The Believer's Declaration of Dependence

Satan never declared Independence from GOD, but the American People have by Pledging their allegiance to a Flag and Republican Flag instead of GOD. A God who said; thou shalt have no other God before me, have a bunch of son in the GOP who sold their souls to a Dont Tread on Me Serpent flag pole, who use the name of GOD in vain. I just want the same Laws of Nature and Nature's GOD and a new world promised; but first we have to get rid of this old one. According to Article 36 of Maryland's constitution a New world was expected.'

Satan and Jesus were given different missions by GOD. Jesus came to Save the World using A Sword aka the Bible. Whereas Satan's mission was to Deceive the whole World and then Speak up at the Last Hour promising to tell the whole truth and nothing but the Truth; so Help Her GOD; This time. Satan has been working for GOD all along; and everyone knows before Jesus returns; Satan has to Rise first and continue a little while. Now that Satan is Risen and Reborn she throws the Book back into Court and at the Judge Demanding that they make a Choice for We the People who Trust in GOD. Will they Obey and Respect the Religion Laws of the God of the Bible and of their sworn Oaths or NOT?

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
As you declare your independence from God, you make the choice. God is not making that choice for you.

2 Peter 3

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Originally posted by LHP666

Originally posted by 1MrsJesusChrist
But did you know that Satan is risen and reborn in the flesh of a Black Christian woman?

That made me giggle like a little schoolgirl!

And you're serious. Or, so you claim.

As for the "declaration of independence, I wrote my own, forever kicking the jew 'god' , the phony son, and the holey spook to the curb. It was most liberating! Hail Satan!

edit on 2-7-2011 by LHP666 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SuperiorEd

It starts with trust. We spend our entire lives questioning.

Put trust in what? Trust is not the same as blind faith. And i agree; we are inquizitive beings.

is spirit is in us so we can learn to develop the ability to live in a just universe (kingdom of God)

We DO live in a universe; and it's not clear what the cause is; or if causation is a necessary assumption to make regarding the cosmos.

We are not able to birth out of this womb (earth) until we gain union with the Holy Spirit.

Well, you don't know what happens after death; and "Holy Spirit" is just abstract rambling. Most humans have the desire to help one another and to be loved; our species wouldn't have got this far if we were utterly suicidal.

Animals have a soul and a body. The soul connects us to our vehicle (bio-mechanical suit).

You can't prove anything; the "soul" is an abstract concept; homo sapiens species developed that word to try and explain the difference between homo sapiens and animals; There's no "truth" or "fact" to the soul; or no person has proved it true (yet)

You're trying to claim truth to something you cannot prove as truth; that's suspicious.

The original spirit of man was Holy. We exchanged this spirit for a counterfeit. The spirit I refer to is intellect, or NOUS.

It was a slow progress; we were once like the animals. We evolved from lesser beings.

Our spirit was meant to receive the proper programming, with the Holy Spirit as our instructor. We made the choice to gain knowledge apart from this spirit. This is the fall of man.

No, this is what religion claims is the "fall of man" - This can't be backed up and again your spouting unfalsifiable hypotheseses as truth; as fact with only the bible to "support" them. That's not truth. Blindly believing what the bible tells you will not get you far.

Geological events arn't dictated by a deity; volcanoes and earthquakes ARE NOT punishment; WE live on a heating and cooling planet; the bible and it's writers were ignorant of truth; but you put faith in their "profound" truths - WHY?

THe bible was written in a time where knowledge and science was young, and underdeveloped. They'd anthropomorphize anything they could (river, wind, sea, sky)

You have no control or free will other than this one thing: You can choose to walk with or against God. That's it. Belief and faith is trust in all the things you do not understand or have an explanation for. God is what animates your essence. Trust Him. That's all He asks.

"trust him" - God didn't write the words you put faith in; it wasn't a deity. And i don't trust ancient man; as much as i can trust them to understand electricity.

Blind faith is not a virtue; faith means not wanting to know what is true. Put faith in an ancient document at the risk of abandoning all critical faculties.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["All actions have reactions according to set laws that do not waiver. The laws of the universe and the laws for man are two different sets of laws."]

So it finally was clarified. You're not solely preaching, but also making some objective claims on the laws of cosmos. When the present special sidetrack is over, I'll go back to that.

Quote: ["The law of man was put in place to demonstrate that man was incapable of walking in the garden (earth) by his own pride."]

That's the official christian interpretation of genesis 2. My understanding of the Eden episode is, that mankind with all the good reasons in the world rebelled against a bipolar psychotic (Jahveh).

Quote: ["Free will is the ability to make choices. We are all affected by choice, chance (really providence of God) and the actions of others. All three of these are the choice of someone."]

Sound reasoning.

Quote: ["God made the choice to make a universe that is set to answer all other free will with a correcting result. Follow the law and it benefits you. Work against the law and it harms you. We see this as judgment from God. In reality, the judgment of God was put in place as law before we arrived."]

Sooo....we have free will, as long as we do don't use it. Only christian scholastic would consider such 'rational'.

Quote: ["In the Garden (earth), we made the choice to walk a path of pride when we used knowledge for our own gain apart from God. God's will was for us to learn from Him on His timetable. As a result, God said that we would toil as we worked the earth. We were cast out of the paradise that was originally designed for us. That was our choice form Adam, carried on through each man that has ever walked the earth. We lost paradise and will gain it back. In the meantime, we are here reaping what we have sown. This is a collective reaping."]

There MAY possibly be some here, who hasn't heard the story some dozen times before, and who also hasn't heard this christian sugar-coating of it, but it doesn't become more reasonable or acceptable, because you tell it again.

It's ALL about obedience, about this alleged 'god' wanting slaves.

Quote: ["Christ came to redeem us back by paying the price for our error."]

The updated version of the myth; as much a religious postulate as the original version was.

Quote: ["Love, my friends, is giving up a life for someone who does not merit this gift."]

More assumptions on top of the former ones.

Quote: [".......only God who does not need you for anything."]

Obviously 'god' needs slaves, and because of his paranoia/megalomania syndrom 'god' also needs to be worshipped.

Love is an abstract, yet we experience it. Fourteen trillion dollars is an abstract concept, yet we have evidence it exists and believe it does us harm. Evidence is rarely seen. If you stand on the shore and look at the ocean, you may only see the surface and the waves. If you look at the light you see, you may only believe that the surface and waves you see is light. In reality, the surface and the waves you see does not tell the true story. The pearl goes to the diver. The emerald is found by the slave working the mine. The slave gives the pearl to the King who never needed it in the first place. The journey and hard work to find the emerald was the reward.

God gives us the emerald and the pearls and the entire thing as our inheritance if we place our trust in Him. Apart from Him, good luck with the vehicle you are driving. It won't be replaced.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

It starts with trust. We spend our entire lives questioning.

Put trust in what? Trust is not the same as blind faith. And i agree; we are inquizitive beings.

is spirit is in us so we can learn to develop the ability to live in a just universe (kingdom of God)

We DO live in a universe; and it's not clear what the cause is; or if causation is a necessary assumption to make regarding the cosmos.

We are not able to birth out of this womb (earth) until we gain union with the Holy Spirit.

Well, you don't know what happens after death; and "Holy Spirit" is just abstract rambling. Most humans have the desire to help one another and to be loved; our species wouldn't have got this far if we were utterly suicidal.

Animals have a soul and a body. The soul connects us to our vehicle (bio-mechanical suit).

You can't prove anything; the "soul" is an abstract concept; homo sapiens species developed that word to try and explain the difference between homo sapiens and animals; There's no "truth" or "fact" to the soul; or no person has proved it true (yet)

You're trying to claim truth to something you cannot prove as truth; that's suspicious.

The original spirit of man was Holy. We exchanged this spirit for a counterfeit. The spirit I refer to is intellect, or NOUS.

It was a slow progress; we were once like the animals. We evolved from lesser beings.

Our spirit was meant to receive the proper programming, with the Holy Spirit as our instructor. We made the choice to gain knowledge apart from this spirit. This is the fall of man.

No, this is what religion claims is the "fall of man" - This can't be backed up and again your spouting unfalsifiable hypotheseses as truth; as fact with only the bible to "support" them. That's not truth. Blindly believing what the bible tells you will not get you far.

Geological events arn't dictated by a deity; volcanoes and earthquakes ARE NOT punishment; WE live on a heating and cooling planet; the bible and it's writers were ignorant of truth; but you put faith in their "profound" truths - WHY?

THe bible was written in a time where knowledge and science was young, and underdeveloped. They'd anthropomorphize anything they could (river, wind, sea, sky)

You have no control or free will other than this one thing: You can choose to walk with or against God. That's it. Belief and faith is trust in all the things you do not understand or have an explanation for. God is what animates your essence. Trust Him. That's all He asks.

"trust him" - God didn't write the words you put faith in; it wasn't a deity. And i don't trust ancient man; as much as i can trust them to understand electricity.

Blind faith is not a virtue; faith means not wanting to know what is true. Put faith in an ancient document at the risk of abandoning all critical faculties.

edit on 2-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["It starts with trust."]

For you maybe, because you need something to guide you. I am able to get through life without any divine guidance, so I use rational reasoning instead.

Quote: ["We spend our entire lives questioning."]

And those afraid of knowledge-gaps INVENT answers.

Quote: ["This spirit is in us so we can learn to develop the ability to live in a just universe (kingdom of God)."]

Assumption.

Quote: ["We are not able to birth out of this womb (earth) until we gain union with the Holy Spirit."]

Assumption.

Quote: ["5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”"]

Self-proving premises (circle-argument).

Quote: ["Man has a spirit. The original spirit of man was Holy. We exchanged this spirit for a counterfeit. The spirit I refer to is intellect, or NOUS."]

Assumption.

Quote: [" Our spirit was meant to receive the proper programming, with the Holy Spirit as our instructor. We made the choice to gain knowledge apart from this spirit."]

Assumption.

Quote: ["This is the fall of man."]

Nope, if it's not completely a myth, it's the incompetence of a demon with 'god' pretentions.

Quote: ["Here is how it works. You can verify this easily by examining nature"]

That's what science does. Impressively well.

Quote: ["In our case, three will ultimately come together. We are the roots of the tree above. The sun and the moon come together to form life on earth. The sperm and the egg do the same. Male and female do the same. Right and left hand do the same."]

You are somewhat diffusedly describing the inter-action of a polarized cosmos ('dualism'), unfortunately not so well as either science or buddhism describe it.

Quote: ["Eyes, ears, nose, feet, legs... When the sperm and egg come together, where does this union develop? In a womb."]

You're falling in the habit of christian preachers to believe, that allegories are 'proof'. Allegories are only illustrative.

Quote: ["In a womb. When your soul and the spirit you choose come together, where do they develop? Earth."]

Assumption.

Quote: ["Earth is a womb and your body is a placenta."]

Allegory.

Quote: ["Sounds funny, but since when have you ever witnessed anything other than birth and development cycle in this world?"]

And based on some assumptions and allegories, you have now demonstrated what....in your semantic finale.

Quote: ["When an acorn becomes an oak, does it die and never return? No, the essence of the acorn is the information inside. Information is stored. When the acorn gains union with the soil (like the soul), it unfolds into an Oak. The oak is not the essence of the acorn, it is the result. It's all information, stored and enfolded. An acorn is merely an oak tree enfolded into a small space with purpose."]

Yes, and so....?

Quote: ["Can you trust God?"]

If 'god' is a myth, the question is meaningless. If he is a demon: "No, you can't trust him."

Quote: ["Do you make your hair grow? Do you activate the cones and rods in your eyes? Do you make the planets go round? Do you do anything to continue your existence? Do you provide the food that grows from the enfolded information in the seed? Do you have free will to choose something that God does not throw right back at you as a reaction from the laws of the universe?"]

Haven't seen 'intelligent design' for a couple of weeks now. Any better arguments for it this time?

Quote: ["You have no control or free will other than this one thing: You can choose to walk with or against God."]

Back to square one: It's ALL about obedience.

Quote: ["That's it. Belief and faith is trust in all the things you do not understand or have an explanation for.

Filling knowledge-gaps with postulates.

Quote: ["God is what animates your essence."]

Assumption.

Quote: ["Trust Him."]

Personally I'll side with what Lucifer stands for any time.

Quote: ["That's all He asks."]

That, and then also killing those refusing to become slaves.

Both of us. You trust yourself and the world and I trust God. For both of us, it is trust. I would never trust my own sense of the world. The intellect demands equanimity for clarity. Clinging to the material world will cloud judgment toward a false sense of reality. This is because light is not visible.

You may argue that light is visible. I would refer you back to my previous comments. Only the surface and waves are visible in a narrow band of frequency. Your senses will deceive you in the illusion of a projected reality. True reality is not a projection. For the projection of energy to create our reality, there must be a counter force that is greater than the projection. The source must be fixed.

In this world, nothing rises above its source apart from conscious choice from an intelligent source. This is the cause of entropy. Decay is inevitable. There is only one thing that goes against the flow of entropy and that is information. Consciousness is the only part of reality that can go against entropy. All life is based on some form of conscious choice. Rivers flow away from their source. They return by the cycle of water, but never rise above their source. All things in reality return to their source. Only life rises.

Ask yourself a question: Are you more complicated than the earth in complexity? How about the sun? Given what we currently know, all conscious beings with sentience are greater than the sun, moon and earth. Since we are greater than what science calls our source, we defy the rules of entropy by being alive and intelligent. This would be the only identified exception to entropy. Entropy in information theory is your best bet for understanding this concept that verifies an intelligent source for our creation.

Let me go on further. Quantum physics says that the indeterminate wave of probability is collapsed by the observer. The duality of light is either a wave or a particle depending on the observer. This is verified by all of our current knowledge of physics. In other words, particles behave according to the observer. This is a simple verification that matter did not originate the observer into existence. It is the other way around. Who was the first observer?

If you only look at the surface and waves, you miss the vast ocean of meaning and purpose in the depths.

reply to post by bogomil

["It starts with trust."]

For you maybe, because you need something to guide you. I am able to get through life without any divine guidance, so I use rational reasoning instead.

Quote: ["We spend our entire lives questioning."]

You wrote:

While you chew on the last post, let me give you the reason equanimity is important.

From my blog. LINK

Duplicity

Duplicity is a state of awareness representing contradictory thoughts and actions. Like two out of tune notes, duplicitous thoughts and actions resonate with disharmony to the intellect. Seeking the good in any situation requires harmony between the two. Guiding the emotions from the intellect represents the first step of tuning the mind to harmony and equilibrium. Finding the good in life is impenetrable apart from the proper use of the intellect.

Impenetrability

Impenetrability is the state of being whereby two things cannot occupy the same space. Emotion will always move past the space in the mind occupied by the intellect. Since two objects cannot occupy the same space, the stronger of the two will move the weaker. Seeking the good in any situation requires strength of intellect. The second step to finding harmony and equilibrium in the mind requires the use of intellect as the dominating force for guiding choice. When emotion obediently serves intellect, equanimity follows.

Equanimity

Equanimity is a state of mental and emotional steadiness arising from deep awareness. A constant state of equanimity is impossible if the five senses dictate emotion. To maintain equanimity is to guide action by intellect through the filter of mindfulness of purpose.

Mindfulness

Mindfulness is a calm awareness and mastery of emotion. To be mindful is to master intentions of choice in all moments of life.

Intention

Intention is the first leg of a well traveled journey. The good of life can arise from correct intention if the disharmony caused by duplicity is eliminated by the intellect. This journey demands only one true intention from us along the path. If we wish the good of life as a reward for our efforts, then two contradictory goals are selfishly desired. If we pursue the good of life to avoid punishment, duplicity has once again revealed our selfish intention. True intention, however, only comes by desiring the source of good in life from the perspective of humility.

Humility

Humility seeks the good as its own reward. The goodness of God is the peace that comes from choosing His free gift of Grace.

Grace

Grace is unmerited favor to the humble.

Pride

The exalting of self.

By not choosing, a choice is still made.

reply to post by bogomil

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["True reality is not a projection."]

Another 'self-evident' assumption?

Quote: ["For the projection of energy to create our reality, there must be a counter force that is greater than the projection."]

Why?

(And besides you are using the concept of 'energy' completely out of context. There's nothing saying, that 'energy' plays any role in your proposed regressive argument).

Quote: [" The source must be fixed."]

No, it MUST not. It's even amongst some of the more daring sceintific hypotheses, that a 'fixed' source is low on the list.

Quote: ["In this world, nothing rises above its source apart from conscious choice from an intelligent source."]

What does 'rises above its source' mean in this context. I can find no meaning in this sentence, except if you talk about negative entropy.

Quote: ["This is the cause of entropy."]

The reason for entropy is the attraction between different polarities and levelling out of energy-differences. And negative entropy is only local and will actually add to entropy in the overall cosmic situation.

Quote: ["Decay is inevitable"]

Yes.

Quote: ["There is only one thing that goes against the flow of entropy and that is information. Consciousness is the only part of reality that can go against entropy."]

Yes.

Quote: ["Are you more complicated than the earth in complexity?"]

In some ways yes, in some no.

Quote: ["How about the sun?"]

The sun isn't especially complex.

Quote: ["Since we are greater than what science calls our source,"]

If you want to hijack science, you could at least use the correct language: We are more complex than our source. But that's no news, the building blocks of cosmos are quite simple.

Quote: ["we defy the rules of entropy by being alive and intelligent. This would be the only identified exception to entropy."]

Same answer, as when you said it before.

Quote: ["Entropy in information theory is your best bet for understanding this concept that verifies an intelligent source for our creation."]

Nope, it can possibly identify intent, i.e.dynamics beyond event horizon. Not more. And in any case can self-organizing complexity as well as not do the trick. It's just another agnostic situation.

Quote: ["The duality of light is either a wave or a particle depending on the observer."]

That's the standard part of an inter-acting cosmos.

Quote: ["In other words, particles behave according to the observer."]

And the observer is similarly 'observed' by the particle and is reacting on that. And who IS this observer btw? In the double-slit experiment it was just a counter.

Quote: ["This is a simple verification that matter did not originate the observer into existence."]

Yes, and that is as far as it goes in this chain of reasoning.

Quote: ["Who was the first observer?"]

Nobody knows. And nobody knows how another cosmos (=order) beyond the for us observable (known) cosmos is. It's at best guesses.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
While you chew on the last post, let me give you the reason equanimity is important.

From my blog. LINK

Duplicity

Duplicity is a state of awareness representing contradictory thoughts and actions. Like two out of tune notes, duplicitous thoughts and actions resonate with disharmony to the intellect. Seeking the good in any situation requires harmony between the two. Guiding the emotions from the intellect represents the first step of tuning the mind to harmony and equilibrium. Finding the good in life is impenetrable apart from the proper use of the intellect.

Impenetrability

Impenetrability is the state of being whereby two things cannot occupy the same space. Emotion will always move past the space in the mind occupied by the intellect. Since two objects cannot occupy the same space, the stronger of the two will move the weaker. Seeking the good in any situation requires strength of intellect. The second step to finding harmony and equilibrium in the mind requires the use of intellect as the dominating force for guiding choice. When emotion obediently serves intellect, equanimity follows.

Equanimity

Equanimity is a state of mental and emotional steadiness arising from deep awareness. A constant state of equanimity is impossible if the five senses dictate emotion. To maintain equanimity is to guide action by intellect through the filter of mindfulness of purpose.

Mindfulness

Mindfulness is a calm awareness and mastery of emotion. To be mindful is to master intentions of choice in all moments of life.

Intention

Intention is the first leg of a well traveled journey. The good of life can arise from correct intention if the disharmony caused by duplicity is eliminated by the intellect. This journey demands only one true intention from us along the path. If we wish the good of life as a reward for our efforts, then two contradictory goals are selfishly desired. If we pursue the good of life to avoid punishment, duplicity has once again revealed our selfish intention. True intention, however, only comes by desiring the source of good in life from the perspective of humility.

Humility

Humility seeks the good as its own reward. The goodness of God is the peace that comes from choosing His free gift of Grace.

Grace

Grace is unmerited favor to the humble.

Pride

The exalting of self.

By not choosing, a choice is still made.

reply to post by bogomil

 

edit on 2-7-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

The first part of this post is in some ways a buddhist manifest, until you come to the following

Quote:

["Humility

Humility seeks the good as its own reward. The goodness of God is the peace that comes from choosing His free gift of Grace.

Grace

Grace is unmerited favor to the humble.

Pride

The exalting of self."]

where a 'god' suddenly turns up from nowhere and becomes a part of the situation. I find it rather sad, that christians often try to make such verbal 'stunts', where 'god' pops up in an otherwise sound (though not exclusive*) argumentation, but without a word of explanation on how that happened.

And even worse is it, that 'grace' is included also with a similar lack of explanation.

Did you really believe, that this semantic gymnastics of creating a series of mindstates and then suddenly skipping from 'intention' to 'humility', 'god' and 'grace' would go home un-noticed and un-questioned?

* There are other and better explanations than the overall one presented here.

I did not believe it would go home unnoticed and unquestioned. I already know that you cannot hear me. The Bible covers this. My comments are for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.


2 Peter 3

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Did you really believe, that this semantic gymnastics of creating a series of mindstates and then suddenly skipping from 'intention' to 'humility', 'god' and 'grace' would go home un-noticed and un-questioned?

* There are other and better explanations than the overall one presented here.

edit on 2-7-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["The Bible covers this."]

The bible covers WHAT? An updated version of 'intelligent design' with inclusions of quantum mechanics, but stopping at the exactly same place as the older versions of ID, for the same reasons: Beyond a certain point, it's just speculations.

WHEREAS the bible itself, in genesis 1, demonstrates such a blatant ignorance of the real character of cosmos, that there IS a reason for discarding its alleged creator Jahveh as a myth or hoax. You would expect a creator to know his creation.

Quote from OP: ["As out-of-control as this world may seem when you read the news, God is in complete and utter control."]

How can an alleged 'god' be in control of anything, if his knowledge of cosmos is non-existent?


Quote: ["My comments are for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear."]

As mine are; with the addition that they are for those, who don't start from a predetermined answer, but are willing to start from observable information and work their way towards an answer, instead of 'adapting' information to fit an answer.


And as genesis 1 is non-sense (and doesn't fit completely with genesis 2), and when genesis 2 needs a special branch of 'divine psychology' to 'explain', how an entity which from all other perspectives is a schizoid paranoia/megalomaniac with control obsession can be turned into a 'loving' individual.

Then the whole rickety scholastic construction comes tumbling down, with the result, that there is NO original sin, and consequently mankind has NO existential debts, and salvation doctrine rests on NOTHING.

So I am ofcourse assured, that MY counter-declaration supporting a non-slave system, with egalitarian values, is more in accordance with observable reality.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Amongst all the facets of the myth you present in the hope of finding somewhere, where you can get a foot in the door (so to speak), I overlooked this one:

Quote: ["5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water."]

So in addition to the cosmogonic and cosmological non-sense of genesis 1, we have still another example of total ignorance on the true nature of cosmos. The idea, that the building block of cosmos is water.

As anyone with the smallest knowledge of science knows, water is made by two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms (a fact very easy to demonstrate). And even if the quote above doesn't postulate, that water is the BASIC material of cosmos (possibly only being some intermediary component) cosmos ISN'T made from hydrogen and oxygen (in the form of water-molecules or as seperate elements), but from some 100 different atom-constellations.

Furthermore atoms can be reduced another step into the three (sofar known) groups of quarks, electrons and transmitter-particles. These being the basis of cosmos, not water.

This strengthens a suspicion I already got, when you presented your quantum-religion argument. You appear to google (or similar) for pre-digested arguments for your cause, without really understanding what it is you pass on.

We've recently had some controverse on ATS on such use of second-hand 'answers', and no matter if you choose to direct your arguments towards the (pseudo)scientific aspect or the ideological aspect of the myth you want to promote, it will reflect negatively back on your credibility, if it becomes obvious, that you have less competence on a subject, than the borrowed material would indicate.

These considerations of mine are naturally not meant to convert you, and your initial declaration on this thread still stands (for you). The opposition you will meet on a public forum is when your personal faith is presented in sermon-form (where you then will meet 'counter'-sermons) or alternatively is postulated to be universal 'truth', where you then will meet academic opposition.

reply to post by bogomil

I don't worry so much about these supernatural threats one way or another.

Neither do i, but many take it very seriously.

Especially when knowledge infrastructure is sparse, and in communities where churches and priests have the ultimate authority.

Quote from you:

"This strengthens a suspicion I already got, when you presented your quantum-religion argument. You appear to google (or similar) for pre-digested arguments for your cause, without really understanding what it is you pass on.

We've recently had some controverse on ATS on such use of second-hand 'answers', and no matter if you choose to direct your arguments towards the (pseudo)scientific aspect or the ideological aspect of the myth you want to promote, it will reflect negatively back on your credibility, if it becomes obvious, that you have less competence on a subject, than the borrowed material would indicate. "

In a court of law, if you make an allegation, you must show proof. Please do.

If you please provide a link to where you say I copied my information, I would appreciate it. Anything that I write is original to me or built off of well know information. I have been writing these same things for the last few years under different user names. Some of what I have written will show up here, various blogs, youtube and on the Dawkins website. If I quote my blog, I link. If I reuse something I have already written on another blog, I write it fresh. If I cut and paste anything, it is my own words from another blog or forum. Please do provide a few links to support your allegations. I assure you they will be my words if I used them. I link if I reference anything that is not my own.

As for your two posts above, our intellect and the best of our science only describes what is already in the Bible. You make the statement that 'water' is not the basis for creation without recognizing that the term used is a metaphor for water and energy. Water was used for multiple meanings toward creation. No life can exist apart from the basic structure of water. No life can exist without the support of water. The sun cannot burn without hydrogen, as it is 70% comprised of this resource. This cycle of energy by means of Hydrogen creates what the sun provides on earth. Further, water is the only substance that can exist in three states. Without these three states, no life. God is not incorrect. We can always assume we will be.

Again, leaning on what we think we see will only show that we are wrong. Example: You thought I was copying my answers from someone else without realizing I was the someone else. This is an assumption based on bias and arrogance. Like I said before, equanimity is necessary for a clear and unbiased mind. Truth can only be found by the spirit of God. If bias is in your equation, you will err. Science refuses to remove bias against God from their equation and they will continue to hit the wall of error in their findings. Ever changing theory is all they will chase. This is true for the believer as well. As we continue to poke for answers, we will eventually meet between the two arguments at the truth. The Bible will be there without error in the end. So will science.

Please do provide a few links for us to back you claim of information borrowing.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Amongst all the facets of the myth you present in the hope of finding somewhere, where you can get a foot in the door (so to speak), I overlooked this one:

Quote: ["5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water."]

So in addition to the cosmogonic and cosmological non-sense of genesis 1, we have still another example of total ignorance on the true nature of cosmos. The idea, that the building block of cosmos is water.

As anyone with the smallest knowledge of science knows, water is made by two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms (a fact very easy to demonstrate). And even if the quote above doesn't postulate, that water is the BASIC material of cosmos (possibly only being some intermediary component) cosmos ISN'T made from hydrogen and oxygen (in the form of water-molecules or as seperate elements), but from some 100 different atom-constellations.

Furthermore atoms can be reduced another step into the three (sofar known) groups of quarks, electrons and transmitter-particles. These being the basis of cosmos, not water.

This strengthens a suspicion I already got, when you presented your quantum-religion argument. You appear to google (or similar) for pre-digested arguments for your cause, without really understanding what it is you pass on.

We've recently had some controverse on ATS on such use of second-hand 'answers', and no matter if you choose to direct your arguments towards the (pseudo)scientific aspect or the ideological aspect of the myth you want to promote, it will reflect negatively back on your credibility, if it becomes obvious, that you have less competence on a subject, than the borrowed material would indicate.

These considerations of mine are naturally not meant to convert you, and your initial declaration on this thread still stands (for you). The opposition you will meet on a public forum is when your personal faith is presented in sermon-form (where you then will meet 'counter'-sermons) or alternatively is postulated to be universal 'truth', where you then will meet academic opposition.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["In a court of law, if you make an allegation, you must show proof. Please do."]

You here most likely refer to my suspicion, that you use 'canned' arguments, especially in the science/religion border. My suspicion is based on, that you on one hand present some rather advanced and sound (but incomplete) thoughts on theoretical physics' consequences for metaphysics.

And on the other hand you cite bible-information on, that the earth and cosmos is made from water. Such two extremes in scientific knowledge are incompatible.

Quote: [" If you please provide a link to where you say I copied my information, I would appreciate it."]

How should I know, where you fetch your material. What a strange request.

Quote: ["You make the statement that 'water' is not the basis for creation without recognizing that the term used is a metaphor for water and energy."]

If you use a personal or secterian special symbolism or set of metaphors in a debate on scientific subjects, it certainly would make things easier, if you inform your readers of that first. Most serious use of science relates to standard science, its terms and its methodology. Not to some personal versions of it.

Quote: ["Water was used for multiple meanings toward creation."]

No, not in a scientific context of physics/cosmology, which is our present direction. We were initially talking about how the earth and cosmos were made from water.

Quote: ["No life can exist apart from the basic structure of water. No life can exist without the support of water."]

And what has that to do with cosmology? This is about biology.

Quote: ["The sun cannot burn without hydrogen,"]

True.

Quote: ["This cycle of energy by means of Hydrogen creates what the sun provides on earth."]

True. Hydrogen is the primary material for the later emerging atoms in cosmos.

Quote: ["Further, water is the only substance that can exist in three states."]

No; .... and what has that to do with, what we're talking about anyway.

Quote: [". Without these three states, no life. God is not incorrect. We can always assume we will be."]

I'm afraid, that you lost me there. I have no idea about, what you're trying to say.

Quote: ["Again, leaning on what we think we see will only show that we are wrong. Example: You thought I was copying my answers from someone else without realizing I was the someone else."]

The 'scientific' comments you have made in this post only reinforce my impression of your small knowledge of standard science. You may be so kind as to explain the basis of YOUR version of science, so I can follow you.

Quote: ["This is an assumption based on bias and arrogance."]

It's based on my own solid education in hard science, which has no similarity to with what you present here.

Quote: ["Truth can only be found by the spirit of God"]

That's an epistemological argument, based on religious self-confirming speculations; and kind of completely out of context here.

Quote: ["Science refuses to remove bias against God from their equation and they will continue to hit the wall of error in their findings."]

Hopefully you'll stop making claims without evidence and eventually come around to a reality-check. I'm beginning to understand, that this probably will take some time. I will refer to genesis 1 again, in case you've forgotten.

Quote: ["Ever changing theory is all they will chase."]

What ever changing theory(ies)?

Quote: ["Please do provide a few links for us to back you claim of information borrowing."]

I have already answered that once, but I can take it again. You appear to have next to no knowledge about standard science (which is no shame, unless you make unjustified claims about your competence. I don't play violin or neither can I run a nuclear power-plant. No-one can know everything). But you engage in a scientific argumentation from almost extreme polarities of knowledge. One where you are almost completely ignorant, and one which actually was rather informed (to a certain point). Doesn't fit together.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by bogomil

 

I don't worry so much about these supernatural threats one way or another.

Neither do i, but many take it very seriously.

Especially when knowledge infrastructure is sparse, and in communities where churches and priests have the ultimate authority.

I admit, that it will take some time, before real knowledge will be universal. But I count on the small (imo rather harmless) greed in mankind. We always want to better our situation, and as education and knowledge = better life-conditions, theism will eventually be restricted to the group of those making an active and informed choice about it.

I read from this that you prefer America not be a marketplace of ideas. Am I correct? We should allow the strong to rule the weak and how they think? Since Christians will turn the other cheek, it will be easy to shut them up. Is this your view? Restrict some groups thinking and freedom of expression while we allow others freedom? Aren't we all free and equal in the eyes of the law?

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by bogomil

 

I don't worry so much about these supernatural threats one way or another.

Neither do i, but many take it very seriously.

Especially when knowledge infrastructure is sparse, and in communities where churches and priests have the ultimate authority.

I admit, that it will take some time, before real knowledge will be universal. But I count on the small (imo rather harmless) greed in mankind. We always want to better our situation, and as education and knowledge = better life-conditions, theism will eventually be restricted to the group of those making an active and informed choice about it.

I am still waiting on your links to back your claim that I am cutting and pasting from other websites.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by bogomil

 

I don't worry so much about these supernatural threats one way or another.

Neither do i, but many take it very seriously.

Especially when knowledge infrastructure is sparse, and in communities where churches and priests have the ultimate authority.

I admit, that it will take some time, before real knowledge will be universal. But I count on the small (imo rather harmless) greed in mankind. We always want to better our situation, and as education and knowledge = better life-conditions, theism will eventually be restricted to the group of those making an active and informed choice about it.

reply to post by bogomil


It generally comes down to this statement from Atheists. I have been doing this for a long time and have seen this answer often. Simply saying that I do not know my science does not provide content to you claim. Show examples. Quote my science and then correct it. Provide context.

I have already answered that once, but I can take it again. You appear to have next to no knowledge about standard science (which is no shame, unless you make unjustified claims about your competence. I don't play violin or neither can I run a nuclear power-plant. No-one can know everything). But you engage in a scientific argumentation from almost extreme polarities of knowledge. One where you are almost completely ignorant, and one which actually was rather informed (to a certain point). Doesn't fit together.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

I read from this that you prefer America not be a marketplace of ideas. Am I correct?

I'm English, and i didn't mention anything about market places filled with ideas. (or freedom of speech and expression)

We should allow the strong to rule the weak and how they think?

By strong you mean intelligent? Or physical strength? (or Both?) I'm going to assume you mean a Feudal system of some sort..I disagree with such a system of hierarchy (unfortunately for me I'm technically ruled under a monarchy) - God save the Queen anyone? Lerl.

Since Christians will turn the other cheek, it will be easy to shut them up. Is this your view?

Quite the opposite; (you never know what they're going to say). And i'm a supporter of free speech and freedom of expression; it's perhaps the cornerstone of liberty here in the West.

Restrict some groups thinking and freedom of expression while we allow others freedom? Aren't we all free and equal in the eyes of the law?

I'm not sure how you've managed to pull these convictions from just a few posts; Again - I'm a supporter of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.