The Great Jesus Swindle, Greatest lie ever told.

reply to post by aero56
Unfortunatley, in this day and age, that statement is mostly true.

Matthew 13

10. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11. He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15. For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

************************************

THAT is a Brilliant Conspiracy!

reply to post by AceWombat04


yeah that was in the video i linked about the riddle of black holes. susskind thinks the super massive black holes at the center of galaxies are generating holographic galaxies, including all the material in those galaxies.

reply to post by Extralien

No fear mongering. No propaganda. Opinion.

reply to post by AceWombat04


Are you kidding me? Of course I can prove that the couch behind me exists. It's behind me, I just looked at it and I have sat on it many times. I will never support the holographic universe theory unless it is proven. If everything is just a hologram, then my life doesn't matter because I'm just a damn hologram. If I'm not real, what's the point? This theory is beyond ridiculous. What the hell is the point in someone even living if they think that a holographic universe is a possibility? If you think that you can't even prove something in front of you exists, you're a solipsist. Try punching yourself in the face or banging your knee on a table and then try to tell me that you and the table may not exist. I find solipsism to be very funny. It's about as retarded as religion, although I still say that religion is the most retarded system ever created.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

If everything is just a hologram, then my life doesn't matter.

Why does it make a difference? Just because people might be made out of a holographic medium doesn't mean we're not real. Emotions are still real. The way we treat each other still matters. Hologram doesn't mean illusion. It's still real. A hologram is just another way of storing information. Atoms are another way of storing information. It doesn't make it any less emotional no matter which one is true.

The information is still there regardless of how or where it's stored.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Do you have any idea what a hologram is? A hologram is not a real object. It is a digital projection of an object, but it has no solidity like the real object. The keyboard you are using is a solid object. If you cannot simply comprehend the fact that your environment is real and not a projection, I don't know what else to tell you and the others.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by idrum

 

If observation doesn't bring knowledge, what else does? Is there another method of determining things without observing them? All things are observed before they are analyzed. If you're not observing it in any way, you're obviously not analyzing it and not obtaining any knowledge about it. Not only can observation be demonstrated to prove that it brings knowledge, but it's also a logical absolute because it is a necessary component of the method used to obtain knowledge in every single scenario. Simple logic demonstrates that as a fact without the need for any scientific data because in order to notice that observation brings knowledge, you must first observe it, hence the mentioning of 'notice'. Do you understand now? I can provide scientific data to support it if you don't think that observation is directly connected to knowledge. Should I go that far?

Thank you for your reply.

If you must first "observe" to gain "knowledge" please expound on how one "knows" they are observing anything at all? Knowledge is the horse placed properly before observation which is the cart. Knowledge never comes from observation but rather knowledge must be prior to any observation, if not then you would have no idea you're even observing....in fact you would have no idea you're even alive. Correct?

The question now becomes where did this knowledge come from? Was it an instinct, did it evolve? One may try to link knowledge with an instinct or evolving but that's a really tough sell.

Originally posted by notimportant

Originally posted by idrum

Originally posted by notimportant




Well, luckely hell doens't excist so

You have absolute knowledge of this?

Yes I grasp it may be said in jest but for fun follow along. If you claim that "Yes, I know for a fact that hell doesn't exist" you then would have "absolute" knowledge, for to know for a fact that hell does not exist you would have to be not only Omnipresent but also Omniscient.....yet that would make you God, but by your own words you don't exist. What a conundrum.

It is not about "absolute knowledge", it is about how you understand the bible, let me explain: hell, as we know it, doesn't excists. However in the bible is being told about an eternal burning fire were "bad souls" wil be thrown into. And thats it, the soul will be destroyed in a eternal burning fire, and will not burn forever in that fire. If the soul would burn forever in that fire wouldn't make that yhwh a super sadistic god while he is described as a god of love?? So even churches are giving him a bad name.

The story which we know nowdays about hell has been made up (mostly by Roman Catholic church). Their own story is full off contradictions like: "in hell satan rules, but satan also wanders the earth". Also story's about purgatory are false, that is even never mentioned in the bible.

It's like: you are going to heaven and will live happily on, or nothing will happen....

edit on 4-4-2011 by notimportant because: (no reason given)

Thank you for the response. You stated:

let me explain: hell, as we know it, doesn't excists.

If it doesn't exist how then can we know anything about it? What you "know" about hell and what I "know" about hell may be totally different yet we know something of it or about it.

Now pertaining to an eternal destruction, "IF" the God of Scripture is real then He is an Eternal Being who is Holy, first and foremost. Hence His Word is Holy and Eternal and a human who is cast into that place has then sinned against an Eternal and Holy God therefore their torment shall be eternal. It's not like one person who sins or does wrong against another person, both are finite beings who are neither eternal nor holy.

Also, "IF" the God found in Scripture is real then yes He is a God of love but since He is first and foremost Holy His love is then a Holy Love. He cannot then love sin. We have sadly diluted the word "love" as we love everything from bubble gum to sodas and TV shows. So we are unable to fully grasp Agape Love "IF" the God of Scripture be real.

Lastly, Scripture never indicates that Satan rules in hell but rather it has been reserved for him.

As I get older, and the more I think about it, it doesn't make any sense to me that an all-powerful and all-knowing God would have to resort to coming to the Earth and performing a bunch of miracles to get people to follow him..

It does, however, make a lot more sense when you think of an evil person going out of their way to do the same thing... it also explains all of the hypocrisy that goes on amongst the religions, and explains why they're always going out of their way to fight with each other.

reply to post by Condemned0625


I like you and what you're saying but I think that what the others are trying to say are things like "define real", "define exists", and "what's projecting the holograms?" Obviously, if my mind is the "tool" responsible for projecting the reality (or hologram) that surrounds me, (and hopefully it is - and not the work of some other "mind" such as religion, for example...) it makes the idea of "solid" objects, like the keyboard I'm typing on, being a mere holographic projection of my mind a lot more easy to comprehend, does it not?

reply to post by idrum


You're talking about instinctive knowledge. I'm talking about knowledge that is gained through observation. Don't try to use little tricks to avoid the problems with your argument.

reply to post by admriker444


wow! can you tell me more about your NDE?? VERY interested.
you can u2u me if you like.....

reply to post by Time2Think


Let's set aside the hologram theory for a moment. Is your keyboard real or not? Is it a solid object or not? If your answers are "Yes", then there you go. I already gave the definitions of hologram and holography to them, but they insist that reality could be just a projection. That means the entire universe is a negative produced by exposing a high-resolution photographic plate, without camera or lens, near a subject illuminated by monochromatic, coherent radiation, as from a laser. Does that make sense? That's quite a huge photographic plate those extraterrestrials have for such an enormous projection. This is borderline solipsism and I find it absurd.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by idrum

 

You're talking about instinctive knowledge. I'm talking about knowledge that is gained through observation. Don't try to use little tricks to avoid the problems with your argument.

Again, knowledge has never come from observation for knowledge must be prior to observation in order to even KNOW you're observing anything at all. There are no tricks.

I am not talking of instinctive knowledge as this is a problem when one goes back to the first "it". If knowledge is instinctive then the first "it" would have died for there was no prior to gain this "instinct" from.

The act or the ability of "knowing" never came from observation. First one must "know" they are in the act of observation and from there they learn.

Think of the first "it" as it looks upon its habitat. It must "observe" its world to gain knowledge. Yet this is impossible for it has no clue it is even observing anything at all, therefore knowledge must be prior to observation.

Instinctive knowledge can be demonstrated as a newborn taking its mothers breast to feed. Yet who gave this infant that instinct? Was it passed down from its mother, if so then where did the mother get it from? So again I am not speaking of instinctive knowledge.

reply to post by Condemned0625

That means the entire universe is a negative produced by exposing a high-resolution photographic plate, without camera or lens, near a subject illuminated by monochromatic, coherent radiation, as from a laser. Does that make sense? That's quite a huge photographic plate those extraterrestrials have for such an enormous projection. This is borderline solipsism and I find it absurd.

Now you're just funny.. you make posts on here about your girlfriend's predictive dreams and "soul recycling towers on the moon" but you can't even get your head around the idea of our brains being biological quantum computers that are taking outside information around us and processing it through our senses - into reality?

Holography (from the Greek ὅλος hólos, "whole" + γραφή grafē, "writing, drawing") is a technique that allows the light scattered from an object to be recorded and later reconstructed so that when an imaging system (a camera or an eye) is placed in the reconstructed beam, an image of the object will be seen even when the object is no longer present. The image changes as the position and orientation of the viewing system changes in exactly the same way as if the object were still present, thus making the image appear three-dimensional. The holographic recording itself is not an image - it consists of an apparently random structure of either varying intensity, density or profile

Holography

Your comments seems sort of meaningless when the very definition of the word "holography" comes from the Greek way before cameras or lasers were ever even thought about...


Take a look at some of the information here sometime:

www.quantumconsciousness.org...

or, if that isn't a good enough source for you, perhaps some information here is better?

Human brain vs. quantum computer

reply to post by Time2Think


It's not about getting my head around the idea. I know what the theory is suggesting, but I don't agree with it. Now you're trying to discredit my objection by snooping around on my profile and cherry-picking certain topics that you think are comparable to a holographic universe. I never stated those predictions as facts and I'm not even sure if a tower on the moon could recycle souls. I don't claim absolute certainty when evidence and justification are absent. Nice try, but that was totally dishonest of you.

Extra-Biblical Historical Evidence for
the LIFE, DEATH, and
RESURRECTION of JESUS


ANCIENT NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES
www.westarkchurchofchrist.org...
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."
Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

ulius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]


List of former atheists and agnostics

Mortimer J. Adler - Philosopher who co-founded Great Books of the Western World. Agnostic convert to the Catholic Church.[3][4]
Steve Beren - Former member of the Socialist Workers Party (United States) who became a Protestant conservative politician.[5]
Anders Borg - Sweden's Minister for Finance.[6]
Paul Bourget - French author who became agnostic and positivist at 15, but returned to Catholicism at 35.[7]
Ferdinand Brunetière - Rationalist and freethinking writer who became a Catholic.[8][9]
Julie Burchill - British journalist and feminist.[10]
Kirk Cameron - An American actor best-known for his role as Mike Seaver on the television situation comedy, Growing Pains, as well as several other television and film appearances as a child actor. Today he is a Protestant Evangelical. Recently, he portrayed the lead roles in the Left Behind film series and in the 2008 drama film, Fireproof.[11]
Whittaker Chambers - Former Communist turned conservative writer.[12][13]
Francis Collins - Geneticist who was an atheist until age 27, but then converted to Christianity.[14]
Larry Darby - Holocaust revisionist and former member of the American Atheists.[15][16]
Joy Davidman - Poet and wife of C. S. Lewis.[17]
Avery Dulles - A Jesuit priest, theologian, and cardinal in the Catholic Church. He was raised Presbyterian, but was an agnostic before his conversion to Catholic Christianity.[18][19]
Dawn Eden - Rock journalist of Jewish ethnicity who went from an agnostic to a Catholic writer, who was particularly concerned with the moral values of chastity.[20][21]
André Frossard - French journalist who was atheist, but converted to the Catholic Church in 1935.[22]
Eugene D. Genovese - Historian who went from Stalinist to conservative theist.[23]
Bo Giertz - Atheistic in youth he became a Lutheran bishop and writer.[24]

en.wikipedia.org... (And Many More)

reply to post by idrum


Then what type of knowledge are you talking about? Preexistent knowledge? I'll make it simple. Observation always occurs first before knowledge is gained from that observation. Preexisting "knowledge" is actually instinct. Instincts are already there and not learned, but that doesn't mean they are part of knowledge. Let's see the definitions for comparison.

Instinct

1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.
2. a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency.
3. a natural aptitude or gift: an instinct for making money.
4. natural intuitive power.

Knowledge

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

I'm not going to keep arguing with you if all you can come up with are ad hoc explanations.

reply to post by Condemned0625


the gist i get from the data is, solidity is the illusion. everything is a quantum wave of possibilities, awaiting a decision to act or not act upon it via various types of observation. what makes up the illusion is still real (the quantum wave of possibilities is real). it's exactly flipped. the reason things appear solid to our various observation surfaces is, the observation surfaces collapse the wave functions and provide the illusion of solidity and separation in space-time. otherwise, why would two quantumly entangled particles communicate instantly with each other, no matter how far they are separated in space. and why would observing the wave, collapse it into a solid appearance? is it a solid or a wave?