Conspiracy of the Century...Jesus and Lucifer, One and the Same!

Even in this forum Christians believe in nothing but their Bible, so here it is, Good Christian Brethren, Your God certainly seems to be the one you always warn the rest of us against.

Took me over 10 years and sh*t load of direct spiritual experiences to really understand what Jesus meant when he said that "I and the Father am One."....

I'm A Christian Mystic ...Love the new testament......Love that you see dead people and have that ability, Love that you are questioning everything....

But no I do not agree at all that Jesus is Satan .....not just because of what it says in the Bible ....but from direct experience ...seeing some folks who in certain situations seems like they get Overtaken by something other than who they really are.

I see Satan as the Ego ......or the direct personification that created the Ego in people.

I see Jesus as he who was and shows how to be free from the Ego.

two complete opposites....
_______________________________________________________
Seems like you grew up in a fundamentalist town of judgmental hypocritical fake arse Christians who condemned everything and anything they could ....and now your out on a revenge trip..

Just chill out Bro-ski ...... that Old version of Christianity is dying a quick death around the world. Its going to be replaced by a New modern day Mystical Christianity of folks who are exactly like Christ ...completely Loving and non-Judgemental...... and they'll be able to show you how you yourself can also experience God directly.

Those old dinosaurs are out the door!!!!!

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
Jesus was jesus,but after a certain church found out that the picture of jesus enabled a demon to come into this realm,it called itself lucifer,lucifer is actualy the jesus christ painting.
god told man to never depict god or jesus in no type of picture idol of any sort,if you understand the spirit world,you will understand the quickest way to our realm is through a picture.
Humans conjured this demon into the world , and now you humans have to live with it.

Here I have a riddle for ya.

A Falcon & Meteor come together to coincide to make this with the launch, journey and lunar landing, a date that is of great importance to the owl people of the one that looks like a Jesus picture.

And no it's not Kid Rock although he was close and does sort of look like the a Jesus pic. Sorry, but someone has the dude on this thread as an avatar, and he grew up just several miles down Van Duke from where I grew up. I never met him of course, just remember the Ford dealership with his family name on it.

Anyway, figure out the Jesus painting riddle, and you will receive.... an attadude. Or is that attitude? Iz forgets.

Btw Kid Rock and I share the same first name. LoL. Well, it's common, and you already know that.

Wait, a Ford Falcon, that's it.

nope.

reply to post by Soke33


While there are many scientists that still have faith, the majority of scientists are either Agnostic Atheist, Agnostic or Deist.

Spirituality is the amalgamation of human input, thought, experience, relationships, emotions etc. I don't over attribute it. I have the spirit in the same way you do, If i see a friend or a love one, i get that feeling. I can still admire the beauty of a sunset.

I don't know why your not happy with my conviction. It's really simple, if you don't have the evidence to prove something then suspend belief and judgement until you do.

Believing without evidence, or "faith" - Is blind speculation. And i dont' consider this a virtue.

No scientist is going to guess that the "wind" is actually an invisible god, or that the volcano is punishing us because of our "sins". In regards to the universe question, we still don't know.

Back in biblical times they thought they were being punished by a god for the earthquakes, volcanoes, and floods, it just so happens they live on a heating and cooling planet. Suddenly the superstitions have dropped.

Science has expressed belief and judgment, often waiting for years to admit they are wrong.

Of course, it is within Science's best interests to correct it's mistakes, to improve theories, to find the most fitting theory until we have a fact.

Because of science, we now know we live in a solar system, in which our planet orbits the sun, it is NOT the sun orbitting the earth.

We now know the Earth in wrong.

Of course science makes mistakes, it's honest about that. What about religion?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Is science not a merger of the efforts of man, also? However, it is mostly in the mind‘s eye (flesh), not the heart (spirit). That is your confession here.

It is not that Agnostic Atheist, Agnostic or Deist scientists, or even people, don’t have heart; it is that they have more mind than heart. They are naturally analytical of what they see through their mind’s eye. Spiritually, this is walking in the flesh, not the spirit.

Who is a man to measure the power of an individual heart, in a spiritual sense? Just because scientists can’t understand physical manifestations, like miraculous healings, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. My doctor and his research scientists still can’t figure out what happened to the incurable, extensive necrosis in my physical body, but it is gone. I have all the evidence I need to believe in God, and so do many others.

Science has come a long way, but so has faith in God. If the two can find common ground and work together within an individual, and it takes hold in others, many secrets are revealed that would otherwise escape mankind.

reply to post by Soke33

It is not that Agnostic Atheist, Agnostic or Deist scientists, or even people, don’t have heart; it is that they have more mind than heart. They are naturally analytical of what they see through their mind’s eye. Spiritually, this is walking in the flesh, not the spirit.

Again i'm not sure what you mean, the "heart" is a metaphor. Everyone has a mind, which grants them the abilitity to experience emotions and "feelings". The essense of the spirit is what's makes you and i human. If anything it's what separates us from animals, it makes up for being a primate.

Who is a man to measure the power of an individual heart, in a spiritual sense? Just because scientists can’t understand physical manifestations, like miraculous healings, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Scientist's may not understand physical and emotional manifestations quite yet, but they have a level of recording "love" and other emotions by observing neurologic data. I'm not saying scientist's understand everything yet.

My doctor and his research scientists still can’t figure out what happened to the incurable, extensive necrosis in my physical body, but it is gone. I have all the evidence I need to believe in God, and so do many others.

Medical anomolies and other "unexplainable" events occur quite often, perhaps they are not as anomalous as scientist's think. It's just "inconsistent" with their current understandings.

It may be unwise to over-attribute it to a curing "GOD" before having the critical information available.

This is the same with quantam mechanics of the universe, it contradicts General Relativity, the mathematics does not tie up, there is something we are not understanding.

Scientists only have so much information, science is ALWAYS at the edge of the "known".

Science has come a long way, but so has faith in God. If the two can find common ground and work together within an individual, and it takes hold in others, many secrets are revealed that would otherwise escape mankind.

Again, they directly contradict each other. Faith is believing a particular theory before having evidence. Science is forming theories with the goal of rationalising current evidence and knowledge.

I'm not saying they cannot exist within a society together. They just should be separated. For example, i'd rather they teach children "Evolution" in school than teaching them "Creationism"

We live in a secular society, where governments and education are not controlled by religion. We have the freedom to practice religion and the freedom NOT to practice religion.

My argument here is that i find religious beliefs irrational. I don't disrespect individual people or attempt to belittle individual people i just highlight my concerns and disagreements with blind unfalsifiable hypothesis.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Again i'm not sure what you mean, the "heart" is a metaphor. Everyone has a mind, which grants them the abilitity to experience emotions and "feelings". The essense of the spirit is what's makes you and i human. If anything it's what separates us from animals, it makes up for being a primate.

What about the spirit of my stallion or little dogs? They have a heart, physically and spiritually. If careless, I could hurt their body or their spirit; and they show pleasure, when I share their favorite treats.

Isn’t that what the famous evolution theory among scientists teaches, that we are only superior animals?

The spirit is obviously a part of a living being that is in addition to physical existence.

I believe the spirit/heart is an energy within living beings. Granted, man has an intellect superior to other animals. Therefore, I believe that man has a spirit superior to other organic beings on earth.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Scientist's may not understand physical and emotional manifestations quite yet, but they have a level of recording "love" and other emotions by observing neurologic data. I'm not saying scientist's understand everything yet.

Medical anomolies and other "unexplainable" events occur quite often, perhaps they are not as anomalous as scientist's think. It's just "inconsistent" with their current understandings.

It may be unwise to over-attribute it to a curing "GOD" before having the critical information available.

If the spirit/heart is in addition to the physical, as I believe, that means there are two parts to all living creatures (including man, with a superior existence).

Maybe science doesn’t understand because they are approaching it from the physical side, not definitely recognizing the spiritual.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
This is the same with quantam mechanics of the universe, it contradicts General Relativity, the mathematics does not tie up, there is something we are not understanding.

Scientists only have so much information, science is ALWAYS at the edge of the "known".

Scientists are not the only ones ALWAYS at the edge of the “known.“ We all search for truth waiting to be discovered.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Science has come a long way, but so has faith in God. If the two can find common ground and work together within an individual, and it takes hold in others, many secrets are revealed that would otherwise escape mankind.

Again, they directly contradict each other. Faith is believing a particular theory before having evidence. Science is forming theories with the goal of rationalising current evidence and knowledge.

I'm not saying they cannot exist within a society together. They just should be separated. For example, i'd rather they teach children "Evolution" in school than teaching them "Creationism"

I believe there has to be reconciliation between the mind/intellect of man and their heart/spirit to find real Truth.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
We live in a secular society, where governments and education are not controlled by religion. We have the freedom to practice religion and the freedom NOT to practice religion.

We live in a society full of the physical and spiritual existence of an advanced species on earth. Our government is controlled by the words, thoughts and actions of this species (spirit of patriotism). However, is not our existence at the mercy of a balance in this natural world? What/Who governs all existence to give us this platform of life? That is common ground between religion and science, and the answer is obviously supernatural, in my opinion.

My position in all of this is that unity is our best chance at learning more verifiable truth. I try not to dissuade people from sharing. There are people knowing things I couldn’t possibly find, and they are sharing it. I appreciate the work of science and religion, even with all of the mistakes that exist within each practice.

reply to post by Soke33

Isn’t that what the famous evolution theory among scientists teaches, that we are only superior animals?

Science doesn't decide what is superior. Evolutionists often say other animals brains are just "wired" differently to ours, as are many other species.

It can certainly be said that we are capable of different things to other animals because of the way we have evolved, our ability to communicate, or admire beauty in a piece of art or a sunset, ideas such as science and mathematics stands in favour of our great capabilities.

Biology is still young, scientists are suprising themselves quite often.

They have a heart, physically and spiritually. If careless, I could hurt their body or their spirit; and they show pleasure, when I share their favorite treats.

It may be that each individual concsciouss animal learns or adapts different "likes" and "dislikes" and they show their enthusiam (or lack of it) in response to different stimulus (a tasty snack or even a harsh whip)

The horse may grow to "like" or "dislike" a person who provides stimulus depending on whether the Horse considers it good or bad. Similarly, spiders and insects could be said to have a "personality" or a "spirit"

It's the essense of those inputs and outputs which determine the "spirit" that you talk about. I don't imagine it's impossible that a horse may grow to "love" someone.

Scientists are not the only ones ALWAYS at the edge of the “known.“ We all search for truth waiting to be discovered.

Science is about gathering information to better understand the reality we exist in. Science can only make theories based on current information. Science is always being updated, but this does not mean it is unreliable, Science admits when it was wrong, when science is right we can make practical uses out of it; medicine to help people, telescopes to see the universe, vehicles to travel. Science is always at the edge of the known, always trying to discover the unknown.

That is common ground between religion and science, and the answer is obviously supernatural, in my opinion.

When you say supernatural, i believe you mean "the unknown". Volcanoes and earthquakes were once "supernatural" forces. We soon learnt that they are NATURAL processes because we live on a heating and cooling planet.

Science removes superstition by explaining previously unknown phenomonen that we have observed. The unknown becomes the known, the supernatural becomes the natural.

In regards to the "Does God exist" unknown? We don't know. Reality MAY need no creator or source, Reality may be infinity. It would be irrational to guess or put absolute faith in a theory before confirming it conclusively.

I appreciate the work of science and religion, even with all of the mistakes that exist within each practice.

Please don't think i am trying to convert you. I'm enjoying the debate, sharing opinions.

I understand your desire for religion and science to co-exist peacefully, but i feel they disagree with each other on fundamental levels.

Morality and ethics of ancient religion has since been improved (evolved) by philosophers and politicians alike throughout our history. It stands in favour that religion was created by man, not God. God would have been wiser than that if God does exist.

I feel there are better ways to communicate our social responsibilities and understandings. Religious or non-religious we can all work towards a common goal (stop the harm and suffering towards humanity, love each other) This concept is easy to understand, even without religion and a belief in God.

Democratic secular society has changed social prejudice towards women, blacks and homosexuals. If the state was ruled by God, this may have never come about. It still hasn't in the Middle East. People are still stoned.

While i don't mind co-existing with peaceful tolerant believers of God, i don't see the need for the dogma, rituals, metaphysical claims (Heaven, Hell, Sins, Prayer, Miracles) - I believe these to be constructs of man, not characterists of "GOD".

I can't prove whether God exists or does not, i don't have evidence, scientist's don't. I ask you, how does religion "KNOW"?

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Science doesn't decide what is superior. Evolutionists often say other animals brains are just "wired" differently to ours, as are many other species.

It can certainly be said that we are capable of different things to other animals because of the way we have evolved, our ability to communicate, or admire beauty in a piece of art or a sunset, ideas such as science and mathematics stands in favour of our great capabilities.

Biology is still young, scientists are suprising themselves quite often.

I believe it is nature that decides what is superior. It is the strong that survives, on a universal scale. Even in the demise of a body, whether it be earthly or celestial, new life abounds. It has seemingly done that for millions and billions of years.

The infancy of science and religion is understandable, when one considers the lifespan of man, and the many generations that have passed. There has always been a break in knowledge passed from one generation to another. Ultimately, our own generation, with this explosion of knowledge, finding it difficult to trace our evolution, as an organic species.

I like this view, a lot:

Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is seen only in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade and ploughshare to machines drilling, reaping, and binding, &c. But the birds build their nests to-day as at the beginning. The moment we pass the boundary line, and enter the Divine sphere, no trace or vestige of evolution is seen. There is growth and development within, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another. -E.W. Bullinger, Companion Bible. Ap 5


The matter that exists in the universe is the same matter that has always been. It has been reconfigured throughout time, and we know that much from science. The DNA that is alive and functioning is still the same DNA that started it, basically, isn’t it? If you think of how reproduction of any kind works, something existed first to allow for propagation. For procreation, there must be creation.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Science is about gathering information to better understand the reality we exist in. Science can only make theories based on current information. Science is always being updated, but this does not mean it is unreliable, Science admits when it was wrong, when science is right we can make practical uses out of it; medicine to help people, telescopes to see the universe, vehicles to travel. Science is always at the edge of the known, always trying to discover the unknown.

Religion functions among people much like science does. It’s all about the money and power, yet they both serve a practical purpose.

After all of these generations, we arrive with everyone in their places, and it was the beliefs and intellects of the strong that placed us all. It has happened instinctively, but not always compassionately.

Our world consists of peoples from third-estate to priests and nobles, as it always has. The strongest set the standards and bring forth advancement, for the rest of the world at this point in time…like a wave.

For me, it came down to my needing to bust out of the box that has been created by big, strong mankind…and to feel free from the violent tempest of confusion.

I don’t like a lot of what science states in their bottom line.

“Well, you will only live for an average of 80 years; but, hey, enjoy it while you can.”

I needed hope for me, and science couldn’t give me that. I need more than medicines, telescopes, vehicles and an age limit. I also need more than a Book and a plate in my face.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
When you say supernatural, i believe you mean "the unknown". Volcanoes and earthquakes were once "supernatural" forces. We soon learnt that they are NATURAL processes because we live on a heating and cooling planet.

I do agree that supernatural = unknown, as God’s ways are so much greater than our own, according to my belief. But what is this soon stuff? How long did mankind exist before they had the scientific mental ability to discern the heating and the cooling of the earth and prove it across the globe?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Science removes superstition by explaining previously unknown phenomonen that we have observed. The unknown becomes the known, the supernatural becomes the natural.

In regards to the "Does God exist" unknown? We don't know. Reality MAY need no creator or source, Reality may be infinity. It would be irrational to guess or put absolute faith in a theory before confirming it conclusively.

You will pardon me, if I don’t wait for science to prove God. I don’t think I’ll make it another thirty years or so. Not to mention, will the future generations get accurate knowledge to progress further? One has to wonder, with the scientists changing data to promote their theory of global warming.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Please don't think i am trying to convert you. I'm enjoying the debate, sharing opinions.

I understand your desire for religion and science to co-exist peacefully, but i feel they disagree with each other on fundamental levels.

Morality and ethics of ancient religion has since been improved (evolved) by philosophers and politicians alike throughout our history. It stands in favour that religion was created by man, not God. God would have been wiser than that if God does exist.

I am enjoying our discussion, too; and I am not trying to convert you to a religion. I am my own belief system.

That belief system is that men manipulate all they do know for their own advancement, most of the time. Our physical bodies die and return to the earth after such a short time, considering the age of the universe. All that has existed and will exist in creation was here long before the men of this generation. Nothing man does can change the nature of existence, only themselves in it. I say that God has been wiser than that.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I feel there are better ways to communicate our social responsibilities and understandings. Religious or non-religious we can all work towards a common goal (stop the harm and suffering towards humanity, love each other) This concept is easy to understand, even without religion and a belief in God.

Democratic secular society has changed social prejudice towards women, blacks and homosexuals. If the state was ruled by God, this may have never come about. It still hasn't in the Middle East. People are still stoned.

While i don't mind co-existing with peaceful tolerant believers of God, i don't see the need for the dogma, rituals, metaphysical claims (Heaven, Hell, Sins, Prayer, Miracles) - I believe these to be constructs of man, not characterists of "GOD".

I can't prove whether God exists or does not, i don't have evidence, scientist's don't. I ask you, how does religion "KNOW"?

I’ve already given my opinion about the workings of science, religion and man‘s part in both. Both have pluses and minuses, so how can you expect followers of religion to know everything for certainty and be able to prove it, as you admit science can‘t?

Science didn’t start with the invention of equipment aiding study. It was birthed at the same time as theosophy and philosophy, when men first took note of the world around them, looked up at the stars above…and wondered.

What has caused the advancement of the strong worldwide? It was the overcoming of the language barrier. People do have a lot to teach to and learn from each other, and all bring something to the table. Barriers can be removed, as nature has proven. We have observed this because it is recorded. Why can’t everyone always practice it?

I dunno…I can’t figure out what makes so many people slowing agents. That’s an entirely different discussion, in my opinion. I suppose it is an extension of this discussion trying to discern if good and evil are the same thing.

reply to post by Soke33

You will pardon me, if I don’t wait for science to prove God. I don’t think I’ll make it another thirty years or so. Not to mention, will the future generations get accurate knowledge to progress further?

Of course; absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

What evidence to do think scientists may find that proves an omnipotent deity? Proving a deity is number 1 task, task 2 is proving the deity fits a specific religion.

One has to wonder, with the scientists changing data to promote their theory of global warming.

Scientist's or at least political figures make attempts to negate or promote a theory in favour of monetary gains.

Cold fusion has been protested because it could potentially destroy the oil-industry, which would strip people of power. I know some politicians promote global warming so they can tax certain companies and industries, Just another way to loot our pockets really. Although, i admit, we do need to be aware of climate change, and our own effect on the environment. Basically, we need to get off oil!

Science is still realiable, science is just a tool......humans, however, cannot be trusted it seems!

I apologise i can't respond to any of the other points you raised, i feel i have tried to explain my position in earlier posts.

While i feel there is much room for "love and understanding" in a society, i don't believe organised religion does anything useful for society (charity, love, understanding,peace can be achieved without dogma).

Religion offers the description of God that you should subscribe to. It offers the label of religion so you can say you agree with them/ If you are so certain in your beliefs, why should religion need to do any explaining to you? What makes them better at understanding God than yourself?

Again, i have little arguments or concerns towards a belief in God. but organised religion and dogma i believe are irrational and not required.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
What evidence to do think scientists may find that proves an omnipotent deity? Proving a deity is number 1 task, task 2 is proving the deity fits a specific religion.

What evidence will prove a white hole at the other end of a black hole? I agree that neither science, nor any other belief system, has all of the answers in the minds and hearts of the men.

I also agree that religion is a system controlled by men, but science is, too.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Scientist's or at least political figures make attempts to negate or promote a theory in favour of monetary gains.

Really? What do you call patents?

Efforts to patent the first synthetic life form would give its creator a monopoly on a range of genetic engineering…

www.sify.com...

Many scientists are trying to play God. Don’t think that they don’t believe they own it all and act accordingly. They are men in a system, manipulating all they know for their own gain ~ and just as wrong as the religious creeps doing the same exact thing at the other end of the spectrum.

I contend that the manipulators, whether religious or scientific, are the main retardants in mankind discovering more of the real truth about existence.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Science is still realiable, science is just a tool......humans, however, cannot be trusted it seems!

The religions of the world possess ancient writings full of the observations of men. They are records of the minds and hearts of the early philosophers and scientists, which culminate into the theosophy and theology of each belief, on which many people rely. They are a tool, too. The ancient writings of man contain basic principles. It is the weighing of the principles within a belief that prove it right or wrong to an individual.

One thing that both religious and scientific belief systems cannot escape are the proven principles within each system, but that doesn‘t stop some from taking advantage.

The Truth is the Truth, and It exists, whether men can conceive It or not. Both sides are working toward finding more real Truth. Both sides are allowed to participate, in my opinion. If one can’t get past the language barrier and adopt patience with the other side of this task, my experience is that one will remain in confusion.

reply to post by Soke33

Really? What do you call patents?

Money making schemes, copywright enforcers. Security of an idea.

Many scientists are trying to play God

Well we havn't proved God exists yet, so "playing God" is simply a metaphor. Yes, we have created life, is that a bad thing? Not at all, this has massive implications for the well-being of our species, we can design bacteria etc. to fight against cancer, or even cleanse streets etc. The possibilities are endless.

.They are men in a system, manipulating all they know for their own gain ~ and just as wrong as the religious creeps doing the same exact thing at the other end of the spectrum.

Not at all, it's a lot more complicated than that. For example, in medicine, money is a great comoditiy because it allows provably effective medicines to gain financial support.

Although there is corruption amongst politicians who collaborate with scientists, the benefits of science are obvious, the internet, cars, clean water, new cures, robotics etc. etc. etc.

It's not science that is to blame, it's our financial greed. All of us. We can only improve it, perhaps "perfect" it.

The ancient writings of man contain basic principles. It is the weighing of the principles within a belief that prove it right or wrong to an individual.

Principles that have since been improved by philosophers and humanists alike. Even Christianity has "reformed" versions of itself like "Mormonism" that explicitly condmens violence, they are a peaceful people.

Human morality and understanding has evolved, and improved. We don't need God or religion to work together for better understanding and peace amonst our species.

Personally, I'd be happy with religion if it stopped the metaphysical revealed wisdom (God, heaven, hell, sins) I'd be happy enough with the community and working out what is right, unfortunately religion rarely leaves the metaphysical claims out. That's what makes religion.

One thing that both religious and scientific belief systems cannot escape are the proven principles within each system, but that doesn‘t stop some from taking advantage.

And we can only discourage this type of behaviour, that's what morality is, and you don't need religion to enforce it. This is evident today as modernised goverment's are secular, they act without the dogma of a religion.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Soke33

 

Really? What do you call patents?

Money making schemes, copywright enforcers. Security of an idea.

Mmmm….yes, so there are many men, even scientists, trying to secure the discovered effects of the natural laws that have always been there, as their own idea.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Yes, we have created life, is that a bad thing? Not at all, this has massive implications for the well-being of our species, we can design bacteria etc. to fight against cancer, or even cleanse streets etc. The possibilities are endless.

Correction: men have procreated life. That in and of itself is not a bad thing, but is actually a natural gift of what is.

Reminds me of an old joke:

Scientists tell God they don’t need Him anymore because they can create life on their own.
God says, “Show me.”
A scientist picks up a handful of dirt, and God sternly states, “Get your own dirt.”

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

.They are men in a system, manipulating all they know for their own gain ~ and just as wrong as the religious creeps doing the same exact thing at the other end of the spectrum.

Not at all, it's a lot more complicated than that. For example, in medicine, money is a great comoditiy because it allows provably effective medicines to gain financial support.

That is exactly how the spiritual community feels, more common ground.

While science is busy pushing their medicines to balance a mind, there are many spiritual people learning that there are principles of Truth that allow a more natural solution to the healing of the mind. People don’t always need valium or any other drug to deal with every day life; they need to learn the effects of true principles and exercise them. Take a look at the work of science in this field, and see just how much money they make, as people become reliant on their medicines to live every day life, rather than the principles of philosophical truth accepted and practiced within their own individual belief systems.

What extortion!

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Although there is corruption amongst politicians who collaborate with scientists, the benefits of science are obvious, the internet, cars, clean water, new cures, robotics etc. etc. etc.

Although there is confusion, even corruption, amongst religious leaders, the benefits of proven, basic principles will always show more promise for a society than that of a pill meant to remove a desire to pursue the understanding of it in a human mind and spirit.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
It's not science that is to blame, it's our financial greed. All of us. We can only improve it, perhaps "perfect" it.

And, it is not the spirituality of individuals to blame, either. It is manipulation and greed of certain retardants.

Forward is not the only way to go, but it is the best.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

The ancient writings of man contain basic principles. It is the weighing of the principles within a belief that prove it right or wrong to an individual.

Principles that have since been improved by philosophers and humanists alike. Even Christianity has "reformed" versions of itself like "Mormonism" that explicitly condmens violence, they are a peaceful people.

Human morality and understanding has evolved, and improved. We don't need God or religion to work together for better understanding and peace amonst our species.

I get another good laugh at that joke I shared.

You sure do put a lot of faith into mankind, when they still don’t even know where the dirt originated. LOL!

Again, the new discovery of effects of the natural laws that man may make doesn’t make him the owner of the laws.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Personally, I'd be happy with religion if it stopped the metaphysical revealed wisdom (God, heaven, hell, sins) I'd be happy enough with the community and working out what is right, unfortunately religion rarely leaves the metaphysical claims out. That's what makes religion.

And, I’d be happy, if science could finally prove what makes a human love and hate, but they are more concerned with physical matters. It’s not that they don’t appease the masses, it is that I believe they are leading people down the wrong path many times in the absence of heart because of greed. I see the effects of that every day of my life, personal and professional.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

One thing that both religious and scientific belief systems cannot escape are the proven principles within each system, but that doesn‘t stop some from taking advantage.

And we can only discourage this type of behaviour, that's what morality is, and you don't need religion to enforce it. This is evident today as modernised goverment's are secular, they act without the dogma of a religion.

If you believe that all government is secular, you’d be well inclined to understand that all people within the different governments have a belief system that helps them form their decisions. For example, the US is predominantly Christian, with a very small population that doesn’t believe in some kind of Higher Being and creation, as opposed to evolution.

Simply because there is separation of church and state in this nation, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a robust influence from the principles taught to the ones making the decisions at their stations within the government. The spirit/heart of individuals cannot ultimately be totally squelched. That is a fact.

In your line of reasoning, people should set aside their beliefs to understand the world around them, as one body. In my opinion, people should examine their beliefs more closely by understanding the world around them, which heavily includes other people; and maybe that would give us a better shot at unity.

reply to post by Soke33

And, I’d be happy, if science could finally prove what makes a human love and hate, but they are more concerned with physical matters.

Science can't answer those questions yet, but people are trying. Science CAN determine human values.

I urge you to listen to Sam Harris's lectures regarding his ideas on a "Moral landscape" and how morality can be scientific if we just set ourself some common humanistic goals to better human soldarity, prevent pain and suffering and promote peace amongst our species. It's really that easy.

Morals and ethics are concepts that exist without religion. Religion does not have a monopoly over them. Secular society has improved many of religions "vague" or what we now consider "immoral" teachings. We can improve it.

Spiritualism can exist without God too. We can communicate and share understandings without religion. We can promote peace without religion.
God could be proved wrong tommorow, we still would have to reason together to decide what is best for a just society.

I don't believe in objective morality. I believe it is an illusion.

If God was proved incorrect tommorow, that no omnipotent deity exists - We would still have to reason together to build a just civilisation. I most certainly would want to, and i do so without pressure from (or belief in) a God.

Also, a belief in God can exist without the need to convert other people, without the need for religion and dogma.

Nice talking to you.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Soke33

 

And, I’d be happy, if science could finally prove what makes a human love and hate, but they are more concerned with physical matters.

Science can't answer those questions yet, but people are trying. Science CAN determine human values.

I urge you to listen to Sam Harris's lectures regarding his ideas on a "Moral landscape" and how morality can be scientific if we just set ourself some common humanistic goals to better human soldarity, prevent pain and suffering and promote peace amongst our species. It's really that easy.

Morals and ethics are concepts that exist without religion. Religion does not have a monopoly over them. Secular society has improved many of religions "vague" or what we now consider "immoral" teachings. We can improve it.

They also exist without science. There is indubitable truth.

I’ve listened to and read the writings of more lecturers than you could shake a stick at…including Sam Harris.

It’s always the same thing from my perspective: a person has an epiphany and feels empowered by it. It is a more frequent occurrence in scholars. Then, I open my Book, and I find those principles within that Book. I understand them from a different perspective than that of a man, in my opinion. It gives me an edge, more often than not.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Spiritualism can exist without God too. We can communicate and share understandings without religion. We can promote peace without religion.
God could be proved wrong tommorow, we still would have to reason together to decide what is best for a just society.

I don't believe in objective morality. I believe it is an illusion.

If God was proved incorrect tommorow, that no omnipotent deity exists - We would still have to reason together to build a just civilisation. I most certainly would want to, and i do so without pressure from (or belief in) a God.

Also, a belief in God can exist without the need to convert other people, without the need for religion and dogma.

While you expect a Higher Intelligence not to be discovered, know that Truth exists regardless of the interference of anyone or anything. Someone or Something dictates the natural course of all we know and that we don’t. I am not so arrogant, as a grounded individual in a huge universe, to puff my chest up like that.


You don’t believe in morals based on facts and free from bias?

ob·jec·tive
adj
1. free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings
2. based on facts: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions


Yet, you preach that others shouldn’t believe something without the facts first?

Talk about circular discussion and creating illusion.

Yeah, nice talking to you, too.

reply to post by Soke33

Yet, you preach that others shouldn’t believe something without the facts first?

Talk about circular discussion and creating illusion.

Yeah, nice talking to you, too.

Ha Ha Ha. Yes. Morals should be debated. There is no "facts" regarding morals. If morals were considered objective, and that they were derived from an ancient book revealed by the creator of all "morality" and existence then we wouldn't have decided homophobia was considered immoral now. It's called democracy. It changes, prejudice and xenophobia soon disappear.

Morals evolve or change depending of faith, culture or social evolution.

People put forth their ideas of what is just. People disagree, people agree. It's debate. It's what we're doing now. Morality is subjective and relative. Stealing? Right or wrong? Immoral or moral? What about stealing from corrupt righ? Righteous, moral even? Objective morality is an illusion.

Again; Thanks for the debate.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


you answered your own question in your post.

BY the actions of the church.!!!!

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Soke33

 

Yet, you preach that others shouldn’t believe something without the facts first?

Talk about circular discussion and creating illusion.

Yeah, nice talking to you, too.

Ha Ha Ha. Yes. Morals should be debated. There is no "facts" regarding morals. If morals were considered objective, and that they were derived from an ancient book revealed by the creator of all "morality" and existence then we wouldn't have decided homophobia was considered immoral now. It's called democracy. It changes, prejudice and xenophobia soon disappear.

Moral Objective Fact: Adults should not have sex with babies.

Do you honestly believe that is up for debate?

Not everything has to be proven by science to be a law of morality.

Can you name one social law statute, an established rule, that is based on science? Maybe, I see you are in the UK.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Morals evolve or change depending of faith, culture or social evolution.

People put forth their ideas of what is just. People disagree, people agree. It's debate. It's what we're doing now. Morality is subjective and relative. Stealing? Right or wrong? Immoral or moral? What about stealing from corrupt righ? Righteous, moral even? Objective morality is an illusion.

Our laws are based on societal norms and evolution-derived taboos to ensure group cohesion. - an atheist

Maybe that is how it is where you are, but the US is not a democracy; it is a Republic.

The American Form of Government:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Soke33

Can you name one social law statute, an established rule, that is based on science? Maybe, I see you are in the UK.

In my country, smoking in public places is against the law. This law is based on sciences evidence that passive smoking is harmful, and that many people dislike it in general, the law was passed because many people made an active attempt to raise awareness to peoples concerns in the form of politics.

Sam Harris: Science CAN determine human values. Science can guide morality.

Moral Objective Fact: Adults should not have sex with babies.

Although, I don't know many cultures or societies that consider this to be "moral" in regards to their moral set of codes, no tribe or civilisation has throughout history.

Besides, it's scientifically obvious that this would cause harm the baby.

Just because i'm saying morality is not objective does not mean that harming a baby is neither considered right or wrong. There are many reasons why people consider this to be immoral in every society on Earth. Who wants to harm their children? (Except for a few psycopaths like Joseph Fritzl)

This is where we disagree, you believe in objective morality, i do not. we will have to agree to disagree wtih each other's worldviews.

This Jesus is Lucifer concept sounds cool...until you realize the fatal flaw in the argument.

The Bible's use of the word Lucifer was in no way referring to a supernatural being. The passage was about the king of Egypt falling from riches to rags...and as a way of example it compared him to the planet Venus as a bright "star"...it's basically a mistranslation that seeped it's way into theology.

Let me make this clear...the Bible makes NO mention of ANY character named Lucifer. Christians who believe that simply do not understand what they are reading.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Soke33

 

Moral Objective Fact: Adults should not have sex with babies.

Although, I don't know many cultures or societies that consider this to be "moral" in regards to their moral set of codes, no tribe or civilisation has throughout history.

Besides, it's scientifically obvious that this would cause harm the baby.

Just because i'm saying morality is not objective does not mean that harming a baby is neither considered right or wrong. There are many reasons why people consider this to be immoral in every society on Earth. Who wants to harm their children? (Except for a few psycopaths like Joseph Fritzl)

This is where we disagree, you believe in objective morality, i do not. we will have to agree to disagree wtih each other's worldviews.

edit on 2/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

I think we agree more than you think we do. You've proven here that you accept an objective moral, in my opinion.

All science can prove is that that exists. As you've stated, much of science is in infancy.

Men possess intuitiveness, even if it has not been proven scientifically.