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.
I understand your point, Arach, but our consciousness is embryonic and will only achieve its purpose after it has developed sufficiently to be reborn upon our death to join the substrate that establishes our Reality. Our disagreements pose no problem for our central agreement about our role as just part of a larger life system (God).
no, youre right, we have little difference in that part. Our disagreement would be in how we present that to others.
I don't see it as reborn. when you recall a thought, is that thought "reborn"? when that tough is modified by new information is that "reborn".
our second major disagreement in presenting it would be using the word "emergent". you seem to treat the word emergent like it means "magic". It doesn't. It just means as we pile on complexity the properties change. A property that we didn't see coming.
because we didn't see it doesn't mean it magically popped out of the system. It doesn't mean there is some force that had that property before the change in complexity in that object.
Like a robot. beep beep Boop boop praise jebus amen
The desire and LOVE of obeying laws is bad?
WOW
The fact that some people would seem to prefer a society of outlaw biker gangs is PROOF that they might be insane. It is further proof of God and of Jesus in my opinion.
Atheists are actually making a case for the Inerrancy of the Bible, which I have not really considered.
The fact that some people would seem to prefer a society of outlaw biker gangs is PROOF that they might be insane. It is further proof of God and of Jesus in my opinion.
Atheists are actually making a case for the Inerrancy of the Bible, which I have not really considered.
So you attack an argument no one as made and draw conclusions from it? Is this a mental problem, or are you so insecure in your beliefs you have a need to attack atheism at every chance?
So you attack an argument no one as made and draw conclusions from it? Is this a mental problem, or are you so insecure in your beliefs you have a need to attack atheism at every chance?
My statement stands and you are ignoring the point I am making. This is deep stuff, not something that should be ridiculed.
My statement stands and you are ignoring the point I am making. This is deep stuff, not something that should be ridiculed.
The point you are making is a one man conversation, as you are attacking something no one has said. You could have said Apfelstrudel is delicious, therefore atheism is stupid, it would have been as relevant (and as rational).
The point you are making is a one man conversation, as you are attacking something no one has said. You could have said Apfelstrudel is delicious, therefore atheism is stupid, it would have been as relevant (and as rational).
No, because the reality of ex-criminals being converted Christianity is a reality, just behind the closed door that you are ignoring. There are many former criminals who became Christian ministers after their release. They are changing the world for good. And all you can do is ridicule it. That's despicable.
No. I suspect that's more likely to happen in the kind of churches you would approve of. You would not be tolerated in a true church.
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.