Finding Meaning & Delivering Confessions
Replies
-
Christianity will of course be at play a great deal due to my upbringing and the fact that I detest how it dumb down and dulls critical thinking in people. It is folly and foolish..."
"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"
--1 Corinthians 1:27
Yeah - it's great he willfully confounds (willfully confuse) people - Obviously the same God that deemed mankind mortal because Adam and Eve ate a fruit of knowledge.
Christianity seriously is anti-critical thinking - I mean you as a christian are fighting against someone using critical thinking.
You are not understanding the verse.
I would be the last person to fight critical thinking, being a scientist.
:noway: I understand the verse of course, my point is read what is in that verse! My observation is spot on.0 -
You still haven't given a true and reasonable explanation of who, when and how it was "proven" false.What is interesting is that your arguments against were not new to me, nor did they cause existential depression. Once again, you are using your eyes and brain to see what is not comprehendable by those methods. It's like Aristole trying to compute the internet speed on your computer, or measuring microwaves with a 12 inch ruler. Just because you cannot percieve, understand, or see something doesn't mean it isn't real.
Luke 10
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
23And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: 24For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
But how can you believe in it if it is proven to be a farce? It is like an adult explaining to a child how Santa couldn't make it to all the houses in time on a sled and smiling back and providing a quote back from the Christmas story. I mean? IDK - I don't think you understand what I said.
That you don't believe it is not proof.Christianity is a farce. I could provide even more evidence of it, but those points where all dead on and strong enough to make my case.
You've provided a lot of cherry-picked information to support your personal belief. You have shown no proof of anything.0 -
What is interesting is that your arguments against were not new to me, nor did they cause existential depression. Once again, you are using your eyes and brain to see what is not comprehendable by those methods. It's like Aristole trying to compute the internet speed on your computer, or measuring microwaves with a 12 inch ruler. Just because you cannot percieve, understand, or see something doesn't mean it isn't real.
Luke 10
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
23And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: 24For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
But how can you believe in it if it is proven to be a farce? It is like an adult explaining to a child how Santa couldn't make it to all the houses in time on a sled and smiling back and providing a quote back from the Christmas story. I mean? IDK - I don't think you understand what I said.
And where exactly has it been proven to be a farce? You are certainly welcome to your viewpoints, but not to make false claims.0 -
You still haven't given a true and reasonable explanation of who, when and how it was "proven" false.What is interesting is that your arguments against were not new to me, nor did they cause existential depression. Once again, you are using your eyes and brain to see what is not comprehendable by those methods. It's like Aristole trying to compute the internet speed on your computer, or measuring microwaves with a 12 inch ruler. Just because you cannot percieve, understand, or see something doesn't mean it isn't real.
Luke 10
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
23And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: 24For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
But how can you believe in it if it is proven to be a farce? It is like an adult explaining to a child how Santa couldn't make it to all the houses in time on a sled and smiling back and providing a quote back from the Christmas story. I mean? IDK - I don't think you understand what I said.
That you don't believe it is not proof.
I gave a ton of proof! see my previous post. The points I made were not my observations, it was from scientist and scholars tha investigated it and realized it. All you need to do to prove the Bible wrong is provide one bit of proof against it - and I did. I just am upset they could cherry pick the cannon as bad they did and remove the even more nutty books and text such as Daniel chapter 14 which was taken out because it was another case of a clear ripoff story where Daniel feeds pitch to a.... DRAGON to kill it and then goes into the Lions den - again.0 -
That proves the Bible is full of parables. It does not prove that Christianity or God are not real.Christianity is 100% confirmed hoax
Really? Where, when and how?
Well lets start at the very beginning - Canaanites would tell of the creation myths as inspirational stories at celebrations. This is possibly why there are two of these creation stories at the beginning of the scrptutes(Gen 1-2:3 & Gen. 2:4-3). They were placed next to each other in the cannon and meant to be read in tandem. - How many Christians even realize that there are two creation myths in the Bible? RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, IN A DIFFERENT ORDER :P (Karen Armstrong, Dwight A. Pryor and David Flusser - make the case)
The first account is a monotheisic rendition of the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish (which predates Genesis by centuries). Nor was the fable taken seriously when Genesis was written. Here God (called Elohim by its author) conqurs chaos by bringing order to an already created world, and the climax of the story is the creation of man (male and female were created at the same time) after he created plants and animals.
In the second story, God (called YHWH Elohim by its author) created man before plants and animals. In this account, God created The male, Adam first, then created the female, Eve.
Next we can go to Genesis 6 where demons have sex with women and create a race of giants. I have said and made the case previously Jesus was well versed in the book of Enoch - hence 'the son of man' title he used on himself, only in Enoch does it refer to the Messiah. However Enoch goes much more in depth on these giants saying the were 5,000+ ft tall. - Possible? no.
Jude also quotes the Book of Enoch giving it clear credibility to the Christian - in Jude 6-7 following up on the angels going into Sodom and Gomorrah that were going to be raped proving that angels/demons (same being) - can have sex with people. This is why Jude says some demons are in hell and some are able to travel the earth. - totally bat *kitten*, but whatevs.
Genesis 1:14-19, says God made the stars to give light to the earth - seems sorta silly once you realize how tiny we are in the cosmos with stars running rampant out there not providing light or any benefit/advantage to earth.
also the gap theory is a load of garbage - day 4 wouldn't have been able to come after day 3 - that's just silly
for the critical thinker to take the Genesis account seriously, looking into other practically identical accounts should likewise be taken seriously... I'm not going to belabor the point, however the records were not kept orally, rather they were written on tablets - in UR where if you recall Abraham is said to have come from in the bible - (Gen 15:7)... and it was a popular TALE in Ur during the time of Abraham.. but it is worth noting that Genesis came about around 1400 BC while the Gilgamesh story regarding a global flood was from 2100 BC so I agree that the tale originated from the same group, however the Genesis account was a 'fanned out' - as you said, version of the tale. - once again don't want to derail your points of origin on this, but I recommend investigating the similarities... check out CBM 13532 which is the earliest of accounts of a global flood - it is incredibly similar to the biblical account. But as was stated previously the Bible has TWO creation stories (Gen 1-2:3 & Gen. 2:4-3) - I mean even the order of events changes - this should give pause to even a non-critical thinker.
Let's talk about Jesus let's compare him to Horus - born of a virgin, 'only begotten son of the head God(father) - Osiris. depicted being born in a manager in egyption hyroglifics. Egyptians celebrated his birth on Dec 21, received death threats as a child.. an angel told his father and mother to take him to egypt... No data between ages of 12 & 30 just like Jesus... baptism at age 30 just like Jesus... baptiser was beheaded just like John the Baptist. miracles just like Jesus: walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.... Attis of Phrygia was born on dec 25th to a virgin, savior of mankind sacrificed for us, his body was eaten as bread by his followers in remembrance just like Jesus .. was crucified on black friday and came back to life in three days after going to hell.. his blood referred to as 'holy blood' sacrificed for man's atonement.... the founders of the country knew all about this.. it is one of many reasons why Thomas Jefferson etc were not 'believers.'
I believe that Christianity came to prevalence due to the process of 'Memetics' ..and the idea largely came about because it took something far too complicated, the origin of the universe, for any average person to understand and said simply... God made it in 6 days - and then took a rest?.... this enabled the common layman to grasp the origin of everything - and it is impossible to argue this with you from the viewpoint of strictly evolution because you yourself realize that we live in a very very very very old universe simply google Acasta Gneisses, or Isua Greenstone Bel... I won't over-elaborate my points any further... *sigh* my answers are not happy because once realized as I said on your other wall it drives people too a point of realization that there is no real purpose for human existence as a whole because of how insignificant we are at the cosmos - and for former believers this would hardly be a breath of fresh air... but regardless - even if one where to still believe or choose to believe in their heart the Bible - you are still a pawn being wielded around God's predestined 'divine' plan making you basically robotic - once again void of free will. - hardly a happy position to be in once again.
We see human sacrifice in**** Judges 11**** with Jephath sacrificing his daughter as a burnt sacrifice - whens the last time you heard a sermon on that ;P ..some preachers even straight up LIE, or are willfully ignorant about this being an actual burnt sacrifice which irks me - According to Midrash 7 both Jephath and the high priest were punished. Phinehas lost the divine spirit. Jephthah got deathly sick, and he lost his limbs. Because his limbs were buried in many locations, the Bible says that Jephthah was “buried in the cities of Gilead."
In the Talmud Bavli rape is permitted after conquering just not on the battle field
we have * *** Deuteronomy 21:10-14 -10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her. - permitting rape as long as you shave the women's head. Matthew Poole himself came to the same conclusion 'ana' 'humble' 'force into submission' was also used referring to rape in Gen34:2
Nicaea 325 indeed lead to the creation of the hyporstatic union, and I said previously on one of your post 'One does realize right that due to the trinity - the godhead would enable each member to have identical attributes - equipping Jesus - through the hypostatic union to have the ability of omniscience as well - being all knowing he would have foresaw his crucifixion - and he then went ahead with it anyway - a form of self-suicide, human sacrifice.' -in a sense it was just him permitting himself to be tortured as well, being a 'God' and being able to resurrect himself - I mean it wasn't even in a sense a TRUE TRUE sacrifice as in his 'life' 'life' and identity dieing, and I say that respectfully, it was a terrible tragic death, but it just doesn't make ANY logical sense to me - Also, the hypostatic union would make Jesus also immutable - a characteristic placed upon the father - which would mean he never changed his mind.... and lets compound on that because ironically God the father did change his mind exodus 32:14 - and even in that passage? ??? I mean seriously? ...regardless ^the concept to me is just bizarre..the necessity of Christ willful sacrifice because he was also all-powerful (omnipotent) - he could have picked anything to atone for mans transgressions - simply flipping a coin - simply saying some magic rite or spell (and according to the book of enoch - magic, spells -its all real... it actually lead to Enochian magic... I have studied many cults and occults ) ...regardless my point with Nicaea 325 is that Athanasius becomes Mr. popular due to his waging of a war against Arianism.. which lead to his being taken serious - he become bishop of alaxendria 3 years later!!! ..regardless - he basically selected the cannon (as did others^ I mean as I said this is largely personal interpretation and these scholars studied the txt much much more intently then now-a-days) ..anyway Nicaea 325 also established easter - which lead to the festel (easter) letters... which made Athanasius become one of the most POWERFUL christians ever because he released 'festel letter 367' and if you have no idea what Athanasius' festel letter 367AD is then google it - it is the NT cannon. Athanasius become Mr. Powerful - he was archbishop of Alexandria at age 30! .. scholars did not all agree on the cannon - but we went through with Athanasius' cannon - that is my point. He was in charge - he held the power for years and years- and the cannon is largely personal interpretation - they can cherry pick what literature they want to meet their doctrine- and they DID.
I can go on if you would like?
I thought you were well-versed in philosophy. This was something we went into great detail about during my freshman year philosophy 101 course.
The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.0 -
Christianity is 100% confirmed hoax
Really? Where, when and how?
Well lets start at the very beginning - Canaanites would tell of the creation myths as inspirational stories at celebrations. This is possibly why there are two of these creation stories at the beginning of the scrptutes(Gen 1-2:3 & Gen. 2:4-3). They were placed next to each other in the cannon and meant to be read in tandem. - How many Christians even realize that there are two creation myths in the Bible? RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, IN A DIFFERENT ORDER :P (Karen Armstrong, Dwight A. Pryor and David Flusser - make the case)
The first account is a monotheisic rendition of the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish (which predates Genesis by centuries). Nor was the fable taken seriously when Genesis was written. Here God (called Elohim by its author) conqurs chaos by bringing order to an already created world, and the climax of the story is the creation of man (male and female were created at the same time) after he created plants and animals.
In the second story, God (called YHWH Elohim by its author) created man before plants and animals. In this account, God created The male, Adam first, then created the female, Eve.
Next we can go to Genesis 6 where demons have sex with women and create a race of giants. I have said and made the case previously Jesus was well versed in the book of Enoch - hence 'the son of man' title he used on himself, only in Enoch does it refer to the Messiah. However Enoch goes much more in depth on these giants saying the were 5,000+ ft tall. - Possible? no.
Jude also quotes the Book of Enoch giving it clear credibility to the Christian - in Jude 6-7 following up on the angels going into Sodom and Gomorrah that were going to be raped proving that angels/demons (same being) - can have sex with people. This is why Jude says some demons are in hell and some are able to travel the earth. - totally bat *kitten*, but whatevs.
Genesis 1:14-19, says God made the stars to give light to the earth - seems sorta silly once you realize how tiny we are in the cosmos with stars running rampant out there not providing light or any benefit/advantage to earth.
also the gap theory is a load of garbage - day 4 wouldn't have been able to come after day 3 - that's just silly
for the critical thinker to take the Genesis account seriously, looking into other practically identical accounts should likewise be taken seriously... I'm not going to belabor the point, however the records were not kept orally, rather they were written on tablets - in UR where if you recall Abraham is said to have come from in the bible - (Gen 15:7)... and it was a popular TALE in Ur during the time of Abraham.. but it is worth noting that Genesis came about around 1400 BC while the Gilgamesh story regarding a global flood was from 2100 BC so I agree that the tale originated from the same group, however the Genesis account was a 'fanned out' - as you said, version of the tale. - once again don't want to derail your points of origin on this, but I recommend investigating the similarities... check out CBM 13532 which is the earliest of accounts of a global flood - it is incredibly similar to the biblical account. But as was stated previously the Bible has TWO creation stories (Gen 1-2:3 & Gen. 2:4-3) - I mean even the order of events changes - this should give pause to even a non-critical thinker.
Let's talk about Jesus let's compare him to Horus - born of a virgin, 'only begotten son of the head God(father) - Osiris. depicted being born in a manager in egyption hyroglifics. Egyptians celebrated his birth on Dec 21, received death threats as a child.. an angel told his father and mother to take him to egypt... No data between ages of 12 & 30 just like Jesus... baptism at age 30 just like Jesus... baptiser was beheaded just like John the Baptist. miracles just like Jesus: walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.... Attis of Phrygia was born on dec 25th to a virgin, savior of mankind sacrificed for us, his body was eaten as bread by his followers in remembrance just like Jesus .. was crucified on black friday and came back to life in three days after going to hell.. his blood referred to as 'holy blood' sacrificed for man's atonement.... the founders of the country knew all about this.. it is one of many reasons why Thomas Jefferson etc were not 'believers.'
I believe that Christianity came to prevalence due to the process of 'Memetics' ..and the idea largely came about because it took something far too complicated, the origin of the universe, for any average person to understand and said simply... God made it in 6 days - and then took a rest?.... this enabled the common layman to grasp the origin of everything - and it is impossible to argue this with you from the viewpoint of strictly evolution because you yourself realize that we live in a very very very very old universe simply google Acasta Gneisses, or Isua Greenstone Bel... I won't over-elaborate my points any further... *sigh* my answers are not happy because once realized as I said on your other wall it drives people too a point of realization that there is no real purpose for human existence as a whole because of how insignificant we are at the cosmos - and for former believers this would hardly be a breath of fresh air... but regardless - even if one where to still believe or choose to believe in their heart the Bible - you are still a pawn being wielded around God's predestined 'divine' plan making you basically robotic - once again void of free will. - hardly a happy position to be in once again.
We see human sacrifice in**** Judges 11**** with Jephath sacrificing his daughter as a burnt sacrifice - whens the last time you heard a sermon on that ;P ..some preachers even straight up LIE, or are willfully ignorant about this being an actual burnt sacrifice which irks me - According to Midrash 7 both Jephath and the high priest were punished. Phinehas lost the divine spirit. Jephthah got deathly sick, and he lost his limbs. Because his limbs were buried in many locations, the Bible says that Jephthah was “buried in the cities of Gilead."
In the Talmud Bavli rape is permitted after conquering just not on the battle field
we have * *** Deuteronomy 21:10-14 -10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her. - permitting rape as long as you shave the women's head. Matthew Poole himself came to the same conclusion 'ana' 'humble' 'force into submission' was also used referring to rape in Gen34:2
Nicaea 325 indeed lead to the creation of the hyporstatic union, and I said previously on one of your post 'One does realize right that due to the trinity - the godhead would enable each member to have identical attributes - equipping Jesus - through the hypostatic union to have the ability of omniscience as well - being all knowing he would have foresaw his crucifixion - and he then went ahead with it anyway - a form of self-suicide, human sacrifice.' -in a sense it was just him permitting himself to be tortured as well, being a 'God' and being able to resurrect himself - I mean it wasn't even in a sense a TRUE TRUE sacrifice as in his 'life' 'life' and identity dieing, and I say that respectfully, it was a terrible tragic death, but it just doesn't make ANY logical sense to me - Also, the hypostatic union would make Jesus also immutable - a characteristic placed upon the father - which would mean he never changed his mind.... and lets compound on that because ironically God the father did change his mind exodus 32:14 - and even in that passage? ??? I mean seriously? ...regardless ^the concept to me is just bizarre..the necessity of Christ willful sacrifice because he was also all-powerful (omnipotent) - he could have picked anything to atone for mans transgressions - simply flipping a coin - simply saying some magic rite or spell (and according to the book of enoch - magic, spells -its all real... it actually lead to Enochian magic... I have studied many cults and occults ) ...regardless my point with Nicaea 325 is that Athanasius becomes Mr. popular due to his waging of a war against Arianism.. which lead to his being taken serious - he become bishop of alaxendria 3 years later!!! ..regardless - he basically selected the cannon (as did others^ I mean as I said this is largely personal interpretation and these scholars studied the txt much much more intently then now-a-days) ..anyway Nicaea 325 also established easter - which lead to the festel (easter) letters... which made Athanasius become one of the most POWERFUL christians ever because he released 'festel letter 367' and if you have no idea what Athanasius' festel letter 367AD is then google it - it is the NT cannon. Athanasius become Mr. Powerful - he was archbishop of Alexandria at age 30! .. scholars did not all agree on the cannon - but we went through with Athanasius' cannon - that is my point. He was in charge - he held the power for years and years- and the cannon is largely personal interpretation - they can cherry pick what literature they want to meet their doctrine- and they DID.
I can go on if you would like?
I write fictional stories for training purposes all the time.
^none of my points are fictional - look it up.
If you mean the Bible purposefully made sections fictional to train - it makes the claim itself that it does not - it says itself that it is plenary verbal inspiration. - if you don't know what plenary verbal inspiration is then go look it up.
Right. God inspired people to write down stories that (s/he/they) wanted us to sharpen our moral teeth on.
Da faq? did you not read what I pointed out above? ^^^ Christianity is a farce. I could provide even more evidence of it, but those points where all dead on and strong enough to make my case. The cannon itself - like the actual books that make up the bible are in debate with scholars - and the biggest of scholars are not even believers.
What a faqqing crock. I'm explaining this on willfully deaf ears.
Right. You are pointing out that some of the bible stories are mutually exclusive, others don't jibe at all and some aren't possible in the universe as we know it.
Same thing with my training scenarios. Doesn't mean that the points that I'm training aren't real.0 -
You "proved" the Bible is not literal. That is not the same as proving the religion itself is a farce or that God doesn't exist.
You still haven't given a true and reasonable explanation of who, when and how it was "proven" false.What is interesting is that your arguments against were not new to me, nor did they cause existential depression. Once again, you are using your eyes and brain to see what is not comprehendable by those methods. It's like Aristole trying to compute the internet speed on your computer, or measuring microwaves with a 12 inch ruler. Just because you cannot percieve, understand, or see something doesn't mean it isn't real.
Luke 10
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
23And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: 24For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
But how can you believe in it if it is proven to be a farce? It is like an adult explaining to a child how Santa couldn't make it to all the houses in time on a sled and smiling back and providing a quote back from the Christmas story. I mean? IDK - I don't think you understand what I said.
That you don't believe it is not proof.
I gave a ton of proof! see my previous post. The points I made were not my observations, it was from scientist and scholars tha investigated it and realized it. All you need to do to prove the Bible wrong is provide one bit of proof against it - and I did. I just am upset they could cherry pick the cannon as bad they did and remove the even more nutty books and text such as Daniel chapter 14 which was taken out because it was another case of a clear ripoff story where Daniel feeds pitch to a.... DRAGON to kill it and then goes into the Lions den - again.
I don't know how I can be any more clear about this. And, again, you keep talking like you're some kind of expert on philosophy, but this subject is covered in the most basic college philosophy classes. If you had ever sat through one, you might understand what I'm saying.0 -
That proves the Bible is full of parables. It does not prove that Christianity or God are not real.Christianity is 100% confirmed hoax
Really? Where, when and how?
Well lets start at the very beginning - Canaanites would tell of the creation myths as inspirational stories at celebrations. This is possibly why there are two of these creation stories at the beginning of the scrptutes(Gen 1-2:3 & Gen. 2:4-3). They were placed next to each other in the cannon and meant to be read in tandem. - How many Christians even realize that there are two creation myths in the Bible? RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, IN A DIFFERENT ORDER :P (Karen Armstrong, Dwight A. Pryor and David Flusser - make the case)
The first account is a monotheisic rendition of the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish (which predates Genesis by centuries). Nor was the fable taken seriously when Genesis was written. Here God (called Elohim by its author) conqurs chaos by bringing order to an already created world, and the climax of the story is the creation of man (male and female were created at the same time) after he created plants and animals.
In the second story, God (called YHWH Elohim by its author) created man before plants and animals. In this account, God created The male, Adam first, then created the female, Eve.
Next we can go to Genesis 6 where demons have sex with women and create a race of giants. I have said and made the case previously Jesus was well versed in the book of Enoch - hence 'the son of man' title he used on himself, only in Enoch does it refer to the Messiah. However Enoch goes much more in depth on these giants saying the were 5,000+ ft tall. - Possible? no.
Jude also quotes the Book of Enoch giving it clear credibility to the Christian - in Jude 6-7 following up on the angels going into Sodom and Gomorrah that were going to be raped proving that angels/demons (same being) - can have sex with people. This is why Jude says some demons are in hell and some are able to travel the earth. - totally bat *kitten*, but whatevs.
Genesis 1:14-19, says God made the stars to give light to the earth - seems sorta silly once you realize how tiny we are in the cosmos with stars running rampant out there not providing light or any benefit/advantage to earth.
also the gap theory is a load of garbage - day 4 wouldn't have been able to come after day 3 - that's just silly
for the critical thinker to take the Genesis account seriously, looking into other practically identical accounts should likewise be taken seriously... I'm not going to belabor the point, however the records were not kept orally, rather they were written on tablets - in UR where if you recall Abraham is said to have come from in the bible - (Gen 15:7)... and it was a popular TALE in Ur during the time of Abraham.. but it is worth noting that Genesis came about around 1400 BC while the Gilgamesh story regarding a global flood was from 2100 BC so I agree that the tale originated from the same group, however the Genesis account was a 'fanned out' - as you said, version of the tale. - once again don't want to derail your points of origin on this, but I recommend investigating the similarities... check out CBM 13532 which is the earliest of accounts of a global flood - it is incredibly similar to the biblical account. But as was stated previously the Bible has TWO creation stories (Gen 1-2:3 & Gen. 2:4-3) - I mean even the order of events changes - this should give pause to even a non-critical thinker.
Let's talk about Jesus let's compare him to Horus - born of a virgin, 'only begotten son of the head God(father) - Osiris. depicted being born in a manager in egyption hyroglifics. Egyptians celebrated his birth on Dec 21, received death threats as a child.. an angel told his father and mother to take him to egypt... No data between ages of 12 & 30 just like Jesus... baptism at age 30 just like Jesus... baptiser was beheaded just like John the Baptist. miracles just like Jesus: walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.... Attis of Phrygia was born on dec 25th to a virgin, savior of mankind sacrificed for us, his body was eaten as bread by his followers in remembrance just like Jesus .. was crucified on black friday and came back to life in three days after going to hell.. his blood referred to as 'holy blood' sacrificed for man's atonement.... the founders of the country knew all about this.. it is one of many reasons why Thomas Jefferson etc were not 'believers.'
I believe that Christianity came to prevalence due to the process of 'Memetics' ..and the idea largely came about because it took something far too complicated, the origin of the universe, for any average person to understand and said simply... God made it in 6 days - and then took a rest?.... this enabled the common layman to grasp the origin of everything - and it is impossible to argue this with you from the viewpoint of strictly evolution because you yourself realize that we live in a very very very very old universe simply google Acasta Gneisses, or Isua Greenstone Bel... I won't over-elaborate my points any further... *sigh* my answers are not happy because once realized as I said on your other wall it drives people too a point of realization that there is no real purpose for human existence as a whole because of how insignificant we are at the cosmos - and for former believers this would hardly be a breath of fresh air... but regardless - even if one where to still believe or choose to believe in their heart the Bible - you are still a pawn being wielded around God's predestined 'divine' plan making you basically robotic - once again void of free will. - hardly a happy position to be in once again.
We see human sacrifice in**** Judges 11**** with Jephath sacrificing his daughter as a burnt sacrifice - whens the last time you heard a sermon on that ;P ..some preachers even straight up LIE, or are willfully ignorant about this being an actual burnt sacrifice which irks me - According to Midrash 7 both Jephath and the high priest were punished. Phinehas lost the divine spirit. Jephthah got deathly sick, and he lost his limbs. Because his limbs were buried in many locations, the Bible says that Jephthah was “buried in the cities of Gilead."
In the Talmud Bavli rape is permitted after conquering just not on the battle field
we have * *** Deuteronomy 21:10-14 -10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her. - permitting rape as long as you shave the women's head. Matthew Poole himself came to the same conclusion 'ana' 'humble' 'force into submission' was also used referring to rape in Gen34:2
Nicaea 325 indeed lead to the creation of the hyporstatic union, and I said previously on one of your post 'One does realize right that due to the trinity - the godhead would enable each member to have identical attributes - equipping Jesus - through the hypostatic union to have the ability of omniscience as well - being all knowing he would have foresaw his crucifixion - and he then went ahead with it anyway - a form of self-suicide, human sacrifice.' -in a sense it was just him permitting himself to be tortured as well, being a 'God' and being able to resurrect himself - I mean it wasn't even in a sense a TRUE TRUE sacrifice as in his 'life' 'life' and identity dieing, and I say that respectfully, it was a terrible tragic death, but it just doesn't make ANY logical sense to me - Also, the hypostatic union would make Jesus also immutable - a characteristic placed upon the father - which would mean he never changed his mind.... and lets compound on that because ironically God the father did change his mind exodus 32:14 - and even in that passage? ??? I mean seriously? ...regardless ^the concept to me is just bizarre..the necessity of Christ willful sacrifice because he was also all-powerful (omnipotent) - he could have picked anything to atone for mans transgressions - simply flipping a coin - simply saying some magic rite or spell (and according to the book of enoch - magic, spells -its all real... it actually lead to Enochian magic... I have studied many cults and occults ) ...regardless my point with Nicaea 325 is that Athanasius becomes Mr. popular due to his waging of a war against Arianism.. which lead to his being taken serious - he become bishop of alaxendria 3 years later!!! ..regardless - he basically selected the cannon (as did others^ I mean as I said this is largely personal interpretation and these scholars studied the txt much much more intently then now-a-days) ..anyway Nicaea 325 also established easter - which lead to the festel (easter) letters... which made Athanasius become one of the most POWERFUL christians ever because he released 'festel letter 367' and if you have no idea what Athanasius' festel letter 367AD is then google it - it is the NT cannon. Athanasius become Mr. Powerful - he was archbishop of Alexandria at age 30! .. scholars did not all agree on the cannon - but we went through with Athanasius' cannon - that is my point. He was in charge - he held the power for years and years- and the cannon is largely personal interpretation - they can cherry pick what literature they want to meet their doctrine- and they DID.
I can go on if you would like?
I thought you were well-versed in philosophy. This was something we went into great detail about during my freshman year philosophy 101 course.
The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Well, there's a couple of reasons why I do "believe" it as the word of God, even though I believe it is a training tool. If I told you why, you'd think I was blowing smoke. And if you could understand why I wasn't blowing smoke...well, you'd be a Christian.0 -
Christianity will of course be at play a great deal due to my upbringing and the fact that I detest how it dumb down and dulls critical thinking in people. It is folly and foolish..."
"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"
--1 Corinthians 1:27
Yeah - it's great he willfully confounds (willfully confuse) people - Obviously the same God that deemed mankind mortal because Adam and Eve ate a fruit of knowledge.
Christianity seriously is anti-critical thinking - I mean you as a christian are fighting against someone using critical thinking.
You are not understanding the verse.
I would be the last person to fight critical thinking, being a scientist.
:noway: I understand the verse of course, my point is read what is in that verse! My observation is spot on.
I know you think it is. But it really does prove the point I was trying to make by posting that particular verse. One can be quite wise by worldy standards (high IQ, etc.) yet still not be able to see truths and concepts which are really quite simple.
At any rate, I have not meant to offend, but you obviously are sore on the subject of faith. As far as the meta-analysis that showed higher IQ levels correlated with fewer instances of religiosity? I tend to agree with Lillian Daniel's observations on that point. “It’s not that intelligence leads to atheism, or education leads to loss of faith. But I think there is a certain peer pressure as one moves up the educational ladder to dismiss all religion as fundamentalism. It’s one of the last acceptable biases in an environment that prides itself on being open-minded.”0 -
The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.0 -
You "proved" the Bible is not literal. That is not the same as proving the religion itself is a farce or that God doesn't exist.
You still haven't given a true and reasonable explanation of who, when and how it was "proven" false.What is interesting is that your arguments against were not new to me, nor did they cause existential depression. Once again, you are using your eyes and brain to see what is not comprehendable by those methods. It's like Aristole trying to compute the internet speed on your computer, or measuring microwaves with a 12 inch ruler. Just because you cannot percieve, understand, or see something doesn't mean it isn't real.
Luke 10
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
23And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: 24For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
But how can you believe in it if it is proven to be a farce? It is like an adult explaining to a child how Santa couldn't make it to all the houses in time on a sled and smiling back and providing a quote back from the Christmas story. I mean? IDK - I don't think you understand what I said.
That you don't believe it is not proof.
I gave a ton of proof! see my previous post. The points I made were not my observations, it was from scientist and scholars tha investigated it and realized it. All you need to do to prove the Bible wrong is provide one bit of proof against it - and I did. I just am upset they could cherry pick the cannon as bad they did and remove the even more nutty books and text such as Daniel chapter 14 which was taken out because it was another case of a clear ripoff story where Daniel feeds pitch to a.... DRAGON to kill it and then goes into the Lions den - again.
I don't know how I can be any more clear about this. And, again, you keep talking like you're some kind of expert on philosophy, but this subject is covered in the most basic college philosophy classes. If you had ever sat through one, you might understand what I'm saying.
well I certainly can't prove God doesn't exist - I don't even know that for sure myself.
and I have not once said I am an expert on philosophy?! It is simply a pastime of mine?
'You "proved" the Bible is not literal. That is not the same as proving the religion itself is a farce or that God doesn't exist.' - the religion is made up of the text - the text explains the religion -- you disprove the text you disprove the religion - IMHO. To disprove the text and then have people say 'I didn't disprove the religion' - what is their religion based on? Because it is not Christianity because Christianity is based on the bible - it is their personal hybrid example of it. 2Tim3:16 - it is all 'God-breathed' - inspired by God. - the text is what makes Christianity Christianity and the text is a farce, so Christianity is a farce.0 -
I know you think it is. But it really does prove the point I was trying to make by posting that particular verse. One can be quite wise by worldy standards (high IQ, etc.) yet still not be able to see truths and concepts which are really quite simple.One day Mara, the Evil One, was travelling through the villages of India with his attendants. He saw a man doing walking meditation whose face was lit up on wonder. The man had just discovered something on the ground in front of him. Mara’s attendant asked what that was and Mara replied, “A piece of truth.”
“Doesn’t this bother you when someone finds a piece of truth, O Evil One?” his attendant asked.
“No,” Mara replied. “Right after this, they usually make a belief out of it.”
No point in trying to convince him his belief is distinct from truth. You cannot talk someone into maturity or open-mindedness.0 -
'You "proved" the Bible is not literal. That is not the same as proving the religion itself is a farce or that God doesn't exist.' - the religion is made up of the text - the text explains the religion -- you disprove the text you disprove the religion - IMHO.
And right there is your mistake and why you have lost this debate. You don't understand the subject.0 -
I know you think it is. But it really does prove the point I was trying to make by posting that particular verse. One can be quite wise by worldy standards (high IQ, etc.) yet still not be able to see truths and concepts which are really quite simple.One day Mara, the Evil One, was travelling through the villages of India with his attendants. He saw a man doing walking meditation whose face was lit up on wonder. The man had just discovered something on the ground in front of him. Mara’s attendant asked what that was and Mara replied, “A piece of truth.”
“Doesn’t this bother you when someone finds a piece of truth, O Evil One?” his attendant asked.
“No,” Mara replied. “Right after this, they usually make a belief out of it.”
No point in trying to convince him his belief is distinct from truth. You cannot talk someone into maturity or open-mindedness.
I'm just trying to give him the feeling that there is somebody else out there in the world.0 -
The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.0 -
Christianity will of course be at play a great deal due to my upbringing and the fact that I detest how it dumb down and dulls critical thinking in people. It is folly and foolish..."
"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"
--1 Corinthians 1:27
Yeah - it's great he willfully confounds (willfully confuse) people - Obviously the same God that deemed mankind mortal because Adam and Eve ate a fruit of knowledge.
Christianity seriously is anti-critical thinking - I mean you as a christian are fighting against someone using critical thinking.
You are not understanding the verse.
I would be the last person to fight critical thinking, being a scientist.
:noway: I understand the verse of course, my point is read what is in that verse! My observation is spot on.
I know you think it is. But it really does prove the point I was trying to make by posting that particular verse. One can be quite wise by worldy standards (high IQ, etc.) yet still not be able to see truths and concepts which are really quite simple.
At any rate, I have not meant to offend, but you obviously are sore on the subject of faith. As far as the meta-analysis that showed higher IQ levels correlated with fewer instances of religiosity? I tend to agree with Lillian Daniel's observations on that point. “It’s not that intelligence leads to atheism, or education leads to loss of faith. But I think there is a certain peer pressure as one moves up the educational ladder to dismiss all religion as fundamentalism. It’s one of the last acceptable biases in an environment that prides itself on being open-minded.”
Appreciate your sincerity :flowerforyou: I see your point and in some aspects of the Bible I think there are great life lessons even I take to heart.
-to me they are just stories though.
In regards to Daniels observation - in a sense I think that could be a fair - but I have no idea I'm not in that environment.0 -
'You "proved" the Bible is not literal. That is not the same as proving the religion itself is a farce or that God doesn't exist.' - the religion is made up of the text - the text explains the religion -- you disprove the text you disprove the religion - IMHO.
And right there is your mistake and why you have lost this debate. You don't understand the subject.
I don't know what you mean saying 'you don't understand the subject' - I have read the Bible cover to cover multiple times, I have read the Book of Enoch, the Apocrypha, corresponding literature, took many college classes on theology.
I don't think you've read the Bible actually. A true Christian believes the text Christianity is based on - - now sure I can't disprove all the offshoot religions that provide an out by realizing the text itself has flaws - but the true Christian does indeed believe the Bible, where Christianity comes from, the bible says it is perfect and is the literal 'God-Breathed' 100% accurate word of God- and it is not.0 -
I think you had a very negative experience with religion as a child and it is informing your current attitude. You have strong emotions about this and they color your arguments, which prove nothing at all.The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.
Thankfully, I have not had negative experiences with religion and while I don't believe in any of the existing organized religions personally, I also am not emotional about whether they are real or a farce. What I do know is enough about religion and philosophy that I can unequivocally state that nothing you have posted here and nothing you CAN post (because it doesn't exist) will prove any religion a farce. You don't have to practice or believe in them. But you cannot prove your position any more than the people who believe can prove theirs.
So stop being so angry about it and live your life.0 -
I know you think it is. But it really does prove the point I was trying to make by posting that particular verse. One can be quite wise by worldy standards (high IQ, etc.) yet still not be able to see truths and concepts which are really quite simple.One day Mara, the Evil One, was travelling through the villages of India with his attendants. He saw a man doing walking meditation whose face was lit up on wonder. The man had just discovered something on the ground in front of him. Mara’s attendant asked what that was and Mara replied, “A piece of truth.”
“Doesn’t this bother you when someone finds a piece of truth, O Evil One?” his attendant asked.
“No,” Mara replied. “Right after this, they usually make a belief out of it.”
No point in trying to convince him his belief is distinct from truth. You cannot talk someone into maturity or open-mindedness.
I have an open-mind? I encourage diversity - and I am questioning even my own beliefs. What have you been reading? I was in the process of disproving something claiming itself as truth?0 -
I think you had a very negative experience with religion as a child and it is informing your current attitude. You have strong emotions about this and they color your arguments, which prove nothing at all.The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.
Thankfully, I have not had negative experiences with religion and while I don't believe in any of the existing organized religions personally, I also am not emotional about whether they are real or a farce. What I do know is enough about religion and philosophy that I can unequivocally state that nothing you have posted here and nothing you CAN post (because it doesn't exist) will prove any religion a farce. You don't have to practice or believe in them. But you cannot prove your position any more than the people who believe can prove theirs.
So stop being so angry about it and live your life.
No - you have not answered my point. The TEXT says it is 100% accurate, God-Breathed, Perfect, God's 'love message' on how to find him. Christianity is based on this text. Real Christianity. - I have proved the text wrong. The text is wrong. Christianity is wrong.
I'm not angry, I am angry at the lack of debate. - no refuting my points, no arguments what-so-ever rather you concede the text is wrong and attempt to excuse it by mentioning off-shoot cults that don't take it all literally as someone Christianity still potentially being true.
No the text says it is all true - the text is not true - the religion based on the text is not true then.
like what da faq? I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm frustrated about how you can't see my point.0 -
.0
-
I think it is important for you to understand that the Bible itself tells you that divine revelation is needed to fully understand it. Jesus' disciples were constantly scratching their heads to understand what Jesus said. When he walked down the road with two of them after his ressurection, he "opened up the scriptures," to them. I don't pretend to fully understand it, but I can tell you from personal experience that I've read certain scriptures dozens of times, having a certain understanding, then, suddenly, I get a deeper understanding, another "big question" answered. God has revealed himself hidden in plain sight. Awesome.
And, not sure if you really considered my personal history. Those were real and actual miracles. I was prayed for in Jesus' name then immediately healed of a very painful disease. What you are looking at intellectually is not intellectually percievable, but is rather relational and experiencial. You learn about love by loving and being loved, not by reading about neurological processes and chemicals. You experience God by faith, not by sight.0 -
The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.
It is accurate and the word of God. Just like my imaginary company "CarStore" wants you to use real project management tools to solve a fictional project management problem.
It's not cherry picking to do half of the Calculus problems in unassigned homework.0 -
Would they care?
Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?
i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.
ie, i'm feeding the bears
It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?
i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.
one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.
Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.
The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.
How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?
So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?
If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?
most schools only award a BA in psychology.
you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.
In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.
I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology
Most schools have PH.D programs in several branches of psychology, including cognitive, social, developmental, comparative and clinical. There are journals upon journals that publish peer reviewed empirical research in each of these areas.
yes. you can also get a Ph.D in art history.
its a science in that it employees the scientific method. but one could never really eliminate all the varibles for subject to subject in order to emperically prove theories the way one can in the natural sciences. therefore laws and facts outside of the branches of psychology that are closely intertwinded with biology are basically nonexistant.
the difference between a BA and a BS in psychology is the BS will require a lot of course work in the natural sciences
Ok. I have a B.Sc. in Psychology. I had to take an assortment of classes that supported a liberal arts education, Calculus and statistics. I was also required to take three additional classes of my choice in physics, chemistry or biology, in addition to bunches and bunches of psychology classes. My concentration was in Social Psychology, which I also pursued as a Graduate Student. One of the requirements for my degree was conducting an experiment in the field of Social Psychology. Additionally, as a work/study student, I worked in a Social Psychology lab conducting research.
As a graduate student pursuing a research degree in Psychology, I was required to formulate and pursue a body of research.
As I mentioned, there are any number of peer-reviewed research journals in the field of Psychology publishing empirical studies. If you don't understand that Psychology is a science, you need to revisit the definitions of "scientific method" and "empirical."
lol i actually looked up the definition of empirical and i was a little suprised on #2
1.
derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2.
depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3.
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
dont really think number two fits.
anyway, i don't believe i said psychology wasn't a science at all, or that there was no research envolved. I mentioned that the use of the scientific method is what allows it to be called a social 'science'. thank you for outlining your course work, had you not taken all of those natural sciences and math, you would have recieved a BA, dispite the fact that it is a social science.
i merely wanted to point out that there is a very big difference in the ability of the natural sciences vs. social sciences to prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt.
this is not a new notion:
http://samprad78.expertscolumn.com/article/fundamental-difference-between-social-science-research-and-natural-science-research
Social scientist lab is society or world at large and a social scientist has no control over the equipments or factors that influence them. Natural Scientists work in lab where they can control the conditions and environments.
In social science research the result of investigation are at best generalizations. In natural science research the results of investigations are well defined by natural laws.
https://mises.org/mmmp/mmmp1.asp
The social sciences in general and economics in particular cannot be based on experience in the sense in which this term is used by the natural sciences. Social experience is historical experience. Of course every experience is the experience of something passed. But what distinguishes social experience from that which forms the basis of the natural sciences is that it is always the experience of a complexity of phenomena. The experience to which the natural sciences owe all their success is the experience of the experiment. In the experiments the different elements of change are observed in isolation. The control of the conditions of change provides the experimenter with the means of assigning to each effect its sufficient cause. Without regard to the philosophical problem involved he proceeds to amass "facts." These facts are the bricks which the scientist uses in constructing his theories. They constitute the only material at his disposal. His theory must not be in contradiction with these facts. They are the ultimate things.
The social sciences cannot make use of experiments. The experience with which they have to deal is the experience of complex phenomena. They are in the same position as acoustics would be if the only material of the scientist were the hearing of a concerto or the noise of a waterfall. It is nowadays fashionable to style the statistical bureaus laboratories. This is misleading. The material which statistics provides is historical, that means the outcome of a complexity of forces. The social sciences never enjoy the advantage of observing the consequences of a change in one element only, other conditions being equal.
you can disagree with it, but you can't act like i'm a fool for suggesting it. i'm actually surpised that you could have gone through that much schooling without the subject ever coming up or it simply occuring to you on your own.0 -
I think you had a very negative experience with religion as a child and it is informing your current attitude. You have strong emotions about this and they color your arguments, which prove nothing at all.The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.
Thankfully, I have not had negative experiences with religion and while I don't believe in any of the existing organized religions personally, I also am not emotional about whether they are real or a farce. What I do know is enough about religion and philosophy that I can unequivocally state that nothing you have posted here and nothing you CAN post (because it doesn't exist) will prove any religion a farce. You don't have to practice or believe in them. But you cannot prove your position any more than the people who believe can prove theirs.
So stop being so angry about it and live your life.
No - you have not answered my point. The TEXT says it is 100% accurate, God-Breathed, Perfect, God's 'love message' on how to find him. Christianity is based on this text. Real Christianity. - I have proved the text wrong. The text is wrong. Christianity is wrong.
I'm not angry, I am angry at the lack of debate. - no refuting my points, no arguments what-so-ever rather you concede the text is wrong and attempt to excuse it by mentioning off-shoot cults that don't take it all literally as someone Christianity still potentially being true.
No the text says it is all true - the text is not true - the religion based on the text is not true then.
like what da faq? I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm frustrated about how you can't see my point.
And I have found God in the text without believing that it is literal history. Badabing.0 -
I think it is important for you to understand that the Bible itself tells you that divine revelation is needed to fully understand it. Jesus' disciples were constantly scratching their heads to understand what Jesus said. When he walked down the road with two of them after his ressurection, he "opened up the scriptures," to them. I don't pretend to fully understand it, but I can tell you from personal experience that I've read certain scriptures dozens of times, having a certain understanding, then, suddenly, I get a deeper understanding, another "big question" answered. God has revealed himself hidden in plain sight. Awesome.
And, not sure if you really considered my personal history. Those were real and actual miracles. I was prayed for in Jesus' name then immediately healed of a very painful disease. What you are looking at intellectually is not intellectually percievable, but is rather relational and experiencial. You learn about love by loving and being loved, not by reading about neurological processes and chemicals. You experience God by faith, not by sight.
^I can't argue your experience. If you have a relationship with a 'God' who answered your request personally - so be it. I can't argue or disprove that.
That however is not proof to me of a God. When I was an addict I know people who overcame the addiction due to 'the aid of a benevolent loving God' they will swear to me up and down that God cured them of their addiction - I can't disprove this, but I overcame my addiction by myself through white knuckles and a great deal of will-power.
This however isn't Christianity it is your experience with Christianity.0 -
The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.
It is accurate and the word of God. Just like my imaginary company "CarStore" wants you to use real project management tools to solve a fictional project management problem.
It's not cherry picking to do half of the Calculus problems in unassigned homework.
^but it's not accurate?0 -
anyway, i don't believe i said psychology wasn't a science at all, or that there was no research envolved. I mentioned that the use of the scientific method is what allows it to be called a social 'science'. thank you for outlining your course work, had you not taken all of those natural sciences and math, you would have recieved a BA, dispite the fact that it is a social science.
Physics undergraduates have to take other sciences and math.
If I would have gotten a Master's Degree (there is no terminal Master's in Social Psych) it would have been a M.S.0 -
I think you had a very negative experience with religion as a child and it is informing your current attitude. You have strong emotions about this and they color your arguments, which prove nothing at all.The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.
Thankfully, I have not had negative experiences with religion and while I don't believe in any of the existing organized religions personally, I also am not emotional about whether they are real or a farce. What I do know is enough about religion and philosophy that I can unequivocally state that nothing you have posted here and nothing you CAN post (because it doesn't exist) will prove any religion a farce. You don't have to practice or believe in them. But you cannot prove your position any more than the people who believe can prove theirs.
So stop being so angry about it and live your life.
No - you have not answered my point. The TEXT says it is 100% accurate, God-Breathed, Perfect, God's 'love message' on how to find him. Christianity is based on this text. Real Christianity. - I have proved the text wrong. The text is wrong. Christianity is wrong.
I'm not angry, I am angry at the lack of debate. - no refuting my points, no arguments what-so-ever rather you concede the text is wrong and attempt to excuse it by mentioning off-shoot cults that don't take it all literally as someone Christianity still potentially being true.
No the text says it is all true - the text is not true - the religion based on the text is not true then.
like what da faq? I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm frustrated about how you can't see my point.
And I have found God in the text without believing that it is literal history. Badabing.
smh - but that is not Christianity then.0 -
The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.
If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.
Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:
In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.
The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.
Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.
That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.
^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.
It is accurate and the word of God. Just like my imaginary company "CarStore" wants you to use real project management tools to solve a fictional project management problem.
It's not cherry picking to do half of the Calculus problems in unassigned homework.
^but it's not accurate?
You absolutely need to how to use the real project management tools accurately to solve the situation. All of the components of the project management dilemmas you will face on a daily basis are in the scenario. The training situation is accurate, if not real-world.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions