rome's role in events that transpired during the time of Jesus up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of Jews from Jesus's land and the power they had over things after that. The army may have lost control a few hundred years later but they still yielded power via their Church by the time the army didn't.
The second was, the 4 kingdoms described in the statue of Ch:2. Each of those 4 is covered in greater detail in other chapters. If the brass is in chapter 8 then the iron and clay should be in a later chapter. Chapter 9 meshes with those verses from the previous chapter, it is there because of it's importance. So where is the chapter on the iron and clay if it isn't chapter 11?
Another thing mentioned in Ch:2 is a bit about the iron and clay meeting it's end. Daniel has only a few lines about it, Ch:2 and 8 and a bit in 7 an 12. That event is the most important of anything but it would also appear to have the least amount written about it. If you only consider Daniel that is true. When you consider all the books that follow Daniel, all 12 of them, that event is covered in every single one of them. In most that is the only subject covered.
Your claim about Ch:11 doesn't come as new information to me, I read a paper on the theory quite awhile ago, it was very long and very well written. It even had numbers for every battle, by the time I finished reading it I was impressed. Over time, and re-reading all of Daniel several times it began to be inconsistent. Two reasons are already listed in this post. Other 'little things' also popped up.

It's fine with me if you see Scripture as a work of fiction and really that doesn't handicap you from being accepted into the promises Jesus gave. You really should read with a discerning eye though, it may not change you mind about it being a work of fiction but it might change your mind about it being a well written book of fiction rather than a poorly written one.

A lot of popular thoughts will be shown to be utterly false.
Eternal damnation...False (Heb:12 and Isa:65) I will even provide a bit of a spoiler, Hebrews 12 is about people standing before God at Judgment Day which happens after Satan is in the lake. Isaiah 65 is written to the ones who will die at His coming (called 'they'), the difference between His servants and them is the thousand years, some have it pleasant, they do not. They are the ones who are building the houses.
Seven year trib....False. The full 70 weeks was completed by the time Peter was given the vision that lead him to preach the Gospel to Gentiles.

I could supply more examples, you only have to find one example that puts some verses in their proper place, the rest fall into place quite easily.

This little bit doesn't apply specifically to anything we have touched on but is does kind of fit the thread.

The big bad wolf of the Churches is the RCC. They had the most influence after the Apostles were all dead. If they introduce a lie way back then would they have to keep that lie going even today, knowing full well it was and is a lie. My own person view is that they would do anything to keep that lie hidden, absolutely anything. Fear of having their members turn their backs on them and dispersing to other Churches would be a prime factor but maybe not the only one (depending what lie was being covered up). An important one would result in them becoming a desolate Church, a smaller, less important one might be something that could be forgiven. A small one being something like women could and did teach the Gospel to people who wanted to learn, they may not have been the recruiters but some had accurate enough knowledge that they were doing proper instruction.
I used that example because, quite frankly, an all male priest-hood has not worked out very well for them. Priest confessing to priests is another thing that doesn't work. If they sin why not confess that sin to the whole congregation, confessing to many will be a much more humbling experience than whispering to somebody in some hidden corner. Do that once, the thought of having to do it again will be a real deterrent to doing the same thing twice.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

But that is where you stopped, you didn't care enough to consider that what was promoted is what was inconsistent.
I asked you two questions about Daniel that you just blew off,

Your posts on religious matters are generally too long for somebody with a real life to deal with point by point, I just respond to what strikes me as significant. It's not what's promoted by others as the meanings of certain passages that are inconsistent, the point is that the Bible itself makes directly contradictory claims. People like you will jump through a lot of hoops, assume a lot of things without any evident justification, and introduce a whole lot of complexity in an attempt to prove otherwise, but it says what it says, and what it says is not internally consistent. It starts right in the first two chapters of Genesis with two inconsistent creation accounts.

 

[MHz]

Let me shorten them up a bit.
Genesis 1, matters concerning the physical journey.
Genesis 2. matters concerning the spiritual journey.

You could have answered those two questions in the same space that resulted in basically nothing being said.

You might even have spare time if you stopped posting the bible is false, the bible is false, the bible is false, etc.

 

[L Gilbert]

lol
Might help if your posts were shorter, too.
At any rate, the Biblecould have been a better book if it left out the feeble attempts at being a book of fantasy, at documenting history. But then, there wouldn't be much book left would there? Seems to me that if there is a relatively useful message or two in the book it is contained in the 10 commandments and the concept "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" . The vast majority of remainder of the book is pretty irrational and unfounded.
All things considered, the whole thing could be reduced to one comment "Love thy neighbor" and I might add that one should act as if they loved their neighbor. But then, that'd be telling everyone they should be perfect. Of course, that'll never happen, so we have more uselful tombs of info such as The Canadian Criminal Code et al.

 

[MHz]

The vast majority of remainder of the book is pretty irrational and unfounded.
All things considered, the whole thing could be reduced to one comment "Love thy neighbor" and I might add that one should act as if they loved their neighbor. But then, that'd be telling everyone they should be perfect. Of course, that'll never happen, so we have more uselful tombs of info such as The Canadian Criminal Code et al.

Are you referencing the texts that deal with history or the ones that deal with the prophecies that are still waiting to unfold?
An even more universal code of good conduct is the UN Human Rights Act. If it was followed to the letter life would be quite different for some people, hard to enforce breaches when the courts can't keep up with the breaches of the CCC.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Let me shorten them up a bit.
Genesis 1, matters concerning the physical journey.
Genesis 2. matters concerning the spiritual journey.

That's exactly the kind of stuff I mean. Genesis 1:25-27 has god creating humans last, both male and female together. Genesis 2:18-22 has god creating Adam first, then forming all the animals out of the ground and bringing them to Adam to be named, then creating Eve. That's plainly what it says, and Christian apologists have to enter into elaborate circumlocutions like this to explain them away. Some go into even more elaborate detail about possible shadings of various Hebrew words and how they were translated. If god really wanted us to understand what it's about, and this really is the inerrant word of a perfect deity sending a message to mankind, it shouldn't be that hard. It is intrinsically unreasonable that a layman reading the Bible has to rely on various academic traditions of biblical scholarship like the JEPD documents and have a knowledge of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, in order to make sense of it.

 

[look3467]

If what is inside our souls can be proven, prove it?

All we see is what transpires on the outside.

God works on the inside of our souls, so therefore, God can not be proven on the outside, except for good being generated from the inside first.

Here is a verse that describes the condition of the heart verses that which is outwardly, the letter, or what is written, or what is as mankind has ordained as religion.

Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Circumcision is the peeling away of the foreskin revealing the head, the same similitude is the heart, where the heart of stone, as in stone tablets where the letter of the law was written,is slowly turned to hearts of flesh, or in other words, the covering that covered the heart from being live, is peeled away revealing the true heart of God in us.

All whose heart has not being peeled, circumcised by the spirit of God, have stone hearts, who will think only on the physical laws, the earthly things and or trust only in the sciences. Stone hearts are not alive with the spirit of God unless He first circumcises it.

Therefore, to prove the existence of God, is not provable to the world, but only to the individual heart, where only there can the existence of God be proven.

Those who testify of an experience with God, have proven for themselves that God exists.

But is looked on by the world as just an emotion, a mental condition, crazy or just some religious zealot.

I know without a doubt in my heart that God exists, and all I can say to the world, is by my actions.

1Pe 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[look3467]

The number of man is the number 6.

The day of Gods resting from all His works follows as the 7th day, meaning completion.

Now if you study to find out what day of seven, Jesus makes His appearance, you will find Him recreating the man day, the 6th day, all over again, in the spiritual world, in order to give mankind life which, prior to Jesus' appearance, all mankind was lost.

Therefore, Jesus is the second Adam.

If you can remember this one thing in your studies of the bible, is that God doubles twice before He brings things to pass, you will see that there is 3 man type days, or 3 -6's, the 3th 6 is the new creature.

You have the first man Adam 6, the second man Adam 6, and the new man Adam , or the new creature 6.

The thing was doubled and on the 3rd time it came to pass resulting in a 3rd new man, the spiritual man.

Of course, all of this is unbelievable first to the Christian, because the number 666 is evil, and then the unbeliever because the bible is nonsense any ways.

So, believe what you want, but let me caution you all, if you sow discord in this life, you will reap the same, and there is absolutely no one excluded from that process.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[MHz]

That's exactly the kind of stuff I mean. Genesis 1:25-27 has god creating humans last, both male and female together. Genesis 2:18-22 has god creating Adam first, then forming all the animals out of the ground and bringing them to Adam to be named, then creating Eve. That's plainly what it says, and Christian apologists have to enter into elaborate circumlocutions like this to explain them away. Some go into even more elaborate detail about possible shadings of various Hebrew words and how they were translated. If god really wanted us to understand what it's about, and this really is the inerrant word of a perfect deity sending a message to mankind, it shouldn't be that hard. It is intrinsically unreasonable that a layman reading the Bible has to rely on various academic traditions of biblical scholarship like the JEPD documents and have a knowledge of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, in order to make sense of it.

Well I did go and skim over that article, rather than mirror his thoughts let me try to give you just my view with the exception of who these texts came to be written. Lets stay with one author, Moses is usually credited with being the author of the 1st five books, lets also assume it was not written from stories passed down over the ages but just as God narrated the words to Moses. That puts the whole question of the accuracy squarely on God.

Ge:1 (and that little bit at the start of 2) gives the order that creation took that had everything in place by the morning of the 7th day. Does that mean that when grass was created that it was complete before the next day started? Or could it have only been complete by the end of the 6th day? Whether you believe in an 'old earth creation' (which spans the time science places on how old the earth is) or the 'young earth' view (which means a much shorter time is involved) neither says that grass was created as a 'poof event', both allow for the first few blades of grass existing and those expanding their territory as the days progressed. The only difference would be the rate at which they expanded their territory. The creation of man in Ch:1 would seem to be both at the same time. Maybe it is only saying that by the end of the 6th day there was man and woman and everything that was involved in creation was made. That leaves us with "X" amount of information. The next chapter add some details about the same subject that wasn't needed for explaining how the physical world was created.

If you would agree that the things created started at some point on the earth and expanded their territory then it is possible that the spot man was first made alive at might have been the last part of the earth to have the other 'created things' expand to.
Chapter 2 would seem that when man was created it wasn't side by side at the same time. Adam was first and then Eve was made after Adam was put to sleep for that step. Does it seem at all possible that there was 'some time' that it was just God and Adam in the Garden? That would have been when they started walking around the Garden and Adam was giving names to everything. Adam saw a barren land when he first opened his eyes, while there had been a mist of water (essential for any life) over almost all the earth for some time the mist just got to this place after Adam existed, rather than the mist starting there and going the other direction.
It would have been after this walk with God that he was put to sleep and Eve was created.

Ge:2:5:
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth,
and every herb of the field before it grew:
for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,
and there was not a man to till the ground.
Ge:2:6:
But there went up a mist from the earth,
and watered the whole face of the ground.
Ge:2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living soul.

These verses tend to point to there being seed in the earth but not growing because of the lack of water. If the earth had plants growing in 99% of it's area then wind and such could covered this last 1% with many seeds so that when water finally arrived they would have sprung up very quickly. That would be the "eastward in Eden", when the mist arrived then rivers began to flow, etc.

From when man is first mentioned in Ch:2 until this verse below it would really point to God and Adam being alone, Eve was not yet alive even when the instructions about the tree was given.
Ge:2:18:
And the LORD God said,
It is not good that the man should be alone;
I will make him an help meet for him.

The text never mentions Eve as even having ever met and talked with God so her creation could have been the very last event associated with all of creation.

I hope this has avoided all your 5 laws of avoiding increasing wisdom.

 

[look3467]

Adam represents the spirit of Gods breath
Eve res presents the vessel of clay, earthen.

Together they form a marriage and become a living soul.

Because of that, and the ability to reason, (Enter the tree of knowledge of good and evil) both are as cast out of paradise, meaning, "lost".

So, now God needs to allow the reasoning power, and at the same time rescue His creation from that " lost" condition.

Enter: Jesus.

Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Jesus being put to sleep a similitude as Adam(Death on the cross) Eve, His bride, is born. (The church or the body of believers in the flesh)

So, now we have still a marriage between Adam and Eve, Jesus being our life saved and not lost, An Eve His bride (body of believers) is made clean by Jesus an awaiting her arrival, which by the way, happens every day as people pass on from this point to the next.

This next verse applies to Christ, but then Christs applies it to us:
Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

ahhhh! But if we could just believe a little, what a difference it would make!

Peace>>>AJ

 

[MHz]

Did you come up with that on your own? It isn't meant to be a put-down AJ, it just seems to be something far removed from what even God could hope for us read with some sort of understanding.
I just don't think we have to have 'deciphered' the whole Bible to get the jest of what those two chapters are meant to convey as to 'what really happened'.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Does it seem at all possible that there was 'some time' that it was just God and Adam in the Garden?

No, not at all. The story of Adam and Eve is a fable, or a myth if you prefer that word. In any event, it's not literally true. It has nothing to do with the origins of the human species, and everything to do with a superstitious, ignorant culture groping for explanations without the tools to find them.

Creationism, of the old earth or young earth variety, Scientific Creationism, Intelligent Design, whatever you want to call it, is intellectually bankrupt. It's been falsified repeatedly and thoroughly by multiple converging lines of evidence, which is all available for anyone to inspect. The only way I can see to save it is to add some nonsensical ad hoc hypothesis to the effect that god put the evidence in place to test us, which means he's pulled off a gigantic hoax.

And no, regrettably, you have not avoided the five errors in thinking I described. You have committed them all, repeatedly.

 

[talloola]

If what is inside our souls can be proven, prove it?


I know without a doubt in my heart that God exists, and all I can say to the world, is by my actions.

You can say it a thousand times over A.J., but in the end, it is all the same, 'It is what
you, as an individual believe', not anything that you can prove to anyone else, unless
they have the same belief in the same things, then you can agree with each other till
the cows come home.

 

[mrgrumpy]

Why be born again when you can just grow up.