Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

page: 35
22
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Re Undo

Sometimes you manifest a singlemindedness, which is hard to follow. Didn't you get my clear message of an offer of double-splitting in the proper context, which is NOT here.

Maybe some of the rest of your post fits remotely with this thread.

Quote: ["had we not known what was and wasn't sin, we would not be condemned by our own consciences.....]

Whoa. Are you preaching or communicating? The actual existence of 'sin' in a spiritual context has yet to be established as a fact demonstrated to me, before I engage in communication involving it as a reference point.

It possibly can't have escaped your attention, that I have an extreme dislike for operating with doctrinal values. I want to be able to trace my various explorations back to the relative safe ground of axioms.

Your speculations on genesis sounds interesting, but like some people are tone-deaf, I'm utterly mytho-poetical deaf. Without any faults of yours I didn't understand a word of it.
edit on 25-1-2011 by bogomil because: syntax




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


As I said, if it's seen in multiple places, it is reasonable to deduce it's related. That's your reasoning right there.

Don't have time? Don't get involved.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Your speculations on genesis sounds interesting, but like some people are tone-deaf, I'm utterly mytho-poetical deaf. Without any faults of yours I didn't understand a word of it.


i was just posing the double slit in the framework of the genesis story. it had dawned on me that thought was similiar, in a way, to observing. the observation, in this case, the understanding or knowledge had essentially changed the equation, which lead to the idea that it was like collapsing wave function when the super positioned particle was observed.

thinking outloud. i do that alot.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


If they are not the correct positions for the names, you have no evidence to suggest it is Jesus. You're the one saying Jesus never existed. So if he never existed, it could very well be anybody else named Jesus at that time. Considering that name is Joshua, it was extremely common.

But are you saying Jesus did exist ? If so why can this not be your guy ?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


Because some guy named Pedro on the road in Texas wanting work is not the same Pedro owning a multinational industry in Mexico City.

Do try to use some sense.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by The Djin
 


Because some guy named Pedro on the road in Texas wanting work is not the same Pedro owning a multinational industry in Mexico City.

Do try to use some sense.



When the evidence for the Pedros is equal and we don't know that Pedro on the road didn't get a job and later built a multinational then there is no sense to your response.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


People will know about one Pedro by his sheer wealth and acts.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Re Undo,

fair enough about your difficulties expressing modern science/invisible world syncretism. It's a tough subject. I hope it will please you to hear (if you don't already know it), that such efforts of syncretism already exist far exceeding 'The Tao of physics' and increasingly are becoming housebroken amongst rational thinking people.

Which ofcourse also means, that the whole fringe will hang onto it and try to push various home-brewed imititations.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Re Gorman91

You wrote:

["Don't have time? Don't get involved."]

I have time for sensible things, not ego-expanding nonsense. And as you can see, I'm getting less and less involved. Everybody happy.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Not really. I actually wanted to know those things.

But like I said, you don't supply any meat to your words.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Re Gorman91

Deductive reasoning (in daily-usage language: Logic) can be used and controlled pragmatically by anyone familiar with its procedures, and shows uniform results independant of the individual using it. Inside a very broad context, this is classed as 'objective'.

Inductive reasoning, whether it's by category, analogy or its other versions, depends on the contexts its user put things in; it can't be tested pragmatically and the results depend on on the specific mindset of the user. This is classed as 'subjective'.

'Subjective' manifests in the context of systematic methodology as an extension of the user's ego, and has very small evidential value in contemporary terms.

Any home-brewed systematic methodology making claims of logic procedures and outcoming evidential value, must first define its own parameters, axioms, operational methodology and control methods, start from square one to demonstrate its functional validity, and test the outcome pragmatically, before it can be considered housebroken.

Constructing a mish-mash of hijacked elements from already existing functional systematic methodologies, and pushing it as the real thing is totally dysfunctional, and also an intellectual scam. Its ego-centered character and potential makes it popular amongst individuals motivated by whims, predetermined answers or sensationalism.


Is that meat enough?
edit on 26-1-2011 by bogomil because: grammar and semantic



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Nope. because you did not say HOW I am doing those things. This has been your inability since your first post here.

Objective thought is never really possible. You can get really close, but humans always add their viewpoints to it. I try my best not to. IE: Proof of Jesus is not proof he was the son of God. Proof of one part of the bible is not proof that all of it is true. But when I see a proof, I say it.



Constructing a mish-mash of hijacked elements from already existing functional systematic methodologies, and pushing it as the real thing is totally dysfunctional, and also an intellectual scam. Its ego-centered character and potential makes it popular amongst individuals motivated by whims, predetermined answers or sensationalism.


From a purely historic context, you're wrong. Objective history means taking in all the various stories people tell, and then checking it out for common lineages. Then, we check the solid facts left behind. There is proof of Jesus having existed from the wide spread stories of him. There is physical proof he existed in the writings of those whom observed him. Now this isn't modern day where we can just take up a bone of Jesus, get a read out, and say he existed. Things having to do with people who existed from before we have physical artifacts of them have always been done via the way I mentioned. Now if you want to call it wrong, you then have to beg to question Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander the great, and many other historic people whom's only evidence for having existed is the stories and writings about them.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Re Gorman91

You wrote:

["Objective thought is never really possible. You can get really close, but humans always add their viewpoints to it. I try my best not to. IE: Proof of Jesus is not proof he was the son of God. Proof of one part of the bible is not proof that all of it is true. But when I see a proof, I say it."]

Re-reading my latest post you may THIS time notice, that I said 'objective in a very broad context'. I didn't talk about ultimate objectivity, which is an epistemological perspective outside the present scope.

Now please demonstrate your basis. If possible without too much verbal embellishment.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by The Djin
 


People will know about one Pedro by his sheer wealth and acts.


I refer to my original question

And now for a second line just to keep the mods off my case for failing to write an essay



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


The evidence for your tomb and Jesus is not equal.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


The evidence for Jesus and Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, for one example, is equal. In fact one can even make a bit of a Parallel. Both taught, both created, both had a following, and both had people years later rediscover their works and gathered a following. However, both were common men in each other's respective communities. Average by all sorts. However, we assume Marcus Vitruvius Pollio existed. Why do you deny the same for Jesus?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by The Djin
 


The evidence for your tomb and Jesus is not equal.

Which jesus the one that appears in the gospels ?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 





which lead to the idea that it was like collapsing wave function when the super positioned particle was observed. thinking outloud. i do that alot.


Food for thought




posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


yes. There is no physical connection between your tomb and Jesus other than name. That's not enough for a single case.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by The Djin
 


yes. There is no physical connection between your tomb and Jesus other than name. That's not enough for a single case.


Location,Time, 2 Marys, Son of Joseph Jesus son of Joseph

The odds -


Nevertheless, to allow for any possible criticism regarding the inclusion of Matia (or Matthew) – since this name is not explicitly referenced in the canonical Gospels – Feueverger decided to eliminate him from the equation. The new probability that this was not the family of tomb of Jesus was 1 in 2,400,000. Once the unintentional bias had been accounted for, that number dropped to 1 in 600 (still a low probability from a statistical standpoint). However, when one takes into the account the ossuary containing the name “Yose”, the new probability that this is not the tomb of Jesus suddenly becomes exceptionally rare. That is because this name – a rare nickname for the Hebrew name, “Yosef”. Indeed, as Simcha explains, of the more than 30,000 ossuaries discovered in Jerusalem, only one bearing this name has been found.



Now seeing as how your man is not mentioned in any literature prior to 68 years after his alleged death and his attributes match so closely there is no reason why this could not be your man.

To say that Pedro could not have been an immigrant who ended up living the American dream is ridiculous.

Anyhow, one would have thought you'd be jumping for joy at the thought of the discovery of real evidence of the gospel Jesus





top topics
 
22
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join