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.
hey hey, not believing is one thing, calling what one cannot even begin to understand or is unwilling to question before disputing *crackpot* is ..... is..... showing ..... what???
ignorance? no, man!
I said that because MysticPHD and I had a long, in depth chat about his theories of "perfect resonance" and a "spiritual fossil record." He claims that these theories of his prove Jesus Christ is the messiah.
And after a logical discussion, it came to the point where we basically shot down these theories and deduced that they were not sound, not solid, and built on false premises.
But he continues to talk about these theories as if they are significant, as if they are true. He claims that these theories he created prove that Jesus is the messiah, but these theories do not stand up.
MysticPHD. If you want to debate these theories of yours one more time in a civil manner, i'll do it.
And after a logical discussion, it came to the point where we basically shot down these theories and deduced that they were not sound, not solid, and built on false premises.
We did?? Amazing . . . was I there for that? Who exactly is we? How was the final evaluation of the outcome determined? How did I miss this logical discussion . . . especially since your posts uniformly focus on data issues . . . not logic?
Quote:
MysticPHD. If you want to debate these theories of yours one more time in a civil manner, i'll do it.
Let's see if you can logically defend your assertions first . . . by answering my questions . . . shall we?
Ok well. Your theory about spiritual fossil records is flawed because many spiritual records were never recorded, were destroyed, or happened so far in the past that the records were lost.
For example, many of the spiritual records of Pagans were destroyed by Christians as the Pagans were murdered. The Native American traditions were almost all oral traditions, and many were lost when the Americas were colonized and the Natives slaughtered. These are just two such examples.
Thousands of years ago, perhaps in 1000 BC and before. There was a lot of spiritual activity happeneing on Earth. Cultures like the Native Americans, Egyptians and Africans all had powerful spiritual and religious traditions. But they were not recorded or preserved accurately because it was so far in the past. And most of the documentation on papyrus and other mediums has been lost to time.
And also, most spiritual gurus do not become well-known, famous, or take on lots of students. Many just live solitary lives or very quiet lives. This does not make them any less important.
So your idea of a spiritual fossil record is flawed because the fame, the notoriety, and the historic impact that a person has does NOT have a direct relationship with their spiritual power. There are many other factors involved. So for these reasons, this theory is not sound.
Your theory of perfect resonance just does not even begin to make any sense. It is just an analogy. It has not backbone at all.
Ok well. Your theory about spiritual fossil records is flawed because many spiritual records were never recorded, were destroyed, or happened so far in the past that the records were lost.
For example, many of the spiritual records of Pagans were destroyed by Christians as the Pagans were murdered. The Native American traditions were almost all oral traditions, and many were lost when the Americas were colonized and the Natives slaughtered. These are just two such examples.
Thousands of years ago, perhaps in 1000 BC and before. There was a lot of spiritual activity happeneing on Earth. Cultures like the Native Americans, Egyptians and Africans all had powerful spiritual and religious traditions. But they were not recorded or preserved accurately because it was so far in the past. And most of the documentation on papyrus and other mediums has been lost to time.
That is equally true about the physical fossil record. Incomplete information is not determinative of any flaws . . . and your disputation remains focused on data issues . . . not logic.
Quote:
And also, most spiritual gurus do not become well-known, famous, or take on lots of students. Many just live solitary lives or very quiet lives. This does not make them any less important.
So your idea of a spiritual fossil record is flawed because the fame, the notoriety, and the historic impact that a person has does NOT have a direct relationship with their spiritual power. There are many other factors involved. So for these reasons, this theory is not sound.
I understand your confusion a little better . . . you reject the basic spiritual premise that there exists a design (Spiritual DNA) from God concerning how our species is to evolve its spiritual understanding of God sufficiently to connect with the God consciousness that establishes our reality. And you reject the idea that this design was made available to various prophets, seers, in each of our earlier primitive generations . . . and that it was interpreted and explained in a form and at a level of understanding that was compatible with their knowledge and capabilities at the time. It is ok to dispute this . . . atheists certainly do . . . but I would think a spiritualist would not have as much of a problem with it.
You must see spirituality as a completely individual issue and not a species one. You must believe that we were created complete with all the ability and knowledge we needed to successfully unite with God consciousness and there was no need for us to evolve that capability according to any plan or design. If so . . . we have no need of further discussion . . . since there is no basis for agreement.
Quote:
Your theory of perfect resonance just does not even begin to make any sense. It is just an analogy. It has not backbone at all.
I suspect a lot more knowledge about the vibrational nature of our reality (non-materiality) would help you to make more sense of it.
That is equally true about the physical fossil record. Incomplete information is not determinative of any flaws . . . and your disputation remains focused on data issues . . . not logic. I understand your confusion a little better . . . you reject the basic spiritual premise that there exists a design (Spiritual DNA) from God concerning how our species is to evolve its spiritual understanding of God sufficiently to connect with the God consciousness that establishes our reality. And you reject the idea that this design was made available to various prophets, seers, in each of our earlier primitive generations . . . and that it was interpreted and explained in a form and at a level of understanding that was compatible with their knowledge and capabilities at the time. It is ok to dispute this . . . atheists certainly do . . . but I would think a spiritualist would not have as much of a problem with it.
You must see spirituality as a completely individual issue and not a species one. You must believe that we were created complete with all the ability and knowledge we needed to successfully unite with God consciousness and there was no need for us to evolve that capability according to any plan or design. If so . . . we have no need of further discussion . . . since there is no basis for agreement. I suspect a lot more knowledge about the vibrational nature of our reality (non-materiality) would help you to make more sense of it.
OK so we solved the spiritual fossil record issue.
First of all, physical fossils and spiritual fossils are totally different. I think that for you to term it as "fossils" is a very, very bad choice of words. Spirituality is based on ideas, energy, words. Physical fossils are big physical
objects in the ground. Surely you see the very huge difference there? Spiritual records are much easier to change, destroy and tamper with. Physical fossils are just solid objects.
It's truely a ridiculous chose of words.
This is why this theory is flawed. Because you believe that mankind has some spiritual destiny. And that Jesus Christ, being as well known and popular as he is, must be the one to fulfill that destiny.
This is pure faith. It comes down to purely subjective opinion when your smokescreen clears. Do not every try to hide this behind some psuedo-scientific theory. You should just be honest and say you believe it based on faith.
Not let's move on to resonance. Want to explain that? And do not condescendingly assume that I don't understand, i'm good with math and science.
OK so we solved the spiritual fossil record issue.
First of all, physical fossils and spiritual fossils are totally different. I think that for you to term it as "fossils" is a very, very bad choice of words. Spirituality is based on ideas, energy, words. Physical fossils are big physical
objects in the ground. Surely you see the very huge difference there? Spiritual records are much easier to change, destroy and tamper with. Physical fossils are just solid objects.
It's truely a ridiculous chose of words.
You clearly have problems making connections at an abstract level and seem focused on the concrete aspects of things . . . hence your confusion and childish evaluation of the concept. Whether spiritual (i.e., products of human consciousness) or physical . . . EVERYTHING is subject to deterioration, destruction, alteration . . . a volcanic eruption or earthquake can alter an existing physical fossil just as readily as someone can alter a spiritual recording. If this is indicative of the level at which your mind operates . . . we are wasting our time. What would you suggest we use to chronicle the evolution of spiritual thought and development?
Quote:
This is why this theory is flawed. Because you believe that mankind has some spiritual destiny. And that Jesus Christ, being as well known and popular as he is, must be the one to fulfill that destiny.
On what basis do you determine it is flawed . . . by what authority do you make this evaluation? You are free to dispute it . . . that is your right. But I have seen you present NO evidence of flaws . . . just disagreement. I have already said we have no basis on which to continue this discussion.You do not believe in a spiritual destiny for humankind . . . I do . . . case closed.
Quote:
This is pure faith. It comes down to purely subjective opinion when your smokescreen clears. Do not every try to hide this behind some psuedo-scientific theory. You should just be honest and say you believe it based on faith.
On what basis do you make this evaluation of my decades long research efforts and presume to demand this concession from me . . . you certainly have displayed no knowledge or other authority to justify your blanket claims and proclamations. You seem rather young . . . at least mentally. Usually such broad and certain proclamations are found more frequently in adolescents . . . less so in mature adults. There is no smokescreen . . . but there appears to be a significant lack of ability to intellectually understand what I have presented.
Quote:
Not let's move on to resonance. Want to explain that? And do not condescendingly assume that I don't understand, i'm good with math and science.
Based on your lack of understanding so far (no condescension involved) . . . I hardly think that would be fruitful.
You clearly have problem making connections at an abstract level and seem focused on the concrete aspects of things . . . hence your confusion and childish evaluation of the concept. Whether spiritual (i.e., products of human consciousness) or physical . . . EVERYTHING is subject to deterioration, destruction, alteration . . . a volcanic eruption or earthquake can alter an existing physical fossil just as readily as someone can alter a spiritual recording. If this is indicative of the level at which your mind operates . . . we are wasting our time. What would you suggest we use to chronicle the evolution of spiritual thought and development? On what basis do you determine it is flawed . . . by what authority do you make this evaluation? You are free to dispute it . . . that is your right. But I have seen you present NO evidence of flaws . . . just disagreement. I have already said we have no basis on which to continue this discussion.You do not believe in a spiritual destiny for humankind . . . I do . . . case closed. On what basis do you make this evaluation of my decades long research efforts and presume to demand this concession from me . . . you certainly have displayed no knowledge or other authority to justify your blanket claims and proclamations. You seem rather young . . . at least mentally. Usually such broad and certain proclamations are found more frequently in adolescents . . . less so in mature adults. There is no smokescreen . . . but there appears to be a significant lack of ability to intellectually understand what I have presented.
Based on your lack of understanding so far (no condescension involved) . . . I hardly think that would be fruitful.
You believe in spiritual destiny for all of mankind and you seem convinced that this is a FACT. When you should just admit that it's just your opinion, or perhaps your educated guess. This is the bottom line, you are trying to pass this idea off as a fact, and it is not a fact at all.
You keep on bragging about how long you've studied religion as if that gives you some higher status, but I have studied it a LOT too. I'm also college educated and have a high IQ, just like you have bragged about having. I just think that it sounds pompous and pretentious to even say these things.
You should just let your ideas speak for themselves, who you are is meaningless. Only your ideas matter.
Your smokescreen comes from the fact that you mask your very simple concepts behind these psuedo-scientific theories. It seems like you are purposely wording things much more complicated than they need to be, to make your arguement sound more intelligent.
It is not that I don't understand it. I fully understand every word, every concept and every sentence. It's just that it does not make sense.
You cannot seem to make the distinction between a physical fossil, like a bone or rock. And a spiritual fossil, like an idea, historical event, person's life story or religions doctrine. This is absurd to me.
Physical fossils are hard, long lasting, objects. Spirituality is conveyed in words, events, papers, oral history, metaphysics and in the past it rarely made it's way to hard, physicality.
The fact that you cannot, or will not recognise this difference shows a stubborness on your part. Because I really think you are smart enough to see the difference. I think you have a lot of pride and just will not back down one your ideas even though they really need to be re-evaluated.
You can stop insulting my intelligence. I understand everything you have said. I question it because it does not make sense. Not because I do not understand it or cannot follow it.
You believe in spiritual destiny for all of mankind and you seem convinced that this is a FACT. When you should just admit that it's just your opinion, or perhaps your educated guess. This is the bottom line, you are trying to pass this idea off as a fact, and it is not a fact at all.
My experience of a consciousness as the basis for our entire reality was my starting point . . . this means that God is real. That implies that a purpose exists for our consciousness. A purpose implies a destiny for humankind. Connect the dots. I can accept that for you it is an educated guess . . . for me it is fact. If you do not believe . . . that is your prerogative . . . perhaps you just have not had an experiential basis for doing so. I am not so handicapped.
Quote:
You keep on bragging about how long you've studied religion as if that gives you some higher status, but I have studied it a LOT too. I'm also college educated and have a high IQ, just like you have bragged about having. I just think that it sounds pompous and pretentious to even say these things.
You are a very obnoxious individual . . . especially in your choice of words and adjectives. Explaining my background and capabilities to someone who has no possibility of knowing what they are . . . is NOT bragging. There is no bragging involved. As to the pompous and pretentious . . . your glass house is vulnerable. I seek absolutely nothing from you or anyone else. My life is filled with accomplishments and it is nearing its end. I am sharing my understanding with anyone who is interested. I have no idea what your objectives are, however.
Quote:
You should just let your ideas speak for themselves, who you are is meaningless. Only your ideas matter.
I was insulted, denigrated, asked and challenged . . . did you forget that? Given your lack of real comprehension as displayed in your continued refusal to understand the concept (despite your avowed understanding) . . . apparently my ideas don't speak very clearly for themselves.
Quote:
Your smokescreen comes from the fact that you mask your very simple concepts behind these psuedo-scientific theories. It seems like you are purposely wording things much more complicated than they need to be, to make your arguement sound more intelligent.
There you go again with your disparaging adjectives (smokescreen, pseudo-scientific) and attribution of motives ("sound" more intelligent . . . and you wonder why I had to explain my IQ). . . it is very annoying. I am a fully accredited scientist at the doctoral level . . . what are your scientifc credentials? You have no idea what my researches comprised of nor how I formulated my conclusions. You are a very presumptuous and obnoxious individual with whom I no longer wish to debate.
My experience of a consciousness as the basis for our entire reality was my starting point . . . this means that God is real. That implies that a purpose exists for our consciousness. A purpose implies a destiny for humankind. Connect the dots. I can accept that for you it is an educated guess . . . for me it is fact. If you do not believe . . . that is your prerogative . . . perhaps you just have not had an experiential basis for doing so. I am not so handicapped. You are a very obnoxious individual . . . especially in your choice of words and adjectives. Explaining my background and capabilities to someone who has no possibility of knowing what they are . . . is NOT bragging. There is no bragging involved. As to the pompous and pretentious . . . your glass house is vulnerable. I seek absolutely nothing from you or anyone else. My life is filled with accomplishments and it is nearing its end. I am sharing my understanding with anyone who is interested. I have no idea what your objectives are, however. I was insulted, denigrated, asked and challenged . . . did you forget that? Given your lack of real comprehension as displayed in your continued refusal to understand the concept (despite your avowed understanding) . . . apparently my ideas don't speak very clearly for themselves. There you go again with your disparaging adjectives (smokescreen, pseudo-scientific) and attribution of motives ("sound" more intelligent . . . and you wonder why I had to explain my IQ). . . it is very annoying. I am a fully accredited scientist at the doctoral level . . . what are your scientifc credentials? You have no idea what my researches comprised of nor how I formulated my conclusions. You are a very presumptuous and obnoxious individual with whom I no longer wish to debate.
Well thanks for taking the time to fully respond to my posts, good debate. Not it's all out there for everyone to read.
As for scientific credentials. I feel like scientific credentials are not too important in religious and spiritual matters. A knowledge and understanding of science is certainly important. But I think the most important qualities are wisdom, first hand experience, open-mindedness, metaphysical power and also common sense and general intelligence.
But being a scientist is not exactly applicable to this type of endeavor in my opinion.
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.
Amazing . . . was I there for that? Who exactly is we? How was the final evaluation of the outcome determined? How did I miss this logical discussion . . . especially since your posts uniformly focus on data issues . . . not logic?
