|
There is plenty of suffering not caused by humans. And you know what? I would give up my free will if it meant an end to suffering.
I do, so tell it to God not to me, because I cannot change an iota of God's plan, just because I personally also hate seeing suffering. I would also give up my free-will at the drop of a hat if it ended suffering.
Yet it ain't how the music plays out and I don't conduct the orchestra so tough for what I want. Nevertheless I also know that no person is lost to God even though they die, so there's comfort there. I trust that when the symphony ends that everything will be made well and fair and good, and that the suffering was not ignored.
Also when I pray good things happen and when I don't they don't, so I guess that's all I can really say. There is more to this than physical science, and unless we find the right tools to measure something we stay in the dark.
Evidently and according to you I don't, but for the record I have a Bachelor's degree in Geology and a MSc. in Organic Geochemistry.
It really doesn't show. My condolences to your alma mater. Your response to the scientific consensus on the paranormal is identical to the response of evolution deniers and holocaust deniers to the weight of evidence. "There's a conspiracy to suppress The Truth!"
Why don't skeptical scientist's actually choose the parameters to measure themselves using people who they can verify no knowledge of supernatural disturbances in the first place.
Because it's a waste of money when there's research that will actually further our understanding of the universe instead of fluffing ancient superstitions.
Don't tell me that the scientific community would be all over it because they do not want to know.
Yeah, and the Holocaust is a Zionist myth created to slander the innocent Nazi regime and is perpetrated to this day by Zionist running dogs bought off by the International Jewish Conspiracy. "You can't handle the truth!" I've heard all of this before.
If a study is flawed, it's flawed. That puts its findings in doubt, to say the least. That you guys can't cook up a good study that says what you want it to say suggests nothing more than that you're wrong and should be ignored until you do. Kirth posted here a page or so ago about how every four or five years there's a new study that "proves" that prayer improves health outcomes. Then the next year after we've found all the failings in the study, someone repeats it with good methodology and gets no such evidence.
Thank goodness for the interference pattern experiment where scientists realized that by actually measuring something very small they changed it. It was probably only thanks to the Photoelectric Effect paper by Einstein and the work of Max Plank and Neils Bohr that kept the subject on course, because the whole scientific community was at odds over it. Did they give up on it because they couldn't measure it at that point. No. But without the people like Plank and Bohr and others we might never have developed the atomic bomb.
And it was crap until they had the experimental data to demonstrate it. If the evidence is there, it will out through the scientific endeavor. If not, it shall not. You provide us no evidence, and so we not only wish to as a matter of practicality but are obligated by our intellectual integrity to dismiss your claims.
You know you are just being ridiculous here. Whatever these people saw or thought they saw (notice the caveat), may be explainable by other things, but it ain't little men with big eyes. I wouldn't be surprised that the US Air Force (Area 51? I think) promulgated the UFO myth to divert attention from their own experiments. I don't have a lot of time for conspiracy theories and the evidence for UFOs is hardly convincing even to my non-scientific mind.
But I've given you back your own argument. If it's so convincing for Jesus then it must be equally convincing for little gray men. If it's ridiculous for one, it's ridiculous for both.
This manifestation in York has been known for a long time long before anybody thought of the internet and tour guides through York.
That makes it worse, really. Looks like we have to throw out 100% of the sitings by human beings as hopelessly contaminated by local folklore. People see what they are being told to see. Play the spooky music, jabber about how X and Y died there, and tell ghost stories in their earpieces and they'll tell you all kinds of things. Only video cameras will suffice now. Got 'em?
Who the heck has the time and energy to spend some period of over two to three hundred years writing down actual descriptions of their experience and/or hallucination only to find that historians could corroborate the armor and symbols etc., which would men either everyone who had seen this had decided to put it away so the hoax could be revealed hundreds of years later. That would be the greatest practical joke in History. But fortunately it isn't the only event
When the men who made the first crop circles came out and said they were hoaxers, the believers kept right on believing. Other hoaxers were happy to take up the work for the fun of it and the satisfaction of pulling the wool over the eyes of a bunch of suckers. Who would do something like that, indeed? And who would repeat descriptions of aliens they never saw, by the way?
Or are you so credulous as to tell me that detailed accounts by different people at the same place at different times often noted but rarely published because these same people didn't want to believe what they had seen was real, were the result of a conspiracy of numerous world wide practical jokes and hoaxes just to wind up scientists?
You lost me at recourse to an infinite repository of unpublished accounts. Show me the accounts if you want to be taken the slightest bit seriously. If you want to convince me, show me the spectral legion on video with a clear chain of custody so we know someone didn't cut in some special effects.
I've been to the site at York part of which is in a basement of the Treasurer's House in York. Didn't see the ghosts myself, but it has been known about for centuries. Sure it's a tourist attraction now, but it scared the crap out of the a plumber Harry Martindalein 1953.
People getting frightened in basements tells me no more than people getting frightened at scary movies.
But as its anecdotal though, this story goes back a long time, you are free to dismiss it as you wish.
But as its anecdotal though, this story goes back a long time, you are free to dismiss it as you wish.
Not just free too, required to. The age of a story tells me little to nothing. That it is anecdotal makes it pretty much worthless. If your experiment can't be replicated under controlled conditions, it's findings are of no interest to me except as cheap entertainment. Rather like the typical haunted house.
Do you know how historians work? They know quite a lot about this issue and there is more to this than simply one totemic animal which they being honest say was *probably* a bull.
Yes but you can't claim that the standard was authenticated, as you did, when we don't actually know what the standard was. It would be professional malpractice for a historian to declare that the spectral standard matched the historical one without knowing the historical one. That it was probably a bull makes no difference at all. Unless we know it is a bull, we cannot consider that sighting to have included authentic historical content. (Nor for that matter, could we even if we did know since someone could easily have gone and looked it up. This is why we need to screen our witnesses for foreknowledge of the relevant history.)
What you call casual scrutiny is simply that you are looking to disprove this occurrence without even giving it the time of day because you don't believe in the possibility of something being odd.
Marcus, OF COURSE I am looking to disprove it. If I'm not looking for evidence that the claim is false I am being a massive sucker. Nobody in their right mind could do anything else, not if they care one whit about the quality of their thinking. If you don't consider evidence that the claims that you and others believe might be mistaken, then you are as much as declaring yourself infallible. I've got a healthy opinion of myself, but that takes egomania to a truly psychotic extreme. If the evidence is there, then the claims will survive scrutiny. If it is not, then they should not endure and we should celebrate discarding them.
Whether I believe or disbelieve it is by the by as it has not yet been proved well enough to me. But neither is the evidence so uncompelling as to throw down the drain. I will stay open minded about it. Are you seeing the difference yet?
This is what I did, Marcus. Right off the bat when I read the fairy story I considered it probably false based on past such stories. Knowing the national tourism obsession with ghosts in the UK does not help. (And that's a tragedy, there's so much actual history and they waste time on a load of useless b!@+$#&s.) But I wanted to know what you were talking about and it's always possible I could be wrong and you have the evidence. So I fired up Google to begin very preliminary inquires:
Was there actually a legion by that name?
Was it ever stationed in the north of England?
Was it massacred or did it otherwise disappear?
My answers were yes, yes, and almost certainly not.
Yes, that does mean that I started with the assumption that you were deliberately or otherwise repeating obvious lies. This assumption has long been justified when inquiring into claims of the paranormal. But with the ascertained facts in hand I gave you my response. Not a word of it was unreasonable and not a word of it unduly close-minded, if not always gentle.
Here's a decent summary of facts about the "disappearance" by the way. And this discusses the records somewhat more directly.
If taking the time to do some cursory research as to the accuracy of your claims and putting a middling bit of effort into devising a protocol to assess them is closed-minded, then I want to be nothing but. To do the opposite of that would be to render my mind worse than worthless but in fact a plague dog spreading false ideas in ignorance.
Do I see a difference between what you're doing and being foolish or knowingly spreading lies? Nope. There doesn't seem to be any, and I will not lie about it. You don't seem to care if what you believe is true or not, as long as you can summon up a tribe of people who agree with you. I can't respect that in good conscience.
Bah, the profanity filter caught me. There I thought I was being clever and using a UK usage instead of an American one. Ah well.
|
|
Evidently and according to you I don't, but for the record I have a Bachelor's degree in Geology and a MSc. in Organic Geochemistry.It really doesn't show. My condolences to your alma mater. Your response to the scientific consensus on the paranormal is identical to the response of evolution deniers and holocaust deniers to the weight of evidence. "There's a conspiracy to suppress The Truth!"
Samnell though I do respect your opinions I think this last post was rather unfortunately and sadly unfair and very insulting. I was by no means saying that any of this was the same as all the other Anti-Zionist conspiracies, neo-Fascism, Holocaust deniers or what have you.
You can lump me in with this if you wish, but it doesn't make it any more truthful about who I am myself. If you are exasperated with me then fine but you didn't need to use personal attacks.
As for quantum mechanics there's no physical evidence yet for its full explanation and it's verifiability with relativity. Yet people are wasting vast amounts of money trying to find certain theoretical particles and goodness knows what else on a hope and a theory.
My theory was there may be more to this than meets the eye when I referred to the Roman Legion example. Because many people have seen anomalies doesn't mean they're necessarily all in the head. Sure you can attach mumbo-jumbo magic stuff to anything when you don't know how it works, but there may be still nuggets of truth underneath. Perhaps there might be things worth looking into. Maybe there is some space/time anomaly going on. I actually wrote that if you'd read it instead of rushing off to find every bit of crap on the web about the Ninth Legion. I said it was reputed to have disappeared but I didn't harp on that point because it was not relevant to my argument and I know that many historians share different opinions about what happened to it. The manifestation happened in York, England not on the Scottish border.
You know, people like yourself are so closed minded that you will not look at anything beyond what you can see with flawed human senses. Just because you can't get your head round it doesn't make me wrong. In fact it takes people to stand up and theorize beyond the mundane for anything to move forward.
For goodness sake, if we can spend billions on a supercollider at CERN then we can certainly look into things that occur by witnessed sightings. Sure these sightings might be b0ll0cks but at least someone could get off their lazy academic asses and at least take a look at it.
Anyway as all you seem to do is play ya-boo sucks on this thread there's nothing else I can say to you except to tell you that there was no reason to be rude. You might violently disagree with me but it was uncalled for to disparage my excellent academic achievements when you know nothing about me except that I stated that it might be interesting to research something scientifically instead of disparaging it at face value as a fairy tale told by stupid minds.
Whatever, I'm done with you.
stuff
Dude, after how many posts about how we're afraid to see the truth, don't want to see the truth, are awful close-minded people because we can't see the truth, and are actively engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth, you start complaining about my being rude?
That's really rich, but I suppose that having never had any evidence or reasoned argument it's all you could come up with. Fair enough, I'm rude. So are you. That says nothing about the veracity of your claims, though I suppose that also stands to reason considering you can't be bothered to care about that kind of thing.
So you pray for evil things don't expect God to do them or even allow them. He is constantly working in the World and there is a spiritual war going on that we do not see. Your abused child is not forgotten by God just because no-one prayed for them. God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. But prayer is a spiritual tool that we use to Spiritually battle the enemy. That enemy is not Man himself but the one who is of this world and his minions all over the globe that tempt men to do the evil things that men want to do.
Now this encompasses some interesting belief systems. Seems very dualistic. Definitely one of the most interesting aspects of Christianity - especially early Christianity (and late Judaism) is the Dualism inherent within the belief system. You don't see that in early Old Testiment and it seems to have faded away by the time of Islam.
In any case the concept brought up another question for me...
Does the Devil have free will?
It dawns on my that I've kind of always presumed that the Devil was basically Gods puppet. Maybe an evil puppet but a puppet nonetheless, presumably just another tool to get to Gods end state so far as Christian Theology is concerned - however I've never actually seen an answer and am not really sure how Christians view the Devil within this context...Is the Devil one of Gods tools or an actual adversary with the ability to do something that would fall outside of Gods will.
Oh I fired this off in response to one of Marcus Aurelius posts but I'm interested in any ones opinions on the topic.
There is plenty of suffering not caused by humans. And you know what? I would give up my free will if it meant an end to suffering.
Ever read the The Worthing Saga? While definitely influenced by the authors beliefs it does address the problems with a reality that does not have suffering and was definitely a thought provoking read - I recommend it. Though with the caveat that I read it 20+ years ago and its possible that it was more powerful to a teenager then it is for an adult.
|
In any case the concept brought up another question for me...
Does the Devil have free will?
It dawns on my that I've kind of always presumed that the Devil was basically Gods puppet.
Yes, in fact his/her/its freewill is part of the story.
When we first see the Devil, not in Genesis, but rather in Job where he is a legal adversary. He is charged to act as sort of a prosecuting attorney. It is later on in the Gospels and in Revelations, that his freewill is shown to have caused his rebellion. It is there as well as in the apocrypha, both Jewish and Christian, as well as some Islamic works that this is more fully expressed. Not to mention that he is then also attached to the Serpent in Genesis.
|
In any case the concept brought up another question for me...
Does the Devil have free will?
It dawns on my that I've kind of always presumed that the Devil was basically Gods puppet.
Yes, in fact his/her/its freewill is part of the story.
When we first see the Devil, not in Genesis, but rather in Job where he is a legal adversary. He is charged to act as sort of a prosecuting attorney. It is later on in the Gospels and in Revelations, that his freewill is shown to have caused his rebellion. It is there as well as in the apocrypha, both Jewish and Christian, as well as some Islamic works that this is more fully expressed. Not to mention that he is then also attached to the Serpent in Genesis.
What is the actual rebellion that he's done? Aside from the apocrypha... It is my understanding that he continues his adversarial role from Job in the Gospels. From my understanding of the reading i've done, he has no free will and does his job diligently (until revelation that is).
Does the Devil have free will?It dawns on my that I've kind of always presumed that the Devil was basically Gods puppet. Maybe an evil puppet but a puppet nonetheless, presumably just another tool to get to Gods end state so far as Christian Theology is concerned - however I've never actually seen an answer and am not really sure how Christians view the Devil within this context...Is the Devil one of Gods tools or an actual adversary with the ability to do something that would fall outside of Gods will.
Oh I fired this off in response to one of Marcus Aurelius posts but I'm interested in any ones opinions on the topic.
I would say the devil has free will but only because the devil is god. A two face personality if you will.
If the devil isn't god then I would say he is gods most loyal follower just like Judas was Jesus'.
Edit: DISCLAIMER: ALL OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE MY OPINION.
|
What is the actual rebellion that he's done? Aside from the apocrypha... It is my understanding that he continues his adversarial role from Job in the Gospels. From my understanding of the reading i've done, he has no free will and does his job diligently (until revelation that is).In any case the concept brought up another question for me...
Does the Devil have free will?
It dawns on my that I've kind of always presumed that the Devil was basically Gods puppet.
Yes, in fact his/her/its freewill is part of the story.
When we first see the Devil, not in Genesis, but rather in Job where he is a legal adversary. He is charged to act as sort of a prosecuting attorney. It is later on in the Gospels and in Revelations, that his freewill is shown to have caused his rebellion. It is there as well as in the apocrypha, both Jewish and Christian, as well as some Islamic works that this is more fully expressed. Not to mention that he is then also attached to the Serpent in Genesis.
As far as I know the most complete record of the Lucifer (samael) story is in the apocryphal book of Enoch. Apparently god told Enoch this about satan that he was once an archangel known as Samael and 'He contrived to make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth and resemble 'My power' on high, Satan-Sataniel was hurled down, with his hosts of angels, and since then he has been flying in the air continually above the abyss.' Early christian writings began to refer to him as 'the morning star' or 'Lucifer'.
|
|
So you pray for evil things don't expect God to do them or even allow them. He is constantly working in the World and there is a spiritual war going on that we do not see. Your abused child is not forgotten by God just because no-one prayed for them. God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. But prayer is a spiritual tool that we use to Spiritually battle the enemy. That enemy is not Man himself but the one who is of this world and his minions all over the globe that tempt men to do the evil things that men want to do.
Now this encompasses some interesting belief systems. Seems very dualistic. Definitely one of the most interesting aspects of Christianity - especially early Christianity (and late Judaism) is the Dualism inherent within the belief system. You don't see that in early Old Testiment and it seems to have faded away by the time of Islam.
In any case the concept brought up another question for me...
Does the Devil have free will?
It dawns on my that I've kind of always presumed that the Devil was basically Gods puppet. Maybe an evil puppet but a puppet nonetheless, presumably just another tool to get to Gods end state so far as Christian Theology is concerned - however I've never actually seen an answer and am not really sure how Christians view the Devil within this context...Is the Devil one of Gods tools or an actual adversary with the ability to do something that would fall outside of Gods will.
Oh I fired this off in response to one of Marcus Aurelius posts but I'm interested in any ones opinions on the topic.
Actually it's a very interesting question. From my take of the Devil he was around in the OT especially in the book of Job. Here we see the Devil as a kind of malicious puppet where he has to get God's permission before he is allowed to visit strife on Job. The Devil's basic argument is simply that if Job wasn't so favored in the first place and wasn't doing so well for himself he probably would curse God and die.
God allows the Devil to visit strife on poor Job to prove that the Devil is actually wrong about Job's love for God and so it goes. Poor Job is reduced to sitting with nothing scratching at wounds in sackcloth wondering why God has allowed such a thing to happen to him. But he refuses to curse God and die, yet at the same time he is angry with God.
Why because a group of supposed friends who were by no means the equal of Job in faith and love for God were telling him that he has done something wrong and should repent. Job refuses. He has done no more and certainly much less evil than his comforters and they are doing OK. Job just doesn't believe their arguments against him.
Eventually Job cries out to God and in anger accuses God of being unfair and unjust, and receives an answer in thunder and lightning. That God can do whatever He wishes with his Creation, but that He doesn't do anything that is evil. He knew Job would cope with this situation or he wouldn't have allowed it. But God chides the friends more for doubting Job's righteousness before God and assuming He had sinned and this had caused his suffering, which was untrue. Then God restores Job to an even greater position on Earth than he possessed before. The Devil's point is disproved and away he goes. The upshot of this tale (many biblical scholars think its far older than first believed) is that just because somebody suffers a calamity it does not mean God was responsible or that God was angry with someone. Now it's not a test anyone would enjoy, but God knew Job's heart well enough to know that Job would remain faithful even though he felt he'd had a raw deal.
The Devil's fall to the Earth is quoted in I think Isaiah somewhere and is referred to as the morning star (lucifer) cast down from on high. In the NT Jesus mentions witnessing this fall, along with a third of the rebellious angels.
Though the world belongs to the Devil, he cannot do everything he would like so I don't believe he has total free will anymore. He lost that in Heaven when he rebelled and was cast out. But these powers and principalities (former angels) now formless and malicious spirits go hither and thither in the world posing as gods or generally trying to get man to do evil. But they can only tempt, not force. However, man himself is able to do evil without their prompting, and they themselves generally keep a low profile. Why? Because they know that if they manifested themselves too much they might actually cause men and women to cry out to God and be saved. They do their best work by deluding men and women into believing there is no God.
They do however look for conduits to where they can manifest in people, that is why I say to avoid the occult and ouija boards especially. Ouija boards are like a megaphone to these entities outside your house saying "Party here all invited". Spiritualism is another conduit where they actually take possession of a medium and use their knowledge to bring "comfort" to grieving folks where they take on the personas of departed loved ones. Now they know a little and if you get a clever spirit it can give a lot of information that seems highly credible (BTW there are a lot of charlatan mediums too but I'm not talking about them here). When the spirit runs out of knowledge it just makes stuff up.
Now the biggest danger to these foul entities are Christians because we are inhabited by God's Holy Spirit and they cannot abide being near Him. With Christians they work to try and scare the off, by taking form of whatever they can, often balls of energy that flit around and occasionally monstrous manifestations of themselves through possessed folk. Exorcists do exist but they keep a low profile (especially since that film came out which did great injustice to true Exorcists and scared people into thinking that God didn't have the power to drive these creatures out, when he certainly can and does), but are essentially Christians who are specially called to help people in such states. By commanding these entities to leave the person in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Such people are available if you ever find yourself in dangerous hauntings.
They can be removed from people fairly easily, though exorcists have less luck getting them to leave a places where they have been bound.
But from what I understand these entities do not have free will like we do and can only work within boundaries of God's decision. When they are allowed to do things it's usually so God can be glorified and souls can be saved. I've experienced Spirits like this and have been attacked on numerous occasions, usually at times when they are scared that they might see another soul saved for God and lost to them. They are evil malicious and should not be messed about with because they can be very dangerous especially when they are called by people who often play about with the occult because they don't really believe these things exist really, only to regret it later.
This is my take. I wonder what other Christians think.
|
|
Fair enough, I'm rude. So are you.I rarely agree with you Samnell.
Still waiting to hear what I said that was so rude to you. Passive aggressive comments to others about me is even more rude. I didn't mean to upset you, but it's hard to apologize unless I know what it was I said that was so offensive. But sorry anyway. I didn't mean to offend you.
|
|
Still waiting to hear what I said that was so rude to you. Passive aggressive comments to others about me is even more rude. I didn't mean to upset you, but it's hard to apologize unless I know what it was I said that was so offensive. But sorry anyway. I didn't mean to offend you.Fair enough, I'm rude. So are you.I rarely agree with you Samnell.
Unfortunately I do not have the time nor the inclination to give you a step by step, list by list on every detail that you have incorrect. Maybe it is your opinion, fine so be it. It is however only your opinions and not the absolute truth, which is, despite your protests, is exactly how you seem to post them. If you do in fact think that Catholics are "fire and Brimstone" preaching then I suggest you stop reading about it and maybe come to Mass one Sunday. I am sure you will be very surprised.
Heh. It's been quite a while since I heard a good fire-and-brimstone sermon.
Heh. It's been quite a while since I heard a good fire-and-brimstone sermon.I have never heard one outside of a Baptist Church. The one I heard though, wow. It was one of those let me lay my hands on you and SAVE you tent revival types. Freaky stuff.
I'm not Baptist, nor have I ever been to a tent revival-type meeting, but I've had some fiery preachers in the past, my grandfather (now retired) being one of them. :)
I have never heard one outside of a Baptist Church. The one I heard though, wow. It was one of those let me lay my hands on you and SAVE you tent revival types. Freaky stuff.
People are freaky. One of my teachers was a pretty far-out Baptist sort who once told us how freaked out he was when he got invited to go to a service at a snake handling church. They set the box down right next to him on the front pew. They had a big wall full of pictures of those who had been bit and not made it too.
That church only had one practicing snake handler (can't imagine why) and he was out that Sunday so no reptile fondling happened. I'm not sure why the snakes attended and he did not. You would think the guy who kept them at home would be the guy who handled them professionally, so to speak.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
They do however look for conduits to where they can manifest in people, that is why I say to avoid the occult and ouija boards especially. Ouija boards are like a megaphone to these entities outside your house saying "Party here all invited".
Aw, but it glows in the dark now! How cool is that?
I'm sure Parker Brothers/Hasbro will reimburse you for any damage caused by malicious spirits!
Edit: I don't mean to make fun, but the whole Ouija Board scandal always makes me chuckle. :)
Spook is a pretty good book that most of the folks lurking around this thread would probably enjoy. It's essentially a skeptic that goes out and tests several afterlife theories (theories doesn't sound right, but I can't seem to think of a better word ATM). It is written by a skeptic, and IIRC she states that she is going to try and keep personaly bias out of it but doesn't expect to be fully successful in her attempts. It's an entertaining read and worth time to read if you've got a few hours to kill.
Just picked this up the other day along with Stiff and another book she recently released. It's on my pile of books I'll read sometime this lifespan. :-p
In any case the concept brought up another question for me...
Does the Devil have free will?
It dawns on my that I've kind of always presumed that the Devil was basically Gods puppet.
Yes, in fact his/her/its freewill is part of the story.
When we first see the Devil, not in Genesis, but rather in Job where he is a legal adversary. He is charged to act as sort of a prosecuting attorney. It is later on in the Gospels and in Revelations, that his freewill is shown to have caused his rebellion. It is there as well as in the apocrypha, both Jewish and Christian, as well as some Islamic works that this is more fully expressed. Not to mention that he is then also attached to the Serpent in Genesis.
Not directed specifically at you, but just wanted to chime in that I do agree with your depiction of Satan as presented in Job.
I also want to point out that despite common acceptance of the general Bible-reading populace:
Satan =/ Lucifer
Satan =/ the snake in Genesis
I place the blame of Satan getting a bad rap for his 'enemy of God' status on the syncretism of Persian Zoroastrianism creeping into Judaism during the time of the Babylonian diaspora.
What is the actual rebellion that he's done? Aside from the apocrypha... It is my understanding that he continues his adversarial role from Job in the Gospels. From my understanding of the reading i've done, he has no free will and does his job diligently (until revelation that is).
Or if you hold a slanted view of predestination and the omniscient of God, technically he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing in the context of Revelation. Essentially, he's the scapegoat being sent to Azazel.
As for quantum mechanics there's no physical evidence yet for its full explanation and it's verifiability with relativity. Yet people are wasting vast amounts of money trying to find certain theoretical particles and goodness knows what else on a hope and a theory.
what is this even supposed to mean ?
I also want to point out that despite common acceptance of the general Bible-reading populace:Satan =/ Lucifer
Satan =/ the snake in Genesis
Please explain, I would like to know more.
|
|
Unfortunately I do not have the time nor the inclination to give you a step by step, list by list on every detail that you have incorrect. Maybe it is your opinion, fine so be it. It is however only your opinions and not the absolute truth, which is, despite your protests, is exactly how you seem to post them. If you do in fact think that Catholics are "fire and Brimstone" preaching then I suggest you stop reading about it and maybe come to Mass one Sunday. I am sure you will be very surprised.Still waiting to hear what I said that was so rude to you. Passive aggressive comments to others about me is even more rude. I didn't mean to upset you, but it's hard to apologize unless I know what it was I said that was so offensive. But sorry anyway. I didn't mean to offend you.Fair enough, I'm rude. So are you.I rarely agree with you Samnell.
Thank you. Now I understand. Actually I don't think Catholics use fire and brimstone preaching in today's RC church, well I haven't witnessed any of this in the RC churches I have visited recently. I've told you the reason why I refuse to attend Mass there, as they forbid me to take the Eucharist. What I was alluding to was where all the mythology of Hell being the underworld of fire and brimstone and the depiction of the Devil as we see him today in popular culture comes from the medieval period literature and there were no other major churches around at that point in Western Europe but the Roman Catholic one. I do not equate the modern RC church of that period today, and in fact it is rather certain Protestant denominations that perpetuate these myths now. Hence why I am non-denominational.
I am very sorry about giving you offense as it was most certainly unintentional, and if it makes you feel better I am truly sorry that I did it. I respect members of the RC faith and know that a lot of good is done through this Church for God's work in the world. I hope you can accept my sincerest apologies. Mark.
|
|
They do however look for conduits to where they can manifest in people, that is why I say to avoid the occult and ouija boards especially. Ouija boards are like a megaphone to these entities outside your house saying "Party here all invited".Aw, but it glows in the dark now! How cool is that?
I'm sure Parker Brothers/Hasbro will reimburse you for any damage caused by malicious spirits!
Edit: I don't mean to make fun, but the whole Ouija Board scandal always makes me chuckle. :)
Strangely enough it was a Wiccan priestess that told me about this a few days ago, but I've known at lot of cases where people have been seriously scared and some went right off their heads. For the atheists, it's probably our minds playing tricks on us, but you have to admit that things that cause certain people to go loopy should be avoided.
I'm waiting for "People with Faith are Loopy" ;)
|
|
Ummm..... as a psychologist I really don't like the term "loopy". One disturbing trend is that fundamentalist christian religions have an incredibly high rate of untreated mental disorders. Mainly because they don't see these disorders as physical but spiritual.
As an atheist what more do you want me to say. Do I believe these supernatural beliefs are ridiculous, if you want me to be honest, then on a personal level I do. But what did you want me to say to that. Frankly I find religious belief misguided and foolish, but I also believe that religious followers think the same of me.
They do however look for conduits to where they can manifest in people, that is why I say to avoid the occult and ouija boards especially. Ouija boards are like a megaphone to these entities outside your house saying "Party here all invited".Aw, but it glows in the dark now! How cool is that?
I'm sure Parker Brothers/Hasbro will reimburse you for any damage caused by malicious spirits!
Edit: I don't mean to make fun, but the whole Ouija Board scandal always makes me chuckle. :)
Strangely enough it was a Wiccan priestess that told me about this a few days ago, but I've known at lot of cases where people have been seriously scared and some went right off their heads. For the atheists, it's probably our minds playing tricks on us, but you have to admit that things that cause certain people to go loopy should be avoided.
I'm waiting for "People with Faith are Loopy" ;)
I think the ouija board loses a whole bunch of supernatural flavour when you find out is "Oui" and "ja" as in from French and German respectively. Which means the name is literally yes-yes board.
I think the ouija board loses a whole bunch of supernatural flavour when you find out is "Oui" and "ja" as in from French and German respectively. Which means the name is literally yes-yes board.
The ideomotor effect says no no, but the board says yes yes.
Please explain, I would like to know more.
I also want to point out that despite common acceptance of the general Bible-reading populace:Satan =/ Lucifer
Satan =/ the snake in Genesis
I personally disagree about the snake, but the Lucifer name comes from this text:
Lucifer is sometimes, instead of being transcribed as a name, directly translated: Morning Star. Depends on your version of the text.
Looking at the context of Isaiah 14, however, the discussion isn't about the devil - it's about King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Jump back to verse 4, where the long quote begins that includes verse 12 (quoted above):
|
|
Ummm..... as a psychologist I really don't like the term "loopy". One disturbing trend is that fundamentalist christian religions have an incredibly high rate of untreated mental disorders. Mainly because they don't see these disorders as physical but spiritual.
I agree with you that there is a lot of mental illness and disorders that fundamentalist Christians are untreated for. I've seen the whole gamut of seriously disturbed people being "delivered" of demons when they were simply nutso. I have seen all kind of things attributed by the ignorant in our churches to spiritual attacks or evil influences. I have seen charlatans pretending all kinds of miracles too.
However, I have encountered people who are demoniacally possessed too, but they are extremely rare and often don't seem mentally ill at all, except for certain manifestations that I will not mention because it's anecdotal and unprovable by physical science ;)
As an atheist what more do you want me to say. Do I believe these supernatural beliefs are ridiculous, if you want me to be honest, then on a personal level I do. But what did you want me to say to that. Frankly I find religious belief misguided and foolish, but I also believe that religious followers think the same of me.
Actually I don't see atheists as fools or anything, because I'm not willing to judge another person's state of mind as I am not equipped. It makes no difference to me what you think of my beliefs either, I certainly won't be offended. I've been told beyond count by various fundamentalist Christians who disagree with me that I'll burn in Hell too. So I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place :) My life's journey has been one that has led me to faith in God and I answer to Him alone. The one thing He has taught me over the years is to use rational thought as much as is possible, but not to dismiss everything because I am unable to produce or give physical proof. It's faith pure and simple.
Strangely enough I spend more time on religious forums knocking the bigotry and stupidity that so many fundamentalist Christians spout out of sheer ignorance of God or his teachings. Talking with atheists has been an education to say the least.
|
|
I think the ouija board loses a whole bunch of supernatural flavour when you find out is "Oui" and "ja" as in from French and German respectively. Which means the name is literally yes-yes board.They do however look for conduits to where they can manifest in people, that is why I say to avoid the occult and ouija boards especially. Ouija boards are like a megaphone to these entities outside your house saying "Party here all invited".Aw, but it glows in the dark now! How cool is that?
I'm sure Parker Brothers/Hasbro will reimburse you for any damage caused by malicious spirits!
Edit: I don't mean to make fun, but the whole Ouija Board scandal always makes me chuckle. :)
Strangely enough it was a Wiccan priestess that told me about this a few days ago, but I've known at lot of cases where people have been seriously scared and some went right off their heads. For the atheists, it's probably our minds playing tricks on us, but you have to admit that things that cause certain people to go loopy should be avoided.
I'm waiting for "People with Faith are Loopy" ;)
Actually when I was a kid I thought it was spelled weejee :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We had a ouija board epidemic in my 5th grade class. For some reason, a bunch of us got together and started making them out of paper and using them between classes. In a series of strange coincidences between 2004 and 2005 and then again between 2007 and 2008, all the predictions verified by the boards came to pass along with the violent and unexplainable deaths of most of my classmates. From the original cohort, only me and a viriginal girl are still alive, and she's in a mental institution.
That explains so much.
That explains so much.Doesn't it though! I wonder if these incidents happened around easter?
Just what are you implying?
*prepares to pelt CJ with cadburry eggs*
Strangely enough I spend more time on religious forums knocking the bigotry and stupidity that so many fundamentalist Christians spout out of sheer ignorance of God or his teachings.
And how are you so sure you are right and they are all wrong?
|
|
What is the actual rebellion that he's done? Aside from the apocrypha... It is my understanding that he continues his adversarial role from Job in the Gospels. From my understanding of the reading i've done, he has no free will and does his job diligently (until revelation that is).Or if you hold a slanted view of predestination and the omniscient of God, technically he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing in the context of Revelation. Essentially, he's the scapegoat being sent to Azazel.
Right.
What is everyone's take on predestination, then? Whose church utilizes it?
|
|
What is the actual rebellion that he's done? Aside from the apocrypha... It is my understanding that he continues his adversarial role from Job in the Gospels. From my understanding of the reading i've done, he has no free will and does his job diligently (until revelation that is).Or if you hold a slanted view of predestination and the omniscient of God, technically he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing in the context of Revelation. Essentially, he's the scapegoat being sent to Azazel.Right.
What is everyone's take on predestination, then? Whose church utilizes it?
Yes and No.
Some things are predestined, while most everything else is not. I am not sure I can explain my thoughts on this eloquently or properly.
What is everyone's take on predestination, then? Whose church utilizes it?
I think it's the logical consequence of omniscience. If God knows everything, then he must know every choice that will ever be made. If he knows them before they happen, and he can't be wrong, then one can hardly claim that one could have done otherwise.
Denomination-wise, predestination is mostly a Reformed (That is, Calvinist.) thing but shows up in some species of Lutheranism. Elements of Augustinian thought are predestinationist, but Catholicism officially is not.
|
|
Strangely enough I spend more time on religious forums knocking the bigotry and stupidity that so many fundamentalist Christians spout out of sheer ignorance of God or his teachings.And how are you so sure you are right and they are all wrong?
Nope, but I can sense stupidity and bigotry a mile off. So whatever heh :)
|
|
What is the actual rebellion that he's done? Aside from the apocrypha... It is my understanding that he continues his adversarial role from Job in the Gospels. From my understanding of the reading i've done, he has no free will and does his job diligently (until revelation that is).Or if you hold a slanted view of predestination and the omniscient of God, technically he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing in the context of Revelation. Essentially, he's the scapegoat being sent to Azazel.Right.
What is everyone's take on predestination, then? Whose church utilizes it?
I thought it was as Calvinist thing that figured since God knows the beginning and the end of things then He knows who's saved or not. But whatever it ain't for the likes of us to know.
|
|
What is the actual rebellion that he's done? Aside from the apocrypha... It is my understanding that he continues his adversarial role from Job in the Gospels. From my understanding of the reading i've done, he has no free will and does his job diligently (until revelation that is).Or if you hold a slanted view of predestination and the omniscient of God, technically he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing in the context of Revelation. Essentially, he's the scapegoat being sent to Azazel.Right.
What is everyone's take on predestination, then? Whose church utilizes it?
Yes and No.
Some things are predestined, while most everything else is not. I am not sure I can explain my thoughts on this eloquently or properly.
Don't sweat it.
I'm of the opinion that if predestination was true it must affect God as well. If he's omniscient, then he has to know what he's going to be doing in one year (therefore he cannot be omnipotent because he has no power to stop himself from doing that action).
What is everyone's take on predestination, then?
Predestination kind of makes everything irrelevant, doesn't it?
My personal opinion is that it is religious handwavium. It is a distraction from the fact you can not account for the motives of a being that does not exists. Therefore, you insert an imaginary, grandiose plan and for the cherry on top, suggest everyone has a place in it.
It is easy for anyone to 'see' their role once they find something they enjoy and/or are good at. Insert warm fuzzies of belonging and sense of importance here.
Of course you have to side step the problem that innumerable people will never fulfill their role which would bring the entire house of cards down.
If he's omniscient, then he has to know what he's going to be doing in one year (therefore he cannot be omnipotent because he has no power to stop himself from doing that action).
Another difficult paradox created when trying to outdue all the other gods.
|
|
What is the actual rebellion that he's done? Aside from the apocrypha... It is my understanding that he continues his adversarial role from Job in the Gospels. From my understanding of the reading i've done, he has no free will and does his job diligently (until revelation that is).Or if you hold a slanted view of predestination and the omniscient of God, technically he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing in the context of Revelation. Essentially, he's the scapegoat being sent to Azazel.Right.
What is everyone's take on predestination, then? Whose church utilizes it?
Yes and No.
Some things are predestined, while most everything else is not. I am not sure I can explain my thoughts on this eloquently or properly.
Don't sweat it.
I'm of the opinion that if predestination was true it must affect God as well. If he's omniscient, then he has to know what he's going to be doing in one year (therefore he cannot be omnipotent because he has no power to stop himself from doing that action).
I guess I see it like an author who is writing a plot outline in a book. He knows the beginning and the end as well as every major plot point yet is able to allow all the characters to act out the scenes on their own.
Nope, but I can sense stupidity and bigotry a mile off. So whatever heh :)
I am sure there are people who disagree with you that are convinced of their own such ability.
|
|
I guess I see it like an author who is writing a plot outline in a book. He knows the beginning and the end as well as every major plot point yet is able to allow all the characters to act out the scenes on their own.
I might change this a bit. It seems like an author's characters are a little too controlled for your intent. I might instead equate it to a D&D campaign, with the GM (God) controlling the results of the player's (humanity's) actions but not their choice to make them.
Anywhere in the ballpark? I think I see where you're coming from.