High Threshold;1452253 wrote: So, if you put an equal amount of "reality" (this is YOUR choice of words) in the individual reality, ie. "mine", "yours", "his", "hers", and presumably "theirs", and "ours" then you really have no choice than to accept "one's reality" even if it might be "in the world I, you, he, she, they, and we actually see" rather than the reality of "God's existence" because, after all, "it is the reality in whichever state one is conscious of" ....... again, your own words.
It looks to me that you've just shot yourself in the foot.
I might take the easy option and shoot myself in the head.
The sheep challenge
The sheep challenge
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Bryn Mawr;1452200 wrote: If you want to try and prove the existence of God from existentialist principles then feel free - it's something that's never been proven before.
sheep;1452244 wrote: If we don't push the boundaries: we remain in the box others have created for us.
"Push the boundaries"? Huh?
We're not talking about setting a new Guinness record for how many feet you can stuff into your mouth. We're talking about seeking truth. Truth (in topic) is the goal beyond which nothing more exists. If God exists then that is the truth, the goal of discussion and endeavour. If no one has ever succeeded in proving the existence of God but you can, then "pushing boundaries" has nothing to do with it. Quite the contrary - it is actually the very "box" you are unwilling to accept.
sheep;1452244 wrote: If we don't push the boundaries: we remain in the box others have created for us.
"Push the boundaries"? Huh?
We're not talking about setting a new Guinness record for how many feet you can stuff into your mouth. We're talking about seeking truth. Truth (in topic) is the goal beyond which nothing more exists. If God exists then that is the truth, the goal of discussion and endeavour. If no one has ever succeeded in proving the existence of God but you can, then "pushing boundaries" has nothing to do with it. Quite the contrary - it is actually the very "box" you are unwilling to accept.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Bruv;1452232 wrote: You know how to hurt don't you?
I was just being rhetorical. Just pointing out how your criticism of my English pales into insignificance when you deliver it with an American accent, bro. NOTE the spelling of the word "insignificance" by the way. :yh_giggle
I was just being rhetorical. Just pointing out how your criticism of my English pales into insignificance when you deliver it with an American accent, bro. NOTE the spelling of the word "insignificance" by the way. :yh_giggle
The sheep challenge
High Threshold;1452262 wrote: I was just being rhetorical. Just pointing out how your criticism of my English pales into insignificance when you deliver it with an American accent, bro. NOTE the spelling of the word "insignificance" by the way. :yh_giggle
Duly noted.
Duly noted.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The sheep challenge
Bruv;1452096 wrote: "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."
The above statement from a member called 'sheep'......discuss
I think its more reasonable to believe in what we can see, than what we cannot see. But where God is concerned, because he is beyond our reason, we just have to use everything at our disposal to consider him being real, which I think he certainly is real. And use all those things to prove him to ourselves first.
I think seeing certainly is believing, and God knows that, so I don't think God is overly concerned with humans believing in him now. Or he would have shown himself; no, God is after somethingelse. Not belief.
The above statement from a member called 'sheep'......discuss
I think its more reasonable to believe in what we can see, than what we cannot see. But where God is concerned, because he is beyond our reason, we just have to use everything at our disposal to consider him being real, which I think he certainly is real. And use all those things to prove him to ourselves first.
I think seeing certainly is believing, and God knows that, so I don't think God is overly concerned with humans believing in him now. Or he would have shown himself; no, God is after somethingelse. Not belief.
The sheep challenge
Mickiel................where have you been? (rhetorical)
55 posts and you aced it in one....................meanwhile sheep (with a small s) wonders aimlessly in the wilderness, contemplating dreams and their relevance to reality.
55 posts and you aced it in one....................meanwhile sheep (with a small s) wonders aimlessly in the wilderness, contemplating dreams and their relevance to reality.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The sheep challenge
Bruv;1452302 wrote: Mickiel................where have you been? (rhetorical)
55 posts and you aced it in one....................meanwhile sheep (with a small s) wonders aimlessly in the wilderness, contemplating dreams and their relevance to reality.
I been around the net. God made the world so we can see it, he could make himself just as visible if he wanted to. I don't think he desires for most humans to see or believe in him; not now. I mean I think we all are destined to both see him and believe in him. I don't know how often we will see him after that great day; but we will see him on that day. And that's when the unbelievers will then believe. Its when their supposed to believe. Everything unbelievers will ever need to believe, will be provided to them on that day.
I am already scared of that day and it has not even come. I just can't imagine what God is and how he looks and all that kind of thing. But it will change reality from then on. We have never seen anything like God; and never will again. Belief in him will be forced into every human consciousness. No human will be asked if they want it or not. All unbelief will be wiped away.
That's how I think it will be.
55 posts and you aced it in one....................meanwhile sheep (with a small s) wonders aimlessly in the wilderness, contemplating dreams and their relevance to reality.
I been around the net. God made the world so we can see it, he could make himself just as visible if he wanted to. I don't think he desires for most humans to see or believe in him; not now. I mean I think we all are destined to both see him and believe in him. I don't know how often we will see him after that great day; but we will see him on that day. And that's when the unbelievers will then believe. Its when their supposed to believe. Everything unbelievers will ever need to believe, will be provided to them on that day.
I am already scared of that day and it has not even come. I just can't imagine what God is and how he looks and all that kind of thing. But it will change reality from then on. We have never seen anything like God; and never will again. Belief in him will be forced into every human consciousness. No human will be asked if they want it or not. All unbelief will be wiped away.
That's how I think it will be.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Mickiel;1452277 wrote: ...... I don't think God is overly concerned with humans believing in him now. Or he would have shown himself; no, God is after somethingelse. Not belief.
"Somethingelse"? Well, yes and no. I think he's waiting to find out if there really are WMD's in Irak and if it were pyrotechnics responsible for the WTC collapse. I suppose you can call that a "belief" too. And also reggae music. Once the world has finally embraced it God will certainly show himself as there won't be anything else to prove.
"Somethingelse"? Well, yes and no. I think he's waiting to find out if there really are WMD's in Irak and if it were pyrotechnics responsible for the WTC collapse. I suppose you can call that a "belief" too. And also reggae music. Once the world has finally embraced it God will certainly show himself as there won't be anything else to prove.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Mickiel;1452327 wrote: God ..... could make himself ..... visible if he wanted to. ..... I think we all are destined to both see him and believe in him. ..... we will see him on that day. ..... Everything unbelievers will ever need to believe, will be provided to them on that day.
I'd like to believe that Michael Jackson wasn't a pedophile. I mean, his music was just too good. Do you think God will provide for that contention?
I'd like to believe that Michael Jackson wasn't a pedophile. I mean, his music was just too good. Do you think God will provide for that contention?
The sheep challenge
sheep;1452135 wrote: If facts are not the only evidence we use, then we are making assumptions and isn't this what Atheists ridicule believers in God of doing?
I made the statement that "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."
Now let me begin.
There is only 1 provable fact: consciousness. Since this is true, everything else is and will always remain a theory. As I stated before: it is more believable to believe in God then it is the world we see.
Seems to me you make a basic mistake in assuming two opposite things - in this case belief and disbelief - are actually the same thing. A basic tenet of logic is that anyone making a positive claim bears the burden of proof for that claim. You make the claim that god exists the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim just as in a court of law the lawyers for the prosecution bear the burden of proof, because they are making the positive claim that the defendant has committed a crime.
To take a skeptical position regarding an extraordinary claim for which one has not been provided with compelling evidence is not an act of faith; it is simple common sense.
You for example as a Christian, do not believe in the Roman, norse or any pagan gods (but I bet you find yourself on occasion throwing coins in a fountain which is an old pgan tradition) Is it not just as much an "act of faith" on your part not to believe in those gods as it was for the Romans and norse to believe in them?
If a man walks up to you and says he has an invisible magic elf sitting on his head, do you automatically believe his claim? If not, is it an "act of faith" on your part not to? Or are you simply responding to the claim with common sense and skepticism because the man has failed to provide you with adequate evidence for his elf?
Choosing not to believe in something when you have no reason to believe in that thing is not an act of faith, it is just the smart thing to do.
Your choosing to believe in god is not reasonable it is an act of faith, no more and no less. That you choose to do so is not any great act of wisdom it's absurd.
I made the statement that "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see."
Now let me begin.
There is only 1 provable fact: consciousness. Since this is true, everything else is and will always remain a theory. As I stated before: it is more believable to believe in God then it is the world we see.
Seems to me you make a basic mistake in assuming two opposite things - in this case belief and disbelief - are actually the same thing. A basic tenet of logic is that anyone making a positive claim bears the burden of proof for that claim. You make the claim that god exists the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim just as in a court of law the lawyers for the prosecution bear the burden of proof, because they are making the positive claim that the defendant has committed a crime.
To take a skeptical position regarding an extraordinary claim for which one has not been provided with compelling evidence is not an act of faith; it is simple common sense.
You for example as a Christian, do not believe in the Roman, norse or any pagan gods (but I bet you find yourself on occasion throwing coins in a fountain which is an old pgan tradition) Is it not just as much an "act of faith" on your part not to believe in those gods as it was for the Romans and norse to believe in them?
If a man walks up to you and says he has an invisible magic elf sitting on his head, do you automatically believe his claim? If not, is it an "act of faith" on your part not to? Or are you simply responding to the claim with common sense and skepticism because the man has failed to provide you with adequate evidence for his elf?
Choosing not to believe in something when you have no reason to believe in that thing is not an act of faith, it is just the smart thing to do.
Your choosing to believe in god is not reasonable it is an act of faith, no more and no less. That you choose to do so is not any great act of wisdom it's absurd.
The sheep challenge
Mickiel;1452327 wrote: I been around the net. God made the world so we can see it, he could make himself just as visible if he wanted to. I don't think he desires for most humans to see or believe in him; not now. I mean I think we all are destined to both see him and believe in him. I don't know how often we will see him after that great day; but we will see him on that day. And that's when the unbelievers will then believe. Its when their supposed to believe. Everything unbelievers will ever need to believe, will be provided to them on that day.
I am already scared of that day and it has not even come. I just can't imagine what God is and how he looks and all that kind of thing. But it will change reality from then on. We have never seen anything like God; and never will again. Belief in him will be forced into every human consciousness. No human will be asked if they want it or not. All unbelief will be wiped away.
That's how I think it will be.
Now you spoilt it all again.
I am already scared of that day and it has not even come. I just can't imagine what God is and how he looks and all that kind of thing. But it will change reality from then on. We have never seen anything like God; and never will again. Belief in him will be forced into every human consciousness. No human will be asked if they want it or not. All unbelief will be wiped away.
That's how I think it will be.
Now you spoilt it all again.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The sheep challenge
posted by mickiel
I am already scared of that day and it has not even come. I just can't imagine what God is and how he looks and all that kind of thing. But it will change reality from then on. We have never seen anything like God; and never will again. Belief in him will be forced into every human consciousness. No human will be asked if they want it or not. All unbelief will be wiped away.
Why can't you imagine what how he looks and all that kind of thing? He's your figment of your imagination just imagine a bit more.
That's how I think it will be.
That's really sad. Why do people so want to believe in a god that made all men (and women) believers and non-believers alike that is going to send only those who believe as they do to heaven and make everybody else suffer for eternity. At best that kind of god is a fickle, nasty capricious bastard, more likely though it says a lot about the kind of people who want to think like that and even more extraordinarily argue that their beliefs should be treated with respect.
give us a break who believes such nonsense nowadays,
I am already scared of that day and it has not even come. I just can't imagine what God is and how he looks and all that kind of thing. But it will change reality from then on. We have never seen anything like God; and never will again. Belief in him will be forced into every human consciousness. No human will be asked if they want it or not. All unbelief will be wiped away.
Why can't you imagine what how he looks and all that kind of thing? He's your figment of your imagination just imagine a bit more.
That's how I think it will be.
That's really sad. Why do people so want to believe in a god that made all men (and women) believers and non-believers alike that is going to send only those who believe as they do to heaven and make everybody else suffer for eternity. At best that kind of god is a fickle, nasty capricious bastard, more likely though it says a lot about the kind of people who want to think like that and even more extraordinarily argue that their beliefs should be treated with respect.
give us a break who believes such nonsense nowadays,
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Bruv;1452358 wrote: Now you spoilt it all again.
Oh, I don't know about that. He states all of the facts clearly and concisely. Who can debate against such obvious facts as, "We have never seen anything like God" and "never will again". Most importantly "All unbelief will be wiped away" and "Belief in him will be forced into every human consciousness." I'm not quite certain I understand what that means but it must be something really, really profound! I think he's on to something.
Oh, I don't know about that. He states all of the facts clearly and concisely. Who can debate against such obvious facts as, "We have never seen anything like God" and "never will again". Most importantly "All unbelief will be wiped away" and "Belief in him will be forced into every human consciousness." I'm not quite certain I understand what that means but it must be something really, really profound! I think he's on to something.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
gmc;1452360 wrote: ..... who believes such nonsense nowadays
You must be new to the internet.
You must be new to the internet.
The sheep challenge
We have never seen anything like God" and "never will again"
Didn't notice that one. Does that mean god is dead or just that he is not coming back again in which case how do I get to see this imaginary hell?
Didn't notice that one. Does that mean god is dead or just that he is not coming back again in which case how do I get to see this imaginary hell?
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
gmc;1452364 wrote: Didn't notice that one. Does that mean god is dead or just that he is not coming back again in which case how do I get to see this imaginary hell?
I think the emphasis is on "seen". Could be that time-warp travel deforms organic matter and God might appear to us in one form this time and in another form next time round. But I could be wrong. We'll have to ask the sheep to clear that one up for us.
I think the emphasis is on "seen". Could be that time-warp travel deforms organic matter and God might appear to us in one form this time and in another form next time round. But I could be wrong. We'll have to ask the sheep to clear that one up for us.
The sheep challenge
High Threshold;1452362 wrote: Oh, I don't know about that. He states all of the facts clearly and concisely. Who can debate against such obvious facts as, "We have never seen anything like God" and "never will again". Most importantly "All unbelief will be wiped away" and "Belief in him will be forced into every human consciousness." I'm not quite certain I understand what that means but it must be something really, really profound! I think he's on to something.
Don't you mean "I think he is on something"
Don't you mean "I think he is on something"
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Bruv;1452367 wrote: Don't you mean "I think he is on something"
Not particularly, no. Do you?
Not particularly, no. Do you?
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
The sheep challenge
gmc;1452360 wrote: posted by mickiel
Why can't you imagine what how he looks and all that kind of thing? He's your figment of your imagination just imagine a bit more.
That's really sad. Why do people so want to believe in a god that made all men (and women) believers and non-believers alike that is going to send only those who believe as they do to heaven and make everybody else suffer for eternity. At best that kind of god is a fickle, nasty capricious bastard, more likely though it says a lot about the kind of people who want to think like that and even more extraordinarily argue that their beliefs should be treated with respect.
give us a break who believes such nonsense nowadays,
Politely said, gmc. I wanted to say something similar to sheep & LarsMac but since I couldn't, or wouldn't, say it this nicely I said nothing. & it's funny, but compared to sheep I actually like Mikiel very much. I must be getting old.
Why can't you imagine what how he looks and all that kind of thing? He's your figment of your imagination just imagine a bit more.
That's really sad. Why do people so want to believe in a god that made all men (and women) believers and non-believers alike that is going to send only those who believe as they do to heaven and make everybody else suffer for eternity. At best that kind of god is a fickle, nasty capricious bastard, more likely though it says a lot about the kind of people who want to think like that and even more extraordinarily argue that their beliefs should be treated with respect.
give us a break who believes such nonsense nowadays,
Politely said, gmc. I wanted to say something similar to sheep & LarsMac but since I couldn't, or wouldn't, say it this nicely I said nothing. & it's funny, but compared to sheep I actually like Mikiel very much. I must be getting old.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
I just realize what an ass I've been, criticizing religious believers. This is in the "Religions & Beliefs - Christianity" THREADS. Sorry, Sheep and Mickiel. :yh_worshp
The sheep challenge
gmc;1452360 wrote: posted by mickiel
Why can't you imagine what how he looks and all that kind of thing? He's your figment of your imagination just imagine a bit more.
,
Eternal hell suffering is a figment of religious imagination and I do not believe in it. But i can offer speculation as to what God ' May" look like. I think he may shape like a human man, but have wings and is more like fire than any other substance. Some kind of fire being in my view, always having some kind of fire around him. i think he has a head and arms and hands. And i think he has fire inside of him.
And i don't think its easy to look at him, unless you are prepared to do so by his Angels. the bible says no human could look at him and live. So something about him, just looking at him, could end your life. So i don't know what something like that could look like?
Why can't you imagine what how he looks and all that kind of thing? He's your figment of your imagination just imagine a bit more.
,
Eternal hell suffering is a figment of religious imagination and I do not believe in it. But i can offer speculation as to what God ' May" look like. I think he may shape like a human man, but have wings and is more like fire than any other substance. Some kind of fire being in my view, always having some kind of fire around him. i think he has a head and arms and hands. And i think he has fire inside of him.
And i don't think its easy to look at him, unless you are prepared to do so by his Angels. the bible says no human could look at him and live. So something about him, just looking at him, could end your life. So i don't know what something like that could look like?
The sheep challenge
gmc;1452364 wrote: Didn't notice that one. Does that mean god is dead or just that he is not coming back again in which case how do I get to see this imaginary hell?
There is no such thing as the Christian hell, you just need to keep bringing it up to support your rants; you're using a myth to support you're disagreement, which is unwise in my view. God has obviously hidden himself from humanity, and i think even from his own Kingdom he exisits in. In other words, and i can only speculate, nobody sees him a lot, except for those who are with him on his throne, and those few he summons to him.
And i personally think that will never change.
There is no such thing as the Christian hell, you just need to keep bringing it up to support your rants; you're using a myth to support you're disagreement, which is unwise in my view. God has obviously hidden himself from humanity, and i think even from his own Kingdom he exisits in. In other words, and i can only speculate, nobody sees him a lot, except for those who are with him on his throne, and those few he summons to him.
And i personally think that will never change.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Mickiel;1452380 wrote: There is no such thing as the Christian hell, you just need to keep bringing it up to support your rants; you're using a myth to support you're disagreement, which is unwise in my view.
Well, I was raised Catholic. The church was drenched in murals depicting fire-pits with men and women tormenting within, devilish creatures with pitch-forks preventing sinners from exiting the inferno .... angelic cherubs fluttering above with pious smirks upon their faces.
You say, "there is no such thing as the Christian hell" but I say part of being a practicing Christian (Catholic) is faith in the Lord, fear of God, belief in hell, the virgin Mary, the resurrection, the crucifix, the Trinity, and a whole lot of superstitious goobeligook. Omitting any one of them is grounds for being deemed a non-believer. Religion is a package - you take it all on board or you don't belong. So you say "no", the church says "yes". Who to believe?
Well, I was raised Catholic. The church was drenched in murals depicting fire-pits with men and women tormenting within, devilish creatures with pitch-forks preventing sinners from exiting the inferno .... angelic cherubs fluttering above with pious smirks upon their faces.
You say, "there is no such thing as the Christian hell" but I say part of being a practicing Christian (Catholic) is faith in the Lord, fear of God, belief in hell, the virgin Mary, the resurrection, the crucifix, the Trinity, and a whole lot of superstitious goobeligook. Omitting any one of them is grounds for being deemed a non-believer. Religion is a package - you take it all on board or you don't belong. So you say "no", the church says "yes". Who to believe?
The sheep challenge
High Threshold;1452382 wrote: Well, I was raised Catholic. The church was drenched in murals depicting fire-pits with men and women tormenting within, devilish creatures with pitch-forks preventing sinners from exiting the inferno .... angelic cherubs fluttering above with pious smirks upon their faces.
You say, "there is no such thing as the Christian hell" but I say part of being a practicing Christian (Catholic) is faith in the Lord, fear of God, belief in hell, the virgin Mary, the resurrection, the crucifix, the Trinity, and a whole lot of superstitious goobeligook. Omitting any one of them was grounds for being deemed a non-believer. Religion is a package - you take it all on board or you don't belong. So you say "no", the church says "yes". Who to believe?
I would not believe that church, or any other; i think they all are wrong about it. Hell is mentioned in the Old testement 31 times, each of those times its " Sheol" the Hebrew word for the grave. Hell is mentioned in the New testement 23 times, 12 of those times its" Gehanna', a valley outside of Jerusalem that they use to continually burn dead bodies and trash. 10 of those 23 are " Hades', simply meaning the grave. Only one place in the bible is Hell translated " Tartaros', the greek word meaning eterrnal torment and it is 2 Pet. 2:4 and is obviously refering to demons, NOT humans. Nowhere in the bible is the Christian hell ever refered to, not anywhere. They simply mistranslate all these hells to mean things which they do not.
A simple study would show this, but Christianity has lost its ability to interpret scripture.
You say, "there is no such thing as the Christian hell" but I say part of being a practicing Christian (Catholic) is faith in the Lord, fear of God, belief in hell, the virgin Mary, the resurrection, the crucifix, the Trinity, and a whole lot of superstitious goobeligook. Omitting any one of them was grounds for being deemed a non-believer. Religion is a package - you take it all on board or you don't belong. So you say "no", the church says "yes". Who to believe?
I would not believe that church, or any other; i think they all are wrong about it. Hell is mentioned in the Old testement 31 times, each of those times its " Sheol" the Hebrew word for the grave. Hell is mentioned in the New testement 23 times, 12 of those times its" Gehanna', a valley outside of Jerusalem that they use to continually burn dead bodies and trash. 10 of those 23 are " Hades', simply meaning the grave. Only one place in the bible is Hell translated " Tartaros', the greek word meaning eterrnal torment and it is 2 Pet. 2:4 and is obviously refering to demons, NOT humans. Nowhere in the bible is the Christian hell ever refered to, not anywhere. They simply mistranslate all these hells to mean things which they do not.
A simple study would show this, but Christianity has lost its ability to interpret scripture.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Mickiel;1452383 wrote: I would not believe that church, or any other; i think they all are wrong about it. Hell is mentioned in the Old testement 31 times, each of those times its " Sheol" the Hebrew word for the grave. Hell is mentioned in the New testement 23 times, 12 of those times its" Gehanna', a valley outside of Jerusalem that they use to continually burn dead bodies and trash. 10 of those 23 are " Hades', simply meaning the grave. Only one place in the bible is Hell translated " Tartaros', the greek word meaning eterrnal torment and it is 2 Pet. 2:4 and is obviously refering to demons, NOT humans. Nowhere in the bible is the Christian hell ever refered to, not anywhere. They simply mistranslate all these hells to mean things which they do not.
A simple study would show this, but Christianity has lost its ability to interpret scripture.
I understand all of that but why then be a Christian at all? Wouldn't it be simpler to believe in Judasim and eliminate the ad hoc derivatives?
A simple study would show this, but Christianity has lost its ability to interpret scripture.
I understand all of that but why then be a Christian at all? Wouldn't it be simpler to believe in Judasim and eliminate the ad hoc derivatives?
The sheep challenge
High Threshold;1452384 wrote: I understand all of that but why then be a Christian at all? Wouldn't it be simpler to believe in Judasim and eliminate the ad hoc derivatives?
Believe what you wish, but me personally, i don't believe or accept any religion on earth; none of them. I would not be a Christian, not ever again, I walk alone in my belief, because i believe the whole world has been deceived and don't understand the truth. We all been mixed up and confused, and i think God wanted it to be that way.
Or it would not be like it is.
Believe what you wish, but me personally, i don't believe or accept any religion on earth; none of them. I would not be a Christian, not ever again, I walk alone in my belief, because i believe the whole world has been deceived and don't understand the truth. We all been mixed up and confused, and i think God wanted it to be that way.
Or it would not be like it is.
The sheep challenge
High Threshold;1452376 wrote: I just realize what an ass I've been, criticizing religious believers. This is in the "Religions & Beliefs - Christianity" THREADS. Sorry, Sheep and Mickiel.
It was started by a non Christian too, should I apologise ?
It's a forum it's for this very thing.
I note that Mr sheep to whom this thread was dedicated is conspicuous by his absence
It was started by a non Christian too, should I apologise ?
It's a forum it's for this very thing.
I note that Mr sheep to whom this thread was dedicated is conspicuous by his absence
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Mickiel;1452385 wrote: ..... I walk alone in my belief, because i believe the whole world has been deceived .....
What then was all of that "God's this" and "God's that" you were writing about a page or two ago? You act as though you know even more than the theologians.
Mickiel;1452385 wrote: ... the whole world has been deceived ..... and don't understand the truth.
And you do?
What then was all of that "God's this" and "God's that" you were writing about a page or two ago? You act as though you know even more than the theologians.
Mickiel;1452385 wrote: ... the whole world has been deceived ..... and don't understand the truth.
And you do?
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Bruv;1452388 wrote: I note that Mr sheep to whom this thread was dedicated is conspicuous by his absence
He's been dealt some deeply-cut counterpoint by the two of us. He'll need some time to sort it all out and make his come-back.
He's been dealt some deeply-cut counterpoint by the two of us. He'll need some time to sort it all out and make his come-back.
The sheep challenge
High Threshold;1452392 wrote: He's been dealt some deeply-cut counterpoint by the two of us. He'll need some time to sort it all out and make his come-back.
You are good at making me feel bad.
You are good at making me feel bad.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The sheep challenge
High Threshold;1452391 wrote: What then was all of that "God's this" and "God's that" you were writing about a page or two ago? You act as though you know even more than the theologians.
And you do?
I know what i know, and i know nothing, as compared to what there is to know. I think we all are ignorant of God, especially me. But I think we are learning more each year, and your sarcasm cannot stop that. Just because you are not learning about God, does not mean others cannot.
And you do?
I know what i know, and i know nothing, as compared to what there is to know. I think we all are ignorant of God, especially me. But I think we are learning more each year, and your sarcasm cannot stop that. Just because you are not learning about God, does not mean others cannot.
The sheep challenge
Mickiel;1452406 wrote: I know what i know, and i know nothing, as compared to what there is to know. I think we all are ignorant of God, especially me. But I think we are learning more each year, and your sarcasm cannot stop that. Just because you are not learning about God, does not mean others cannot.
I rarely do this, but I reconmend another thread I have at spiritualforums.com, in the science section;Can Science Reveal God? - Spiritual Forums. Its entitled " Can science reveal God."
I rarely do this, but I reconmend another thread I have at spiritualforums.com, in the science section;Can Science Reveal God? - Spiritual Forums. Its entitled " Can science reveal God."
The sheep challenge
Mickiel;1452407 wrote: I rarely do this, but I reconmend another thread I have at spiritualforums.com, in the science section;Can Science Reveal God? - Spiritual Forums. Its entitled " Can science reveal God."
In my view it is scientific to believe in God, and the more science learns it has to eventually reveal God. I see no way around it. Science got its beginnings with the church, and after years of church regulated science, they grew tired of those Popes and Bishops who wanted to control them, and they broke away from the church; that was called " The scientific revolution." Science wanted to discover God through the examination of space and reality and nature, because they rejected that these Popes and Bishops were speaking for God. But science was at first a search for the divine, it later devolved away from that.
But I think its destined to come back full circle.
In my view it is scientific to believe in God, and the more science learns it has to eventually reveal God. I see no way around it. Science got its beginnings with the church, and after years of church regulated science, they grew tired of those Popes and Bishops who wanted to control them, and they broke away from the church; that was called " The scientific revolution." Science wanted to discover God through the examination of space and reality and nature, because they rejected that these Popes and Bishops were speaking for God. But science was at first a search for the divine, it later devolved away from that.
But I think its destined to come back full circle.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Bruv;1452400 wrote: You are good at making me feel bad.
I do the best that I can and I know that you wouldn't expect anything less of me. :driving:
I do the best that I can and I know that you wouldn't expect anything less of me. :driving:
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Mickiel;1452406 wrote: I know what i know, and i know nothing ...
A healthy start.
Mickiel;1452406 wrote: ...... your sarcasm cannot stop that. Just because you are not learning about God, does not mean others cannot. .......... I just can't imagine what God is and how he looks and all that kind of thing.
What sarcasm? I'm merely pointing out that you know nothing. Isn't that straight forward enough for you? In any case learning about God is not necessarily knowing what "is" as much as it is knowing what "isn't" and also understanding what can be got and what cannot. The clues are in the availability of themselves, and I do not think knowing "what God looks like" is a factor.
A healthy start.
Mickiel;1452406 wrote: ...... your sarcasm cannot stop that. Just because you are not learning about God, does not mean others cannot. .......... I just can't imagine what God is and how he looks and all that kind of thing.
What sarcasm? I'm merely pointing out that you know nothing. Isn't that straight forward enough for you? In any case learning about God is not necessarily knowing what "is" as much as it is knowing what "isn't" and also understanding what can be got and what cannot. The clues are in the availability of themselves, and I do not think knowing "what God looks like" is a factor.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Mickiel;1452407 wrote: I rarely do this, but I reconmend another thread I have at spiritualforums.com, in the science section;Can Science Reveal God? - Spiritual Forums. Its entitled " Can science reveal God."
God willing and the creek don't rise you'll be unchallenged over there, although that won't help you in "learning about God".
God willing and the creek don't rise you'll be unchallenged over there, although that won't help you in "learning about God".
The sheep challenge
High Threshold;1452253 wrote: So, if you put an equal amount of "reality" (this is YOUR choice of words) in the individual reality, ie. "mine", "yours", "his", "hers", and presumably "theirs", and "ours" then you really have no choice than to accept "one's reality" even if it might be "in the world I, you, he, she, they, and we actually see" rather than the reality of "God's existence" because, after all, "it is the reality in whichever state one is conscious of" ....... again, your own words.
It looks to me that you've just shot yourself in the foot.
I sort of lost you in your statement... All I am saying is that your consciousness is the real you and in the end you are finite, not infinite, and so this does not exempt the existence of God, but it does exempt the existence of what you see... You are the only thing that is provable, as the world you see is only real to you: the world you see is what is in question as existing.
It looks to me that you've just shot yourself in the foot.
I sort of lost you in your statement... All I am saying is that your consciousness is the real you and in the end you are finite, not infinite, and so this does not exempt the existence of God, but it does exempt the existence of what you see... You are the only thing that is provable, as the world you see is only real to you: the world you see is what is in question as existing.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
sheep;1452441 wrote: I sort of lost you in your statement... All I am saying is that your consciousness is the real you and in the end you are finite, not infinite, and so this does not exempt the existence of God, but it does exempt the existence of what you see... You are the only thing that is provable, as the world you see is only real to you: the world you see is what is in question as existing.
Neither you nor anyone else knows if consciousness is reality. For that matter, no one knows what reality is. We may just as well be zombie fish in a glass-bowl of synthetic water being administered periodic injections of acetylcholine by 6-dimensional frogs "just to see what will happen", with nothing (anywhere in sight) resembling "God" by any stretch of our own imagination.
Neither you nor anyone else knows if consciousness is reality. For that matter, no one knows what reality is. We may just as well be zombie fish in a glass-bowl of synthetic water being administered periodic injections of acetylcholine by 6-dimensional frogs "just to see what will happen", with nothing (anywhere in sight) resembling "God" by any stretch of our own imagination.
The sheep challenge
High Threshold;1452443 wrote: Neither you nor anyone else knows if consciousness is reality. For that matter, no one knows what reality is. We may just as well be zombie fish in a glass-bowl of synthetic water being administered periodic injections of acetylcholine by 6-dimensional frogs "just to see what will happen", with nothing (anywhere in sight) resembling "God" by any stretch of our own imagination.
The challenge is/was that "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see." All we can prove is consciousness. What we see is absolutely in question and therefore it is more reasonable to believe in an infinite consciousness, then it is to believe in what you see.
The challenge is/was that "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see." All we can prove is consciousness. What we see is absolutely in question and therefore it is more reasonable to believe in an infinite consciousness, then it is to believe in what you see.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
sheep;1452445 wrote: The challenge is/was that "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see." All we can prove is consciousness. What we see is absolutely in question and therefore it is more reasonable to believe in an infinite consciousness, then it is to believe in what you see.
You are losing your grip on the subject, or perhaps you never had it.
Any reason to believe in God (rather than the visual world we live in for clues of creating itself) is because nothing we see can explain creation, and even the once popular “spontaneous generation†theory has been disproved, time and time again. Therefore it is “logical’ to believe that life was created by something unknown to our understanding ……. and well, there isn’t much doubt about it. So, why not a "God"?
But now you want to carry that thought beyond the limits of its own strength. You’re conjuring up your own false fact that consciousness is proven. Read my lips ….. IT IS NOT.
Let’s assume that everyone in town has a dog, but no one has ever seen a cat. You can describe cats to them using its similarities and dissimilarities with dogs as references. But you are trying to describe an “abstract God†by use of “abstract consciousness†and you’re blowing it out of your back-side.
You are losing your grip on the subject, or perhaps you never had it.
Any reason to believe in God (rather than the visual world we live in for clues of creating itself) is because nothing we see can explain creation, and even the once popular “spontaneous generation†theory has been disproved, time and time again. Therefore it is “logical’ to believe that life was created by something unknown to our understanding ……. and well, there isn’t much doubt about it. So, why not a "God"?
But now you want to carry that thought beyond the limits of its own strength. You’re conjuring up your own false fact that consciousness is proven. Read my lips ….. IT IS NOT.
Let’s assume that everyone in town has a dog, but no one has ever seen a cat. You can describe cats to them using its similarities and dissimilarities with dogs as references. But you are trying to describe an “abstract God†by use of “abstract consciousness†and you’re blowing it out of your back-side.
The sheep challenge
sheep;1452445 wrote: The challenge is/was that "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see." All we can prove is consciousness. What we see is absolutely in question and therefore it is more reasonable to believe in an infinite consciousness, then it is to believe in what you see.
Thank goodness you are back, I thought I had shaken your faith and you were now a gibbering recluse.
Before this thread's challenge, it was you that made the made the claim, wasn't it ?
Let me put my thoughts on the line so we know where we stand, rather than just knocking your beliefs.
I approach this from a very simple angle, I don't need to know what colour a black cat in a darkened room is, or if a falling tree makes a noise without witnesses to it's demise.
I come from the angle that given infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of monkeys on type writers will complete the entire works of Shakespeare especially when there is an added inducement to do so......evolution.
As opposed to a super all knowing all powerful supreme being that created the world, mankind, all the flora and the fauna, and all the planets.
One version seems amazingly beyond my comprehension, the other stupidly beyond anybodies reasoning.
Thank goodness you are back, I thought I had shaken your faith and you were now a gibbering recluse.
Before this thread's challenge, it was you that made the made the claim, wasn't it ?
Let me put my thoughts on the line so we know where we stand, rather than just knocking your beliefs.
I approach this from a very simple angle, I don't need to know what colour a black cat in a darkened room is, or if a falling tree makes a noise without witnesses to it's demise.
I come from the angle that given infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of monkeys on type writers will complete the entire works of Shakespeare especially when there is an added inducement to do so......evolution.
As opposed to a super all knowing all powerful supreme being that created the world, mankind, all the flora and the fauna, and all the planets.
One version seems amazingly beyond my comprehension, the other stupidly beyond anybodies reasoning.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Bruv;1452451 wrote: Thank goodness you are back, I thought I had shaken your faith .....
How charmingly coy of you. :yh_angel
How charmingly coy of you. :yh_angel
The sheep challenge
High Threshold;1452452 wrote: How charmingly coy of you. :yh_angel
I am really quite a nice guy.
I am really quite a nice guy.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
Bruv;1452453 wrote: I am really quite a nice guy.
I'm beginning to see that now, yes. :wah:
I'm beginning to see that now, yes. :wah:
The sheep challenge
High Threshold;1452450 wrote: You are losing your grip on the subject, or perhaps you never had it.
Any reason to believe in God (rather than the visual world we live in for clues of creating itself) is because nothing we see can explain creation, and even the once popular “spontaneous generation†theory has been disproved, time and time again. Therefore it is “logical’ to believe that life was created by something unknown to our understanding ……. and well, there isn’t much doubt about it. So, why not a "God"?
But now you want to carry that thought beyond the limits of its own strength. You’re conjuring up your own false fact that consciousness is proven. Read my lips ….. IT IS NOT.
Let’s assume that everyone in town has a dog, but no one has ever seen a cat. You can describe cats to them using its similarities and dissimilarities with dogs as references. But you are trying to describe an “abstract God†by use of “abstract consciousness†and you’re blowing it out of your back-side.
Let me reiterate something I previously stated: "consciousness is the real you and in the end you are finite, not infinite, and so this does not exempt the existence of God, but it does exempt the existence of what you see... You are the only thing that is provable, as the world you see is only real to you: the world you see is what is in question as existing."
The only thing you know for sure is that you exist; Your trying to look for answers in the visions you have, as to how you came about, is to search in the wrong place. You're assuming your vision of life are real and as they are unreal in dreams (but very real to you at the time your dreaming them) it is easy to believe that they are unreal in life (these 30,000 days of continued consciousness). The fact remains that all that can be proven is that you exist, not what you actually see.
Prove this wrong and you win the argument: so far you fail to do this and as you stated you cannot.
Any reason to believe in God (rather than the visual world we live in for clues of creating itself) is because nothing we see can explain creation, and even the once popular “spontaneous generation†theory has been disproved, time and time again. Therefore it is “logical’ to believe that life was created by something unknown to our understanding ……. and well, there isn’t much doubt about it. So, why not a "God"?
But now you want to carry that thought beyond the limits of its own strength. You’re conjuring up your own false fact that consciousness is proven. Read my lips ….. IT IS NOT.
Let’s assume that everyone in town has a dog, but no one has ever seen a cat. You can describe cats to them using its similarities and dissimilarities with dogs as references. But you are trying to describe an “abstract God†by use of “abstract consciousness†and you’re blowing it out of your back-side.
Let me reiterate something I previously stated: "consciousness is the real you and in the end you are finite, not infinite, and so this does not exempt the existence of God, but it does exempt the existence of what you see... You are the only thing that is provable, as the world you see is only real to you: the world you see is what is in question as existing."
The only thing you know for sure is that you exist; Your trying to look for answers in the visions you have, as to how you came about, is to search in the wrong place. You're assuming your vision of life are real and as they are unreal in dreams (but very real to you at the time your dreaming them) it is easy to believe that they are unreal in life (these 30,000 days of continued consciousness). The fact remains that all that can be proven is that you exist, not what you actually see.
Prove this wrong and you win the argument: so far you fail to do this and as you stated you cannot.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
The sheep challenge
Back to the freaking dreams...............................Im out of here.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The sheep challenge
sheep;1452445 wrote: The challenge is/was that "I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in the world you actually see." All we can prove is consciousness. What we see is absolutely in question and therefore it is more reasonable to believe in an infinite consciousness, then it is to believe in what you see.
I'd agree with you the only certainty we have is we exist but that is not proof that there is a god or infinite consciousness if you prefer It's not however reasonable to assume there is an infinite consciousness. Believe it if it pleases you but it's only something you choose to believe and proves nothing. I exist therefore god does is nonsense.
I'd agree with you the only certainty we have is we exist but that is not proof that there is a god or infinite consciousness if you prefer It's not however reasonable to assume there is an infinite consciousness. Believe it if it pleases you but it's only something you choose to believe and proves nothing. I exist therefore god does is nonsense.
The sheep challenge
gmc;1452463 wrote: I'd agree with you the only certainty we have is we exist but that is not proof that there is a god or infinite consciousness if you prefer It's not however reasonable to assume there is an infinite consciousness. Believe it if it pleases you but it's only something you choose to believe and proves nothing. I exist therefore god does is nonsense.
The challenge was not to prove God exists, only to prove it is more reasonable to believe he does then what you see. Since the only thing you can prove is your own existence and not what you see and seeing that you are finite, it is more reasonable to believe in the infinite/God then to believe in what you see: as the only thing we can prove with absolute certainty is our existence.
The challenge was not to prove God exists, only to prove it is more reasonable to believe he does then what you see. Since the only thing you can prove is your own existence and not what you see and seeing that you are finite, it is more reasonable to believe in the infinite/God then to believe in what you see: as the only thing we can prove with absolute certainty is our existence.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
The sheep challenge
High Threshold;1452439 wrote: God willing and the creek don't rise you'll be unchallenged over there, although that won't help you in "learning about God".
Challenges from unbelievers don't help me learn about God, things like " The Anthropic Principles" help me learn about God. If you walk down a street and find a dime on the ground, you think nothing of it. If you walk further and find 5 dimes on the ground, now you may suspect someone has dropped them by mistake. Then as you go further you find 100 dimes on the ground, but they are all in separate isles and perfectly balanced on their edges; now you can " Know" that this was deliberately done. It was intentional and someone obviously did it.
Now you don't consider God, when you look at the Universe, you think big bang or self made energy, or self creating happenstance matter; you see lucky self created power from nowhere. when I look at the universe, and the reality that Sheep is saying we can see, I see it as being " Deliberately Done by another power greater than this result of power that we can see", and in my view, that is God; he fits the deliberate description.
Challenges from unbelievers don't help me learn about God, things like " The Anthropic Principles" help me learn about God. If you walk down a street and find a dime on the ground, you think nothing of it. If you walk further and find 5 dimes on the ground, now you may suspect someone has dropped them by mistake. Then as you go further you find 100 dimes on the ground, but they are all in separate isles and perfectly balanced on their edges; now you can " Know" that this was deliberately done. It was intentional and someone obviously did it.
Now you don't consider God, when you look at the Universe, you think big bang or self made energy, or self creating happenstance matter; you see lucky self created power from nowhere. when I look at the universe, and the reality that Sheep is saying we can see, I see it as being " Deliberately Done by another power greater than this result of power that we can see", and in my view, that is God; he fits the deliberate description.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
The sheep challenge
sheep;1452457 wrote: Let me reiterate something I previously stated: "consciousness is the real you .....
Let me reiterate something that I have stated time and time again .... albeit in a down-to-earth, layman's analogy - You can repeat your belief that the world is flat but until you offer some proof of it then you are talking nonsense.
sheep;1452457 wrote: Prove this wrong and you win the argument: so far you fail to do this and as you stated you cannot.
Prove it "wrong"? Holy Jehoshaphat, that's a twist. Should I assume you've not understood that the burden of proof is yours?
Let me reiterate something that I have stated time and time again .... albeit in a down-to-earth, layman's analogy - You can repeat your belief that the world is flat but until you offer some proof of it then you are talking nonsense.
sheep;1452457 wrote: Prove this wrong and you win the argument: so far you fail to do this and as you stated you cannot.
Prove it "wrong"? Holy Jehoshaphat, that's a twist. Should I assume you've not understood that the burden of proof is yours?