Religion is like a boat
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
You have shown yourself incapable of relating what the book says, either because you have not read it or you read some explanation of it that 'filled in the blanks for you' or some other lame excuse exists for you to be able to make a comment like that in the first place. That it doesn't come with any explanation means you are stuck at that point so it is obviously not a well thought out doctrine to begin with.
hilarious, coming from the guy that uses karma as a crutch to take pleasure in the harm done to others.
Dex, you don't want to listen even when an offer stands to go over the 'details' in as fine of detail as you like after you get a preview of how the book differs from the doctrine you currently hold. Starting with Ge:1-3 being written for a generation that has the knowledge and abilities we have today rather than what has been around at anytime in the past. You already know a bit about how the old earth creation theme goes but have you looked at Re:12 being an expansion of Ge:3:15. That would put it as being a book that looks like it was written by a single author if those books share the same story.
You obviously have an interest in the topic or you wouldn't be wasting as much time as you do on 'God' based threads. Now you just need to be tied to the chair so you can't do your typical hit and run and hide reply.
Murphy isn't much different but the 'payback' only happens because some deliberate action on their part doesn't go according to 'plan' and they end up being a victim of their own actions while Cliffy might be using a witch's power to 'cast spells' without a witch being identified. It is as random as it gets, I'll give him that.
It's not that I don't want to listen, it's that I've heard it all before. I've been hearing the same things over and over again my whole adult life, I find no substance in any of religion's claims, and you don't seem to grasp that I can understand your claims while still thinking they're wrong. Understanding doesn't imply agreement.
Yeah, I believe you'd actually do that if you could and try to force this stuff on me. Not interested; I'm utterly convinced you're utterly wrong, I don't need any more details. All I need to know is a few of your key ideas, like your belief that the Bible is literally true and inerrant and wholly consistent. Given that manifestly false premise as a starting point, your analyses and conclusions cannot possibly be correct about anything significant. I don't need to read them to know that.
Interesting, but it clearly shows the source is not some supernatural being listening and responding to prayers.
There are believers and then there are those other type of believers.
I believe only what I want to believe.
I am tired of guilt.
Who believes in Satan,I don't.
I am addicted to faith,no longer in my imagination.
Religion and faith are intertwined but of separate identities,apples and oranges once again,or in my opinion.
Take what works for you,I like a little of this and a little of that when faith is at my doorstep.
The best thing I did was relieve myself from organized religion.
I am addicted to faith,no longer in my imagination.
Religion and faith are intertwined but of separate identities,apples and oranges once again,or in my opinion.
Take what works for you,I like a little of this and a little of that when faith is at my doorstep.
The best thing I did was relieve myself from organized religion.
Just a little psychotherapy doesn't hurt anyone,call it what it is.
Impressive,but you have too much time on your hands or too much money,just not sure.
But has everything to do with the power of faith and belief as well as the negatives of not having faith or belief.
Whether or not there is a supernatural force or not, people are better off believing than not believing and that is a hard fact.
If you want to piss and moan go right ahead but don't be an as$shole and belittle those who do believe and are better off than you for it.
Suffer quietly on your own.
Too much time every now and then and not enough money is usually the case. That doesn't have any bearing on what the book says if you read it like it was written just for you and me and this generation. Ge:1 and the old earth creation theme isn't very long and it isn't very hard to compare it to modern science and it's latest theory of our past. Be happy to do that if you are interested but it hinges on 7 days being 1 week and a week on a calendar has the days side by side and this is taking the date of the exit from the garden and adding a zero to what would be the 1,000 column 4,000BC at the end of day 7 is 40,000BC at the end of day 6 and do that several more times and you end up at the end of day 1 when sunlight was created and if you were standing on the earth you would have experienced it's first day/night cycle in 4,000,000,000BC.
That can be done with a few other stories but the Bible puts other things forward that all point to it being written by a single author no matter how many Scribes were used to convey the message.
It is not to convince anyone to visit reality, it is to prevent backsliding of rights to things like the Inquisition or forcing stores to close on sunday because someone's gawd told them to.
That book is just a bunch of myths. Just like the Greek or Norse gods.
If you can't listen on your own the chair part would just give you what you need to be distracted from 'me being in the room'. I would prefer it went that you post a flaw in my doctrine and then I post the reply to that and my version would still be 'intact'. That would be the only version in which either one of us would get anything out of it. There are some pluses to getting into a debate with you because you have good recall and already are familiar with the basic layout of the book (according to various views) in you 'all versions' summation. The tie you to the chair is so you have to reply with something other than silence and a pause that is long enough that the topic should be down the memory hole. I usually pick things up where I left off with 'people' when it comes to conversations and this would be a perfect place to test some of your post if you are willing because I think most of what I have to say is going to be new to you in some respect. That would include some of my recent posts that indicated splitting the bible up differently would help a person grasp the concept quicker. (the old earth earth is for the other poster as the topic for you would be what the term 'day of the lord' means in overall prophecy and where we are now and what is left to play out)
That would focus mostly on Daniel and Revelations and the 12 books listed after Daniel as they contain a lot of prophecy that is specific to the conclusion of all things related to the bruise to the heel.
Certain terms could also be a topic as I think God went to some length to teach is some basic definitions. like where 'the land of the enemy' is or who the 'little ones' are in prophecy as they have to exist before the completion of the head bruise can be fulfilled the same way the heel bruise is. There are two visions that come with explanations and since they are about the same topic can both be blended into a single understanding?
Ge:3:15 and the mirror of it in Re:12 is something I have mentioned so you should be able to explain why they are connected (and how that works towards understanding the connection in the overall context. You would also know who I think the last woman is in that chapter.
You can understand why I would need you to be familiar with the reasons things are the way they are in the book as the various connections are intended to be there and be found and be used by the reader to understand the overall book as well as the finer details that can also be found in the same book. The sheer number is what (partly) convinces a person that something out of the ordinary is going on if 40 strangers are the authors.
Condemn the argument before you hear it? Your ego has elevated you to a level you aren't at yet. There are an untold number of things about the Bible that I could mention from here on that would be brand new to you. For the few you have been ex[posed to you never came back with any reply that was on topic. They were posts about why you would not answer if you replied at all, this new format might be fun depending how far we can take it. (ice age weather conditions being in the bible is an example)
Now you need to go over the same material did before I came to such a conclusion. Using your version I can point to the flaws in them and why I rejected them at some point in the past because of those flaws. I would think the 70 weeks topic would be the one to explore to see how well you can explain my version for me.
You are starting at the conclusion, the beginning is my understanding after reading parts of the NT and the expand to the OT to get the best view of the 'big picture' and in the bible Ge:3:15 is a key verses to sorting out the many prophecies. You then need to go over each one and see how it fits into the overall context and then a summation might be possible.
Let's see how you do with the above part first.
The story the bible promotes isn't over, is that the same or different to the 'other myths'. Ever wonder why the Clergy still can't correctly identify who the beloved Disciple is? The myth is that they are to help the flock gain knowledge about God, their practice is based on sowing a false version of who god is and what salvation actually means.
Zeus is supposed to gain popularity before being conquered by one that 'inherits the earth' so he is due for a 'comeback in some form' in a flawed version of what the prophecy means.
I see no reason to do anything with it. I have no interest in Bible study lessons from you, I'm certain your view of the book is fundamentally wrong.
So you think it's okay to believe something that may not be true if it's helpful or comforting? I don't think that way, I'm interested in knowing what evidence and reason can justify assenting to as at least provisionally true, pending receipt of additional evidence and arguments that could falsify it. All knowledge but the trivial is provisional to some degree, and I'm okay with that. I'm a bit surprised you're not, or don't appear to be. As a geologist you've certainly been trained in the methods and procedures of science, and must know that they're the only reliable means we've ever found for testing the truth content of ideas.
Well, he might be onto something there, much in the same way that occasionally placebos seem to work.
You did do something with it, you drew a blank just like I knew you would and you try to cover it up with your same old methods. If you are so certain you should be able to find some flaws in it. I can certainly find a lot of flaws in your adopted theory, perhaps that is why you never offer them anymore.
No, you interpretation of those ancient writings is unique to you and you are fundamentally flawed in your thinking. It is pointless to argue with you or even discuss something as far out in left field as your "understanding" of a plagiarized, misinterpreted and mistranslated clump of ancient myths and metaphors. You have no idea about the history of any of those stories or their origins. Pointless is pointless. Nobody is going to discuss your delusions.