Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is sad not to trust your own experiences to reveal reality.
That it makes you sad is not sufficient grounds for abandoning a scientific approach in favor of an emotional one when it comes to dissecting the origins and operations of the cosmos.
Afraid that you will just have to cope with your sorrow.
I champion logic over emotionalism and I do not believe that the personal experience of any individual human has anything to do with unraveling the mysteries of the cosmos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That is sad not to trust your own experiences to reveal reality.
If I wrote that my personal experiences, under uber meditation or any other way I select to market my thinking process, proves that there is no god, would you take my word for it? Would you give that assertion any weight at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
No . . . but I would expect you to do so.
If not, then you must appreciate that your personal experiences are irrelevant to the rest of us and have no utility in these debates. From our perspective, there is nothing to distinguish your claims from the line from the old Cheech & Chong routine.."I played Black Sabbath on 78 and saw God, man!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I have never offered my witness as "proof" for anyone else . . . just as the explanation for my certainty. It is one data point. I believe someone once said anecdotes taken in very large numbers do eventually become data prompting investigation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
That it makes you sad is not sufficient grounds for abandoning a scientific approach in favor of an emotional one when it comes to dissecting the origins and operations of the cosmos.
It makes me sad for you, Grand. Not believing you can trust your own perceptions of reality is a tough gig. Convincing others is a minor issue, IMO.
You clearly have not been reading or refuse to read or have a reading comprehension problem because I have told you repeatedly that the savagery and barbarism attributed to God in the OT is nonsense from ignorant savages and primitives. You insist that I defend it as the revealed word of God . . . but it isn't. Everything in the Bible that is incompatible with agape love is NOT God-inspired, period. You can continue to rant about it all you wish . . . but it won't change a thing.
Then the OT is based on lies and is invalid. According to the NT Jesus specifically quoted from and defended the OT as authoritative. If the OT is based on lies and is in reality the word of men and not the Word of God then the NT is not valid as well. Which establishes that Jesus died once and for all time like all dead people everywhere and he is still dead because in reality the dead are dead, and do not return to life. I don't know where there is for you to go from here, except into your very own personal Matrix style constructed universe of your very own making where everything operates according to your personal best good feelings.
A rant is defined as:
rant [rant]verb (used without object)
1. to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave: The demagogue ranted for hours.
I simply asked you a question which you have largely refused to address. I suspect that is because you do not like the answer you would be forced to give.
“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)
While Jesus is recorded as having preached that no one, including himself, knew the exact day or hour of his return to Earth, he is also recorded as having preached that it would be within his own (first-century) generation. For thousands of years, Christians have performed intellectual gymnastics to explain away either Jesus' failure to return to Earth or his predicting that he would. Needless to say, the question is begged: where is Jesus?
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but this is regarding the Transfiguration (a preview of the kingdom) which occurred a week later.
Peter, James, and John SAW Jesus in His true glory. All three times in Matt 16, Mark 9, and Luke 9, the Transfiguration followed the text mentioned above.
You clearly have not been reading or refuse to read or have a reading comprehension problem because I have told you repeatedly that the savagery and barbarism attributed to God in the OT is nonsense from ignorant savages and primitives. You insist that I defend it as the revealed word of God . . . but it isn't. Everything in the Bible that is incompatible with agape love is NOT God-inspired, period. You can continue to rant about it all you wish . . . but it won't change a thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Then the OT is based on lies and is invalid. According to the NT Jesus specifically quoted from and defended the OT as authoritative. If the OT is based on lies and is in reality the word of men and not the Word of God then the NT is not valid as well.
What absolute nonsense. This all-or nothing rationale is absurd. I would expect it from a fundamentalist but not from an avowed atheist. Why on earth would it ALL have to be one o rht e other . . . false or truth? That is just silly. For your information, Jesus quoted from the OT because it was about Him. Jesus never defended the savagery and barbarity in the OT.
Quote:
Which establishes that Jesus died once and for all time like all dead people everywhere and he is still dead because in reality the dead are dead, and do not return to life.
But there is a rebirth as Spirit upon our death. That is what happened to Jesus and is what will happen to us. Our embryo Spirits will be "born again" as Spirits after our death.
Quote:
I simply asked you a question which you have largely refused to address. I suspect that is because you do not like the answer you would be forced to give.
You will have to forgive my Senioritis because I have no idea what you asked that I haven't answered.
What absolute nonsense. This all-or nothing rationale is absurd. I would expect it from a fundamentalist but not from an avowed atheist. Why on earth would it ALL have to be one o rht e other . . . false or truth? That is just silly.
I doubt that there is a single atheist alive who considers the OT to be anything OTHER than a work of men, from start to finish. If the OT is not true, from start to finish, then it cannot be the revealed Word of God. And while SOME of the individuals contained in the OT may well have existed, and SOME of the events contained in the OT may have actually occurred, more or less, the OT still represents the documentation of a specific world view of a specific group of people, and nothing more. Those portions that have the advantage of being plausible, as opposed to impossible, MAY have some relationship to actual events. The impossible bits we have every right to discard. Your method however is to pick and choose based on your personal preference for the bits that best suits the world of your own making, without regard to plausibility, and to exclude those bits which do not satisfy you personally. And THAT is known as make believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
For your information, Jesus quoted from the OT because it was about Him. Jesus never defended the savagery and barbarity in the OT.
Jesus never addressed "the savagery and barbarity in the OT" one way or the other, did he? Even in the words placed into his mouth by others. And he certainly never denied it nor did he deplore it as untrue. If he/God was NOT responsible for such atrocities, one would think that Jesus would have made that very clear to one and all as one of his top priorities. But in fact, he never denied it, DID HE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
But there is a rebirth as Spirit upon our death. That is what happened to Jesus and is what will happen to us. Our embryo Spirits will be "born again" as Spirits after our death.
This may have meaning in your own personal Matrix style constructed universe of your very own making where everything operates according to your personal best good feelings. But in the real world which the rest of us inhabit, the dead remain dead without exception.
As a side note, when you speak to your invisible friends do they audibly speak back to you? If so, do they speak in English, or in the language of tongues?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You will have to forgive my Senioritis because I have no idea what you asked that I haven't answered.
I suspect that is because you never actually read all of it. But through the magic of cut and paste, here it is again. If you read it thoroughly this time you will be better prepared to answer all of it.
***
The question was not about me and what I believe or do not believe. If it was I would say freely, as I am doing now, that I see the Bible as a record of the ancient supernatural beliefs of an ancient group of people. It records their world of make believe as seen through their eyes. Some portions of the Bible do seem to correspond to historically verifiable facts. Those portions of the Bible which realistically COULD be true MIGHT even BE true. But NO, I do not believe the story of the corpse of Jesus coming back to life and then flying off up into the sky. I think I can pretty well defend taking that position, because in reality, and in the light of all observation, experience and common sense, the reason for doubting the story of a flying reanimated corpse is pretty self explanatory. So I am not hiding anything about my beliefs, or lack thereof.
The question was directed at YOU however, and what you are presenting here for us all as revealed truth. The Bible specifically indicates that God Himself ordered the slaughter of helpless women and children right down to the smallest babe in arms. God and Jesus are one in the same thing, according to Christian doctrine. Therefore Jesus personally ordered this slaughter, according to Ezekiel 9:4-7. It's right there in the Bible. (Now this time continue reading.)Your position seems to be that the Jesus you love would never do such a thing, and that the various slaughters of helpless mothers and children depicted in the OT were in reality the works of man, and not directed by Jesus/God. In other words, Moses, Joshua and Ezekiel, at least, lied to the people. If Moses and the other holy men responsible for the OT are confirmed liars, then the OT is in reality nothing more then the work of MAN from start to finish and that pretty well eliminates the OT from being The Holy Word of God. DOESN'T IT! In the NT however we see Jesus very specifically holding up the OT as authoritative. In fact he is reported to have said specifically: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." It's right there in the NT. Jesus verifies the authority of the OT. Therefore Jesus HIMSELF ordered the slaughter of babies. Of course as I already pointed out in this string, Jesus himself wrote NOTHING during his lifetime. The various long passages attributed to Jesus as direct verbatim quotations of the things he was supposed to have said were in fact written by others anonymously decades after Jesus was dead. So you may well be correct. For all we know the Jesus you love may well have repudiated stories of God commanding that young children should be put to the sword. All you have to do to make that case is repudiate THE ENTIRE BIBLE as it is written. So, what is your position? I have told you mine, openly and freely. I think the Bible is grounded on ancient make believe. Is the entire Bible as written to be repudiated in your judgement? Or do you get to personally cherry-pick the portions that appeal to you, while discarding and repudiating those portions that you find repugnant, based on your personal knowledge and personal sense of which parts are valid and which parts are not? Which is to say, are you simply just one more individual who is confused and bewildered over what it is that they have always supposed they believe in, and who is therefore forced to make up WHATEVER it serves to appeal to them to believe in as they go along?
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 06-06-2014 at 05:22 PM..
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but this is regarding the Transfiguration (a preview of the kingdom) which occurred a week later.
Peter, James, and John SAW Jesus in His true glory. All three times in Matt 16, Mark 9, and Luke 9, the Transfiguration followed the text mentioned above.
That's funny; the Gospels I read disagree on who was present at the transfiguration on the mount, which raises the question of why a god would write a book that directly contradicts itself (in hundreds of places). And are you really trying to sell the idea that Jesus, who, in the verses leading up to this proclamation, was detailing the end of the world, immediately jumped to discussing the transfiguration on the mount, with no segue whatsoever? If you are, your hypothesis begs the question of why a god would write a book that jumps incoherently from topic to topic, with no continuity of thought.
The author of Matthew clearly paints Jesus as having predicted his immediate return to Earth.
What absolute nonsense. This all-or nothing rationale is absurd. I would expect it from a fundamentalist but not from an avowed atheist. Why on earth would it ALL have to be one o rht e other . . . false or truth? That is just silly. For your information, Jesus quoted from the OT because it was about Him. Jesus never defended the savagery and barbarity in the OT. But there is a rebirth as Spirit upon our death. That is what happened to Jesus and is what will happen to us. Our embryo Spirits will be "born again" as Spirits after our death. You will have to forgive my Senioritis because I have no idea what you asked that I haven't answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Your method however is to pick and choose based on your personal preference for the bits that best suits the world of your own making, without regard to plausibility, and to exclude those bits which do not satisfy you personally. And THAT is known as make believe.
This is not true and I have no idea were you got this idea from. Everything I select is selected based on agape love. I have encountered this love in deep meditation so my certainty about it is non-negotiable. Anything and everything that is in the "spiritual fossil record" is tested against the agape love standard, period. If it is not compatible with agape love it has nothing to do with God or Jesus. There is nothing make believe about it.
Quote:
Jesus never addressed "the savagery and barbarity in the OT" one way or the other, did he? Even in the words placed into his mouth by others. And he certainly never denied it nor did he deplore it as untrue. If he/God was NOT responsible for such atrocities, one would think that Jesus would have made that very clear to one and all as one of his top priorities. But in fact, he never denied it, DID HE?
To unthinking primitive savages perhaps not . . . but God IS love is pretty clear. Everyone who loves is "born of God" and knows God . . . is pretty clear.
Quote:
This may have meaning in your own personal Matrix style constructed universe of your very own making where everything operates according to your personal best good feelings.
If it makes you feel better to misrepresent my views as my own personal preferences and imagination I can't stop you.
Quote:
But in the real world which the rest of us inhabit, the dead remain dead without exception.
What I know of reality and God tells me you are wrong.
Quote:
As a side note, when you speak to your invisible friends do they audibly speak back to you? If so, do they speak in English, or in the language of tongues?
There is no speech. It is all just "known" directly.
Quote:
The question was not about me and what I believe or do not believe. If it was I would say freely, as I am doing now, that I see the Bible as a record of the ancient supernatural beliefs of an ancient group of people. It records their world of make believe as seen through their eyes. Some portions of the Bible do seem to correspond to historically verifiable facts. Those portions of the Bible which realistically COULD be true MIGHT even BE true. But NO, I do not believe the story of the corpse of Jesus coming back to life and then flying off up into the sky. I think I can pretty well defend taking that position, because in reality, and in the light of all observation, experience and common sense, the reason for doubting the story of a flying reanimated corpse is pretty self explanatory. So I am not hiding anything about my beliefs, or lack thereof.
This is why i am convinced you are either not reading or not comprehending my posts. I pretty much agree with you about a lot of the Bible . . . but I do NOT write it all off. It contains God-inspired information . . . interpreted by ignorant savages . . . but God-inspired nonetheless. BTW I don't believe in any re-animated corpse either . . . that would be the reborn as Spirit part you keep ignoring.
Quote:
The question was directed at YOU however, and what you are presenting here for us all as revealed truth. The Bible specifically indicates that God Himself ordered the slaughter of helpless women and children right down to the smallest babe in arms. God and Jesus are one in the same thing, according to Christian doctrine. Therefore Jesus personally ordered this slaughter, according to Ezekiel 9:4-7.
Too bad for you it isn't true. As I have repeatedly tried to tell you, our ancestors simply did not distinguish their own thoughts and the actions from God. EVERYTHING that happened was God doing it or ordering it or whatever. Given this prevalent mindset . . . we have to take these attributions to God with more than an abundance of salt!!!
Quote:
Your position seems to be that the Jesus you love would never do such a thing, and that the various slaughters of helpless mothers and children depicted in the OT were in reality the works of man, and not directed by Jesus/God. In other words, Moses, Joshua and Ezekiel, at least, lied to the people. If Moses and the other holy men responsible for the OT are confirmed liars, then the OT is in reality nothing more then the work of MAN from start to finish and that pretty well eliminates the OT from being The Holy Word of God. DOESN'T IT!
They didn't know they were lies . . . that is the point you seem to miss. In their minds they were not lies. Receiving the inspirations from God was like any inspiration. It was not dictation and they had to formulate interpretations of their thoughts and form explanations that made sense to them and their limited (non-existent) knowledge of reality and beliefs about God.
Quote:
In the NT however we see Jesus very specifically holding up the OT as authoritative. In fact he is reported to have said specifically: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." It's right there in the NT. Jesus verifies the authority of the OT.
Wrong. He said nothing about the OT . . . just the Ten Commandments that were the first step in achieving self-control over our baser urges and promoting agape love for others. The Spirit behind the letter of the law is agape love. This is why When Jesus condensed His instructions into only two "love God and each other" he encompassed all the law . . . and then some. There are far more things that can harm another and violate agape love than the Ten supposedly written in stone.
Quote:
<snip> All you have to do to make that case is repudiate THE ENTIRE BIBLE as it is written. So, what is your position?
Nonsense. It is not remotely necessary to repudiate the ENTIRE Bible because it DOES contain revealed truth . . . it just needs to be properly divided and tested with the Spirit of agape love.
Quote:
I have told you mine, openly and freely. I think the Bible is grounded on ancient make believe. Is the entire Bible as written to be repudiated in your judgement? Or do you get to personally cherry-pick the portions that appeal to you, while discarding and repudiating those portions that you find repugnant, based on your personal knowledge and personal sense of which parts are valid and which parts are not? Which is to say, are you simply just one more individual who is confused and bewildered over what it is that they have always supposed they believe in, and who is therefore forced to make up WHATEVER it serves to appeal to them to believe in as they go along?
We still receive inspirations from God even to this day because Christ abides with us within our consciousness. But we are no less ill-equipped to understand them than our ancestors were. We still have to use our own knowledge and beliefs to interpret them. But our saving grace is the Good News that God IS agape love. It makes interpreting much easier than it would otherwise be. What you call cherry-picking using my own preferences is actually testing the Spirit with agape love.
That's funny; the Gospels I read disagree on who was present at the transfiguration on the mount, which raises the question of why a god would write a book that directly contradicts itself (in hundreds of places). And are you really trying to sell the idea that Jesus, who, in the verses leading up to this proclamation, was detailing the end of the world, immediately jumped to discussing the transfiguration on the mount, with no segue whatsoever? If you are, your hypothesis begs the question of why a god would write a book that jumps incoherently from topic to topic, with continuity of thought.
The author of Matthew clearly paints Jesus as having predicted his immediate return to Earth.
He wasn't detailing the end of the world in Matthew 16. He was detailing discipleship, and mentioned the fruits of following him which is His glory - then He showed them His glory.
Here's the Luke version...
Luke 9:28-32 - Some eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming. 30 And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, 31 who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him.
Now there is another possibility which points to His ascension which takes place in Acts - since they were speaking of His departure - and the disciples did see that as well.
This is obviously not speaking of His second coming. That doesn't make sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
