Theosophy and Christianity

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

There is no debate between creationism and evolution; it is both. Because what you and your silly ratpack of a cult haven't realized is; The creation evolves, and was never meant to remain stagnant, never changing.

There is no such thing as any living thing through any natural process ever able to go from a simple (small) DNA code to add extra lines of code to become more sophisticated. The WHOLE idea of evolution is from non-living material matter to simple single celled (never able to be reproduce by scientist ever!) to multi-celled to intelligent life. This is a complete fabricated myth....totally destroyed by understanding genetics now. The only mechanism that creates the random changes is mutations. Mutations NEVER add information (it takes information from the DNA away or makes section of the code useless).

Every dog breed (variation) comes from a single original parent kind and the variations are from lose of information, not gaining anything. Same with variations of chicken, horses...everything...each have there own parent kind and every variation comes from a decent from the original....NOT a ascent to something better.

We will have the debate on biological evolution and those holding to evolution will be made to see their delusion!

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


I don't believe Christians are in a cult. I do believe the Born Again Christians who condemn all others are definitely in a cult. I have seen first hand how this group affects it's members. turns them against their family and all others who don't think exactly as they do. It's very hard to see from the inside I guess, but from here, it's glowing red. So don't generalize what was said. It's a very specific group.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

I don't believe Christians are in a cult. I do believe the Born Again Christians who condemn all others are definitely in a cult. I have seen first hand how this group affects it's members. turns them against their family and all others who don't think exactly as they do. It's very hard to see from the inside I guess, but from here, it's glowing red. So don't generalize what was said. It's a very specific group.

Well the Christians who condemn all others aren't really Christian's in the sense of representing what Jesus teaches on how He considers the case of people fairly that have not known Him or known of His message properly. So I get super pissed-off at those 'Christians' because they give Jesus a bad name....and usually give them a bloody earful because they are supposed to know what Jesus taught. I am allowed to come down hard on 'my brothers' (judge them) you see, because they profess to be measured by the same standard ...

reply to post by network dude

In a sense, this is what most of us here are doing. We are searching for answers. Except the devout Christians it seems. The devout born agains seem to be directly opposed to the searching for any answers.

Not all people who use the label "Christian" use it correctly.

Those of us who do, we seek, we ask, and we find...


Proof not all Christians are adverse to learning the mysteries:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I know you said 'seem', and not 'for definite' but I just felt the need to show we're not all the same. The true words of Jesus Christ the Son of The Living Father are most enlightening and contain the mysteries as well as the answers, for those who care to look deep enough.


In peace.

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

Or if you think they there should be some in our vicinity – the problems there are

population III stars should have been very large and hot so therefore short lived and after 10 billion+ years they have long since gone

or they where very small so they would be difficult to detect – but even so after 10 billion+ years they have long since gone

Either too big or too small are postulations made simply after the fact because they can't find any. There is no reason why they would be massive or tiny (rather than a mixture of some spectrum in the middle).

given that the bible story takes place on earth – from genesis to revelation – why did bible god make everything else?

A few different reasons...
- to understand the nature of the Creator's mind (the beauty in the universe) and His awesome limitless power



- Like any of the major fields of science, by studying the universe and how it is made people will come to know Him, that it is impossible to be brought about naturally and out of nothing.
- To see all the places that we'll be able to visit as an incentive to seek after His kingdom and heavenly reward

I will answer your last question about us being on an unimportant rock ect with a full separate post

reply to post by network dude


Are we all not attempting to understand said mysteries?

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
There is no reason why they would be massive or tiny (rather than a mixture of some spectrum in the middle).

There are two trains of thought on population III stars. The first is that by studying population II stars with low metallicity we find that they are typically around 70-80 solar masses which is extremely large. This is then extrapolated to propose that metal-free stars would be even larger and hence short-lived. Part of the reason we can not see them yet is due to their ultra-short life cycle 400,000,000 years after the Big Bang.

The second theory is that there were no, or very few, population III stars and subsequent metallicity was the result of pair-unstable supernovae. The theory is that paired stairs, with at least one of them having a volume of 130 to 250 solar masses, has an over-pressure collapse resulting in runaway nuclear fusion. The resulting explosion is of such magnitude that it escapes forming a black hole and ejects metallic debris, mostly nickel, cobalt and iron, into the surrounding interstellar space.

There are a few candidates for each theory that have been observed but we are not yet able to succinctly confirm either theory at this time. The interesting aspect is both of these can prove to be true as they do not need to be mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic

- Like any of the major fields of science, by studying the universe and how it is made people will come to know Him, that it is impossible to be brought about naturally and out of nothing.
- To see all the places that we'll be able to visit as an incentive to seek after His kingdom and heavenly reward

I will answer your last question about us being on an unimportant rock ect with a full separate post

edit on 6-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)

theism:

the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).

So theists (you for example) believe in a creator but one that has revealed its existence with a revelation – the bible or koran for example*

Deism:

1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

A deistic creator makes the universe but (and this is the important bit) doesn’t provide a revelation about its existence (some kind of bible or koran or whatever)

So if you read the bible or koran and see that the world/universe described in it are not what we can actually observe then the god(s) in those books can safely be dismissed as rubbish and the imagination of primitive man


However the possibility of a deistic creator cannot be dismissed at the moment (this doesn’t mean there is on it just means it remains a possibility)


*given that whoever wrote the bible/koran thought the earth was flat and that the sky is a dome over that flat earth then there is no way to prove bible/koran god done it

or to put it another way you cannot work backwards from our observations of the universe and end up with the answer that bible/koran god made it all

reply to post by racasan

So if you read the bible or koran and see that the world/universe described in it are not what we can actually observe then the god(s) in those books can safely be dismissed as rubbish and the imagination of primitive man

*given that whoever wrote the bible/koran thought the earth was flat and that the sky is a dome over that flat earth then there is no way to prove bible/koran god done it

I will not be vouching for the Koran here...only the Bible. Yes we could generally dismiss the Bible if what they said does not confirm with reality...but if you are read a verse that uses the description 'the for corners of the Earth' and think that the Bible is saying the Earth is flat when it is describing north, south, east and west (to go out into every direction) then you are mistaking what the Bible meant.

Could you provide the verse on the sky being a dome over a flat Earth.

In Luke 17:31 and 34 we read about the event of the return of Jesus and find at that particular point in time there is both day (v.31) and night (v.34) occurring for people on the Earth. Does that sound like a flat earth to you or a 3 dimensional object (obviously a sphere given they would have seen the smooth transition of the sun going down and coming up each day which would not be characteristic of other shapes).

Proverbs 8:27 says, '...when He drew a circle on the face of the deep'.

That verse is describing the horizon line when you are looking out over he ocean (the deep) from a high enough position you see the horizon and the earth sloping away gently like a giant circle in every direction (which would imply a spherical shape).

All what we observe confirms the Bible, it is people's 'interpretations' of what they observe (like when the dinosaurs were around or dating geological layers or guessing that we evolved) that is at odds with the Bible and people's incorrect interpretations of what the Bible is trying to say. I will deal with the starlight travel time issue when making a post at a latter time dealing with the maximum age of the Earth and the Universe.

those books can safely be dismissed as rubbish and the imagination of primitive man

The Bible has predicted events hundreds and thousands of years into the future with lots of descriptive detail and with absolute accuracy (other than the occasion like in Jonah when God did not end up destroying the city of Nineveh after they repented, a conditional prophecy).

Accurately describing in around 2000B.C the resultant physical forces acting on the Orion and Pleiades star systems (Job 38:31) where one is falling apart (Orion) and the other has equal attractant and repulsive forces keeping the system bound (Pleiades) is not characteristic of the imagination of primitive man when these things have been confirmed by modern science.

I already provided a clear example of Jesus intervening in His creation now still with the testimonies of people from CE4 research.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


I can't tell you how ridiculous and inaccurate your interpretations of those 'Theosophy' passages, so I'm not gonna try. Troll harder; I'm out. I don't believe anything you have said thus far but I wish you the best in your future trollings. Adieu.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Earth existed before the bible which was written about 1500 years ago. Did you really expect anyone to take you seriously. The earth is not 8000 years old; this 'world' is.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Basically, Christianity calls half of our archeologists, three quarters of our astronomers, and absolutely ALL of our geographers either incompetent or outright liars.

Who am I voting for? You guessed it. NOT the book that condemns love between two men.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic

Could you provide the verse on the sky being a dome over a flat Earth.

here’s a few links to the flat earth bible thing
www.lhup.edu...
www.theskepticalreview.com...

or just drop ‘flat earth bible’ in to google

Accurately describing in around 2000B.C the resultant physical forces acting on the Orion and Pleiades star systems (Job 38:31) where one is falling apart (Orion) and the other has equal attractant and repulsive forces keeping the system bound (Pleiades) is not characteristic of the imagination of primitive man when these things have been confirmed by modern science.

The Pleiades is an open star cluster (not a star system) in the constellation of Taurus
en.wikipedia.org...


The constellation Orion also isn’t a star system it’s a constellation – or a group of stars which look from the surface of the earth as if they are connected but they actually aren’t

Like this

From here
starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...


as for the job passage

31 Can you bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
32 Can you bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or can you guide Arcturus with his sons?
33 Knowest thou the ordinances of the heavens? Canst thou establish the dominion thereof in the earth?

Doesn’t the stars having an influence on the earth suggest astrology to you?
Any way
The Pleiades are in the constellation of Taurus which appears in spring/ summer – so nice weather/ flowers and so on - sweet influences right?

the constellation Orion appears in the winter, and brings with it stormy winds, rain, snow, and frost – but the bands are more likely a reference to the belt of Orion
en.wikipedia.org...
which has long been used by many cultures as a marker for timekeeping and has been given many names some of the English ones include:

Jacob's Rod or Staff; Peter's Staff; the Golden Yard-arm; the L, or Ell; the Ell and Yard; the Yard-stick, and the Yard-wand; the Ellwand; Our Lady's Wand; the Magi; the Three Kings; the Three Marys; or simply the Three Stars

Re-read Matthew 2 and consider the possible occult reference to the 3 kings/Magi following the bright star (Sirius) to where the saviour of the world (the sun) is born
like this:

then next morning

Matthew 2:9 and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was

reply to post by racasan


Prepare for him to deny this, ridicule you and your links, deny it some more, and then call you a liar...

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

Basically, Christianity calls half of our archeologists, three quarters of our astronomers, and absolutely ALL of our geographers either incompetent or outright liars.

R. H. Rastall, Cambridge

"It cannot be denied that...geologists here are arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the organisms that they contain."
Encyclopedia Britanica Vol. X, p. 168

Geologist have no idea how to age something...their logic is entirely circular

Ninety-five percent of the fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils. Ninety-five percent of the remaining 0.25% are other invertebrates including insects. The remaining 0.0125% of fossils include all vertebrates, mostly fish. Ninety-five percent of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. The fossil record is best understood as the results of a marine cataclysm (Morris, J .D., 1994)

Out of all the fossils in all the layers on Earth we find 95% are marine invertebrates! Marine invertebrates through every layer.....Global flood deposit

The noted palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard pointed out that:-

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change ........ All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt" (Gould, 1977).

Also Dr T S Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections, Oxford University said:-

"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." (Kemp, 1999).

Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History said:-

"The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated" (Raup, Field museum of Natural History Bulletin).

No intermediates...

"A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin , his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...". Raup, D. (1981). New Scientist, Vol. 90. Vol. 90. p. 832

The evidence for evolution is a complete fantasy filtered down to the masses!

Richard Dawkins speaking of the Cambrian fauna commented:

"And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists". Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 1987).

Dawkins can't think of a single example of an evolutionary process or mutation that increase genetic information

“Everybody knows that organisms get better as they evolve. They get more advanced, more modern, and less primitive. And everybody knows,” according to Dan McShea (who has written a paper called “Complexity and Evolution: What Everybody Knows”), “that organisms get more complex as they evolve.”. . .

“The only trouble with what everyone knows, says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, is that there is no evidence it’s true.”
Dan McShea, “Onward and Upward?” by Lori Oliwenstein, Discover, June 1993, p. 22

Those genes that control key early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are always so.
Wallace Arthur, 1997, The Origin of Animal Body Plans, p.14

That means no macro-evolution

“One of these days, both Joyce and Szostak believe, when someone fills a test tube with just the right stuff, a self-replicating molecule will pop up.
Some people will always hold to the belief that it is a divine spark, not clever chemistry, that brings matter to life, and for all their fancy equipment, scientists have yet to produce anything in a test tube that would shake a Fundamentalist’s faith.”
“How Life Began”, J. Madeleine Nash, Time, October 11, 1993, p. 74

Please...get an education on Archaeology.

The Spade Unearths the truth -
Archaeological evidence in support of Scripture is presented tracing evidence for the long-disputed stories of the Exodus and the existence of long-forgotten cities and archaeological finds such as the Ebla tablets.


Archaeology Digging for the Truth of the Bible - Dr. Don Patton

Joshua's Altar on Mt. Ebal, Gilgal and 12 Stones from Jordan, Fallen walls of Jericho, Rahab's house, Balaam Inscription (talking donkey), Shilo Platueau, Fortified gates of Solomon, Jeroboam's Altar at Dan, and the City and Palace of David

The history of the Bible is backed up by what is observed....Evolution is not

reply to post by racasan


Not one of your passages said the Earth was flat....you're using passages of a dream from King Nebuchadnezzar (from Daniel 4) as evidence

Your argument is that I have used the wrong terminologies... Orion moving apart Pleiades remaining stable...Bible CORRECT.

Re-read Matthew 2 and consider the possible occult reference

What's the occult reference???

That Jesus was born, had 40 odd independent historical accounts written about Him, 300% more than the most famous and powerful person at the time, the then Caesar.

You are giving me star charts of northern hemisphere winter....ah, you do realize that He wasn't born in winter (the Shepherds were still in the fields)

Please show me where in the Bible it says "3" wise men and "born on the 25th of Decemeber"

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by racasan

 

Not one of your passages said the Earth was flat....you're using passages of a dream from King Nebuchadnezzar (from Daniel 4) as evidence

I haven’t given you any bible passages, so which passages are you referring to?

Your argument is that I have used the wrong terminologies... Orion moving apart Pleiades remaining stable...Bible CORRECT.

The stars that make up the constellation of Orion have never been together – so in what way are they ‘moving apart’?

Re-read Matthew 2 and consider the possible occult reference

What's the occult reference???

That Jesus was born, had 40 odd independent historical accounts written about Him, 300% more than the most famous and powerful person at the time, the then Caesar.

Please provide an‘independent historical account’ of Jesus (1 will do but make sure it’s a good one)

You are giving me star charts of northern hemisphere winter....ah, you do realize that He wasn't born in winter

(the Shepherds were still in the fields)

Jesus never existed and in my opinion the whole thing is just a romanised version of older sun worshipping cults

(I recommend this book for an interesting view on that www.caesarsmessiah.com...)

Please show me where in the Bible it says "3" wise men and "born on the 25th of Decemeber"

edit on 8-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)

How about - 3 gifts (gold frankincense and myrrh) so 3 gift givers?