It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Theosophy and Christianity

page: 30
14
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by harleyborgais
 



Obviously this took a great deal of effort, so I hope it is appreciated, and not scorned


It is not the effort that counts in this sense, it is the truth of what you are saying that matters. Do you agree?

Now I have done a strict analysis of what you have written with many rough notes written down on the pages of content....reviewing the logical connections, the theological impacts, scientific merit, whether what you are saying is in-line with God (seeing that you basically are claiming that this is it not just your theory but given to you by God)....ect ect...

So I am just wondering by what measuring yardstick do you actually want me to comment from:
- Whether theosophists or other mystery schools can use it?
- Whether it successfully combines science and religion into one cohesive ultimate Truth?
- Whether you are receiving some kind of inspiration from God?

Are you open to feedback?
edit on 31-8-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


You are joking right? That us the most hypocritical post you could ever have made. You are not interested in hearing anybody's theory but your own.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


You are joking right? That us the most hypocritical post you could ever have made. You are not interested in hearing anybody's theory but your own.


I am serious....I just spent a few hours going through his post carefully
he is claiming the gift of this information is coming from God (it is not coming from the OT and NT God).
he is claiming that the science and logic are in harmony (it isn't)

If he wants to say the information is in harmony with science then I will judge him on his science.
If he wants to make other claims then I will judge him on those as well.

If I judge him on the scientific merit of it then it is still going to make him look like a false prophet. So is it a take it (because it is 'from God') or leave it scenario ...or is he interested to hear about all the numerous holes his theory has so he can work on it to improve it? Are we interested here in being confirmed in our ignorance or actually working towards learning Truth.

if it doesn't conform to science in so many areas then it isn't Truth....it is not my opinion, it is anyone who knows of the scientific laws can tell him the same thing (that is why I asked AugustusMasonicus to comment on it because he would be able to say much of the same on the science of it)

My strength is in the analysis of information (that is what I am specialized in as apart of investment analysis...filtering through complex qualitative information to determine its investment worth), I was top of my class every year of school and A+ in every year of science ....I am quite capable to giving an accurate and fair opinion on this material of his.

One can ask whether you were interested in hearing anything other than glowing report though (confirmation bias)...

Is this the case, your information is not open to critique?
edit on 31-8-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
If he wants to say the information is in harmony with science then I will judge him on his science.
If he wants to make other claims then I will judge him on those as well.

If I judge him on the scientific merit of it


I understand you didn't even realize you did this, but you have been doing this to all of us. You claim you aren't judging us, but that is exactly what you do. That is exactly what the bulk of evangelical Christians have been doing here.

We are happy to sit back and answer questions and do our own thing, but when we are accused of crazy things like devil worship, and unknowingly being controlled by Lucifer, and then not being high up enough to know, it kind of pisses us off. It makes us really defensive. It makes us combative.

So you can file this away in your memory bank, that if you want to have a nice polite discourse with masons, you might want to A. learn a tiny bit about what we really are, and B. quit judging people, you aren't God, you don't have his approval to be his judge on earth, and you don't know what God wants. Nobody does.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Ok Network Dude, I think there is a little bit of a misunderstanding here....It is the same kind of scenario of the misunderstanding over my comments on the Catholic church. When I say the 'Masons', the 'Catholic Church', 'Theosophy' I am talking about the institutional apparatus....not any of you here who are members of whatever...there is a difference here on judging the person and the institution. I don't know what information or intent you are following when you become members of various groups. From my perspective, I am told not to judge the heart of someone because only God can see it. I am also told that whenever I see deception and error (according to my conscience) I should expose it, that I have an actual responsibility to God to expose deception and error because ultimately all truth leads to God. That is the premise I am trying to work under (although in these debating scenarios some off-handed comments can be made for sure).

I don't think I have accused anyone here of knowingly participating in any kind of devil worship...if I have information about how something pertains to unknowingly venerating Satan then I am obligated to tell you. It is up to you whether you do anything with the information or not. It is not meant to be a personal attack. I believe people make the right decisions based on more complete information. It is also up to you to judge whether my information is more complete/somehow useful or not (despite not being a mason or a theosophist).

when I say 'I will judge him' it means I will judge his theory he is proposing that he says was a gift of information given to him by God.

I proposed a framework for this discussion on the development of the origins of life, how it would relate to various belief-systems and then how it would led to evidence for the Biblical account (seeing that so many here showed themselves to be negative towards any significant evidence for it.

I was having a good discussion with AugustusMasonicus who seemed to be the only one participating...while others where just throwing random comments at me, trying to derail things or the impact of the information that I was saying...From my perspective, those others were not participating honestly. For the sake of Augustus I would like to continue
edit on 31-8-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


You are not interested in hearing anybody's theory but your own.


I spent a couple of hours going through his theory very carefully

I am not proposing a 'theory'....I am giving the physical, chemical, biological, astronomical, geological and historical evidence for people to discuss the merits of each of evidence that shows well that the Bible stories were literally true (a position only up until the last 1 or 2 centuries was the default position of most of the developed world) not allegorical or metaphorical. One of the biggest things that changed that strong held believe though was Darwinism, a theory that has been debunked by the fossil record now, and known molecular and genetic science. Yet the impact remains and the programming on the people of it being a fact is shouted out from the rooftops more than ever.

Did you know that the first one to propose the idea of the 'big bang' was a Roman Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, who described it as the point at which time God started creation. It is kind of ironic that a term first brought up from a Christian is synonymous with an atheistic/naturalistic attitude now.

Even Stephen Hawking's latest models of cosmology of the beginning of time try to round off the beginning region (using negative square root numbers, aka imaginary number) just so the beginning 'point' would not be so pronounced because it is associated, in his eyes (and many others), with theistic creation.
edit on 31-8-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Show us where exactly, in your Bible, the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs is recorded. If you can claim that the dinosaurs were the giant animals referred to in scriptures, then surely there's a written account of the meteor itself, or the aftereffects, yes?

Or does your Bible deny dinosaurs as well? I know many religious scholars accuse fossil research of being false...



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
The Radioactive polonium isotope evidence is actually a better example to be used to confirm periods of advanced decay rates (a break in the uniformitarian principle) as well as catastrophic events (both initial creation and post great flood geology). I would rather present the case for the evidence of the flood (rather than having it as assumed understanding) before I present this information then. So that will have to wait a few more steps...



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


I notice you dodged my query.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Show us where exactly, in your Bible, the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs is recorded. If you can claim that the dinosaurs were the giant animals referred to in scriptures, then surely there's a written account of the meteor itself, or the aftereffects, yes?

Or does your Bible deny dinosaurs as well? I know many religious scholars accuse fossil research of being false...


I am going to be making the case that the dinosaurs were mostly wiped out by the flood....the Cretaceous layer is the only universal layer around the whole world and it is the layer that the worldwide extinction level event occurred. The layer is characterized by the 'chalk' that formed (calcium carbonate) which shows the whole world at one stage in history was underwater because the calcium carbonate formed from the growth of soft-bodied sea creatures during the period of time the world was underwater. I will also be presenting the evidence for sea creatures found on the highest mountains in the world. I will be making the case that a few young 'dinosaurs' kinds were taken on the ark and that these 'dinosaurs' which are just large reptiles lived as well in the post flood world in small numbers and that they were known as 'dragons' (this is where all the tales of dragons around the world come from, the word dinosaur was only invented back in the mid 1800's). I will also be presenting evidence for very small numbers of 'dinosaurs' still existing now but found in relatively isolated parts of the world like the Congo swamp region and secluded bodies of water.

Reptiles continue to grow throughout their life and never stop with age, unlike mammals for instance. The 'dinosaurs' are just reptiles and the large dinosaurs/dragons are just older reptiles. This factor of age is also important in consider the skull structure of humans as one ages. The differing skull structure of the 'neanderthals' is characteristic of what we would expect to find for people living for hundreds of years (how the brow line protrudes and other things recess back in comparison) which is what the bible said most people were living to in Genesis.

Before I start on the dinosaur/dragon evidence I want to do the organic and macro-evolution stages, some info on limits on the maximum age of the earth, and evidence for the flood (as I can't really argue that the dinosaurs were killed in the flood if I haven't proved the flood to you as yet right). That is why I have a framework that I wish to stick to rather than go out of order because then I will start have to address questions using assumed knowledge that I haven't yet proven, I hope you understand.
edit on 1-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 



Now I have done a strict analysis of what you have written with many rough notes written down on the pages of content....reviewing the logical connections, the theological impacts, scientific merit, whether what you are saying is in-line with God (seeing that you basically are claiming that this is it not just your theory but given to you by God)....ect ect...


I'm sorry, did you just imply that you are an authority on what's godly?

You, sir, are full of fecal resin. :bnghd:



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Considering every part of the world was underwater at one point or another, what eviden e do you have that it All happened at once?



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 



Now I have done a strict analysis of what you have written with many rough notes written down on the pages of content....reviewing the logical connections, the theological impacts, scientific merit, whether what you are saying is in-line with God (seeing that you basically are claiming that this is it not just your theory but given to you by God)....ect ect...


I'm sorry, did you just imply that you are an authority on what's godly?

You, sir, are full of fecal resin. :bnghd:


If you bothered to read the long 4 page post of what I was analyzing to come up with my comments you would realize that his theory is meant to be a synthesis of religion and science to create a unifying theory. If it is a synthesis of all religion I am then able to argue from the God of Genesis (whom is shared in one way or another by Mulims, Christians and Jews.....i.e many billions of people on Earth) that his synthesis of religion does not mesh with those religions and thus is not a synthesis. If the theory is meant to unify the science and religion aspects then it is a failed theory because it doesn't.

I am able to speak with authority on what is a synthesis with the God of Christianity (and as this would be a synthesis of all religions from which Christianity is apart) because I am a Christian.

Your not doing your own authority any favors here with such childish and poorly researched accusations.
edit on 1-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Considering every part of the world was underwater at one point or another, what eviden e do you have that it All happened at once?


The cretaceous layer (representing a single time in earth's history) is the one layer, the ONLY layer, that stretches from continent to continent. In some areas it’s thick, in other areas it’s less thick, but it is universal, it covers every single continent and it’s on the same base rock. It is the layer that the tertiary extinction level event occurred. I will also try to time this event as well with evidence too so that the idea that it was 65 million years ago is discounted.
edit on 1-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


You do realize that was the ice age, right? As in a global freezer, not flood. Also consider that Pangea existed and broke apart long before human involvement. Hence, no Noah.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


You do realize that was the ice age, right? As in a global freezer, not flood. Also consider that Pangea existed and broke apart long before human involvement. Hence, no Noah.


You do realize that there is such a thing called plate tectonics, thus no Pangaea is possible (also in the diagrams they shrink the continent of Africa to better fit....Photoshop is a wonderful thing!)


I have plenty of evidence from multiple examples for the global flood....hold your horses. I am not getting into it until I finish evolutionary theory.
edit on 1-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


So thousands of children are lied to every day in science class? That's a hefty allegation... Also, Wikipedia begs to differ.

So try again without being foolish.

edit on 1-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


You do realize that you are going into this with a pre-conceived notion that the Earth is only 8 thousand years old. You are trying desperately to discredit science.

If you can explain away the dinosaurs, I will be impressed.

I am sorry, but the Bible isn't a history book. It's a guide.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Your posts reeks of arrogance and the air of one who is here to prove an agenda...Your God would be ashamed of you, especially insulting the intelligence of others and calling them childish... Doesn't sound like much love does it?

Maybe you should read a few books by Rudolph Steiner if you have such a hard time controlling your distaste for others who question your reality..



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


You do realize that you are going into this with a pre-conceived notion that the Earth is only 8 thousand years old. You are trying desperately to discredit science.
If you can explain away the dinosaurs, I will be impressed.
I am sorry, but the Bible isn't a history book. It's a guide.


I have solid evidence of human activity found at the Cambrian layer (that is the very first layer on the base rocks, supposedly 540 million years ago), I have sophisticated tools (a hammer, made with iron and compounded with chlorine, a process we can't even replicate now) found in layers supposedly hundreds of million years old, I have evidence of set in stone (literally) of dinosaurs and humans together at the same time...

It might be a preconceived notion that the Earth is about 6100 odd years old but if you consider the limiting factors (which I am yet to post on) like: the recession of the moon away from the earth, population growth rates, amount of salt in the oceans, erosion rates (I want to do a decent look at this using the example of the Grand Canyon and its various layers), the accumulation of carbon 14 in the atmosphere and that it has reached its steady state yet....When you start to look at this factors and combine that with the geological evidence that can not explain a particular feature other than through catastrophic flood then it all starts to come together....

I am sorry that things are taking so long, I have been watching so many videos and reading so many articles to try piece it altogether for you, and make sure that what I am presenting is critically reviewed (so you can have some confidence in checking the evidence out more deeply for yourself)....

If your getting a little frustrated with how long I am taking then I should say that if you search out some creation science videos on the topics of biology and the limits of evolution, then you are going to find much food for thought.

I can explain basically all the steps to prove the biblical account as literal history....it is mostly just a question of how long it takes me to do it and how long your attention span is.
edit on 1-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join