I'm not sure who annoys me the most, evangelical Christians or evangelical athiests. Since you can't prove spirituality, you beat each other over
the head with words. Stop trying to shove your belief system down my throat. I used to be as bad. I understand stating an opinion, but this
constant bickering over who has the right religion/ant-religion is really sad.
Humans created God., page 4
privacy
reply posted on 24-6-2009 @ 08:50 AM by Hemisphere
reply to post by Imago Dei
Thanks for confirming my intuitions. You're being obtuse on Hillel the Elder. Of the "Golden Rule" fame. Cute Imago. It's not Hilliel. You expect others to take your Panin seriously?
Panins work has not been debunked in that it is in the same category as Bertrand Russel's teapot. A sane researcher would not waste a day let alone 50 years trying to debunk this. That is also the reason his work is virtually unknown after all this time.
Russel was in a nutshell stating that the burden of proof is not on the skeptic but on the claimant of the improbable. No one has debunked the teapot either. Why? It is not worthy of the effort and neither is Panin's numerology. I think most believers would consider research into Panin unnecessary as the inspired word of God should be self-evident without the numerology. That it is not is why there are many non-believers. I for one think that the creator of the universe would communicate in a much more direct way with it's creation than either through select prophets or an encrypted code. That I mention Hillel to you is that Christ's teachings are only slightly deviant in wordage from other human law-givers of his own supposed life time and as far back as the Code of Hammurabi some 1800 years BC and earlier. This to many non-believers is proof enough that humane laws for life are not God given but are evolved human thinking. Many believers are incapable of living a humane life without the threat of a vengeful God. How about you? Do you struggle without that threat to "do unto others"? I'm thinking you do by your Rubik's Cube comment. You can play coy but my imagination and that of anyone reading your comments was not in the least tested. You were and are frustrated as you have said:
I think the following passage explains the reasons for doubting the Biblical texts. Coincidental numerology can't detract from the evil that various scriptures have inspired. If the inspired word of God inspires evil in this life I'm out of there. I hold the creator of the universe to a higher standard. That said, I simply don't believe that he/she/or it is bothering to inspire us in scripture or by any means.
Imago, I understand you're not promoting a particular organized sect of Christianity. But the Bible was written and translated and dissected for human purposes including it's numerical coincidences by and for various sects and so the Dawkins quote is pertinent. Was Panin's life work self-aggrandizement?
You wouldn't accept another book as "Gospel" on the basis of numerology. Poetry and music can and has been written on a numerical basis from the beginning. Bach and haiku of recent vintage come immediately to mind. Why were, and I'm accepting any numerological coincidence for the sake of discussion, the scriptures not written in poetic form? Were'nt the psalms just that? Poems? Wasn't that part and parcel to the Jewish tradition? Wouldn't the continuity of the tradition come into play? Would not every scripturist keep with the preceding form? Many tribal societies, especially the Jews were sticklers for this. Why were the Jewish scribes holed up in monasteries if they were simply transcribing historically accurate accounts or letting the word of God flow from their pens? Because there was time, effort and perfecting away from critical eyes that was needed. Would they not also go back and make the connections and tie-ins to the established story lines and traditions? And so the Christ fits the established plot? And his story was written minimally some 80 years after he lived by all estimations, by writers who never met him. They had plenty of time to concoct his history and perfect the poetry. Couldn't the earlier scriptures been also written at leisure and perfected in rhythm, rhyme and numerical value by human effort lets say to the tune of 50+ years in a monastery? Every age has it's mad monks. Just a thought.
Thanks for confirming my intuitions. You're being obtuse on Hillel the Elder. Of the "Golden Rule" fame. Cute Imago. It's not Hilliel. You expect others to take your Panin seriously?
Panins work has not been debunked in that it is in the same category as Bertrand Russel's teapot. A sane researcher would not waste a day let alone 50 years trying to debunk this. That is also the reason his work is virtually unknown after all this time.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. - Bertrand Russel
Russel was in a nutshell stating that the burden of proof is not on the skeptic but on the claimant of the improbable. No one has debunked the teapot either. Why? It is not worthy of the effort and neither is Panin's numerology. I think most believers would consider research into Panin unnecessary as the inspired word of God should be self-evident without the numerology. That it is not is why there are many non-believers. I for one think that the creator of the universe would communicate in a much more direct way with it's creation than either through select prophets or an encrypted code. That I mention Hillel to you is that Christ's teachings are only slightly deviant in wordage from other human law-givers of his own supposed life time and as far back as the Code of Hammurabi some 1800 years BC and earlier. This to many non-believers is proof enough that humane laws for life are not God given but are evolved human thinking. Many believers are incapable of living a humane life without the threat of a vengeful God. How about you? Do you struggle without that threat to "do unto others"? I'm thinking you do by your Rubik's Cube comment. You can play coy but my imagination and that of anyone reading your comments was not in the least tested. You were and are frustrated as you have said:
If I am battling with anything internally it's probably with the amount of time I am wasting in futile discussion on this forum when I should be spending my time on more fruitful endeavors. - Imago Dei
I think the following passage explains the reasons for doubting the Biblical texts. Coincidental numerology can't detract from the evil that various scriptures have inspired. If the inspired word of God inspires evil in this life I'm out of there. I hold the creator of the universe to a higher standard. That said, I simply don't believe that he/she/or it is bothering to inspire us in scripture or by any means.
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first. - Richard Dawkins
Imago, I understand you're not promoting a particular organized sect of Christianity. But the Bible was written and translated and dissected for human purposes including it's numerical coincidences by and for various sects and so the Dawkins quote is pertinent. Was Panin's life work self-aggrandizement?
You wouldn't accept another book as "Gospel" on the basis of numerology. Poetry and music can and has been written on a numerical basis from the beginning. Bach and haiku of recent vintage come immediately to mind. Why were, and I'm accepting any numerological coincidence for the sake of discussion, the scriptures not written in poetic form? Were'nt the psalms just that? Poems? Wasn't that part and parcel to the Jewish tradition? Wouldn't the continuity of the tradition come into play? Would not every scripturist keep with the preceding form? Many tribal societies, especially the Jews were sticklers for this. Why were the Jewish scribes holed up in monasteries if they were simply transcribing historically accurate accounts or letting the word of God flow from their pens? Because there was time, effort and perfecting away from critical eyes that was needed. Would they not also go back and make the connections and tie-ins to the established story lines and traditions? And so the Christ fits the established plot? And his story was written minimally some 80 years after he lived by all estimations, by writers who never met him. They had plenty of time to concoct his history and perfect the poetry. Couldn't the earlier scriptures been also written at leisure and perfected in rhythm, rhyme and numerical value by human effort lets say to the tune of 50+ years in a monastery? Every age has it's mad monks. Just a thought.
reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 08:10 AM by darkelf
reply to post by Imago Dei
But I did offer my opinion. You cannot prove spirituality! I’ve been contributing to threads like this for over four years. Most of these threads end up as a bash fest. You can neither prove nor disprove God. The OP presented his belief, why argue?
Originally posted by Imago Dei
Originally posted by darkelf
I'm not sure who annoys me the most, evangelical Christians or evangelical athiests. Since you can't prove spirituality, you beat each other over the head with words. Stop trying to shove your belief system down my throat. I used to be as bad. I understand stating an opinion, but this constant bickering over who has the right religion/ant-religion is really sad.
Its a "religious conspiracy" forum with the thread title "Humans Created God" obviously you are going to get strong conflicting opinions.
Condescending self rightous fence sitters who dont offer an opinion only a judgment annoy me the most.
[edit on 24-6-2009 by Imago Dei]
But I did offer my opinion. You cannot prove spirituality! I’ve been contributing to threads like this for over four years. Most of these threads end up as a bash fest. You can neither prove nor disprove God. The OP presented his belief, why argue?
reply posted on 26-6-2009 @ 11:52 PM by Imago Dei
Originally posted by darkelf
reply to post by Imago Dei
Originally posted by Imago Dei
Originally posted by darkelf
I'm not sure who annoys me the most, evangelical Christians or evangelical athiests. Since you can't prove spirituality, you beat each other over the head with words. Stop trying to shove your belief system down my throat. I used to be as bad. I understand stating an opinion, but this constant bickering over who has the right religion/ant-religion is really sad.
Its a "religious conspiracy" forum with the thread title "Humans Created God" obviously you are going to get strong conflicting opinions.
Condescending self rightous fence sitters who dont offer an opinion only a judgment annoy me the most.
[edit on 24-6-2009 by Imago Dei]
But I did offer my opinion. You cannot prove spirituality! I’ve been contributing to threads like this for over four years. Most of these threads end up as a bash fest. You can neither prove nor disprove God. The OP presented his belief, why argue?
You didnt give an opinion you made a couple of ludicrous statements and blasted anyone else who has an opinion. You can not prove God to someone who doesn't want proof. That would be more accurate.
When the light came into the world the world loved darkness and ran away an hid from the light for fear of it exposing their evil deeds. No one seeks after God. God seeks after people.
And why post a thread topic, if you are not looking for input and the thoughts of others? Infact if we take your premis to the extreme, the whole internet forum community is a total waste of time, talk fest or bash fest, where like ants running around butting heads all trying to save each other or trying win threads and influence sheeple.
Your probably totally and utterly burnt out by it after fours years. I am after four months.
Having said that, I beg to differ that the existence of God cannot be proven, quite the contrary. Which is why I bothered posting. Is that alright with you? Or does it annoy you?
Although inspite of overwhelming, irrefutable evidence (that's right irrefuteable) People still choose to ignore it and go on their merry way down the slippery slope into hell.
"Eat drink and be merry people " For tomorrow we die"
Also spirituality is evidenced in how human beings live their lives. The fruits of the spirit or lack there of cannot be ignored, it is how we identify what people believe in their hearts and minds. You might think I am not demonstarting much spiritual fruit, but you get what you give, "do unto others as you would have done unto you" Works both in the negative as well as in the positive.
Seek the truth and you will find it means finding the truth about yourself. It's not a nebulous concept in a book store that you might stumble accross one day if your lucky. The truth is, you are not God, your are His creation, and you are lost, God is not lost. You are separated from God. When you accept that fact, and that truth about yourself you can make steps to allow God to rectify the situation.
However in four years of entring into debate, no doubt you have had people like me telling you stuff like this till they are blue in the face. Clearly you dont want to know, nor do you want to look at the evidence, so If people with strong opinions annoy you, switch off your computer.
[edit on 27-6-2009 by Imago Dei]
reply posted on 29-6-2009 @ 07:57 AM by darkelf
reply to post by Imago Dei
Since you have replied to my I'm right you're wrong thread, I think you can see where I am coming from. If you have read the entire thread, you can see how it devolved into what I was trying to prevent.
The Bible is not a jigsaw puzzle or a cut and paste document. I have enjoyed debates over what certain topics mean. But one cannot debate opinions. Spirituality is a personal experience. I have no doubt of the existence of God, but that is a journey each individual must make on their own.
When we stop trying to prove we are right or that the other is wrong, we open up to new possibilities. We can either learn something new or reinforce what we already know. Either way, one cannot deny ignorance or find truth without challenging their own beliefs.
Which is why I made the comment about evangelicals.
Since you have replied to my I'm right you're wrong thread, I think you can see where I am coming from. If you have read the entire thread, you can see how it devolved into what I was trying to prevent.
The Bible is not a jigsaw puzzle or a cut and paste document. I have enjoyed debates over what certain topics mean. But one cannot debate opinions. Spirituality is a personal experience. I have no doubt of the existence of God, but that is a journey each individual must make on their own.
When we stop trying to prove we are right or that the other is wrong, we open up to new possibilities. We can either learn something new or reinforce what we already know. Either way, one cannot deny ignorance or find truth without challenging their own beliefs.
Which is why I made the comment about evangelicals.
reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 03:10 AM by Imago Dei
Originally posted by darkelf
reply to post by Imago Dei
Since you have replied to my I'm right you're wrong thread, I think you can see where I am coming from. If you have read the entire thread, you can see how it devolved into what I was trying to prevent.
The Bible is not a jigsaw puzzle or a cut and paste document. I have enjoyed debates over what certain topics mean. But one cannot debate opinions. Spirituality is a personal experience. I have no doubt of the existence of God, but that is a journey each individual must make on their own.
When we stop trying to prove we are right or that the other is wrong, we open up to new possibilities. We can either learn something new or reinforce what we already know. Either way, one cannot deny ignorance or find truth without challenging their own beliefs.
Which is why I made the comment about evangelicals.
I think if you read my post on your thread you will actually see that I have no idea where you are coming form. The bible (IE GOD) says that we are to reason together over the "correct" meaning of His words, in actual fact it is impossible to reason with anyone, firstly who does not believe that His word is divinely inspired and 2. A complete waste of time to debate anything to do with God and His word (including other faiths and religions)with one who doesnt believe this, or at least who is not inquiring or seeking the truth.
So in essence I guess I have come full circle with you here and must confess that the initial post of yours on this thread that I responded to was quite right. It was a waste of my time even responding. You where right. I was wrong. Sorry.
If on the other hand, we remove personal, spiritual, religious and political (and our favourite sports teams
) beliefs from the equation, for
the most part, us human beings get on rather well. A bloke came to fix my computer this morning, obviously a staunch muslem wearing muslem garb, long
beard and a white cap. We got on well, he was a nice enough chap. The problems eventuate when we try to "save" each other. Sadly, thats we we end
up dead! To borrow a statement from your thread that I raised which is the commandment in the satanic bible
"do what ever you want shall be the whole of the law" (assuming that doesn't mean killing raping and pilaging etc etc for arguments sake) Would possibly lead to us humans getting along fine.
I think we all want to live in peace you and I both, live and let live etc believe what you want to belive etc. Would you agree that this is generally the structure or premise of democracy in the western world? I know its the ideal, which only begs the questions; why are human beings so intent on killing and hurting themselves and each other?
My conclusion is, there must be a great evil pervading our world, our mind our very being, is this evil man made? Perhaps yes, alot of it certainly is, but didnt we just suggest most of us want peace, yes? So may be there is more to it than that, maybe just knowing there is a God or their might be God, is not enough, and if there is a God, and if there is a devil aren't we as believers not responsibe to seek and to save with the good news and are we not responsible to expose evil and be vocal about it even at the risk of our own death for don't we know we will live for eternity? Or is it better to keep the peace, hold our tongues and let our fellow man or bothers and sisters and neighbours head off into the abyss. These are questions I struggle and restle with ( not as much as I should) because are they not the foundation of our very existence? Im just thinking out loud here.
[edit on 30-6-2009 by Imago Dei]
What if all the major religions started out with the same story and it slowly diverged from there
Posted 7 days ago with 11 member flags
Posted 7 days ago with 11 member flags
Christians Waking Up? Voluntary \'De-Baptism\' Rising in Europe
Posted 19 days ago with 7 member flags
Posted 19 days ago with 7 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
REMINDER :Ron Paul march in D.C. Feb.20 at noon dont forget
2012 US Elections, Posted 54 minutes ago
2012 US Elections, Posted 54 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Video: Angry Dad Shoots Daughter's Laptop [Posts on Facebook]
General Chit Chat, Posted 16 hours ago, 35 flags
General Chit Chat, Posted 16 hours ago, 35 flags
Threatened by a Ron Paul victory in Maine, GOP (insider spills beans) adds last minute caucuses.
2012 US Elections, Posted 9 hours ago, 24 flags
2012 US Elections, Posted 9 hours ago, 24 flags
Current Potential Habitable Worlds - Update February 2012
Space Exploration, Posted 11 hours ago, 20 flags
Space Exploration, Posted 11 hours ago, 20 flags
Egypt: Muslims attempt to purge village near Alexandria of its Christian population
Middle East Issues, Posted 15 hours ago, 16 flags
Middle East Issues, Posted 15 hours ago, 16 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Video: Angry Dad Shoots Daughter's Laptop [Posts on Facebook]
General Chit Chat, Posted 16 hours ago, 220 replies
General Chit Chat, Posted 16 hours ago, 220 replies
BREAKING rumour: Kim Jong-Un assassinated?
Breaking Political News, Posted 14 hours ago, 169 replies
Breaking Political News, Posted 14 hours ago, 169 replies
Most Canadians want the death penalty back
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 97 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 97 replies
Egypt: Muslims attempt to purge village near Alexandria of its Christian population
Middle East Issues, Posted 15 hours ago, 79 replies
Middle East Issues, Posted 15 hours ago, 79 replies
EWTN (Catholic TV Network) Sues Obama Admin Over Mandate
US Political Madness, Posted 15 hours ago, 72 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 15 hours ago, 72 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.280 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.280 seconds
