'typical Christian apologist' does sound like an attack on me. grey key, I can't answer a crowd of questions simultaneously, one at a time please.
I've asked you several clear questions, and you've not answered them.
Please answer them, and also this one. I know it's not original, but it is a very revealing question.
Say that tomorrow, some other God came along. I know that you say that only one God exists, but let's just speak hypothetically. Say this other God, let's call him God Two, came along and said "What God (God One) has done to you and the world is terrible, vote for me and I'll treat you much better than he did". And God, the original God (God One) says "Fine, let's have a world wide vote on the subject".
So tell me, would you vote for God One, the God who both created and allowed all evil and suffering to befall the world. After all, you claim to love him. Or would you vote for God Two, who has never done anything to harm us?
And yes, once again, I know that you believe that there is only one God, but please don't try to hide behind that. It's a hypothetical question, and answering it does not mean for one moment that you believe in more than one god, just that you are answering a hypothetical question.
If you've only read the bible, than you only have the point of view from one side.
The Kolbrin has a much more detailed account of Exodus and the Great Flood, and more detailed story of Noah's Ark, (not called Noah though), with roughly the same dimensions as the bible's reference. According to the 'losers', they caught up with the Jews and slaughtered over half of them before the floods came which allowed Moses to escape.
There was an almighty global cataclysm, that the Jewish people claimed was their God's work. Whereas the Egyptians totally rejected any idea of a material God from that moment on, as the only ones that were spared from the catastrophe were those that helped themselves.
In the Book Of Creation (kolbrin), is the best explanation of what God is. And the Law (of nature). What I like about it, is its as applicable today as it was 3600 years ago. And it makes sense as an aether science theory as well. Probably where Tesla got the term 'Radiant Energy'.
By the way, Amos was the name of one of the egyptian academics who penned some of the book. And Amos is a very old traditional British name as well.
Why do athiests always bang on about God not stopping the wrongs of the world :( We were supposedly made in his image and therefore allowed free will, so most of the wrong in the world is actually done by us, with that same free will, hence people can do evil or good, how can a God that has given us free will get involved without stripping us of that free will, I'm confused :(
And no, I'm not religious, but do belive in a God and moreso Spirituality and sometimes wonder why quite constantly I see non Spiritual people attacking God (I don't mind religion being attacked as "most" religions have nothing to do with the original message of the prophets, but don't like the idea of people reducing this world to nothing but solid matter and no spiritual dimension with no room for spirituality or a God or whatever you want to call it), all this talk of God Botherers and yet it's only ever the people who don't believe I ever see banging on :(
'typical Christian apologist' does sound like an attack on me. grey key, I can't answer a crowd of questions simultaneously, one at a time please.
So perhaps you can address the questions, one by one, and give us your take on things. You are not being blamed for all of the wrongs in the past 2000 years, you are just being asked on your opinions on the opposing beliefs.
There is a term called blind belief, that is what the council of Nicea caused nearly 300 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jusus, when they argued which books should be allowed in the collection of works which were to become the Bible, and which were to be rejected because they contradicted what they wanted told. King James later rewrote the Bible to his wishes, and that is the book we have today, who is to say what is truth and what is fiction ? If I rewrote it today, would that make it any more relevent ?
Every time I read that the oldest person in the world has died, I have to do a quick check to see it isn't ME..........
Why do athiests always bang on about God not stopping the wrongs of the world :( ...snip
Ditto, I quite agree!
The things wrong with the world are due to man. No one is going to save us from our sins. Its upto us alone. Religion brings wars and apathy in its followers. Spirituality gives you the incentive to be better, and do good.
But I blame the organised religions for deceiving the people.
ewgf: God one - since he's the creator.oh, but you've a strawman in your question - we cause much of the evil in the world, why are you blaming God when people misuse their free will?
now then, regarding God being all-powerful, would you be happy if God did intervene and protect the Pope - does this then force the issue and make you believe He exists? or do you prefer free will?
I do not have hard answers for the problem of evil, sorry. There are various theodicy theories, or there's deism if the problem is too much. I think atheism goes too far and does not adequately deal with e.g. the anthropic principle.
grey key:do you agree that Akhenaten closed all the other temples so that the focal point of Aten worship was via the Pharaoh? what do you think of this article? http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/akhenaten.html
will return later, not trying to avoid the questions. I'm just concerned about Martijn breathing down my neck...
If you want to see if the pope believes in God, as he claims, then just look at him in the pope-mobile. According to his "beliefs" he doesn't need the protection of man or man's material devices, as God will protect him. And if God does allow the pope to come to harm then it would be God's own will, and the pope would "willingly" accept that.
Erm, so why the bullet proof glass, the bodyguards, the security barricades, etc?
I'm not a Christian, but I'm with ghbearman on calling that a strawman: I don't think there's anything in Christian teachings that says that a true believer should shun all man-made material devices that are designed to protect him, and rely on magic bullet-deflecting angels instead. That's just something you've made up.
I imagine the Pope holds the point of view that bulletproof glass is God's creation, and if God sent that gift to allow him to do his work more effectively then why on earth shouldn't he use it?
will return later, not trying to avoid the questions. I'm just concerned about Martijn breathing down my neck...
Actually, I think if people can refrain from personal insults - as they mostly have done - then this thread can stay open as it is interesting - the forum guidlines are just guidelines and not rules... there are many interesting points being argued sensibly from both sides... lets keep it that way eh?
ewgf: God one - since he's the creator.oh, but you've a strawman in your question - we cause much of the evil in the world, why are you blaming God when people misuse their free will?
Too easy. Your god is omniscient, right? So that gives me two arguments.
1) He knew exactly what would result from giving people free will, what they would do if given it; so he is essentially to blame.
2) He knows what I'm going to do in the future. Therefore, I can't choose to do something else, because then he would have been wrong, and omniscient beings can't be wrong. Hence, I have a destiny imposed on me; that is, I don't even have free will at all. It is impossible for free will to exist in the presence of an omniscient being.
Then of course there's another thing worth pointing out: much of the suffering in the world is caused not by evil human activity, but by natural causes (earthquakes, famines, etc.), which can't possibly be blamed on free will. (Oh, and if you go for the old 'genesis apple' response, that won't help you).
now then, regarding God being all-powerful, would you be happy if God did intervene and protect the Pope - does this then force the issue and make you believe He exists? or do you prefer free will?
If a god does exist, then I for one strongly hope he/she/it will reveal itself unequivocally, because then all the religions which are wrong (which by definition must be all but one of them) will collapse, and then there won't be any religious wars any more. Surely a caring, loving god would take such an action. Why hasn't yours?
I do not have hard answers for the problem of evil, sorry. There are various theodicy theories, or there's deism if the problem is too much.
Well, I think the existence of suffering and evil is rather too much for theology to cope with. The problem is that while you have no answers, you still seem to believe that there are answers.
I think atheism goes too far and does not adequaely deal with e.g. the anthropic principle.
The Anthropic Principle has two sides. The side you are perhaps unaware of is the fact that one can only ask the question "Why are we here?" if we are, in fact, here. Hence, the question has no meaning. Combine this with the sheer magnitude of the Universe, and the fact that the gamut of possible forms life could take is so wide we can't even define its boundaries, and it becomes clear that our sapient existence is not special, and hardly even important; it is certainly no argument for a creator.
Broadening to the question of why any Universe exists at all becomes an issue of raw philosophy; personally I hold that 'existence' is a meaningless predicate, and all self-consistent mathematical and logical systems 'exist' as platonic Forms; the mathematics of the system is the only part of it that exists; matter (and our perception of matter) are really just interpretations which we place on the mathematics of the system we inhabit. But that's a bit OT, isn't it.
Any other questions? I am perfectly willing to explain to you in detail why theism is an indefensible and contradictory position, while atheism is entirely consistent, not only internally but also with all reproducibly observed evidence.
The things wrong with the world are due to man. No one is going to save us from our sins. Its upto us alone. Religion brings wars and apathy in its followers. Spirituality gives you the incentive to be better, and do good.
But I blame the organised religions for deceiving the people.
Quite, it seems that as well as brainwashing people that follow their religion, religion itself has a far more nasty and destructive effect, that of sickening soo many people from the idea of a spiritual role within the cosmos :( The funny thing I find, is that nowadays the idea of God is almost unmentionable in England amongst the general masses, and yet when I have asked sheepishly my young friends if they believe in God they all just about say they belive in something, a force...
Jesus said that only through him could you ascend to heaven, or words to that effect, like a bridge, sorry it's been many years since I read the Bible or the Koran or any other 'religious' book but that's about the essence of it, to purify oneself and then the signs become visible (and the cosmos, God, whatever guides us, not that these signs can not be an illusion of course), whether by logic, synchronicity or other ways, and it seems that the people who will not take even the first leap of faith will never be presented with any clues to further them in a spiritual path... also none of these clues are ever presented to a soul who is unwilling to try and temper their anger, or any of the other lower forms of human emotion, so that rules out a lot of people from ever furthering themselves along the path, they then claim there is no God or Spiritual realm, when they themselves are the one stopping themselves from becoming part of it :(
just quickly, grey key - Nicea did not engage the question of biblical books, it was about the question of Jesus' deity.
That in itself speaks volumes to those that have eyes, and those that have ears. The splitting from the Essene biblical gospels, which were supposedly, more in keeping with the true teachings, as Jesus was an Essene Rabbi, which proves that he was married, and only the lower ranks were celibate, as only a married man could be a Rabbi. These included the book of Mary of Magdaline, who was the wife part of the trinity, Jesus the father and the son, well he went on to be the San Greal. Jesus did not claim to be the one and only son of God, the Pharoahs were the Sons of the Sun and Jesus studied in Heliopolis, the centre of Sun worship in Egypt. Modern religion should be more in keeping with the whole Osiris, Isis, Horus, ethos than it is. Even in modern church iconography Mary Magdaline has becme Mary the mother of Christ, when she should have been portrayed as the mother of Jesus son. Jesus was the stand in for John the Baptist, because he was beheaded to stop him fulfilling the prophesy.
So I bid you goodnight, as it is 2.00 am in England and I need a little sleep !
Every time I read that the oldest person in the world has died, I have to do a quick check to see it isn't ME..........
I'm not a Christian, but I'm with ghbearman on calling that a strawman: I don't think there's anything in Christian teachings that says that a true believer should shun all man-made material devices that are designed to protect him, and rely on magic bullet-deflecting angels instead. That's just something you've made up.
I'd have to disagree with you there: it's not about 'true believers' generally, it's about the pope in particular; if he really is god's representative on earth then god ought to care about keeping him alive.
Admittedly it's not the best argument ever, but it's still valid.
I imagine the Pope holds the point of view that bulletproof glass is God's creation, and if God sent that gift to allow him to do his work more effectively then why on earth shouldn't he use it?
Seems to me like that'd be quite an insult to the engineers who worked hard to develop bulletproof glass. But then, high-ranking members of the RC church don't seem to be particularly worried about whom they insult.
Going to bed, just leaving you all with these wise words from the Kolbrin.
Greetings, Unborn Ones, now asleep in the dark womb of the future. Greetings from we who were once as you
are now and like whom you will one day be. We too hoped and feared, doubted and believed.
Were you choosing a gift from the past to the future, what would it be? The golden treasures hoarded by kings?
The bright jewels beloved by queens? Is worldly wealth still so important to you? If that would be your choice
above all else, we are disappointed, for our labours have been in vain.
Would you prefer the secret of life, of eternal youth? Have you altered so little from those who live and laugh
today, with no thought turned towards the future? This thing which seems so desirable, were it yours would you
value it? Would it never pall? Would you still be grateful for it after a thousand years have passed? The answer
would be "yes" if this life were all, the beginning and end, complete in itself. But might not this life be no more
than a prelude, an introduction to something infinitely greater? Is the riddle still unsolved, the secret of the ages
still well kept, known only by a few, even when these words are read? How many generations have passed
without progress? Does mankind still lie passive like driftwood upon the sea of spiritual apathy, driven back and
forth by changeable winds and conflicting currents, making no headway?
Could we leave you the knowledge enabling you to live a life without toil, surrounded by every luxury and
pleasure; a magic stone granting every desire, an all healing potion, the ability to fly or know all things on Earth,
would any of these satisfy the desires of your heart and fulfil your dreams? We who lie so far back along the
road trust you have progressed beyond such petty aspirations.
It is beyond our power to give such gifts, and were they ours to bestow we would withhold them, for unless a
gift confers a benefit, it were better not given. With the wisdom of your generation, tell us, which of the things
mentioned would really benefit you or even prove less bad than good? Or do you still remain unaware of your
true nature and needs?
Who you are, how you speak and dress (are you even like us in form?) we cannot know or imagine. This alone
we know as truth, you are brother beings of ours and travel the road we once trod. We share one destiny and
have the same true goal, though perhaps no more know in your day what these are than do in ours. Like to us
life comes to you unbidden, it is fraught with problems and difficulties; it alternates between light and shade,
and like us you wonder what awaits at the end. You, too, are victims of Earth's delusions; you, too, find Truth
and Perfection beyond your grasp and you, too, aspire to beauty and goodness. These things we know about you,
these things must be or you would not exist.
Your needs are no different from ours, but do you now know with certainty what they are? Your life serves the
same purpose, you are part of the same pattern, you are ruled by the same impulses and urges, but do you know
why and to what end? We know you are without certainty and assurance about what lies beyond the veil of
death, for these cannot be given while man remains no more than man, and doubtless like us you remain
suspended between doubt and belief.
Our Unborn Friends, whatever your circumstances of life you are the children of the past and heirs of those who
have lived and died. We trust you have no cause to reproach those who once held stewardship over your estate.
But whatever you think of the heritage, you cannot put it aside, any more than you can refuse the obligations of
life. Maybe it brings you the happiness and security, the peace and plenty we never knew. If so, this will remain
unread, for to you it would be a wilderness of words serving no purpose. If you have so much, if you have
progressed so far, nothing we could give would be of benefit. To the traveler, information about the road behind
is worthless. If this is your state we hail you, we are proud of you, our worthy children of light, conceived in the
long dark years wherein we laboured and ploughed our own short furrow. You have done well and our greatest
joy would be to stand beside you as you exaltingly reach out for the crowning glory of godhood.
But you may be no more enlightened than we, in which case accept our offering as a token of our regret, our
desire to make amends on behalf of those who preceded you, for if you remain lost in spiritual darkness the
blame is theirs and not yours.
This we give you, The Hidden Books containing the accumulated harvest of wisdom and Truth garnered over
the generations, the bread and oil which sustained us and never diminished. May they serve you in your day as
well as they served us. Above all, may you be sufficiently enlightened to receive them, for today we are
persecuted because of our books, and most who treasured and guarded them are now dead. We can only consign
these books to the ground and destiny, trusting they will be called forth at the proper time and in a receptive
generation.
These books, which we hand into the keeping of time, were written under the authority of revelation and
inspiration. Containing Truth, their message cannot be attacked by time, for Truth is an eternal youth.
We make no claim to exact and accurate statements beyond the possibility of error and misinterpretation, for
words are frail messengers. They are fallible things unable to transmit accurately from mind to mind. Also, we
cannot tell how they who resurrect the books will deal with the contents. They are written in letters known to the
learned, but learning changes with the generations. These books are the glorious embodiment of Eternal Truth,
but the words and expressions are unworthy garments so that misconception and misunderstanding are not
possible. Words are servants of the fallible mortal sphere and when called upon to serve a realm of greater things
prove inadequate. Therefore, be not like some petty-minded ones of our generation who say, "The letters are
misplaced and the words ill used." They examine each blade of grass diligently, but fail to discover the purpose
of the meadow. Such men lack insight and seeing only the bare letters say, "These tell me all, there is nothing
more". We have a saying, "do not judge a place of instruction by its bricks". Wisdom, being eternal, doubtless
this will apply no less in your generation.
So, Unborn Unknowable Ones, we humbly tender this, the gift of the past which we could not pass on
otherwise. If you have advanced far along the road towards greatness, it will have no value; but if you still dally
or have wandered away, lost in the illusive mists of worldliness and none answers your cries, then take this hand
extending out of the past. It will guide you faithfully and well.
Down through the generations men have been persecuted, have suffered and died so that Truth and Goodness
might prevail, remember them. If the world is good, then your peace and pleasures have been brought by their
sacrifices. If it is not, then you must not quibble over the cost to yourselves in making it good. Surely no
torments and terrors in your days could exceed those of the past!
Farewell, Unborn Ones, with these few words we have reached from the day of the present into the night of the
future. We have planted the seed, will it grow or rot in the ground? What crop will it produce? We cannot know.
Let fate deal with it as it will, we have gathered the seed, flailed and winnowed it and kept it with every care.
We have planted well, we can do no more.
May life deal better with you than with us. May you never be denied the comforting hand of hope. Farewell!
Yikes! If you want to hold my attention for the rest of it, then you'll have to explain to me what this "Unborn Ones" means.
:razz:
You and me and anyone who reads it, are the 'Unborn Ones'. Its a reference to the future 'beings' who read it. But hadn't been born at the time of writing. (I suppose)
There's nothing really cryptic in the kolbrin. It means what it says.
You don't need a degree in theology to understand its true meaning like other religious texts. Its more about personal spiritual development and state of mind/being.
Edit:
Well when I say not cryptic, I really meant understandable. There are lots of cryptic things in the kolbrin, like this,
'He was then even as God Himself, and he knew the secret of the Seven Spheres within Three Spheres.'
What could the Seven Spheres within Three Spheres be?
And, 'The love of God penetrated the third veil and became the Seed of Souls within the Soul Sea.'
Though that one I think most people will understand. And its quite poetic. And strangely familiar.
2nd edit (up all night again:():
Searching for Seven Spheres within Three Spheres reveals lots in the ancient mysticism category, and quite a few 'totalitarian christian nutters'. Really quite disturbing some of their plans for domination. Apparently its a method of controlling the world's population with just 7 people. Now I know what our 'Christian' political leaders (also members of secret societies) are trying to achieve. http://herescope.blogspot.com/2007/06/dominion-at-first-it-may-seem-like.html
Now thats what evil is. And David Cameron is a very diligent Fabian and Christian. As was/is Blair.
2nd edit (up all night again:():
Searching for Seven Spheres within Three Spheres reveals lots in the ancient mysticism category, and quite a few 'totalitarian christian nutters'. Really quite disturbing some of their plans for domination. Apparently its a method of controlling the world's population with just 7 people. Now I know what our 'Christian' political leaders (also members of secret societies) are trying to achieve. http://herescope.blogspot.com/2007/06/dominion-at-first-it-may-seem-like.html
Now thats what evil is. And David Cameron is a very diligent Fabian and Christian. As was/is Blair.
That link is just your typical David Icke stuff though. The internet gives a disproportionate voice to nutters that pre-Windows 95, most of us didn't even know existed.
That link is just your typical David Icke stuff though. The internet gives a disproportionate voice to nutters that pre-Windows 95, most of us didn't even know existed.
Agree with you there ! Quite scary how many of these nutters are on youtube proclaiming to be this or that.
Jesus is just a dead man, so how could he be a conduit to God ?
sure, IF Jesus is dead, then of course He can't do a darned thing. But the cornerstone of the Christian faith has always
been that Jesus rose from the dead. The hope is that in the future Christ will do away with death, with this as the basis.
So why did the Sanhedrein take an ordinary man and prime him in the prophesy,
They didn't - where do you get this please?
Because the foretold Messiah forgot to make an appearance,
huh? Jesus,when crucified,would have socially been viewed as a shamed failure, only something like the resurrection would
have overturned this. Now psalm 22 is something Jesus quoted from on the cross yet the text goes on to talk about victory.
Sections of the Old testament would have been understood as messianic, so Jesus applying such to himself together with the
resurrection would have made the disciples rethink just who Jesus was, living out the role of messiah AND gaining God's
approval!
Then there was the whole planted story of the man who offered to carry the cross for Jesus,
oh, why is this planted? Jesus, having been flogged, would hardly have been in a position to carry a cross.
Cut to the fact that the crucifixion was held in the private grounds of Joseph
no, sorry, Golgotha was a public place of execution.
effectivly keeping the masses at a long distance from it.
no, crucifixion was so shameful that generally people did not even speak of it (e.g. Tacitus merely says Christ was executed),
hardly surprising they stayed away.
Then the fact that it was Joseph's private tomb that was used to put the " body " of Jesus in, when the word he used to ask for
the dead body, actually can only be refered to an actual living body.
you don't have to be a genius to realise that an actual passion play was taking place.
A begged question.
John the Baptist sould have been the true Messiah,
why did John contact Jesus about the latters messahship if in fact John was the chosen one?
That is where the whole Knights Templar stories start to make sense.
what? how is this relevant? btw the halo thing arises from later artwork, not the biblical text.
Roman Catholicism is Based on St Pauls rendition on the whole story,
oh do explain why Paul quotes traditions handed on to him! e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4
but the Romans threatened to kill him unless he could
explain himself properly, he told them what they wanted to hear, so he lived, and the ROMAN Catholic religion started,
based on a lie.
The Roman variant of Catholicism arose after Augustine...
The Pope became the Papa ( Father ) Jesus the son, and the holy ghost ( well we don't believe in ghosts do we ? Perhaps it
is all to do with the real Trinity in the first place, and the rest is just, a story.
The Jews had a belief that God was Father (to Israel, and prophetically to the Messiah)
Then you said:
The splitting from the Essene biblical gospels, which were supposedly, more in keeping with the true teachings, as Jesus
was an Essene Rabbi, which proves that he was married, and only the lower ranks were celibate, as only a married man could
be a Rabbi.
really, who was John the Baptist's wife? I'd like to know more about these 'gospels', too.
These included the book of Mary of Magdaline,
no, this is a gnostic work, and gnostics held the Jewish god was evil...how does this fit with Essene belief?
who was the wife part of the trinity, Jesus the father and the
son, well he went on to be the San Greal.
lovely, first we are told the pope is the father, now it's Jesus.
Jesus did not claim to be the one and only son of God,
The gospels say otherwise.
Jesus studied in Heliopolis,
oh, really.If Jesus was a rabbi, why would he study paganism in a pagan land?
Even in modern church iconography Mary Magdaline has becme Mary the mother of Christ,
Just out of interest, what part of the Gospels does Jesus do this? Are you referring to in Matthew when he's asked if he is the Messiah and says "I am"?
i'm not really seeing anything constructive here. all i am seeing is a lot of people ganging up on one persons beliefs with the same arguments ive seen a million times before.
there is a lot of people in this thread who should be throughly ashamed of themselves.
i'm not really seeing anything constructive here. all i am seeing is a lot of people ganging up on one persons beliefs with the same arguments ive seen a million times before.
there is a lot of people in this thread who should be throughly ashamed of themselves.
You've changed Miles !! Whats the matter with you ? Last few topics 'sensible Miles' has appeared, wheres the old miles gone ?!
Jesus did not claim to be the one and only son of God,
Just out of interest, what part of the Gospels does Jesus do this? Are you referring to in Matthew when he's asked if he is the Messiah and says "I am"?
Matthew 16:16-17, John 10 34-36 with 1:18.
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ. You are the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah! No mere man showed this to you. My Father in heaven showed it to you.
John 1
18 No one has ever seen God. But God, the one and only Son, is at the Father's side. He has shown us what God is like.
John 10
34 Jesus answered them, "Didn't God say in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'??(Psalm 82:6) 35 We know that Scripture is always true. God spoke to some people and called them 'gods.' 36 If that is true, what about the One the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why do you charge me with saying a very evil thing? Is it because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
Note that John is usually understood as the beloved disciple.
Comments
No, but it ought to be, because that's what it is. (oo-er!)
OK. but you attacked Guesser, but you never answered any of the point which I offered for discussion.
We're not attacking you; maybe you're being slightly over-sensitive here. What we're attacking are your arguments and your beliefs.
I've asked you several clear questions, and you've not answered them.
Please answer them, and also this one. I know it's not original, but it is a very revealing question.
Say that tomorrow, some other God came along. I know that you say that only one God exists, but let's just speak hypothetically. Say this other God, let's call him God Two, came along and said "What God (God One) has done to you and the world is terrible, vote for me and I'll treat you much better than he did". And God, the original God (God One) says "Fine, let's have a world wide vote on the subject".
So tell me, would you vote for God One, the God who both created and allowed all evil and suffering to befall the world. After all, you claim to love him. Or would you vote for God Two, who has never done anything to harm us?
And yes, once again, I know that you believe that there is only one God, but please don't try to hide behind that. It's a hypothetical question, and answering it does not mean for one moment that you believe in more than one god, just that you are answering a hypothetical question.
The Kolbrin has a much more detailed account of Exodus and the Great Flood, and more detailed story of Noah's Ark, (not called Noah though), with roughly the same dimensions as the bible's reference. According to the 'losers', they caught up with the Jews and slaughtered over half of them before the floods came which allowed Moses to escape.
There was an almighty global cataclysm, that the Jewish people claimed was their God's work. Whereas the Egyptians totally rejected any idea of a material God from that moment on, as the only ones that were spared from the catastrophe were those that helped themselves.
In the Book Of Creation (kolbrin), is the best explanation of what God is. And the Law (of nature). What I like about it, is its as applicable today as it was 3600 years ago. And it makes sense as an aether science theory as well. Probably where Tesla got the term 'Radiant Energy'.
By the way, Amos was the name of one of the egyptian academics who penned some of the book. And Amos is a very old traditional British name as well.
My ZX Art Music Page
Carlos Michelis Theme
And no, I'm not religious, but do belive in a God and moreso Spirituality and sometimes wonder why quite constantly I see non Spiritual people attacking God (I don't mind religion being attacked as "most" religions have nothing to do with the original message of the prophets, but don't like the idea of people reducing this world to nothing but solid matter and no spiritual dimension with no room for spirituality or a God or whatever you want to call it), all this talk of God Botherers and yet it's only ever the people who don't believe I ever see banging on :(
So perhaps you can address the questions, one by one, and give us your take on things. You are not being blamed for all of the wrongs in the past 2000 years, you are just being asked on your opinions on the opposing beliefs.
There is a term called blind belief, that is what the council of Nicea caused nearly 300 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jusus, when they argued which books should be allowed in the collection of works which were to become the Bible, and which were to be rejected because they contradicted what they wanted told. King James later rewrote the Bible to his wishes, and that is the book we have today, who is to say what is truth and what is fiction ? If I rewrote it today, would that make it any more relevent ?
Ditto, I quite agree!
The things wrong with the world are due to man. No one is going to save us from our sins. Its upto us alone. Religion brings wars and apathy in its followers. Spirituality gives you the incentive to be better, and do good.
But I blame the organised religions for deceiving the people.
My ZX Art Music Page
Carlos Michelis Theme
ewgf: God one - since he's the creator.oh, but you've a strawman in your question - we cause much of the evil in the world, why are you blaming God when people misuse their free will?
now then, regarding God being all-powerful, would you be happy if God did intervene and protect the Pope - does this then force the issue and make you believe He exists? or do you prefer free will?
I do not have hard answers for the problem of evil, sorry. There are various theodicy theories, or there's deism if the problem is too much. I think atheism goes too far and does not adequately deal with e.g. the anthropic principle.
grey key:do you agree that Akhenaten closed all the other temples so that the focal point of Aten worship was via the Pharaoh? what do you think of this article?
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/akhenaten.html
will return later, not trying to avoid the questions. I'm just concerned about Martijn breathing down my neck...
I'm not a Christian, but I'm with ghbearman on calling that a strawman: I don't think there's anything in Christian teachings that says that a true believer should shun all man-made material devices that are designed to protect him, and rely on magic bullet-deflecting angels instead. That's just something you've made up.
I imagine the Pope holds the point of view that bulletproof glass is God's creation, and if God sent that gift to allow him to do his work more effectively then why on earth shouldn't he use it?
Actually, I think if people can refrain from personal insults - as they mostly have done - then this thread can stay open as it is interesting - the forum guidlines are just guidelines and not rules... there are many interesting points being argued sensibly from both sides... lets keep it that way eh?
Too easy. Your god is omniscient, right? So that gives me two arguments.
1) He knew exactly what would result from giving people free will, what they would do if given it; so he is essentially to blame.
2) He knows what I'm going to do in the future. Therefore, I can't choose to do something else, because then he would have been wrong, and omniscient beings can't be wrong. Hence, I have a destiny imposed on me; that is, I don't even have free will at all. It is impossible for free will to exist in the presence of an omniscient being.
Then of course there's another thing worth pointing out: much of the suffering in the world is caused not by evil human activity, but by natural causes (earthquakes, famines, etc.), which can't possibly be blamed on free will. (Oh, and if you go for the old 'genesis apple' response, that won't help you).
If a god does exist, then I for one strongly hope he/she/it will reveal itself unequivocally, because then all the religions which are wrong (which by definition must be all but one of them) will collapse, and then there won't be any religious wars any more. Surely a caring, loving god would take such an action. Why hasn't yours?
Well, I think the existence of suffering and evil is rather too much for theology to cope with. The problem is that while you have no answers, you still seem to believe that there are answers.
The Anthropic Principle has two sides. The side you are perhaps unaware of is the fact that one can only ask the question "Why are we here?" if we are, in fact, here. Hence, the question has no meaning. Combine this with the sheer magnitude of the Universe, and the fact that the gamut of possible forms life could take is so wide we can't even define its boundaries, and it becomes clear that our sapient existence is not special, and hardly even important; it is certainly no argument for a creator.
Broadening to the question of why any Universe exists at all becomes an issue of raw philosophy; personally I hold that 'existence' is a meaningless predicate, and all self-consistent mathematical and logical systems 'exist' as platonic Forms; the mathematics of the system is the only part of it that exists; matter (and our perception of matter) are really just interpretations which we place on the mathematics of the system we inhabit. But that's a bit OT, isn't it.
Any other questions? I am perfectly willing to explain to you in detail why theism is an indefensible and contradictory position, while atheism is entirely consistent, not only internally but also with all reproducibly observed evidence.
Quite, it seems that as well as brainwashing people that follow their religion, religion itself has a far more nasty and destructive effect, that of sickening soo many people from the idea of a spiritual role within the cosmos :( The funny thing I find, is that nowadays the idea of God is almost unmentionable in England amongst the general masses, and yet when I have asked sheepishly my young friends if they believe in God they all just about say they belive in something, a force...
Jesus said that only through him could you ascend to heaven, or words to that effect, like a bridge, sorry it's been many years since I read the Bible or the Koran or any other 'religious' book but that's about the essence of it, to purify oneself and then the signs become visible (and the cosmos, God, whatever guides us, not that these signs can not be an illusion of course), whether by logic, synchronicity or other ways, and it seems that the people who will not take even the first leap of faith will never be presented with any clues to further them in a spiritual path... also none of these clues are ever presented to a soul who is unwilling to try and temper their anger, or any of the other lower forms of human emotion, so that rules out a lot of people from ever furthering themselves along the path, they then claim there is no God or Spiritual realm, when they themselves are the one stopping themselves from becoming part of it :(
That in itself speaks volumes to those that have eyes, and those that have ears. The splitting from the Essene biblical gospels, which were supposedly, more in keeping with the true teachings, as Jesus was an Essene Rabbi, which proves that he was married, and only the lower ranks were celibate, as only a married man could be a Rabbi. These included the book of Mary of Magdaline, who was the wife part of the trinity, Jesus the father and the son, well he went on to be the San Greal. Jesus did not claim to be the one and only son of God, the Pharoahs were the Sons of the Sun and Jesus studied in Heliopolis, the centre of Sun worship in Egypt. Modern religion should be more in keeping with the whole Osiris, Isis, Horus, ethos than it is. Even in modern church iconography Mary Magdaline has becme Mary the mother of Christ, when she should have been portrayed as the mother of Jesus son. Jesus was the stand in for John the Baptist, because he was beheaded to stop him fulfilling the prophesy.
So I bid you goodnight, as it is 2.00 am in England and I need a little sleep !
Admittedly it's not the best argument ever, but it's still valid.
Seems to me like that'd be quite an insult to the engineers who worked hard to develop bulletproof glass. But then, high-ranking members of the RC church don't seem to be particularly worried about whom they insult.
Also, http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1557 :P
My ZX Art Music Page
Carlos Michelis Theme
Yikes! If you want to hold my attention for the rest of it, then you'll have to explain to me what this "Unborn Ones" means.
:razz:
You and me and anyone who reads it, are the 'Unborn Ones'. Its a reference to the future 'beings' who read it. But hadn't been born at the time of writing. (I suppose)
There's nothing really cryptic in the kolbrin. It means what it says.
You don't need a degree in theology to understand its true meaning like other religious texts. Its more about personal spiritual development and state of mind/being.
Edit:
Well when I say not cryptic, I really meant understandable. There are lots of cryptic things in the kolbrin, like this,
'He was then even as God Himself, and he knew the secret of the Seven Spheres within Three Spheres.'
What could the Seven Spheres within Three Spheres be?
And, 'The love of God penetrated the third veil and became the Seed of Souls within the Soul Sea.'
Though that one I think most people will understand. And its quite poetic. And strangely familiar.
2nd edit (up all night again:():
Searching for Seven Spheres within Three Spheres reveals lots in the ancient mysticism category, and quite a few 'totalitarian christian nutters'. Really quite disturbing some of their plans for domination. Apparently its a method of controlling the world's population with just 7 people. Now I know what our 'Christian' political leaders (also members of secret societies) are trying to achieve.
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2007/06/dominion-at-first-it-may-seem-like.html
Now thats what evil is. And David Cameron is a very diligent Fabian and Christian. As was/is Blair.
My ZX Art Music Page
Carlos Michelis Theme
That link is just your typical David Icke stuff though. The internet gives a disproportionate voice to nutters that pre-Windows 95, most of us didn't even know existed.
https://discordapp.com/invite/cZt59EQ
Agree with you there ! Quite scary how many of these nutters are on youtube proclaiming to be this or that.
sure, IF Jesus is dead, then of course He can't do a darned thing. But the cornerstone of the Christian faith has always
been that Jesus rose from the dead. The hope is that in the future Christ will do away with death, with this as the basis.
They didn't - where do you get this please? huh? Jesus,when crucified,would have socially been viewed as a shamed failure, only something like the resurrection would
have overturned this. Now psalm 22 is something Jesus quoted from on the cross yet the text goes on to talk about victory.
Sections of the Old testament would have been understood as messianic, so Jesus applying such to himself together with the
resurrection would have made the disciples rethink just who Jesus was, living out the role of messiah AND gaining God's
approval!
oh, why is this planted? Jesus, having been flogged, would hardly have been in a position to carry a cross.
no, sorry, Golgotha was a public place of execution.
no, crucifixion was so shameful that generally people did not even speak of it (e.g. Tacitus merely says Christ was executed),
hardly surprising they stayed away.
huh? The semantic range of 'soma' includes a corpse. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=112083
A begged question.
why did John contact Jesus about the latters messahship if in fact John was the chosen one?
what? how is this relevant? btw the halo thing arises from later artwork, not the biblical text.
oh do explain why Paul quotes traditions handed on to him! e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4
The Roman variant of Catholicism arose after Augustine...
The Jews had a belief that God was Father (to Israel, and prophetically to the Messiah)
Then you said:
really, who was John the Baptist's wife? I'd like to know more about these 'gospels', too.
no, this is a gnostic work, and gnostics held the Jewish god was evil...how does this fit with Essene belief?
lovely, first we are told the pope is the father, now it's Jesus.
The gospels say otherwise.
oh, really.If Jesus was a rabbi, why would he study paganism in a pagan land?
examples please?
Just out of interest, what part of the Gospels does Jesus do this? Are you referring to in Matthew when he's asked if he is the Messiah and says "I am"?
https://discordapp.com/invite/cZt59EQ
i'm not really seeing anything constructive here. all i am seeing is a lot of people ganging up on one persons beliefs with the same arguments ive seen a million times before.
there is a lot of people in this thread who should be throughly ashamed of themselves.
You've changed Miles !! Whats the matter with you ? Last few topics 'sensible Miles' has appeared, wheres the old miles gone ?!
Matthew 16:16-17, John 10 34-36 with 1:18.
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ. You are the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah! No mere man showed this to you. My Father in heaven showed it to you.
John 1
18 No one has ever seen God. But God, the one and only Son, is at the Father's side. He has shown us what God is like.
John 10
34 Jesus answered them, "Didn't God say in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'??(Psalm 82:6) 35 We know that Scripture is always true. God spoke to some people and called them 'gods.' 36 If that is true, what about the One the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why do you charge me with saying a very evil thing? Is it because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
Note that John is usually understood as the beloved disciple.