Missing Gospels?

[cbullion]

(God allows sin to prevail against his mercy and judgements, that is apart of the gospel, and this behavior is designed to complete the product of equal potential the gospel affords, the most notable times of God's Mercies for long periods of time has been during the 14 Dynasty Periods (Matthew 1:17) (most notable with egypt and babylon)

Long Story Short: In the Old Testament God uses the Giants to identify with the Secret Books of his Mercy and Judgment that is revealed in the earth. In the New Testament, God uses duplicity instead of Giants, (so you have several mary, and several john, etc.)......................When you get to the "Revelation", God does not use Giants or "Duplicity", God literally uses a Fallen Angel (Black Knight Satellite/Unclean Bird/or the Raven from Noah, a picture of Nibiru).

(God has in part announced his intention of the Secret Books, with the 9/11/2001 Falling Man that follows this behavior, matching Jesus and Judas, going off the cliff and then coming off the cross ...............long story short................Genetic Dan is the Abomination of Desolation the Enemy of God and Man, so they will go after your lives, where as Aaron will go after your will to serve God's Intentions.................when you put that together, with the fact that God does not want Moses to perform a work, other than to identify with his mercies as a trial of faith for man, then the solution is clear............33 Days (7 Years of Deadly Head Wound, some legal arguments for that already), then 153 Days, with the Sign of Divorce coming into play before that)

 

[ChristineM]

OK. I can see how it wasn't clear. I was inferring that "yes" there are cults within the use of the Bible... but that it wasn't just on those who use the Bible... a cult is a cult INCLUDING your belief system.

g

Getting technical, atheism is a lack of belief system

 

[Mister Silver]

g

Getting technical, atheism is a lack of belief system

It always surprises me how theists can never seem to remember that.

 

[ChristineM]

It always surprises me how theists can never seem to remember that.

Me too.

 

[Kenny]

g

Getting technical, atheism is a lack of belief system

It always surprises me how theists can never seem to remember that.

Probably because it is a twisting of meanings--almost a two step dance.

Technically speaking, it is still a belief system to wit: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods (merriam/webster)

Interestingly enough it defines it as a "religious position" in as much as it is still a faith statement that has no empirical or verifiable support. A Cult?

 

[ChristineM]

Probably because it is a twisting of meanings--almost a two step dance.

Technically speaking, it is still a belief system to wit: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods (merriam/webster)

Interestingly enough it defines it as a "religious position" in as much as it is still a faith statement that has no empirical or verifiable support. A Cult?

No its not,

Theism is the belief in god or gods
Atheism is the disbelief in god or gods

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Anything else, whether claimed by theists or those with ulterior motive to subvert the definition is just fluff

"It" what it defines atheism as a religious position

Religion : the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Or
a particular system of faith and worship.
Or
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

So how does atheism encompass any of these definitions? Please be as voluminous as you think is required to override the them

 

[Kenny]

No its not,

Theism is the belief in god or gods
Atheism is the disbelief in god or gods

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Anything else, whether claimed by theists or those with ulterior motive to subvert the definition is just fluff

"It" what it defines atheism as a religious position

Religion : the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Or
a particular system of faith and worship.
Or
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

So how does atheism encompass any of these definitions? Please be as voluminous as you think is required to override the them

Yes, there are different definitions but I like Merriam/Webster.

Other definitions of religion are:

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Atheism is a religion that has a "system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". You have a position of "lack of belief in the existence of God" at yet you have no empirical and verifiable evidence (the system of science) - a position of faith. A religion based on your particular belief systems "held to with ardor and faith".

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, there are different definitions but I like Merriam/Webster.

Other definitions of religion are:

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Atheism is a religion that has a "system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". You have a position of "lack of belief in the existence of God" at yet you have no empirical and verifiable evidence (the system of science) - a position of faith. A religion based on your particular belief systems "held to with ardor and faith".

Nope, a position yes, as for all the other nonsense, obviously written by a religious person with no concept of atheism.

Yes i have several evidence's, the problem is that you are unwilling to them where it interferes with your faith.

 

[Kenny]

Nope, a position yes, as for all the other nonsense, obviously written by a religious person with no concept of atheism.

Yes i have several evidence's, the problem is that you are unwilling to them where it interferes with your faith.

I don't think so since it is a very standard non-religious dictionary.

It seems more like "since it doesn't conform to what I want it to say, I'll just make up a new definition".

and it is obvious that since you don't have empirical and verifiable evidence, you choose not to use scientific methods.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't think so since it is a very standard non-religious dictionary.

It seems more like "since it doesn't conform to what I want it to say, I'll just make up a new definition".

and it is obvious that since you don't have empirical and verifiable evidence, you choose not to use scientific methods.

Very standard in america with 5% of the worlds population and 75% of them Christian.

Other dictionary definitions take the literal meaning of the word a-theist (from the Greek roots, without god) and do t embellish it to decisive the local gullible

Obvious?
E=MC2 shows without a shadow of doubt that the god of revelation 19:6 kjv cannot exist in this universe at the same time as you.

To date Einstein has not been invalidated. That's 100% verification. Burt as i said, you ate unwilling to accept s scientific and mathematical proof when it goes against yoyr faith.

Add to that, proof by exhaustion, in about 10000 years of deity worship literally billions of people have failed to prove their gods. It would only take one success to destroy that proof.

So obvious does not really figure.

 

[Kenny]

Very standard in america with 5% of the worlds population and 75% of them Christian.

Other dictionary definitions take the literal meaning of the word a-theist (from the Greek roots, without god) and do t embellish it to decisive the local gullible

Obvious?
E=MC2 shows without a shadow of doubt that the god of revelation 19:6 kjv cannot exist in this universe at the same time as you.

To date Einstein has not been invalidated. That's 100% verification. Burt as i said, you ate unwilling to accept s scientific and mathematical proof when it goes against yoyr faith.

Add to that, proof by exhaustion, in about 10000 years of deity worship literally billions of people have failed to prove their gods. It would only take one success to destroy that proof.

So obvious does not really figure.

So, you are saying that you know everything.

My position is that in a circle with a diameter of 12 inches of all knowledge, man probably knows the circle within that circle of about 1 inch (and I am being generous). Therefore, I cannot accept your position as the ultimate truth. You are thinking within a very finite amount of knowledge on an infinite plane. One statement E=MC2 revolutionized finite thinking of its time. Another discovery will do the same.

And since you were not here when the world came into existence, logic will fall on my side that God did exist before you and I did and therefore we are in His universe and the same time.

 

[ChristineM]

So, you are saying that you know everything.

My position is that in a circle with a diameter of 12 inches of all knowledge, man probably knows the circle within that circle of about 1 inch (and I am being generous). Therefore, I cannot accept your position as the ultimate truth. You are thinking within a very finite amount of knowledge on an infinite plane. One statement E=MC2 revolutionized finite thinking of its time. Another discovery will do the same.

And since you were not here when the world came into existence, logic will fall on my side that God did exist before you and I did and therefore we are in His universe and the same time.

I am saying what simple mathematics and an open mind can figure out in a few minutes.

So you are saying you know everything and are clairvoyant too?

Nope, logic, science, mathematics shows exactly how this world came into existence, even wikipedia has a page on it

History of Earth - Wikipedia

 

[Kenny]

I am saying what simple mathematics and an open mind can figure out in a few minutes.

So you are saying you know everything and are clairvoyant too?

Nope, logic, science, mathematics shows exactly how this world came into existence, even wikipedia has a page on it

History of Earth - Wikipedia

LOL... your open mind is quite closed when you say there is no God.

Wikipedia isn't God, I can change what it says.

 

[ChristineM]

LOL... your open mind is quite closed when you say there is no God.

Wikipedia isn't God, I can change what it says.

The complete lack of evidence ever since the first ever supernatural deity worshipper says otherwise.

Ok try changing it, see how long your edits go unchanged. I posted wikipedia because i considered it your level of understanding on the subject. You obviously consider it a joke so I'll revise my opinion.

Try changing Solar System History: How Was the Earth Formed? - Universe Today

Or mit Earth Formation and Evolution | Marine Isotope Chemistry | Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences | MIT OpenCourseWare

Or these 4 million plus scholarly articles on the same and related subjects https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=en&q=how+was+the+earth+formed&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

 

[Kenny]

The complete lack of evidence ever since the first ever supernatural deity worshipper says otherwise.

Ok try changing it, see how long your edits go unchanged. I posted wikipedia because i considered it your level of understanding on the subject. You obviously consider it a joke so I'll revise my opinion.

Try changing Solar System History: How Was the Earth Formed? - Universe Today

Or mit Earth Formation and Evolution | Marine Isotope Chemistry | Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences | MIT OpenCourseWare

Or these 4 million plus scholarly articles on the same and related subjects https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=en&q=how+was+the+earth+formed&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

Did you just move the goal post?

We were speaking about beginning of creation and not the forming of this solar system. Why did you change what we were talking about?

 

[ChristineM]

Did you just move the goal post?

We were speaking about beginning of creation and not the forming of this solar system. Why did you change what we were talking about?

Your words

"And since you were not here when the world came into existence, "

 

[Kenny]

Your words

"And since you were not here when the world came into existence, "

It is all about context as you said before that:

Obvious?
E=MC2 shows without a shadow of doubt that the god of revelation 19:6 kjv cannot exist in this universe at the same time as you.

Otherwise, you could be charged with cherry picking by taking it out of context.

 

[ChristineM]

It is all about context as you said before that:



Otherwise, you could be charged with cherry picking by taking it out of context.

I read and replied to your words... You don't like it then there's your problem right there.

 

[Kenny]

I read and replied to your words... You don't like it then there's your problem right there.

I spoke in reference to the words you said... You don't like it, then there's your problem.

Your debate sure sounds as childish as my response.

But one thing for sure, whether the world or universe, you still were not there and there is still different theories (contrary to what you said):

Although planets surround stars in the galaxy, how they form remains a subject of debate. Despite the wealth of worlds in our own solar system, scientists still aren't certain how planets are built

How Was Earth Formed?

Since science continues to correct itself, there may be a third model after we understand the black holes... you just never know because we know so little.

 

[ChristineM]

I spoke in reference to the words you said... You don't like it, then there's your problem.

Your debate sure sounds as childish as my response.

Yes your responses are childish

Eg:- "LOL... your open mind is quite closed when you say there is no God.
Wikipedia isn't God, I can change what it says."
So there see.

Thanks for being so honest, i would not have expected it from an abrahamic religious type

As for what you wrote and i replied to: -
"And since you were not here when the world came into existence, logic will fall on my side that God did exist before you and I did and therefore we are in His universe and the same time."

Apart from the fact you are mixing subjects, personally not on the world when it accreted

Then shooting off on another track of universe what do you want to debate with, a mind reader?

You are also making claims of logic from ignorance and incredulity

To claim a logical conclusion you must use valid principals. No god has ever been validated as existing therefore your logic is logical fallacy