New Age Spiritual Leader
Member
Jewish texts are not "Gnostic".
You are failing miserably.
Keep trying, I'll let you know when you actually say something that has facts to back it up.....okay?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The ONLY religious question!
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
You are failing miserably.
Keep trying, I'll let you know when you actually say something that has facts to back it up.....okay?
Paul was a Jew... come back when you have something to talk about intelligibly.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
as I have posted for soooooo many years
HEAR ME WELL!
there will never be a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or a repeatable experiment
all you can do is think about it
as for creation....which came first?
Spirit?
or substance?
if you say substance then all of life is chemistry ....and yours will fail
all that awaits your last breath....is eternal darkness
no form of light follows anyone into the grave
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I am not sure how you have drawn this conclusion from my words. I never said that I cannot find Christ in a congregation of people, who all fall short of the glory of God, although there are plenty of better sources. I said that I do not need it to be converted to a follower of Christ. That is something that only the individual can achieve, through the power of the Holy Ghost. Did you realise that human beings are the only ones who do not fulfil the measure of their creation. Every other living organism does. We are all sinners so if you are looking to men hoping to find God then you are looking in the wrong place. Try looking at the ecosystem to find God, or photosynthesis .
You have clearly misunderstood this scripture. When Christ says this He means that when two or three are gathered in His name than there will be the Holy Ghost testifying to the heart and souls of those individual, of Christ. It does not mean that they will be testifying to each other as they do not possess the same Keys and authority as the Holy Ghost does. You are looking at a small segment of the painting instead of the whole painting. If we could do that then why would there be a need for the Holy Ghost.[/QUOTE]
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that shows you lack serious thought about the matter.
I believe that view is absolutely baseless. It would be true if you could hear Him but you claim that you can't.
I believe you are basing a false conclusion on a false premise.
I believe He is more intelligent than anyone. That again reveals that your premise is false.
I can speak to my wife but she will not be able to hear me. If I stand in front of her and speak loudly she will be able to hear me. It isn't that I don't speak well but it is that she is hard of hearing.
Muffled
Jesus in me
[/QUOTE]
I have God in me so I don't need to look for Him. I don't discuss religion in many places (here of course) but I do in church and you would find God in me there. I don't believe I am the only one but I do understand that there are few who embody God as much as I do.
I believe it does not mean that but it means something even more. The Holy Spirit is more dynamic in two believers as opposed to just one and a whole congregation in the unity of the Spirit is awesome.
Daisies4me
Active Member
I have God in me so I don't need to look for Him. I don't discuss religion in many places (here of course) but I do in church and you would find God in me there. I don't believe I am the only one but I do understand that there are few who embody God as much as I do.
I believe it does not mean that but it means something even more. The Holy Spirit is more dynamic in two believers as opposed to just one and a whole congregation in the unity of the Spirit is awesome.[/QUOTE]
(quote)
Interesting.
Isaiah 2:1-4
Yes, well, there is a slight difference in this case. There's nothing to suggest, first, that I'm "hard of hearing" when it comes to God, and more importantly, you lack the faculty of omnipotence, which would permit you to overcome your wife's hearing loss without difficulty.
As to your 4 "I believe" statements, why should I pay more attention to what you believe than what my Muslim, Hindu, atheist and Jewish friends believe -- or to what I myself believe? Are your beliefs superior to mine based on some as-yet-unattested perfection that you own and I do not?
O.K. - So that tells me you already know God is God by NATURE. This only demonstrates it is NATURAL for God to be, and that He is therefore THE GOD OF NATURE, therefore is not against nature, but fulfills its most basic need, A God who manages it.
Muffled
Jesus in me
(quote)
Interesting.
Isaiah 2:1-4[/QUOTE]
I don't believe you would find God at a JW Kingdom Hall. I believe you would find a lot of scripture badly misinterpreted about God.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Welcome to RF.
I believe you are trying to argue that nature reveals that there is God. That is basically a design needs a designer theory.
I believe atheists generally do not agree that the theory has been proven.
No. I was responding to a remark made by Evangelicalhumanist. He or She said -
↑
" -- but I have no reason to suppose they knew anything more about God, science, the universe or human nature than I have access to."
God Himself tells us He is God by Nature when He said -
"Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no Gods." (Gal 4:8)
He is reminding Men of a time in which they did not serve the true and living God, but rather served them who are not Gods "BY NATURE."
The only rational implication is rather simple; HE is "GOD BY NATURE."
Therefore there is no "God vs. Nature" dispute going on, because God Himself is NATURAL.
Dis-Believing in the natural is in itself UN-Natural. That is like saying "I do not believe in Gravity because it never wrote a book, never spoke to me, and I can't see it, therefore why should I believe in it?"
Or Mesons; quarks; atoms; energy; dark matter; dark light; etc.
Any JW who considers him/herself to be an honest representative of the JW religion, probably has a copy of the "AID TO BIBLE UNDERSTANDING" Published by the JW organization.
On page 334 & 335, is given an explanation for the chronology by which the JW date of 1917 was given originally, for the second coming of Christ.
Their statement "Paul's statement at Galations 3:17 shows that the 430-year period applies from the time when the Abrahamic covenant took effect on his entry into Canaan until the exodus from Egypt and the giving of the law covenant in that same year.
Evidence that such understanding of the text prevailed from early times is indicated by the Septuagint rendering, which reads, "But the dwelling of the sons of Israel which they dwelt in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canan [was] four hundred and thirty years."
The period from Abraham's entry into Canaan until Jacob's going down into Egypt was 215 years.
This means that an equal period of 215 years was therafter spent by the Israelites in Egypt.
If you take their original figure of 1917, and assume their methodology is correct, add 215 years to 1917 and you get 2132, which is the absolute minimal time frame that can be figured IF such a chronological study is even applicable.
You see, the study makes a basic error from their own assumption, that the 430 years of the Israelite's historic servitude began with Abraham, and included Isaac and Jacob.
Abraham was never a "Son of Israel," he was Israel's grandfather. Isaac was not a "Son of Israel," he was Israel's Father. And Jacob was not a "Son of Israel," he IS Israel. He cannot be his own Son.
So the "Sons of Israel" designation CANNOT include Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That puts their calculation off by 215 years.
Of course, there is nothing whatsoever in scripture to indicate that their calculators know what they are talking about.
The Geneologies often skip generations when listed, and it would be very hard if possible, to follow a family line through 430 years.
I know Levi and his son Kohath went into Egypt with Jacob, and their offspring listed as two generations later, Amram and Moses, came out of Egypt.
If you follow Joseph's lineage through Ephraim, you get this account in Num 1:10 "Of the children of Joseph: of Ephraim; Elishama the son of Ammihud:"
But if you follow Jacob's lineage through Joseph's offspring, you have ten generations till Joshua comes out of Egypt, as listed in I Chron 7:22-27.
Which tells a completely different account, becasue the Numbers account leaves out several generations.
I Chron 7:22 And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren came to comfort him. 23 And when he went in to his wife, she conceived, and bare a son, and he called his name Beriah, because it went evil with his house. 25 And Rephah was his son, also Resheph, and Telah his son, and Tahan his son, 26 Laadan his son, Ammihud his son, Elishama his son, 27 Non his son, Jehoshua his son.
So you have
Joseph
Ephraim
Beriah
Resheph
Telah
Tahan
Laadan
Ammihud
Elishama
Non (Nun)
Jehoshua (Joshua).
Ten Generations BORN in EGYPT. So there was plenty of time to accomodate 430 years IN Egypt, but out of all the possible lists of offspring, you have to find the "four Generations" that culminate in "coming out in the fourth generation. One thing I DO know, it did not begin with Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob.
[/quote]
If you could show me anything at all that resembles "management" in nature, I might agree. Unfortunately for your position is that the people who actually study NATURE (rather than GOD) never see anything of the kind.
There is, to my way of thinking, a very interesting dichotomy between what those who study nature (scientists, who long ago were called natural philosophers) and those who study God (theologians). And it is this: scientists actually look at what they are hoping to learn about (nature, in all its wonder, beauty, ugliness,mystery), while theologians, having no access at all to God, spend all their time studying what other theologians have thought about God.
At the end of the day, I know which of those groups is likelier to approach some understanding of what they actually think they're studying. The other group, in my view, learns ever more about human superstition, but little or nothing about what they think is the ultimate goal of their study: God.
Ever study a "Bacterial Flagellum?" How do you explain the result that could only assemble from different perfectly working and fitting other parts?
In other words, it did not "Morph" or "Evolve" or any of the available words meaning a "gradual change."
Several very different working parts assembled into one working part that is the Bacterial Flagellum.
It did not arrive gradually, or show up piecemeal, or any other casual way.
It has a working motor, from moving parts that constitute an assembly of parts fitted to each other.
Who made it; designed it; assembled it? Nature. Or the God of Nature?
I choose to believe the latter.
Yes, you make yourself quite clear. However, if you do a little research (try googling "evolution of the bacterial flagellum" which might not have occurred to you), you'll find there are plenty of good answers.
But your point, really, is surely that you "choose to believe" what you wish. And that is certainly your right. You may choose to believe anything at all, including that the moon is made of green cheese and Donald Trump is the new Lincoln. It may not be edifying, nor speak to your discerning intelligence, but certainly it's your right.
I, on the other hand, prefer to believe what the evidence shows. Call it a "quirk" if you like. But I think I'll just continue on the side of science and evidence. You salt your beets, I'll salt mine.
"Plenty of answers?" o.k., but what were the questions?
And there is no way "plenty of answers" will ever solve the problem of assembled moving parts all appearing on the scene and assembled, at the same time. Any "answer" that denies that is just that, another answer. But to what question?
"God's crime scene" by J. Warner Wallace would be an excellent place to start. If you so choose. And yes, you and I are in agreement as to the exercise of free will.
Interesting conversation.
This is quite applicable to you as it is to him.
Funny but not applicable. You can believe that if you want to.Except, what evidence is there?
Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex
This has a lot of information but never really debunked anything.
So, at this point, it would certainly still seem to be irreducibly complex. There are so many other questions (such as the evolution of the eye) that has no reason for becoming without purpose. Who created purpose?
It is said that the very essence of all matter is sound and light waves. Within these light waves is all the information that causes what we see today. Who put that information there?
Which is your prerogative and i don't fault you to salting your beets. But didn't much of science started by believing something before they found evidence?
I think you would do better to go to an article with more depth and citations, read it carefully, and then follow the citations. In the end, the one thing that I really like from the article that you cite is Orgel's Second Rule: “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”This is quite applicable to you as it is to him.
Except, what evidence is there?
Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex
This has a lot of information but never really debunked anything.
Try this
Read the article, follow the citations.
But your biggest mistake is your last question: this whole business of everything having some teleological purpose is a complete red herring. And if you think it isn't, well then I guess you're going to have to accept a universe in which the forces of evil really are much stronger than the forces of good. That has never seemed to fit well with the Christian worldview, which is one of the reasons I've never accepted it.
Well, if somebody said that, it was not anyone familiar with science.
A very bad use of the word "information." Read Shannon, perhaps, then Dennett.
No, that is incorrect. Science begins by observing (anything at all, really, which craves an explanation), and positing a hypothetical explanation, then testing that see whether it holds. Repeat forever....(it's a long recipe).