Elevating theology to Theory
Aron-Ra
All things that exist in reality can be evaluated and understood in some
way. To that end, answer the following questions to the best of your
ability.
In the performance of science, it is necessary to answer all of these
questions with the best explanation possible. Even a wrong answer is less
wrong than no answer at all as wrong answers can still be tested for to
further define our understanding. All ideas will be tested and compared.
But if you can't come up with anything of merit on your own, don't worry
about it. Just answer what you can as best you can if you have something to
present that might be of interest. Then those answers will be tested for
however or whenever possible by everyone who wants to participate.
Anyone who can contribute an idea which can withstand peer reviewed
scrutiny, will be recognized accordingly, regardless of qualification,
reputation, or orientation. In this way, we can and will eliminate what is
probably true from what is not possibly true.
Assuming each of the following might exist....
GODS:
How old is the eldest extant god? (To be hereafter referred to simply as
"God").
Is he related in any way at all to any others of his kind?
Can others of his kind exist?
Where/what did he come from? How was he created?
How does God's infinite perception function? How does he perceive?
How does he think? How does divination work?
Can any operation of God's capabilities or properties be reproduced,
measured, or examined with any technology which currently exists?
What type technology could perform this task?
Can he change his mind once he has been initiated?
What is the logic behind sacrifice? Why does he appreciate that?
On a universal scale, what makes him happy?
How and why is he pleased by whatever we do?
What are the limits of what he can or will do?
How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it exists?
(if you do)
MIRACLES:
Exactly how does he effect miraculous events? Is it by manipulation of
atomic weight? Or magnetism?
Does he move through time? Or does he exist outside of time? If so, how?
How does he communicate? If no one can actually hear God's voice in any
sane state, then what means does he use? Exactly what does it mean to be
"moved" by God?
Does telepathy exist?
Is teleportation possible? If so, is it possible to teleport objects other
than one's self? How could it be done?
Does telekinesis exist? If so, how does it work?
How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
(if you do)
SOULS:
What might compose them? How do they function? How might they be
evidenced? Or tested for / against?
Is there any existent technology which can measure, detect, or otherwise
evidence a soul?
What type of hypothetical technology could do this?
How do souls process thoughts in Liu of any brain?
Is this process similar to the mental processes which God possesses?
How do souls move? What do they move through? Can they effect matter,
organisms, or concepts on the prime material plane of mortal existence?
What is the difference between a soul and an astral form?
Can ghosts exist? What is the difference between a soul and a ghost?
If all souls are to be judged, what happens afterward?
What happens after the last very last soul has been judged?
How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
(if you do)
CREATION:
What is the motivation behind creation? What is God's desire in his work in
terms of eternal success?
What exists beyond the linear boundaries of the material universe? How is
that boundary defined?
Is this God's first universe?
Is this God's only universe?
Are there other universes, that were created by other gods?
What happens to the Earth and all spiritual planes after the end of the
Earth?
How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it occured?
(if you do)
The FIRMAMENT:
What is the firmament? And where is it located?
If one can travel beyond the furthest stars, beyond the boundaries of the
universe as we know it, what will one encounter?
Is there an impassible firmament of some sort there?
What's on the other side?
Beyond that boundary, does this plane still exist?
If so, does matter still exist? Do physical laws vary?
How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it exists?
(if you do)
HEAVEN, HELL, and the OTHER PLANES:
What is the purpose of Hell?
What is the value of eternal punishment with no option of parole or
rehabilitation?
Where did souls go before Christ?
Why / how did this change?
How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
(if you do)
JESUS the CHRIST:
How was Jesus conceived?
Was it similar to corporal transfer? Was it a parthenogenic birth?
How was his gender manipulated?
And why was it necessary that he be male?
What was Jesus' purpose?
What were his limitations?
Define his exact relationship to God.
What means did he use to perform his miracles?
Were they psychic or psionic in nature?
A) How did he convert water to wine?
Wine to water is more immediately conceivable. But how did Jesus create
pectin, alcohol, sugar, and the
necessary tastes and pigments to qualify as wine? Were these molecules
manufactured by some telekinetic means out of particles in the air? Were
they modifications of hydrogen or other molecules, rearranged to become the
chemical components required?
B) How did he create food immaculately?
Could he have made copies of those materials through some psychic means? How
did he amass the necessary matter
of the right molecular configuration and arrangement to constitute bread and
fish? Were these once living things teleported to his location? Or were they
created already in a dead and processed state, ready for consumption?
How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe he
exists/existed? (if you do)
SATAN:
Is Satan an agent of God in punishing souls for him? Or does God do that
himself?
What is the origin of Satan? Is he a god too? If not, then how best can he
be described?
What are the properties of Satan? How old is he? Where / what did he come
from?
What is his motivation? What is his ultimate Goal? Can that change?
Why is he considered evil? Why is he considered to be the lord of lies?
What is his opinion of his situation, status, duties, or place in the
universe?
Why would he want our souls? What purpose do they serve him to have them?
Do souls in his possession perform some service or function for him?
How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe he exists?
(if you do)
DEMONS and ANGELS:
Are they similar? Perhaps related species?
What are their physical characteristics, properties, and limitations?
What is their history? What is their origin?
Do they have extra-planerial characteristics which can be defined as
physical in how they vary from each other, or from human souls, or divine
ones?
What can they do and what are they incapable of? And why?
How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
(if you do)
SIN and SALVATION:
What constitutes sin? And why is it of consequence? How is the measure of
sin versus good works and belief measured against accountability and
forgiveness to determine whether one is destined for Heaven, Hell,
Purgatory, resurrection, reincarnation, or oblivion?
Why are issues of sexuality such a focal point of sin? And why did God
design sexual drives and assign orientations and desires all to be the
strongest forces in all of biology that can still be survived in their
abstinence without physical damage?
How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe these exist?
(if you do)
Speculative bonus question for purposes of illustration / further
explanation
of sin & salvation: Each of the following have been petitioned for
placement in both paradise and damnation, (including oblivion) for various
reasons by various people. To further illustrate the criteria of divine
judgement, evaluate each according to the beliefs you adhere to determine
the current location of the following souls:
Pope Alexander VI
Alcestis (of Euripedes)
Mohamed Atta
Queen Baudicca of Iceny
Bahá'u'lláh
Giordano Bruno
William Jennings Bryan
Gautama Buddha
Sammuel Clemmons
Emporer Constantine
Bishop Cyril of the Opposition
Leonardo DaVinci
Eve of Eden
Mahatma Ghandi
Gilgamesh
Ham of NASA
Adolph Hitler
Hypatia of Alexandria
Judas Iscariot
Reverend Jim Jones
Vladimir Lenin
John Lennon
Abraham Lincoln
Martin Luther
Lady Mary Madonna, mother of God
Cotton Mather
Michaelangelo
Moses
Muhammad
Nostrodamos
Sri Prabupada
Lord Rama
Grigori Rasputin
Carl Sagan
Joseph Smith
Socrates
Vlad Tepesh (the Impaler)
Mother Theresa
Torquemada
Trigger
George Washington
Rabba Y'shua Bar Yosseff
Final question: What will become of your essence following your mortal
demise?
(one of the) Heaven(s) [clarify which one]
(one of the) Hell(s) [clarify which one]
Purgatory
stasis
resurrection
reincarnation (human only)
reincarnation (non-human possibility)
reincarnation (extra-terrestrial, planerial possibility)
oblivion
syndication
other
Additional questions are expected and encouraged of course.
Aron-Ra
Padraic Brown
> I'd like to see everybody respond to this at least in part.
Before answering anything, I'd simply point out the flaw in
your perspective. It may well be true that all things that
exist in reality can be evaluated and understood; most of
the things you're asking either do not exist in reality or
else are not known to either exist or not exist in reality.
> JESUS the CHRIST:
At least this one may possibly have existed!
> How was Jesus conceived?
There was this fellow named Joseph... The rest is capably
covered in any biology text.
> Was it similar to corporal transfer? Was it a parthenogenic birth?
> How was his gender manipulated?
> And why was it necessary that he be male?
The gender of a child is mostly a matter of luck, I thought.
> What was Jesus' purpose?
Whatever he made it. It seems he made his purpose to devise and
teach a philosophy.
> What were his limitations?
Largely the same limitations experienced by any man of his
time and place.
> Define his exact relationship to God.
I'm not aware that he specifically addressed this point, other
than to make known that he has a "heavenly Father".
> What means did he use to perform his miracles?
You assume he ever did any at all.
> Were they psychic or psionic in nature?
Possibly they were legendary in nature.
> A) How did he convert water to wine?
> Wine to water is more immediately conceivable. But how did Jesus create
> pectin, alcohol, sugar, and the
> necessary tastes and pigments to qualify as wine? Were these molecules
> manufactured by some telekinetic means out of particles in the air? Were
> they modifications of hydrogen or other molecules, rearranged to become the
> chemical components required?
Possibly he paid the wine merchant to install a hydraulic device that
would siphon water from one amphora and replace it with good wine from
a hidden source.
> B) How did he create food immaculately?
> Could he have made copies of those materials through some psychic means? How
> did he amass the necessary matter
> of the right molecular configuration and arrangement to constitute bread and
> fish? Were these once living things teleported to his location? Or were they
> created already in a dead and processed state, ready for consumption?
He knew the secret of Stone Soup?
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
It's probably not something that can be.
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe he
> exists/existed? (if you do)
> Speculative bonus question for purposes of illustration / further
> explanation
> of sin & salvation: Each of the following have been petitioned for
> placement in both paradise and damnation, (including oblivion) for various
> reasons by various people. To further illustrate the criteria of divine
> judgement, evaluate each according to the beliefs you adhere to determine
> the current location of the following souls:
> Queen Baudicca of Iceny
I wasn't aware that she was presented as a candidate for either.
She wasn't xian, so apparently she won't be amongst the saints
(according to some xians, anyway). On the other hand, she died
with sword in hand defending her people's honour, so it may
well be Summerlands here we come!
> Final question: What will become of your essence following your mortal
> demise?
Who knows. We'll find out then, shall we?
Padraic.
John Wilkins
> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> yscrifef:
...
>
> > Queen Baudicca of Iceny
>
> I wasn't aware that she was presented as a candidate for either.
> She wasn't xian, so apparently she won't be amongst the saints
> (according to some xians, anyway). On the other hand, she died
> with sword in hand defending her people's honour, so it may
> well be Summerlands here we come!
As I recall, she was not a Nice Person in her own right. She massacred
more than a few villages that were on the Roman side.
>
> > Final question: What will become of your essence following your mortal
> > demise?
>
> Who knows. We'll find out then, shall we?
I'm hoping mine will be used to make vanilla icecream...
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making sense for over 45 years
newbie
Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t2jF7.14283$S4.13...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I'd like to see everybody respond to this at least in part.
>
> All things that exist in reality can be evaluated and understood in
some
> way. To that end, answer the following questions to the best of your
> ability.
>
> In the performance of science, it is necessary to answer all of these
> questions with the best explanation possible. Even a wrong answer is
less
> wrong than no answer at all as wrong answers can still be tested for
to
> further define our understanding. All ideas will be tested and
compared.
> But if you can't come up with anything of merit on your own, don't
worry
> about it. Just answer what you can as best you can if you have
something to
> present that might be of interest. Then those answers will be tested
for
> however or whenever possible by everyone who wants to participate.
Ok.
> Anyone who can contribute an idea which can withstand peer reviewed
> scrutiny, will be recognized accordingly, regardless of qualification,
> reputation, or orientation. In this way, we can and will eliminate
what is
> probably true from what is not possibly true.
Bullshit.
J Forbes
Actually, it's not bullshit.
It's called "science".
Jim
J Forbes
>
> I'd like to see everybody respond to this at least in part.
Ok, but my part will probably be small, because I
don't have any reason yet to think that any gods are
real outside of human imagination...
> All things that exist in reality can be evaluated and understood in some
> way. To that end, answer the following questions to the best of your
> ability.
>
> In the performance of science, it is necessary to answer all of these
> questions with the best explanation possible. Even a wrong answer is less
> wrong than no answer at all as wrong answers can still be tested for to
> further define our understanding. All ideas will be tested and compared.
> But if you can't come up with anything of merit on your own, don't worry
> about it. Just answer what you can as best you can if you have something to
> present that might be of interest. Then those answers will be tested for
> however or whenever possible by everyone who wants to participate.
>
> Anyone who can contribute an idea which can withstand peer reviewed
> scrutiny, will be recognized accordingly, regardless of qualification,
> reputation, or orientation. In this way, we can and will eliminate what is
> probably true from what is not possibly true.
>
> Assuming each of the following might exist....
-snip-
> SOULS:
> What might compose them? How do they function? How might they be
> evidenced? Or tested for / against?
> Is there any existent technology which can measure, detect, or otherwise
> evidence a soul?
> What type of hypothetical technology could do this?
> How do souls process thoughts in Liu of any brain?
> Is this process similar to the mental processes which God possesses?
> How do souls move? What do they move through? Can they effect matter,
> organisms, or concepts on the prime material plane of mortal existence?
> What is the difference between a soul and an astral form?
> Can ghosts exist? What is the difference between a soul and a ghost?
> If all souls are to be judged, what happens afterward?
> What happens after the last very last soul has been judged?
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
> (if you do)
I think that there is almost such a thing as an
"eternal soul". It is not contained in the person
who's soul it is, though! Instead, it is merely the
information about that person, which is contained in
the minds of others who know/knew him. When the
person dies, information about the behavior of that
person lives on in the minds of others. This is the
"immortal soul".
More discussion welcome on this topic...
-snip-
> HEAVEN, HELL, and the OTHER PLANES:
> What is the purpose of Hell?
> What is the value of eternal punishment with no option of parole or
> rehabilitation?
> Where did souls go before Christ?
> Why / how did this change?
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
> (if you do)
The "eternal soul" may go to a place such as
"heaven" or "hell", but these places are also in the
mind of the person who possesses the soul (not the
person who's soul it is!).
We have no evidence whatsoever which supports the
idea that any part of the human mind survives
death. But we do have a lot of evidence to support
the idea that we continue to think about the dead as
though they were still alive, for quite a long time
after death.
-snip-
> Final question: What will become of your essence following your mortal
> demise?
> (one of the) Heaven(s) [clarify which one]
> (one of the) Hell(s) [clarify which one]
> Purgatory
> stasis
> resurrection
> reincarnation (human only)
> reincarnation (non-human possibility)
> reincarnation (extra-terrestrial, planerial possibility)
> oblivion
> syndication
> other
This is up to the survivors...I don't have any
essence, other than other's memories of me.
Jim
newbie
J Forbes <jfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3BE5D341...@yahoo.com...
Gyudon Z
And it is science, too.
Have you a better alternative?
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
newbie
Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011104201218...@mb-fv.aol.com...
I stand corrected. Science eliminates what is probably true from what is
not possibly true.
> Have you a better alternative?
By all means, proceed with the elimination and make your conclusion.
I will try to act surprised...
Gyudon Z
Now, that's service. I couldn't have posted my message longer than fifteen
minutes ago.
>Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20011104201218...@mb-fv.aol.com...
>> From newbie:
>>
>> >J Forbes <jfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3BE5D341...@yahoo.com...
>> >> newbie wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:t2jF7.14283$S4.13...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
<snip>
>> >> > > Anyone who can contribute an idea which can withstand peer
>> >reviewed
>> >> > > scrutiny, will be recognized accordingly, regardless of
>> >qualification,
>> >> > > reputation, or orientation. In this way, we can and will
>> >eliminate
>> >> > what is
>> >> > > probably true from what is not possibly true.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bullshit.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, it's not bullshit.
>> >>
>> >> It's called "science".
>> >>
>> >You are right, it is called ""science"".
>>
>> And it is science, too.
>
>I stand corrected. Science eliminates what is probably true from what is
>not possibly true.
Yes. But guess which one it keeps.
>> Have you a better alternative?
>By all means, proceed with the elimination and make your conclusion.
>I will try to act surprised...
I was actually speaking as to an alternative method of investigation, but we
can look at your alternative conclusion too if you'd care to give it.
newbie
Keeps? The ones that are not possibly true.
>
> >> Have you a better alternative?
>
> >By all means, proceed with the elimination and make your conclusion.
> >I will try to act surprised...
>
> I was actually speaking as to an alternative method of investigation,
but we
> can look at your alternative conclusion too if you'd care to give it.
>
I was speaking to Arons little experiment. Do try to keep focused.
Gyudon Z
Actually, pretty much everything that science keeps is not only possibly true
but very probably true.
Of course, it "keeps" the impossible things as well, but it usually keeps them
in the discard bin.
>> >> Have you a better alternative?
>> >By all means, proceed with the elimination and make your conclusion.
>> >I will try to act surprised...
>> I was actually speaking as to an alternative method of investigation,
>but we
>> can look at your alternative conclusion too if you'd care to give it.
>
>I was speaking to Arons little experiment. Do try to keep focused.
The experiment where hypotheses submitted to peer-reviewed journals are
examined on the basis of their evidence?
I believe Aron's experiment has been successful in that respect. His
predictions are what we observe.
newbie
Which journal is that?
>
> I believe Aron's experiment has been successful in that respect. His
> predictions are what we observe.
>
The experiment he proposed earlier today? Do tell what predictions he
made that you are observing.
Anti Fundies
"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<t2jF7.14283$S4.13...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Gyudon Z
>> >> >> Have you a better alternative?
>>
>> >> >By all means, proceed with the elimination and make your
>conclusion.
>> >> >I will try to act surprised...
>>
>> >> I was actually speaking as to an alternative method of
>investigation,
>> >but we
>> >> can look at your alternative conclusion too if you'd care to give
>it.
>> >
>> >I was speaking to Arons little experiment. Do try to keep focused.
>>
>> The experiment where hypotheses submitted to peer-reviewed journals
>are
>> examined on the basis of their evidence?
>Which journal is that?
The Journal of Evolutionary Biology will do nicely, but any scientific journal
should do the trick.
>> I believe Aron's experiment has been successful in that respect. His
>> predictions are what we observe.
>The experiment he proposed earlier today?
The one about submitting things to journals. Did he propose another one?
>Do tell what predictions he
>made that you are observing.
He predicted that the work appearing in scientific journals will be adequately
supported by evidence. The journal work I've read supports this.
newbie
> From newbie:
>
> >> >> >> Have you a better alternative?
> >>
> >> >> >By all means, proceed with the elimination and make your
> >conclusion.
> >> >> >I will try to act surprised...
> >>
> >> >> I was actually speaking as to an alternative method of
> >investigation,
> >> >but we
> >> >> can look at your alternative conclusion too if you'd care to
give
> >it.
> >> >
> >> >I was speaking to Arons little experiment. Do try to keep focused.
> >>
> >> The experiment where hypotheses submitted to peer-reviewed journals
> >are
> >> examined on the basis of their evidence?
>
> >Which journal is that?
>
> The Journal of Evolutionary Biology will do nicely, but any scientific
journal
> should do the trick.
My gosh! I didn't realize that he got around that much!
>
> >> I believe Aron's experiment has been successful in that respect.
His
> >> predictions are what we observe.
>
> >The experiment he proposed earlier today?
>
> The one about submitting things to journals. Did he propose another
one?
Why don't you explain what Aron's experiment is.
>
> >Do tell what predictions he
> >made that you are observing.
>
> He predicted that the work appearing in scientific journals will be
adequately
> supported by evidence. The journal work I've read supports this.
>
I could have sworn you said lots of "iffy" stuff gets published. So
"iffy" is "adequate"?
Hope I am not confusing you with this technical jargon.
steve muscat
"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t2jF7.14283$S4.13...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Get stuck into the Word of God and prayer and alot of your questions will be
answered, and the ones that arent, are usually God's own business which will
be revealled in Heaven.
>
> Aron-Ra
>
Aron-Ra
Anti Fundies <anti_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3abe2e68.01110...@posting.google.com...
> But religion and theology aren't science to start with.
Well yeah. Obviously. But there have been a couple of recent attempts in
this forum to present the Theory of Creation as if it were scientific. All
of which so far, have actively avoided actually explaining anything. Or
explaining how anything could be tested for quantified, qualified, verified,
or falsified. I just posted this because these are the sorts of questions
that I asked as a child and I think they are therefore basic enough that
they might be answered if there is any truth to them.
I do wish I'd listed a couple more people in my "where are they now" list.
Lilith, Lucy, and that guy who founded the American flat Earth Society for
example.
Its too bad that Newbie is such an abominable distraction that no one is
even trying for that part. I thought that would be quite amusing to see
debated. Oh well.
Aron-Ra
Bob Pease
I am preparing this for myself, mainly.
Anybody wanting to disagree, remember that I Really think that most of the
questions contain terms which have a restricted cultural definition., and
make practically no sense in the large.
Obviously books have been written on each question.
I can hardly do them justice with one-liners
I do not necessarily agree with all of the Answers I have given, as I have
been asked to answer them form the viewpoint of a person who accepts the
premise and assigns them meaning. Answers are inserted in the text.
It is assumed that the Categories in question actually Exist.
My answers are given with this suspension of disbelief.
Please do not snip and quote me . this destroys the context and intent of
this discourse.
RJ Pease, as myself
Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t2jF7.14283$S4.13...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I'd like to see everybody respond to this at least in part.
>
> All things that exist in reality can be evaluated and understood in some
> way. To that end, answer the following questions to the best of your
> ability.
>
> In the performance of science, it is necessary to answer all of these
> questions with the best explanation possible. Even a wrong answer is less
> wrong than no answer at all as wrong answers can still be tested for to
> further define our understanding. All ideas will be tested and compared.
> But if you can't come up with anything of merit on your own, don't worry
> about it. Just answer what you can as best you can if you have something
to
> present that might be of interest. Then those answers will be tested for
> however or whenever possible by everyone who wants to participate.
>
> Anyone who can contribute an idea which can withstand peer reviewed
> scrutiny, will be recognized accordingly, regardless of qualification,
> reputation, or orientation. In this way, we can and will eliminate what
is
> probably true from what is not possibly true.
>
> Assuming each of the following might exist....
>
> GODS:
> How old is the eldest extant god? (To be hereafter referred to simply as
> "God").
Same age as Universe , perhaps older
> Is he related in any way at all to any others of his kind?
n/a see next
> Can others of his kind exist?
no
> Where/what did he come from?
Nothing existed before him
>How was he created?
not possible to find this out
> How does God's infinite perception function?
Don't know
> How does he perceive?
N/a
> How does he think?
A better version of how WE do
> How does divination work?
n/a
> Can any operation of God's capabilities or properties be reproduced,
> measured, or examined with any technology which currently exists?
yes
> What type technology could perform this task?
any level measures some aspect of it.
> Can he change his mind once he has been initiated?
yes
> What is the logic behind sacrifice?
Sacrifice evens stuff out, in a karmic sense
> Why does he appreciate that?
Needs to
> On a universal scale, what makes him happy?
Maximization of goodness
> How and why is he pleased by whatever we do?
yes
> What are the limits of what he can or will do?
no way of telling
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
ibid
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it exists?
> (if you do)..You were told to ASSUME this.
Spiritual knowledgw trumps empirical knowledge
> MIRACLES:
> Exactly how does he effect miraculous events?
whatever works
> Is it by manipulation of atomic weight? Or magnetism?
If needed
> Does he move through time? Or does he exist outside of time? If so, how?
no clue..a manufactured answer would be wild speculation even if it made
sense.
> How does he communicate?
People get the WORD. some hear voices, others get it from a "Vision"
>If no one can actually hear God's voice in any
> sane state, then what means does he use? Exactly what does it mean to be
> "moved" by God?
You have to ask someone who has experienced this
*******
You are getting into some things I think make sense now.
> Does telepathy exist?
Of Course
> Is teleportation possible?
I think so.but according to Asimov and Sagan very far beyond our present
technology.
>If so, is it possible to teleport objects other
> than one's self? How could it be done?
The main theory is disassemble, analysis and recombination .
It might be like the difference between TIFF and JPG. Duplicate info is
recorded by indexing and ditto marks.
> Does telekinesis exist?
>If so, how does it work?any theory using present technology might be a
laughable anachronism when a method is discovered.
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
ibid
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
> (if you do)
n/a
Assuming ,again that the concept is meaningful..
> SOULS:
> What might compose them?
Spiritual energy
>How do they function? How might they be
> evidenced? Or tested for / against?
don't know
> Is there any existent technology which can measure, detect, or otherwise
> evidence a soul?
I am not aware of any
> What type of hypothetical technology could do this?
ibid
> How do souls process thoughts in Liu (lieu/)of any brain?
Spiritual energy need no physical medium
> Is this process similar to the mental processes which God possesses?
yes
> How do souls move?
Process unknown
>What do they move through?
Psace, time
> Can they effect matter,
> organisms, or concepts on the prime material plane of mortal existence?
Sometimes
> What is the difference between a soul and an astral form?
ERROR. Definition lacking
> Can ghosts exist?
yes
>What is the difference between a soul and a ghost?
plenty..A ghost is what is left over from some previous entity after it has
changed.
a "Soul" does not need to be a ghost.
> If all souls are to be judged, what happens afterward?
Who says they are judged??
> What happens after the last very last soul has been judged?
Then maybe nonjudgeable sould would be doing stuff.
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
by Spiritual Science
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
> (if you do)
> CREATION:
> What is the motivation behind creation?
none is needed
>What is God's desire in his work in terms of eternal success?
Huh?
> What exists beyond the linear boundaries of the material universe?
See next question
> How is that boundary defined?
There may not be any boundaries.
again they might R3 mapped onto a hypersphere . any bound conditions need
to by verified as predicting or confirming the latest Astrophysical theory.
Just recently, the Universe has been shown to be unbounded, rather than
"Closed"
in "Flat"
> Is this God's first universe?
no
> Is this God's only universe?n
o
> Are there other universes, that were created by other gods?
no
> What happens to the Earth and all spiritual planes after the end of the
Earth?
Any answer would make no more sense than the question
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it occured?
> (if you do)
>
> The FIRMAMENT:
> What is the firmament? And where is it located?
the sky
> If one can travel beyond the furthest stars, beyond the boundaries of the
> universe as we know it, what will one encounter?
BOB
> Is there an impassible firmament of some sort there?
nope
> What's on the other side?
They ain't no other siden
> Beyond that boundary, does this plane still exist?
Huh?
> If so, does matter still exist? Do physical laws vary?
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it exists?
> (if you do)
>
> HEAVEN, HELL, and the OTHER PLANES:
> What is the purpose of Hell?
Easy. To punish evildoers.
> What is the value of eternal punishment with no option of parole or
> rehabilitation?
none
> Where did souls go before Christ?
Limbo
> Why / how did this change?
Agnus Dei.
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
> (if you do)
>
> JESUS the CHRIST: (My own beliefs), as present Agnostic, (Catholic) having
considerable background and experience in this subject)
> How was Jesus conceived?
normally
> Was it similar to corporal transfer?
yes
> Was it a parthenogenic birth?
absolutely not
> How was his gender manipulated?
huh?
> And why was it necessary that he be male?
Culturally mandatory.
> What was Jesus' purpose?
Spread a socila vision of peace and lave and justice.
> What were his limitations?
None that anyone else in his position would have
> Define his exact relationship to God.
He was a man like us in all ways (except sin?)
> What means did he use to perform his miracles?
They did not happen the way that they are reported
> Were they psychic or psionic in nature?
nope
> A) How did he convert water to wine?
It was an exxagerated report/
> Wine to water is more immediately conceivable. But how did Jesus create
> pectin, alcohol, sugar, and the
> necessary tastes and pigments to qualify as wine?
n/a
> Were these molecules
> manufactured by some telekinetic means out of particles in the air? Were
> they modifications of hydrogen or other molecules, rearranged to become
the
> chemical components required?
I don't think that explaining these by pseudoscientific guesses is
productive, even if they actually happened.
> B) How did he create food immaculately?
Star trek tricks?
> Could he have made copies of those materials through some psychic means?
no> How
> did he amass the necessary matter
> of the right molecular configuration and arrangement to constitute bread
and
> fish? Were these once living things teleported to his location? Or were
they
> created already in a dead and processed state, ready for consumption?
if at all, probably the latter.
Maybe he was on an Away Team and they did stuff as needed to appear as
miracles.
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe he
> exists/existed? (if you do)
>
> SATAN: (Assuming an entity of this sort exists)
> Is Satan an agent of God in punishing souls for him? Or does God do that
> himself?
Both of the above
> What is the origin of Satan? Is he a god too? If not, then how best can he
> be described?
Easy question. Satan was originally an angel called Lucifer.
He got kicked out of heaven for rebelling against God.
This is tha main tenet of the Worldwide Church of God, among others.
> What are the properties of Satan? How old is he? Where / what did he come
> from?
> What is his motivation? What is his ultimate Goal? Can that change?
dunno
> Why is he considered evil? Why is he considered to be the lord of lies?
> What is his opinion of his situation, status, duties, or place in the
> universe?
Needed. but he wishes he had not sinned.
> Why would he want our souls?
he doesn't
What purpose do they serve him to have them?
> Do souls in his possession perform some service or function for him?
he can't possess souls
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe he exists?
> (if you do)
>
> DEMONS and ANGELS:
> Are they similar?
yes
>yup
> Perhaps related species?
yup
> What are their physical characteristics, properties, and limitations?
> What is their history?
Well-known. Study Kaballah and Catholic teaching.. Billy Graham is moronic
on this subject. As a sample..
Nine Choirs.
Angels. Archangels, Cheribum, Seraphim, Virtues, Thrones, Dominations
,Principalities and Powers.
> What is their origin?
Created by God
> Do they have extra-planerial characteristics which can be defined as
> physical in how they vary from each other, or from human souls, or divine
> ones?
huh?
> What can they do and what are they incapable of?
depends on their rank and assignment.
> And why?
to Assist Us or help bring God's message among other things
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
> (if you do)
> SIN and SALVATION:
> What constitutes sin?
>Wilfl interruption of good karma.
>And why is it of consequence?
dunno
>How is the measure of sin versus good works and belief measured against
accountability and forgiveness to determine whether one is destined for
Heaven, Hell,
> Purgatory, resurrection, reincarnation, or oblivion?
Carefully, I hope
> Why are issues of sexuality such a focal point of sin?
This goes back to Gnostic ideas (and earlier..)
>And why did God design sexual drives and assign orientations and desires
all to be the
> strongest forces in all of biology that can still be survived in their
> abstinence without physical damage?
Ovbious.. propogation of the species.
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe these
exist?
> (if you do)
>
> Speculative bonus question for purposes of illustration / further
> explanation
> of sin & salvation: Each of the following have been petitioned for
> placement in both paradise and damnation, (including oblivion) for various
> reasons by various people. To further illustrate the criteria of divine
> judgement, evaluate each according to the beliefs you adhere to determine
> the current location of the following souls:
the best I can do is to give those with whom i Have some knowledge, a grade
as successful human beings. Nobody gets F
> Pope Alexander VI .. D
> Alcestis (of Euripedes)
> Mohamed Atta
> Queen Baudicca of Iceny
> Bahá'u'lláh A
> Giordano Bruno
> William Jennings Bryan B
> Gautama Buddha A
> Sammuel Clemmons Mark Twain?...B
> Emporer Constantine C
> Bishop Cyril of the Opposition
> Leonardo DaVinci B
> Eve of Eden
> Mahatma Ghandi A
> Gilgamesh
> Ham of NASA
> Adolph Hitler D-
> Hypatia of Alexandria
> Judas Iscariot C-
> Reverend Jim Jones D
> Vladimir Lenin B
> John Lennon B
> Abraham Lincoln B
> Martin Luther B
> Lady Mary Madonna, mother of God A
> Cotton Mather
> Michaelangelo
> Moses
> Muhammad A
> Nostrodamos C
> Sri Prabupada A
> Lord Rama
> Grigori Rasputin
> Carl Sagan B+
> Joseph Smith B
> Socrates
> Vlad Tepesh (the Impaler)
> Mother Theresa B
> Torquemada
> Trigger
> George Washington B
> Rabba Y'shua Bar Yosseff
>
> Final question: What will become of your essence following your mortal
> demise?
> (one of the) Heaven(s) [clarify which one]
> (one of the) Hell(s) [clarify which one]
> Purgatory
> stasis
> resurrection
> reincarnation (human only)
> reincarnation (non-human possibility)
> reincarnation (extra-terrestrial, planerial possibility)
> oblivion
> syndication
> other
Other.
I think that this all has a meaning, and it's something good.
If the anwser were given to me, I don't have the intellect or
spiritual/physical advancement to do anything with it.I think that it is
beyond human comprehension.
Aron-Ra
newbie <she...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:SPpF7.350$KO1.7...@news.uswest.net...
>
> Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20011105004257...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> > From newbie:
> >
> > >> >> >> Have you a better alternative?
> > >>
> > >> >> >By all means, proceed with the elimination and make your
> > >conclusion.
> > >> >> >I will try to act surprised...
> > >>
> > >> >> I was actually speaking as to an alternative method of
> > >investigation,
> > >> >but we
> > >> >> can look at your alternative conclusion too if you'd care to
> give
> > >it.
> > >> >
> > >> >I was speaking to Arons little experiment. Do try to keep focused.
> > >>
> > >> The experiment where hypotheses submitted to peer-reviewed journals
> > >are
> > >> examined on the basis of their evidence?
> >
> > >Which journal is that?
> >
> > The Journal of Evolutionary Biology will do nicely, but any scientific
> journal
> > should do the trick.
>
> My gosh! I didn't realize that he got around that much!
I wouldn't have to. If you could actually do as Zoe tried to do and really
explain any of the answers I've queried, I could hardly keep it from getting
into the journals!
You explain how divination works, or how to test for the presence of a soul,
and your name will be a household word inside of three days! Scientists
would be looking up to you and theologians would be patting you on the back.
In fact, both of them would be offering you grants! So go for it! Explain
away. And be sure to get Anne and Zoe and even Jabriol to help you however
they can. You'll be doing God and science a service and getting rich in the
process.
Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your first attempt to answer these
120 some-odd perfectly reasonable questions with the word "bullshit"? I
mean, is that really the best way you can describe the subtle details of
your certain belief?
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
>
>
> Get stuck into the Word of God and prayer and alot of your questions will
be
> answered, and the ones that arent, are usually God's own business which
will
> be revealled in Heaven.
In other words, its time for me to quote Carroll yet again.
"....but answer came there none. And this was scarcely odd because....."
C'mon, Steve! Surely even you can do better than that. I mean, you can at
least tell me what the difference is between a demon and an angel, can't
you?
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
particularly to this last bit, since that was really the whole point of the
illustration.
> the best I can do is to give those with whom i Have some knowledge, a
grade
> as successful human beings. Nobody gets F
(sniff) that's beautiful, man!
> > Pope Alexander VI .. D
This from a Catholic no less! So much for biased favoritism.
And his Devine Grace gets an A!
Go swami Go Swami go Swami
Aron-Ra
newbie
You're delusional.
> You explain how divination works,
Ok. Take a fork of a willow stick, hold in both hands lightly. Walk
about until
the stick pulls downward with no assistance from you, and dig for water.
Other methods work well finding pipes and underground wires. This,
despite what you have heard from such as Randi, does work. The practice
is
often used by professionals in various forms in favor of scientific
methods and devices.
This is personal knowledge also, as I have had direct experience with
the results,
compared with the results of not using the methods.
>or how to test for the presence of a soul,
> and your name will be a household word inside of three days!
The soul is the life force of a living thing. All have it, including
plants. Poking people with
a stick sometimes is a good test to determine if this life force still
exists.
When they get stiff or wilt is a good sign the presence that the soul is
no longer present.
Now you going to start calling me Ajax?
>Scientists
> would be looking up to you and theologians would be patting you on the
back.
No thanks. I hate being patted on the back.
> In fact, both of them would be offering you grants! So go for it!
Explain
> away. And be sure to get Anne and Zoe and even Jabriol to help you
however
> they can. You'll be doing God and science a service and getting rich
in the
> process.
I personally don't feel it possible to "do God a service". And I doubt
there would be
much money in grants. The soul is common knowledge.
> Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your first attempt to answer
these
> 120 some-odd perfectly reasonable questions with the word "bullshit"?
I didn't "attempt" to answer any of your questions.
Why do you consider them to be "reasonable"?
> I mean, is that really the best way you can describe the subtle
details of
> your certain belief?
So far, the greatest minds on t.o. that have spoken to me have not been
able to comprehend
the "subtle details" of my attitude towards science. All I have got so
far is "youse dun't like science
because you believe in gawd." and "youse dunt believe in evolution."
Sharing the reasons for my belief would not be constructive or helpful
to
me or anyone else here.
Let me ask you a question. Why aren't you honest with yourself?
John Wilkins
But did he grade on a curve? If not, how can we trust these marks?
--
John Wilkins at home
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Nick Keighley
> I'd like to see everybody respond to this at least in part.
>
> All things that exist in reality can be evaluated and understood in some
> way. To that end, answer the following questions to the best of your
> ability.
>
> In the performance of science, it is necessary to answer all of these
> questions with the best explanation possible. Even a wrong answer is less
> wrong than no answer at all as wrong answers can still be tested for to
> further define our understanding. All ideas will be tested and compared.
> But if you can't come up with anything of merit on your own, don't worry
> about it. Just answer what you can as best you can if you have something to
> present that might be of interest. Then those answers will be tested for
> however or whenever possible by everyone who wants to participate.
>
> Anyone who can contribute an idea which can withstand peer reviewed
> scrutiny, will be recognized accordingly, regardless of qualification,
> reputation, or orientation. In this way, we can and will eliminate what is
> probably true from what is not possibly true.
>
> Assuming each of the following might exist....
this is an awfully hard assumption to swallow, even for the sake of
argument.
If I were going accept such an hypothesis I'd have thought it up to
the
proposer of the hypothesis to define the properties of the entities.
This seems to be a sort of poll on what people think of God (and other
entities) I don't see how this can any way be science.
> GODS:
> How old is the eldest extant god? (To be hereafter referred to simply as
> "God").
<snip questions about the attributes of God>
um. how can I answer questions about a hypotheical entity for which no
firm
evidence exists?
this seems like the soft and squishy end of meta-physics.
generally a god seems to be a very powerful being (sometimes infinitly
powerful) that can do things that transend the normal natural laws. It
is
surprising that evidence of such powerful beings isn't constantly in
our
faces. Perhaps they have super-human powers of restraint as well.
> MIRACLES:
<snip more God stuff>
> Does telepathy exist?
maybe. No hard evidence.
> Is teleportation possible?
define "teleport". Science fiction (and some of the odder physicists)
has proposed several mechanisms for moving things from one place to
another in a fashion I would be happy to conceed as teleportation if
it was demonstated to me. Is it possible now? No. No evidence.
> Does telekinesis exist?
probably not. No evidence.
>
> SOULS:
> What might compose them? How do they function? How might they be
> evidenced? Or tested for / against?
> Is there any existent technology which can measure, detect, or otherwise
> evidence a soul?
well I read an artical that suggested since a soul contains
information then
it has energy and hence mass. The artical speculated that it was a
very
energetic photon. Very sentsative instuments should be able to detect
it
before birth and on death. I've no idea if the experiment was ever
actually
attempted.
> What type of hypothetical technology could do this?
> How do souls process thoughts in Liu of any brain?
> Is this process similar to the mental processes which God possesses?
interesting. Since, I believe (for small values of belief) angels etc.
have
no souls can they think? Are they better or worse than us at it? Does
God have
a soul? I'm told that angels hate people because we have souls. I'm
told one
should never trust an angel.
I don't know if the same reasoning applies to daemons and djinns.
> HEAVEN, HELL, and the OTHER PLANES:
> What is the purpose of Hell?
> What is the value of eternal punishment with no option of parole or
> rehabilitation?
interesting. We have the concept of cruel and unusual punishment so
under our
existing laws we couldn't torture Pol Pot and bin Laden for even five
minutes
let alone for the rest of their lives or even for eternity (the first
billion
years were the worst...). But God can. Is Man more moral than God?
> Where did souls go before Christ?
when I was a child I wanted to know if cavemen and red indians went to
the
same heaven as us. After all someone who lived in a cave and chewed
haunches
of meat might not want to sit on a cloud and play with his harp. And
indians
went to the happy hunting ground. Is heaven divided into sections?
> SATAN:
> Is Satan an agent of God in punishing souls for him? Or does God do that
> himself?
> What is the origin of Satan? Is he a god too? If not, then how best can he
> be described?
I thought traditionally he was a fallen angel.
> Final question: What will become of your essence following your mortal
> demise?
> (one of the) Heaven(s) [clarify which one]
> (one of the) Hell(s) [clarify which one]
> Purgatory
> stasis
> resurrection
> reincarnation (human only)
> reincarnation (non-human possibility)
> reincarnation (extra-terrestrial, planerial possibility)
> oblivion
yes
> syndication
what?
> other
>
> Additional questions are expected and encouraged of course.
since an omnipotent god knows everything he knows the whole of the
history of the universe and knew it before he created it. So why did
he bother? Maybe its like a jewel or an ornament it's static in four
dimensions. Or maybe the whole universerse is just a flickering
thought and never physically existed.
to me quantum mechanics looks a terrrible bodge. Could an omnipotent
god have
really created something as messy as this?
J Forbes
>
> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:IuqF7.15373$S4.14...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
-snip-
> > I wouldn't have to. If you could actually do as Zoe tried to do and
> really
> > explain any of the answers I've queried, I could hardly keep it from
> getting
> > into the journals!
>
> You're delusional.
He's not delusional. He just stated some facts.
The reason you *don't* get into the journals, is
that you can't explain the religion stuff on the
basis of God, because God is imaginary.
> > You explain how divination works,
>
> Ok. Take a fork of a willow stick, hold in both hands lightly. Walk
> about until
> the stick pulls downward with no assistance from you, and dig for water.
> Other methods work well finding pipes and underground wires. This,
> despite what you have heard from such as Randi, does work. The practice
> is
> often used by professionals in various forms in favor of scientific
> methods and devices.
> This is personal knowledge also, as I have had direct experience with
> the results,
> compared with the results of not using the methods.
I like it!
Yes, divinitaion in this sense could work, because
of physical pheonomenon. I don't think I've ever
read a report in a journal, but you could easily do
some controlled experiments, and report your
results.
You might also put forth a hypothesis to explain the
phenomenon (assuming you get a statistically valid
result showing that divination does indeed work).
If God is part of your hypothesis, I'd be
surprised. If so, then it would indeed be divining,
but if God is not involved, then it's simply called
"dowsing", and not "divination".
> >or how to test for the presence of a soul,
> > and your name will be a household word inside of three days!
>
> The soul is the life force of a living thing. All have it, including
> plants. Poking people with
> a stick sometimes is a good test to determine if this life force still
> exists.
> When they get stiff or wilt is a good sign the presence that the soul is
> no longer present.
> Now you going to start calling me Ajax?
So having a soul means that the organism is alive?
Bacteria have souls also?
And when the organism dies, the life force is gone,
and the soul is gone?
How do we measure the soul? Is poking with a stick,
and measuring the response, the only way?
What about a robot? If I poke it with a stick, and
it moves, does that mean it also has a soul?
> >Scientists
> > would be looking up to you and theologians would be patting you on the
> back.
>
> No thanks. I hate being patted on the back.
>
> > In fact, both of them would be offering you grants! So go for it!
> Explain
> > away. And be sure to get Anne and Zoe and even Jabriol to help you
> however
> > they can. You'll be doing God and science a service and getting rich
> in the
> > process.
>
> I personally don't feel it possible to "do God a service". And I doubt
> there would be
> much money in grants. The soul is common knowledge.
Not to me! At least, not your explanation.
> > Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your first attempt to answer
> these
> > 120 some-odd perfectly reasonable questions with the word "bullshit"?
>
> I didn't "attempt" to answer any of your questions.
> Why do you consider them to be "reasonable"?
If there were good answers, perhaps people like
Aron-Ra and I would take religion more seriously.
But there don't seem to be any good answers, so we
continue to be atheists....
> > I mean, is that really the best way you can describe the subtle
> details of
> > your certain belief?
>
> So far, the greatest minds on t.o. that have spoken to me have not been
> able to comprehend
> the "subtle details" of my attitude towards science. All I have got so
> far is "youse dun't like science
> because you believe in gawd." and "youse dunt believe in evolution."
> Sharing the reasons for my belief would not be constructive or helpful
> to
> me or anyone else here.
I think that if you could actually explain your
belief, you might not have it anymore...but then,
I'm looking for a scientific explanation, not just a
rationalization.
> Let me ask you a question. Why aren't you honest with yourself?
I think he is finally being honest with himself,
thus he questions religion.
Jim
J Forbes
-snip questions-
> Get stuck into the Word of God and prayer and alot of your questions will be
> answered, and the ones that arent, are usually God's own business which will
> be revealled in Heaven.
Or:
Get stuck on LSD, and a lot of your questions will
be answered, and the ones that aren't are usually
God's own business which will be revealed in Heaven.
Sounds about the same to me.
I don't have a spiritual advisor, but then I don't
have a drug dealer either.
sober Jim
J Forbes
Since religion and theology aren't science, we have
to find some other way of deciding what is true, and
what isn't. And unfortunately science is the only
reliable method we have of deciding what's true.
I guess Anti Fundies is proposing that religion and
theology are all bs.
Or perhaps he will give us some other way of
deciding whether or not they are true?
Jim
Nathan McKaskle
try to answer one issue, the afterlife.
I would say there's a good chance there is none, however here's a what if.
You could apply whatever quantum physics or multiple states theory or
heisenburg uncertainty principal you want to this but here is one assertion
that I could believe if given more reason by physical proof.
Every decision you make, from something as small as if you want to eat pizza
or make a sandwich, watch cheers or a special on discovery all the way to
deciding on what your career goals are, to join the army or become a physics
professor, this creates a new quantum state which exists simultaniously with
any other state you choose. When that point where a decision is made comes,
a new universe is created, while it really has no effect on the entire
universe as insignificant as we all are, it does have a small effect on the
quantum state of everything and everyone on earth. So, say I decided to
join the Army over becoming an English teacher, a second me in a different
universe chooses to go with becoming an English teacher. Now in the Army I
end up going to fight in a war and I die, then immediately after I could be
an English teacher and none of what lead to the events of my death would
have happened, at least..not to me, so therefore I've gone on living
completely unaware of what happened in another universe.
Yeah yeah this is like that show "Sliders" but hey, who knows. What would
suck in this case is if I died of old age, then kept dying of old age over
and over lol.
Otherwise, I'd say the only other place to go would be oblivion.
Henry Barwood
J Forbes wrote:
>
> newbie wrote:
> > Ok. Take a fork of a willow stick, hold in both hands lightly. Walk
> > about until
> > the stick pulls downward with no assistance from you, and dig for water.
> > Other methods work well finding pipes and underground wires. This,
> > despite what you have heard from such as Randi, does work. The practice
> > is
> > often used by professionals in various forms in favor of scientific
> > methods and devices.
> > This is personal knowledge also, as I have had direct experience with
> > the results,
> > compared with the results of not using the methods.
I have also worked with "water witchers" and here is how it is done.
1) take a forked stick or any other "wand" to channel the "energy"
2) select any point over a known aquifer
3) walk around a bit and then tilt the stick down
4) proclaim that you have located water
5) drill a hole down to the known aquifer
6) collect fee when water appears
Warning: This method may suffer a few setbacks in time of drought when
the aquifer declines, but otherwise it is 99.99% accurate.
Barwood
Filip van den Bergh
questions asked by theologists that are properly examined using a scientific
apprach, including, but not limited to
How does religion affect people's everyday lives?
From the framework as laid out in the bible, or parts thereof, what is
considered ethical and what is not?
Who has written the bible and why?
I think that in mainstream theology, normal scientific principles apply, and
that miracles are in no way a mechanism of explanation.
Of course, many theologists are religious, and in there everyday lives use
God as an answer, but I know for certain that there are many atheist
theologists. Perhaps even in this group atheists have researched religion
and the meaning of God. I am often impressed by the knowledge on religion by
several people here.
Filip
Anti Fundies <anti_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3abe2e68.01110...@posting.google.com...
pz
"newbie" <she...@uswest.net> wrote:
> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:IuqF7.15373$S4.14...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > newbie <she...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> > news:SPpF7.350$KO1.7...@news.uswest.net...
> > >
[snip]
> > You explain how divination works,
>
> Ok. Take a fork of a willow stick, hold in both hands lightly. Walk
> about until the stick pulls downward with no assistance from you, and
> dig for water. Other methods work well finding pipes and underground
> wires. This, despite what you have heard from such as Randi, does
> work.
No, it doesn't. The tests are very simple to do: place pipes containing
water (or electricity, or precious metals, or whatever the dowser claims
to be able to dowse) under a floor, where the tester knows and the
dowser does not know that they are located. The dowsers fail every time.
The amusing thing is that Randi does a pre-test, in which the dowser is
shown the location of the material being dowsed, and can then
practice/warm up before the material is shuffled around and hidden. They
always seem to do very well at that.
> The practice is often used by professionals in various forms in
> favor of scientific methods and devices. This is personal knowledge
> also, as I have had direct experience with the results, compared with
> the results of not using the methods.
>
> >or how to test for the presence of a soul,
> > and your name will be a household word inside of three days!
>
> The soul is the life force of a living thing. All have it, including
> plants. Poking people with a stick sometimes is a good test to
> determine if this life force still exists. When they get stiff or
> wilt
A good straight line is a precious thing, but I don't think I want to
touch this one.
> is a good sign the presence that the soul is no longer present.
You haven't proposed a test that detects the presence of a soul yet. If
I poke someone with a stick, and they do get stiff or wilt, does that
mean they are dead? If I poke a rock, and it doesn't get stiff or wilt,
does that mean it posesseses a soul?
> Now you going to start calling me Ajax?
>
> >Scientists
> > would be looking up to you and theologians would be patting you on
> > the back.
>
> No thanks. I hate being patted on the back.
>
> > In fact, both of them would be offering you grants! So go for it!
> > Explain away. And be sure to get Anne and Zoe and even Jabriol to
> > help you however they can. You'll be doing God and science a
> > service and getting rich in the process.
>
> I personally don't feel it possible to "do God a service". And I
> doubt there would be much money in grants. The soul is common
> knowledge.
So is Santa Claus.
[snip]
--
pz
Barrett Richardson
On 4 Nov 2001, Aron-Ra wrote:
> Exactly what does it mean to be
> "moved" by God?
Temporal lobe electrical storm is my opinion. See NOVA #2812
concerning John Sharon.
PBS has an online transcript for the episode.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2812mind.html
-
B
Bob Pease
> Just wanna thank you for giving the very best response I've seen so far,
> particularly to this last bit, since that was really the whole point of
the
> illustration.
>
> > the best I can do is to give those with whom i Have some knowledge, a
> grade
> > as successful human beings. Nobody gets F
>
> (sniff) that's beautiful, man!
Thank you..
It was fun to to the questionairre!!
> > > Pope Alexander VI .. D
>
> This from a Catholic no less! So much for biased favoritism.
Most Catholics who know about Sandy are embarassed by him, and would give
him an F
snip most of list for brevity
> > Bahá'u'lláh A
> > > Sri Prabupada A
> And his Devine Grace gets an A!
> Go swami Go Swami go Swami
>
> Aron-Ra
I was happy to have the Hare Krishnas around for belief in humanity and
goodness in a time of desperate need. I didn't join them or anything..
Ol'Prab's best saying.
"you accuse us of brainwashing?
If your brain's full of "stool" (shit) it NEEDS to be washed!!!"
Pope Bobby II
69th Clench of the Stark Fist of Removal
Reformed Church Of the Subgenius
Bob Pease
John Wilkins <thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1f2f5tc.euz67e9o79vkN%thewi...@bigpond.com...
Of course I graded on a Curve
the curve
A..I like them
B..they were OK
C..about average
D.. they suck..
any other Questions?
RJ Pease
Bill Hudson
>
> I'd like to see everybody respond to this at least in part.
>
> All things that exist in reality can be evaluated and understood in some
> way. To that end, answer the following questions to the best of your
> ability.
>
I'm going to bypass the list, because, while I think the attempt to
explain, or demand explanations for those things is a useful exercise, I
also believe it is a futile one.
The demand is essentially to 'naturalize' the 'supernatural'. Of
course, by doing so you would be pulling the 'supernatural' object or
concept across the boundry between the 'natural' (real) world and the
'supernatural' one. If we can quantify it in some manner, it becomes
part of the 'natural' world.
> In the performance of science, it is necessary to answer all of these
> questions with the best explanation possible.
It is also possible that no explanation exists within science for some
of these questions. This is not to say that the question does or does
not regard something 'real'. It would be more correct to say "we don't
know" or "we have no evidence for..." 00Wether or not the questions are
'real' after that is a matter more in the realm of metaphysics.
>... Even a wrong answer is less
> wrong than no answer at all as wrong answers can still be tested for to
> further define our understanding. All ideas will be tested and compared.
> But if you can't come up with anything of merit on your own, don't worry
> about it. Just answer what you can as best you can if you have something to
> present that might be of interest. Then those answers will be tested for
> however or whenever possible by everyone who wants to participate.
>
> Anyone who can contribute an idea which can withstand peer reviewed
> scrutiny, will be recognized accordingly, regardless of qualification,
> reputation, or orientation. In this way, we can and will eliminate what is
> probably true from what is not possibly true.
This seems more like determinism than modern scientific pragmatism.
[remainder snipped]
--
Bill
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and
the success of liberty." - President John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address,
January 20, 1961
Seppo Pietikäinen
>Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:IuqF7.15373$S4.14...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
<snippage>
>>
>
>Ok. Take a fork of a willow stick, hold in both hands lightly. Walk
>about until
>the stick pulls downward with no assistance from you, and dig for water.
>Other methods work well finding pipes and underground wires. This,
>despite what you have heard from such as Randi, does work. The practice
>is
>often used by professionals in various forms in favor of scientific
>methods and devices.
>This is personal knowledge also, as I have had direct experience with
>the results,
>compared with the results of not using the methods.
>
And, I assume, you're willing to provide evidence of such? Your
ignorance doesn't
qualify. The only valid reference you have wrt. "professionals" is to
professional
quacks (with a minor modification).
(Does anyone here in Finland have a ref. to this study? I don't seem to
able to find it)
There was an experiment in Helsinki University Gardens in the early 80's
(late 70's, early 80's? can't remember). The garden was planted with
different varieties of water hoses and seeded
with Dowsers of all varieties. The results didn't exactly rhyme with
your beliefs.
AFAIR, the (positive) differences were those who we're able to read the
ground
(without any supernatural assistance, even if they thought so), meaning
wet rocks
on the ground, differing vegetation etc. This qualifies as ability to
interpretete
(even without formal training) nature without a need to "supernatural".
I can do equally well, and I've done so...
>
>
>>or how to test for the presence of a soul,
>>and your name will be a household word inside of three days!
>>
>
>The soul is the life force of a living thing. All have it, including
>plants. Poking people with
>a stick sometimes is a good test to determine if this life force still
>exists.
>When they get stiff or wilt is a good sign the presence that the soul is
>no longer present.
>Now you going to start calling me Ajax?
>
So, do you think that your "heaven" is also filled with bacteria and
virii?
They sure seem to be full of "Life Force"? How do you make them happy
in the Heaven? How about cockroaches and flies, don't they have a
"Life Force"?
While we're at it, would you like to describe us this "Life Force"?
How is it weighed? What is the relation to F=MA? What is the color?
Does it taste?
Don't be so shy about it!
How can we be educated about the details? Are different religious
visions of
"Life Force" different? Is Buddhist "Life Force" < "Southern Baptist
Life Force"?
Is Lutheran "Life Force" != "Catholic Life Force"? Why is it that
the so called
"Christian Missionaries" seem to have had such a low respect toward
the "Life Force" of
other cultures?
>>Scientists
>>would be looking up to you and theologians would be patting you on the
>>
>back.
>
>No thanks. I hate being patted on the back.
>
>>In fact, both of them would be offering you grants! So go for it!
>>
>Explain
>
>>away. And be sure to get Anne and Zoe and even Jabriol to help you
>>
>however
>
>>they can. You'll be doing God and science a service and getting rich
>>
>in the
>
>>process.
>>
>
>I personally don't feel it possible to "do God a service". And I doubt
>there would be
>much money in grants. The soul is common knowledge.
>
Blind assertation doesn't make one.
>
>
>>Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your first attempt to answer
>>
>these
>
>>120 some-odd perfectly reasonable questions with the word "bullshit"?
>>
>
>I didn't "attempt" to answer any of your questions.
>Why do you consider them to be "reasonable"?
>
>
>
>>I mean, is that really the best way you can describe the subtle
>>
>details of
>
>>your certain belief?
>>
>
>So far, the greatest minds on t.o. that have spoken to me have not been
>able to comprehend
>the "subtle details" of my attitude towards science. All I have got so
>far is "youse dun't like science
>because you believe in gawd." and "youse dunt believe in evolution."
>Sharing the reasons for my belief would not be constructive or helpful
>to
>me or anyone else here.
>
>Let me ask you a question. Why aren't you honest with yourself?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Your "subtle details" about science have never been able to surface your
innate ignorance, never will.
Seppo P.
Dana Tweedy
> I'd like to see everybody respond to this at least in part.
>
> All things that exist in reality can be evaluated and understood in some
> way. To that end, answer the following questions to the best of your
> ability.
>
> wrong than no answer at all as wrong answers can still be tested for to
> further define our understanding. All ideas will be tested and compared.
> But if you can't come up with anything of merit on your own, don't worry
> about it. Just answer what you can as best you can if you have something
to
> present that might be of interest. Then those answers will be tested for
> however or whenever possible by everyone who wants to participate.
>
> Anyone who can contribute an idea which can withstand peer reviewed
> scrutiny, will be recognized accordingly, regardless of qualification,
> reputation, or orientation. In this way, we can and will eliminate what
is
> probably true from what is not possibly true.
>
Ok, I'll give it a shot, beting that I am a theistic evolutionist. Caveat:
These views are my personal opinion, not scientifc beliefs.
>
> GODS:
> How old is the eldest extant god? (To be hereafter referred to simply as
> "God").
God is beyond the physical world, so any attempt to tell God's age is
meaningless. God is believed to exist beyond time.
> Is he related in any way at all to any others of his kind?
In my theology, there are no others of his kind.
> Can others of his kind exist?
No, because God is the only one. Other intepetations of God can exist, even
multiple intepetations in the same belief system, but it's all the same God.
> Where/what did he come from? How was he created?
A meaningless question, as God is beyond that.
> How does God's infinite perception function? How does he perceive?
I don't know. I just feel that God perceives.
> How does he think? How does divination work?
I don't know, and don't know of any way to discover that objectively, so I
just accept it on faith.
> Can any operation of God's capabilities or properties be reproduced,
> measured, or examined with any technology which currently exists?
No. Not in a way that would be distinguishable from natural phenomena.
> What type technology could perform this task?
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic" ,
Heinlein
> Can he change his mind once he has been initiated?
I suppose he could.
> What is the logic behind sacrifice? Why does he appreciate that?
IMO, it's showing that the individual is willing to give up something dear
to him for a greater purpose.
> On a universal scale, what makes him happy?
People getting along without fighting.
> How and why is he pleased by whatever we do?
I don't know why God would be pleased, I just feel that he is.
> What are the limits of what he can or will do?
I don't think that can be ever answered, limits are beyond the concept of
God.
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
It can't. It's not supposed to be.
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it exists?
> (if you do)
Because it pleases me to believe that way.
>
> MIRACLES:
> Exactly how does he effect miraculous events? Is it by manipulation of
> atomic weight? Or magnetism?
Don't know, it's beyond our power to investigate.
> Does he move through time? Or does he exist outside of time? If so, how?
I believe God is beyond the concept of time.
> How does he communicate? If no one can actually hear God's voice in any
> sane state, then what means does he use? Exactly what does it mean to be
> "moved" by God?
God communicates by whatever means he wishes. Moved by God means you feel h
is influence. How one feels that influence is up to the individual.
> Does telepathy exist?
I don't know of any evidence to suggest it does.
> Is teleportation possible? If so, is it possible to teleport objects other
> than one's self? How could it be done?
I don't know if teleportation is possible. I do feel it's not a matter of
religion.
> Does telekinesis exist? If so, how does it work?
No evidence so far that it does. Again, it's not God.
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
AFAIKT it can't.
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
> (if you do)
I don't believe they do.
>
> SOULS:
> What might compose them? How do they function? How might they be
> evidenced? Or tested for / against?
The soul is something beyond investigation. They can't be tested.
> Is there any existent technology which can measure, detect, or otherwise
> evidence a soul?
Not at the present. Nor is it likely in the future.
> What type of hypothetical technology could do this?
No clue.
> How do souls process thoughts in Liu of any brain?
You mean lieu? (forgive the spelling flame) I don't think that souls
process thoughts.
> Is this process similar to the mental processes which God possesses?
I believe that the concept of mental processes doesn't relate to a spiritual
being such as God.
> How do souls move? What do they move through? Can they effect matter,
> organisms, or concepts on the prime material plane of mortal existence?
Again, you are asking physical questions about a spiritual thing. The
questions don't apply.
> What is the difference between a soul and an astral form?
Beats me. Is there a difference?
> Can ghosts exist? What is the difference between a soul and a ghost?
I don't believe in ghosts.
> If all souls are to be judged, what happens afterward?
Again, a physical question about a non physical concept. There may be no
"after" any more than there was a "before" the Big Bang.
> What happens after the last very last soul has been judged?
see above
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
It can't. It's not supposed to be.
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
> (if you do)
Because it pleases me to do so.
>
> CREATION:
> What is the motivation behind creation? What is God's desire in his work
in
> terms of eternal success?
I am not about to second guess God. I believe that God used the processes
that science is recognizing as his way of creation.
> What exists beyond the linear boundaries of the material universe? How is
> that boundary defined?
There is no "beyond"
> Is this God's first universe?
> Is this God's only universe?
No way to tell.
> Are there other universes, that were created by other gods?
> What happens to the Earth and all spiritual planes after the end of the
> Earth?
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it occured?
> (if you do)
again, no way to tell, and it pleases me to believe that way.
snip of the rest.
God can't be quantified by science, nor is there any reason why he should
be. I believe because I want to believe, and it comforts me. I have no
problem with other beliefs, or lack of beliefs. Everyone has to figure it
out for themselves. We will all know soon enough.
Dana J. TWeedy
J Forbes
> news:3abe2e68.01110...@posting.google.com...
> > But religion and theology aren't science to start with.
Filip van den Bergh wrote:
>
> Why isn't theology science? I think that's a bit too easy. There are many
> questions asked by theologists that are properly examined using a scientific
> apprach, including, but not limited to
> How does religion affect people's everyday lives?
> From the framework as laid out in the bible, or parts thereof, what is
> considered ethical and what is not?
> Who has written the bible and why?
>
> I think that in mainstream theology, normal scientific principles apply, and
> that miracles are in no way a mechanism of explanation.
> Of course, many theologists are religious, and in there everyday lives use
> God as an answer, but I know for certain that there are many atheist
> theologists. Perhaps even in this group atheists have researched religion
> and the meaning of God. I am often impressed by the knowledge on religion by
> several people here.
>
> Filip
My understanding is that theology consists of the
reasonable conclusions drawn from a given set of
assertions.
Since the assertions are not open to question, the
resulting theological conclusions are suspect.
Science questions the assertions....
I'm an atheist. Since I don't assert the existence
of any supernatural agents, I have no theology.
Jim
J Forbes
> Pope Bobby II
> 69th Clench of the Stark Fist of Removal
> Reformed Church Of the Subgenius
is this a schism from Dobbs' group?
Jim
eyelessgame
> I think that there is almost such a thing as an
> "eternal soul". It is not contained in the person
> who's soul it is, though! Instead, it is merely the
> information about that person, which is contained in
> the minds of others who know/knew him. When the
> person dies, information about the behavior of that
> person lives on in the minds of others. This is the
> "immortal soul".
>
> More discussion welcome on this topic...
Nice to see someone else peers out along the same axis I do.
If one accepts that mind and personality are in some way analogous to
software, then our ability to gather information from, and impose
action upon, our environment functions analogously to I/O. (Very
callow stuff. I'm going somewhere with this.)
Computers can be directed to transmit viruses -- software that
ingratiates itself into the system of a recipient computer and
modifies its behavior in some way.
Imagine computers that have both cameras and display, and software
that attempts to imitate what their camera sees. Suppose now that one
computer has a program running that's causing some particular screen
display sequence, which the other computer's camera captures. The
recipient computer then integrates that screen display sequence into
its own operation. In a way, a low-fidelity virus has been
transmitted.
The "software" of our minds is self-modifying, at least at some high
level. We can change what we think. We change, to an extent, based on
what we experience.
I find myself using turns of phrase or responding in ways that my
father did. At exactly what level has the transmission of those
'bits' of his personality occurred? I don't know, though I'd like to
know more about it. But it's clear that there is /some/ level at
which one can say that a part of his personality lives on in me.
Dunk
>In other words, its time for me to quote Carroll yet again.
>"....but answer came there none. And this was scarcely odd because....."
>
>C'mon, Steve! Surely even you can do better than that. I mean, you can at
>least tell me what the difference is between a demon and an angel, can't
>you?
Is it always clear cut? Have you read _God Omens_?
Dunk
George R. Welch
Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> MIRACLES:
> ...
> Is teleportation possible? If so, is it possible to teleport
> objects other than one's self? How could it be done?
Quantum mechanics allow the teleportation of quantum
states. Since one object in a particular quantum state is in
principal indistinguishable from an identical object in that
same state, you can say that ``things'' can be teleported.
The current state of the art is that quantum bits of
light have been teleported.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=quantum+teleportation
will give you a good start at understanding it. I don't
think any actual material particles have been teleported yet,
but it is only a matter of time before some groups succeed.
Note that when they do, it will just be a simple 1-qubit state.
To teleport a macroscopic object would require more classical
information transmission than is possible.
Note that this teleportation is different from the
``beam me up Scotty'' kind, since it requires a transmitter
_and_ receiver apparatus, which must be in a quantum entangled
state, meaning they likely must have been together at some
point.
So I would say it is _only_ possible to teleport
objects other than one's self :-)
--George
--
George R. Welch
// Send $2 to P.O. Box 904; Latexo, TX 75849 for a copy of Grand Mothers
// tremendous southern cornbread recipe! Easy to follow and the best I
// have ever tasted. Don't forgit to include your address.
John Wilkins
Is that written by the same guy that did _Men at Alms_?
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making sense for over 45 years
Morgoth's Cat
and the people did rejoice:
"THOU MUST SNIPPEST"...
--
**************************************************************
* Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young-Earth Creationism *
* http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/supernova.html *
**************************************************************
Dunk
wrote:
>> >C'mon, Steve! Surely even you can do better than that. I mean, you can at
>> >least tell me what the difference is between a demon and an angel, can't
>> >you?
>>
>> Is it always clear cut? Have you read _God Omens_?
>> Dunk
>
>Is that written by the same guy that did _Men at Alms_?
>--
>John Wilkins
>Occasionally making sense for over 45 years
Good Omens
by Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett, David Frampton (Illustrator)
Originally subtitled "The nice and accurate prophecies of Agnes
Nutter, Witch"
It seems they have dropped the subtitle
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0441003257.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
I thought you read everything by Pratchett. I don't know about
_Men at Alms_.
Dunk
Dunk
mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet (Morgoth's Cat)
wrote:
>And lo, the Lord did giveth his eleventh commandament to the people,
>and the people did rejoice:
>
>"THOU MUST SNIPPEST"...
My translation is:
"Thou shalt snippeth"
<snip extra lines at bottom>
Dunk
Aron-Ra
You're a very simple person, limited to very simple answers. However, all
of them are wrong. You are the one who is delusional. I will prove it,
though you may not ever realize that.
> > You explain how divination works,
>
> Ok. Take a fork of a willow stick, hold in both hands lightly. Walk
> about until
> the stick pulls downward with no assistance from you, and dig for water.
> Other methods work well finding pipes and underground wires. This,
> despite what you have heard from such as Randi, does work. The practice
> is
> often used by professionals in various forms in favor of scientific
> methods and devices.
> This is personal knowledge also, as I have had direct experience with
> the results,
> compared with the results of not using the methods.
That wasn't the kind of divination I meant. But no matter. This will serve
well enough as an example.
Divination doesn't work, by the way. But you're welcome to explain how you
think it works. Despite what you think, you haven't explained that yet.
If I ask you to explain how a car works, would your answer be a description
of how to drive it? Somewhere in your explanation of how a car works, you
should mention something about the engine and how that works. Which might
mean explaining internal combustion. All you've explained is that you point
your stick and follow it until you find water. You haven't explained how it
is able to determine where the water is.
So with your definition of divination, let me ask again, how does it work?
> >or how to test for the presence of a soul,
> > and your name will be a household word inside of three days!
>
> The soul is the life force of a living thing. All have it, including
> plants. Poking people with
> a stick sometimes is a good test to determine if this life force still
> exists.
> When they get stiff or wilt is a good sign the presence that the soul is
> no longer present.
> Now you going to start calling me Ajax?
Umm. Do you want me to?
Back to the point, I used to believe that the soul was a part of all living
things, even microbial organisms. Well, at least the metabolic ones. But I
came to realize that it was not so. There is no such thing as a soul. It
is a concept that exists solely in the minds of religious folk. There is no
evidence for it except that proposed by those trying to imagine some way for
their personalities to continue after death. And again, all you have done
is point and prod with your stick. You really need to come out of the
Paleolithic age to catch up to this discussion.
> >Scientists
> > would be looking up to you and theologians would be patting you on the
> back.
>
> No thanks. I hate being patted on the back.
By your consistently caustic and abusive posts, that's obvious.
> > In fact, both of them would be offering you grants! So go for it!
> Explain
> > away. And be sure to get Anne and Zoe and even Jabriol to help you
> however
> > they can. You'll be doing God and science a service and getting rich
> in the
> > process.
>
> I personally don't feel it possible to "do God a service".
I'm sorry. I thought you were a Christian. You see, CLSNOWYOWL and Padraic
Brown were just telling me that a true Christian lives in the service of
Christ. So either you are not a true Christian, or they can't serve God
either. Maybe you should tell them that, so they can stop wasting their
time.
Whether they are correct or not, I believe you still are, at least on a
personal level. I don't believe it would be possible for *you* to do God
any service whether they can or not.
> And I doubt
> there would be
> much money in grants. The soul is common knowledge.
Its a common belief. But it is not knowledge of any kind. Its a blind
assumption based on the hope of an imaginative and wishful thinker, who came
up with a popular idea that has never been substantiated.
I once thought it had been. I remember watching Leonard Nimoy's 'In Search
Of' series in the 1970s when they showed a demonstration of Kirlian
photography. That to me, was evidence of a life-force, and hence, the soul.
Unfortunately, that
turned out to be bogus, like much of the rest of the items shown on 'In
Search Of'. It was kind of like Roy Orbach's 'Encounters with the
Unexplained'. Both shows were intentionally deceitful all the way through
episode after episode. When Nimoy made a comment about that a few years
ago, he admitted that it was all deliberately fictional bullshit just like
'Encounters with the Unexplained' is now. So I looked into it further,
hoping against hope that at least that one aspect was correct. Alas, it was
not. Kirlian photography is a fraud. There is no evidence at all to
support the idea of a soul. And it was with that realization, sometime in
early 1999, that I finally "gave up the ghost" and realized I was now an
atheist.
I would much rather be a pantheist again. It is the highest form of
spirituality. But if souls do not exist, then nothing else does beyond this
world. Believe me, if you could show evidence of a soul, I would be the
first to embrace it! Please! Oh Please, show me that evidence!
> > Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your first attempt to answer
> these
> > 120 some-odd perfectly reasonable questions with the word "bullshit"?
>
> I didn't "attempt" to answer any of your questions.
> Why do you consider them to be "reasonable"?
Because anything that really exists can be evidenced in some way, or at
least tested for. If there is no way to verify something for which the only
evidence is imaginary, then it is a product of the imagination alone and
doesn't exist at all.
And these were among the first questions I asked when formal religion was
first revealed to me in detail at about eight years old. Each of the
questions I listed were those I had myself asked between the ages of eight
and about thirteen, when I was still Christian and still believed in the
Bible.
I was fascinated with the concept of telekinesis. And very much wanted to
know how it worked. So when I was nine or ten, I checked what few books
there were on the subject and tried to figure the process out. I'd read
about Russian experiments that were well documented at least in as much as
they were shown on TV. So I looked into how it works. From what little
info I could find, it seemed that what they did on 'Bewitched' and 'I Dream
of Jeanie' was impossible. The Russians were only able to manipulate
magnetic fields about them, so they couldn't float anything across the room.
Then came Uri Geller, (or whoever that guy was who could float the paper
underneath the glass). He was soundly exposed as a fraud by James Randi, to
the point that he admitted he was a fake. The Russian experiments were
exposed as fraudulent also. So Randi offered $1,000,000.00 to anyone who
could show evidence of anything supernatural at all. He made his
announcement on commericial television. That was about a decade ago. About
four years ago, he was on the discovery channel, this time to say that no
one, not one single person had ever shown up to collect. So he repeated his
offer and gave his address again.
So go get your stick and show Mr. Randi how to find water with it. You'll
have a million bucks for nothing. Unless of course, it doesn't really work
and you're as full of shit as Uri Geller admitted that he was.
> > I mean, is that really the best way you can describe the subtle
> details of
> > your certain belief?
>
> So far, the greatest minds on t.o. that have spoken to me have not been
> able to comprehend
> the "subtle details" of my attitude towards science. All I have got so
> far is "youse dun't like science
> because you believe in gawd." and "youse dunt believe in evolution."
> Sharing the reasons for my belief would not be constructive or helpful
> to
> me or anyone else here.
I see you parody their speech. But I know that none of them talk like that.
I've seen dozens of eloquent and poetically articulate explanations wasted
on you, which you are only able to respond to with one or two words. And
those are usually callous insults and foul language. Clearly and certainly
it is you who express that idiotic attitude you're trying to project onto
them. You are only lying to yourself because I know better.
> Let me ask you a question. Why aren't you honest with yourself?
I'm not going to bother with demanding that you show where or how I have
been dishonest. You always shy away from such challenges. And I think it
is because you yourself know you're a liar. And you have just demonstrated
that it is you who are not honest with yourself. If you were, you would be
able to answer my questions.
When I realized that I couldn't answer my own questions, I realized that I
was trying to believe in something that wasn't true. And there's no value
in misinformation. Knowledge is power. And I don't just wanna believe in
whatever fairy tale I happen to like. I actually want to understand how
things really are and how things really work. And I want to be able to
demonstrate that.
What do you want?
Aron-Ra
"Arguing with a man who has resigned himself of reason is like giving
medicine to the dead".
geoffrey kimbrough
J Forbes wrote:
I'd have to recommend asking Nemonemini where he gets whatever he's on.
Peter Harrison
>In the performance of science, it is necessary to answer all of these
>questions with the best explanation possible. Even a wrong answer is less
>wrong than no answer at all as wrong answers can still be tested for to
>further define our understanding. All ideas will be tested and compared.
>But if you can't come up with anything of merit on your own, don't worry
>about it. Just answer what you can as best you can if you have something to
>present that might be of interest. Then those answers will be tested for
>however or whenever possible by everyone who wants to participate.
In science the theory which best fits the available evidence is
considered the "best theory" - until some other theory comes along
which fits the available evidence better - or for a larger range of
evidence.
>Anyone who can contribute an idea which can withstand peer reviewed
>scrutiny, will be recognized accordingly, regardless of qualification,
>reputation, or orientation. In this way, we can and will eliminate what is
>probably true from what is not possibly true.
The important thing here is that they "best" theory is only determined
by the physical evidence.
>
>Assuming each of the following might exist....
<confusing questions ommited>
I thought we were discussing science. You may as well have asked
questions like:
How many invisble pink elephants did it take to create the world?
What colour where the elephants shoes?
etc... etc...
Science deals with creating theories from evidence which are useful in
making predictions about reality. It does not deal with irrational
belief systems, and can tell you exactly NIL about them.
John Wilkins
> On 5 Nov 2001 17:24:52 -0500, wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins)
> wrote:
>
> >> >C'mon, Steve! Surely even you can do better than that. I mean, you
> >> >can at least tell me what the difference is between a demon and an
> >> >angel, can't you?
> >>
> >> Is it always clear cut? Have you read _God Omens_?
> >> Dunk
> >
> >Is that written by the same guy that did _Men at Alms_?
> >--
> >John Wilkins
> >Occasionally making sense for over 45 years
>
> Good Omens
> by Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett, David Frampton (Illustrator)
> Originally subtitled "The nice and accurate prophecies of Agnes
> Nutter, Witch"
> It seems they have dropped the subtitle
> http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0441003257.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Is that the Merkin edition? That doesn't surprise me - any industry that
fears the use of the word "Philosopher" as in _Harry Potter and the
Philosopher's Stone_ could be expected to dumb down that lovely title
and its archaic use of "nice".
>
> I thought you read everything by Pratchett. I don't know about
> _Men at Alms_.
> Dunk
Oh *Good* Omens, yeah. I thought you meant *God* Omens...
[Oh alright, I should stop making puns based on typos, sure]
Nathan McKaskle
Damn sounds like my whole life. I asked my parents so many of the same
questions after their constant beating of the story into my head, none of it
made any sense, she never knew the answers. I had to find out if that were
true of all religions and after that it didn't take me long to realize it
was all BS, even those crazy ufo/telekenetic/telepathic/astral projection
freaks.
John Monrad
wil...@wehi.edu.au posted
> Dunk <pdu...@magicnet.net> wrote:
>
> > On 5 Nov 2001 01:43:24 -0500, "Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >In other words, its time for me to quote Carroll yet again.
> > >"....but answer came there none. And this was scarcely odd because....."
> > >
> > >C'mon, Steve! Surely even you can do better than that. I mean, you can at
> > >least tell me what the difference is between a demon and an angel, can't
> > >you?
> >
> > Is it always clear cut? Have you read _God Omens_?
> > Dunk
>
> Is that written by the same guy that did _Men at Alms_?
Right -- Kneel Gaiman, et al.
John Wilkins
Nathan McKaskle
"George R. Welch" <grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu> wrote in message
news:9s7291$f6h$1...@leona.physics.tamu.edu...
> In article <t2jF7.14283$S4.13...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > MIRACLES:
> > ...
> > Is teleportation possible? If so, is it possible to teleport
> > objects other than one's self? How could it be done?
>
> Quantum mechanics allow the teleportation of quantum
> states. Since one object in a particular quantum state is in
> principal indistinguishable from an identical object in that
> same state, you can say that ``things'' can be teleported.
>
> The current state of the art is that quantum bits of
> light have been teleported.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=quantum+teleportation
>
> will give you a good start at understanding it. I don't
> think any actual material particles have been teleported yet,
> but it is only a matter of time before some groups succeed.
> Note that when they do, it will just be a simple 1-qubit state.
> To teleport a macroscopic object would require more classical
> information transmission than is possible.
Bleh quantum computers will fix that problem.
>
> Note that this teleportation is different from the
> ``beam me up Scotty'' kind, since it requires a transmitter
> _and_ receiver apparatus, which must be in a quantum entangled
> state, meaning they likely must have been together at some
> point.
Yep, like the Fly, just watch out for flies in the room lol.
John Wilkins
J Forbes
Let me rephrase that...I don't *want* a spiritual
advisor, just as I don't *want* a drug dealer...
Jim
J Forbes
Go forth and snip! and be fruitful.
Or is that, be fruits...
Jim
J Forbes
This sounds similar, but different, from what I was
getting at...my point is that when a peson dies, we
keep them alive in part of our minds, although
another part of our minds knows they are dead.
Boyer's "Religion Explained" has a bunch of info on
this, although he doesn't go so far as to make the
claim I make about the exact nature of the "eternal
soul".
Sort of getting back to what you wrote, Dawkins did
a short story on religion as a virus of the mind,
perhaps a couple years ago. Interesting stuff.
Getting more back to what you wrote, we do indeed
pick up behavior from others--and my guess is that
it is much easier to pick up our parent's behavior,
both because of our genetic similarities (this is a
very general statement, because we have two parents)
and also because they raise us. But most of it goes
on in "invisible" parts of the mind.
Jim
Aron-Ra
news:3be72200....@news.paradise.net.nz...
Exactly.
And did you notice
that not one creationist could
nor even would
answer one
single
question
?
Between your response and the utterly incapable response on the part of the
fundies, it seems my experiment has turned into the full color illustration
I had hoped it would be.
Aron-Ra
J Forbes
>
> On 4 Nov 2001, Aron-Ra wrote:
>
> > Exactly what does it mean to be
> > "moved" by God?
>
> concerning John Sharon.
>
> PBS has an online transcript for the episode.
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2812mind.html
Which implies that God is a brain function
abnormality...I saw the last of the show, where John
was telling about his wonderful God experiences, and
how he would not want to be cured of them if it were
possible. Like a junkie doesn't want to give up
smack.
Jim
J Forbes
Science might be able to shed some light on the
origins of the irrational belief systems.
It's worth a shot.
Of course, the questions asked in this survey are
the wrong questions for this type of research....
Jim
J Forbes
-snip-
> God can't be quantified by science, nor is there any reason why he should
> be. I believe because I want to believe, and it comforts me. I have no
> problem with other beliefs, or lack of beliefs. Everyone has to figure it
> out for themselves. We will all know soon enough.
>
> Dana J. TWeedy
Do you have any interest in discovering why you
believe in God, if it could be explained in
scientific terms?
Jim
J Forbes
I was really impressed by the fundy replies...as you
say, utterly incapable.
Jim
Aron-Ra
Not if served as an invitation.
I did say that additional questions would be welcome.
If mine are unsuitable, modify them or replace them.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
>
> God can't be quantified by science, nor is there any reason why he should
> be. I believe because I want to believe, and it comforts me. I have no
> problem with other beliefs, or lack of beliefs. Everyone has to figure it
> out for themselves. We will all know soon enough.
No. We never will.
When oxygen no longer reaches your brain
and your chest implodes constricting in vain
all manner of perception will fade to bla............................
And you'll never even have a chance to be disappointed.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
Bill Hudson <bi...@rmp.com> wrote in message
news:3BE6BC80...@rmp.com...
> Aron-Ra wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to see everybody respond to this at least in part.
> >
> > All things that exist in reality can be evaluated and understood in some
> > way. To that end, answer the following questions to the best of your
> > ability.
> >
>
> I'm going to bypass the list, because, while I think the attempt to
> explain, or demand explanations for those things is a useful exercise, I
> also believe it is a futile one.
>
> The demand is essentially to 'naturalize' the 'supernatural'. Of
> course, by doing so you would be pulling the 'supernatural' object or
> concept across the boundry between the 'natural' (real) world and the
> 'supernatural' one. If we can quantify it in some manner, it becomes
> part of the 'natural' world.
It already is.
God cannot hide in the netherworld of dreamscapes if there is to be any
evaluation of what is real. And he cannot claim sanctuary from the rules of
reason if he attempts to interact with the world of cause and effect. If
deities or angels or any of these other fantasies can manipulate the events
of our lives, then they have dipped their supernatural toes in the prime
material plane and have become soaked with natural law. Their miracles are
no longer considered beyond reality because they have altered it measurably.
And in so doing, have left at least one facet of God quantifiable and even
testable at least to some extent
Exactly *how* profound was said effect? How many people prayed for it?
What were their qualifications? Their doctrines? Prophets? Diocese? or
Covenants?
What were the results and how were they acheived? What evidence remains?
And what talismans or componants were used? How could this be repeated?
Or tested?
Unfortunately for these shadow creatures who hide in the realms of
imagination, supported solely in blind unsubstantiated faith and sheltered
within a domicile of impenetrable irreality, their effects upon matter are
also quantifiable. Those miracles of Biblical proportions, are also
verifiable. And they number zero.
To date, the gravity of their effects upon events in the natural world
measures a sum total of zero. The verifiable quantity of these events
numbers exactly zero.
The evidence that supports their existence in the first place.......you do
the math.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
George R. Welch <grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu> wrote in message
news:9s7291$f6h$1...@leona.physics.tamu.edu...
> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > MIRACLES:
> > ...
> > Is teleportation possible? If so, is it possible to teleport
> > objects other than one's self? How could it be done?
>
> Quantum mechanics allow the teleportation of quantum
> states. Since one object in a particular quantum state is in
> principal indistinguishable from an identical object in that
> same state, you can say that ``things'' can be teleported.
>
> The current state of the art is that quantum bits of
> light have been teleported.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=quantum+teleportation
I am beside myself in awe of a procedure which has plagued my imagine and
faculties since my boyhood. And now that it has finally happened, all I can
say is
HOLY MACARONI!
Aron-Ra
Gyudon Z
>Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20011105004257...@mb-ch.aol.com...
>> From newbie:
>>
>> >> >> >> Have you a better alternative?
>> >>
>> >> >> >By all means, proceed with the elimination and make your
>> >conclusion.
>> >> >> >I will try to act surprised...
>> >>
>> >> >> I was actually speaking as to an alternative method of
>> >investigation,
>> >> >but we
>> >> >> can look at your alternative conclusion too if you'd care to
>give
>> >it.
>> >> >
>> >> >I was speaking to Arons little experiment. Do try to keep focused.
>> >>
>> >> The experiment where hypotheses submitted to peer-reviewed journals
>> >are
>> >> examined on the basis of their evidence?
>>
>> >Which journal is that?
>>
>> The Journal of Evolutionary Biology will do nicely, but any scientific
>journal
>> should do the trick.
>My gosh! I didn't realize that he got around that much!
Who got around what much?
>> >> I believe Aron's experiment has been successful in that respect.
>His
>> >> predictions are what we observe.
>>
>> >The experiment he proposed earlier today?
>>
>> The one about submitting things to journals. Did he propose another
>one?
>
>Why don't you explain what Aron's experiment is.
>>
>> >Do tell what predictions he
>> >made that you are observing.
>>
>> He predicted that the work appearing in scientific journals will be
>adequately
>> supported by evidence. The journal work I've read supports this.
>I could have sworn you said lots of "iffy" stuff gets published. So
>"iffy" is "adequate"?
If the evidence supports it, yes, it is adequate.
>Hope I am not confusing you with this technical jargon.
Don't worry; you're not.
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
Dana Tweedy
That's your belief. I have mine. If it's all fade to black, I won't be
disappointed, I won't be anything.
Dana Tweedy.
Dana Tweedy
No, not really. I believe in God, because I don't see any reason not to. I
am not interested in explaining God or my beliefs.
Dana Tweedy
Aron-Ra
Dana Tweedy <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:9s7qvt$1141i8$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de...
Don't worry though. I'll not be right there with you.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
The only reason I could possibly imagine for that is that you want to make
sure you don't see a reason not to believe. And seeing it now, I rather
suspect that to be the same reason you've managed not to see a reason not to
believe several hundred times already.
Aron-Ra
zoe_althrop
snip>
>How old is the eldest extant god? (To be hereafter referred to simply as
>"God").
ageless.
>Is he related in any way at all to any others of his kind?
He is the only true God.
>Can others of his kind exist?
no. All others are false.
>Where/what did he come from?
He has always been.
>How was he created?
He is not created.
>How does God's infinite perception function?
I don't know.
> How does he perceive?
the Bible gives insights.
>How does he think?
the Bible reveals some of His thoughts.
> How does divination work?
foretelling the future? He can see all possible paths that life forms
can take. It's like knowing every possible path that particles will
take, and predicting which path will be followed at any given time.
>Can any operation of God's capabilities or properties be reproduced,
>measured, or examined with any technology which currently exists?
operations produced by God's capabilities can be measured and examined
with technology currently existing and technology yet to come.
God's properties (Himself) cannot be measured or examined with our
present technology. He is beyond our reach in that sense. It is like
hoping that ants will be able to wrap their ant-minds around
understanding human beings, or expecting the inhabitants of flatland
(two dimensions) to comprehend a three-dimensional world. Maybe in
the world to come, we will be given more dimensions that will enable
us to understand more.
>What type technology could perform this task?
for the operations, the usual instruments and methods of science.
>Can he change his mind once he has been initiated?
don't know what "once He has been initiated" means, but, yes, He can
change His mind. He never changes the laws of the universe, though,
moral or natural.
>What is the logic behind sacrifice?
pre-Calvary, it was an object lession meant to impress upon the minds
of humans the awfulness of sin that would cause the death of the
innocent, and to point the minds of humans to the true sacrifice --
that of God dying in our place in order to give us life again -- a
scientific process if there ever was one.
> Why does he appreciate that?
He does not appreciate it. He wants US to appreciate the meaning of
this awful sacrifice.
>On a universal scale, what makes him happy?
our happiness.
>How and why is he pleased by whatever we do?
He is pleased when we use the faculties He gave us for the purpose
they were given, to question, reason, create, and communicate with Him
and each other in a growing fellowship.
>What are the limits of what he can or will do?
the limits lie in the end of good and the beginning of evil.
>How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
through an experimental knowledge gained from experience in walking
and talking with God as a Friend.
>If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it exists?
>(if you do)
it can be verified.
>
>MIRACLES:
>Exactly how does he effect miraculous events?
through laws that we do not yet understand and therefore call the
effects of such laws magical or miraculous.
> Is it by manipulation of
>atomic weight?
that's part of it.
> Or magnetism?
that, too.
>Does he move through time?
yes.
> Or does he exist outside of time?
yes.
> If so, how?
God is Spirit. Spirit is not confined by matter.
>How does he communicate?
through His written Word, through dreams and visions via prophets,
through our thoughts, through people who are willing to be used by
Him.
> If no one can actually hear God's voice in any
>sane state, then what means does he use?
thoughts, the validity of which are based on scriptural standards.
> Exactly what does it mean to be
>"moved" by God?
to be susceptible to the promptings of His Spirit, so that His
thoughts become your thoughts.
>Does telepathy exist?
yes.
>Is teleportation possible?
yes.
> If so, is it possible to teleport objects other
>than one's self?
yes, if we could learn the science behind it.
> How could it be done?
don't know.
>Does telekinesis exist?
yes. The devil and his spirits know of these laws and use them for
evil purposes.
> If so, how does it work?
don't know.
>How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
don't know.
>If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
>(if you do)
it can be verified, because it has been shown to exist in seances and
spiritualistic activity (this source not recommended to be
investigated).
>
>SOULS:
>What might compose them?
we do not have souls. We ARE souls.
>How do they function?
we do not have souls. We ARE souls. We function.
> How might they be
>evidenced?
we do not have souls . We ARE souls. The dust of the earth combined
with the breath of life, and we became living souls. We didn't get
living souls. We BECAME living souls. Take away the breath of life
and we go back to dust, and we are no longer souls. We do not have
souls that go floating off to some distant clime.
> Or tested for / against?
we ARE souls. Body, mind, and spirt=soul.
>Is there any existent technology which can measure, detect, or otherwise
>evidence a soul?
look in the mirror.
>What type of hypothetical technology could do this?
a mirror will do.
>How do souls process thoughts in Liu of any brain?
souls have brains in their heads via which they process thoughts.
>Is this process similar to the mental processes which God possesses?
there is an eternity of info to learn about God. Bit by bit.....
>How do souls move?
on feet, or in vehicles meant to take the place of feet.
> What do they move through?
the atmosphere of this earth, breathing, eating, sleeping, loving,
hating, accomplishing -- and then we die and there is no more soul.
We are nothing.
> Can they effect matter,
>organisms, or concepts on the prime material plane of mortal existence?
yes, we do it all the time.
>What is the difference between a soul and an astral form?
a soul is you and me and every living creature breathing the breath of
life.
What exactly do you mean by an astral form? Unless the spirits of
devils try to pass themselves off as such forms?
>Can ghosts exist?
yes. They are the spirits of devils -- fallen angels, followers of
Satan, once known as Lucifer. They have the ability to exist as
energy forms.
> What is the difference between a soul and a ghost?
a soul is a living natural body of flesh and blood. A ghost is the
spirit without the natural body. Souls on earth do not have the
ability to be spirits without bodies.
>If all souls are to be judged, what happens afterward?
some die in the destruction of the earth -- an eternal death forever,
no coming back, oblivion -- and some are allowed to live on forever in
a better, more abundant life.
>What happens after the last very last soul has been judged?
the earth, after being cleansed by fire, is made new again, recreated
by the Creator, and harmony once again pulses through the entire
universe, the sore spot (sinful earth) cleansed forever.
>How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
after establishing a reasonable foundation for belief, the rest has to
be taken on faith and cannot now be quantified or qualified in a test
tube.
>If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
>(if you do)
>
I believe because the foundation has been verified through personal
experience and a logical weighing of the data, and I therefore feel
safe in taking the rest on faith.
>CREATION:
>What is the motivation behind creation?
love.
> What is God's desire in his work in
>terms of eternal success?
to see His created beings grow in intellect and knowledge and
understanding of the universe, and add their own creativity to the
universe, and to have them grow up to be intelligent company for
Himself.
>What exists beyond the linear boundaries of the material universe?
don't know. I expect to find out one day.
>How is
>that boundary defined?
don't know.
>Is this God's first universe?
don't know.
>Is this God's only universe?
don't know.
>Are there other universes, that were created by other gods?
no, God speaks only truth, and He says that He is the only God.
>What happens to the Earth and all spiritual planes after the end of the
>Earth?
don't understand the question.
>How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
don't know.
>If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it occured?
>(if you do)
believe what occurred?
>
>The FIRMAMENT:
>What is the firmament?
our atmosphere.
> And where is it located?
troposphere.
>If one can travel beyond the furthest stars, beyond the boundaries of the
>universe as we know it, what will one encounter?
more universe extending beyond our ken.
>Is there an impassible firmament of some sort there?
no.
>What's on the other side?
stratosphere, mesophere, thermosphere, ionosphere.
>Beyond that boundary, does this plane still exist?
what plane?
>If so, does matter still exist?
where?
>Do physical laws vary?
they vary from law to law, but the laws themselves do not change.
>How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
scientific methodology.
>If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it exists?
>(if you do)
everything can be verified eventually, if not at the moment.
>
>HEAVEN, HELL, and the OTHER PLANES:
>What is the purpose of Hell?
to cleanse the earth by fire in preparation for creating it anew.
>What is the value of eternal punishment with no option of parole or
>rehabilitation?
there is no eternally burning hell. The punishment is eternal in the
sense that it is executed once and for all and there is no coming back
for the rest of eternity. But it does not mean that lives are
roasting in hell for eternity. This is, indeed, a hellish doctrine,
and serves the devil's purpose of making people hate God.
>Where did souls go before Christ?
the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything.
Their thought, their memory, their works, their emotions all perish in
the grave. Souls go back to dust, and the breath of life that belongs
to God goes back to Him. The soul disappears. But a record of that
soul is kept by God and when the time comes, those who are His
friends, they will be reassembled and brought back to life to live
forever.
>Why / how did this change?
no change. We still all die and go back to dust, from whence we came.
>How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
not everything can be quantified or qualified in a test tube, but that
does not mean those things are untrue.
>If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
>(if you do)
because of the solid foundation or reason upon which they rest.
>
>JESUS the CHRIST:
>How was Jesus conceived?
it is called the mystery of incarnation. Scripture quotes Jesus as
saying, "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. A body hast Thou prepared
for me." Beyond that, I do not understand.
>Was it similar to corporal transfer?
don't know, except that Jesus was considered to be fully human and
fully God.
> Was it a parthenogenic birth?
don't know.
>How was his gender manipulated?
don't know.
>And why was it necessary that he be male?
don't know. Interesting areas into which to inquire.
>What was Jesus' purpose?
to show us what God is like, and to die in our place so we could have
another chance at eternal life.
>What were his limitations?
as a human, all the limitations of humanity.
>Define his exact relationship to God.
He was God incarnate, voluntarily taking on the role of a being lower
than God, and "who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but
humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant."
>What means did he use to perform his miracles?
requests to His Father who called into action laws of the universe
that we have yet to understand.
>Were they psychic or psionic in nature?
what is "psionic"?
>A) How did he convert water to wine?
through laws of nature that we have yet to understand.
>Wine to water is more immediately conceivable. But how did Jesus create
>pectin, alcohol, sugar, and the
>necessary tastes and pigments to qualify as wine? Were these molecules
>manufactured by some telekinetic means out of particles in the air? Were
>they modifications of hydrogen or other molecules, rearranged to become the
>chemical components required?
one day you may get a chance to ask Him. It should be an interesting
science lesson from the Master Scientist.
>B) How did he create food immaculately?
same as above. Here is an endless science to be learned throughout
eternity.
>Could he have made copies of those materials through some psychic means? How
>did he amass the necessary matter
>of the right molecular configuration and arrangement to constitute bread and
>fish? Were these once living things teleported to his location? Or were they
>created already in a dead and processed state, ready for consumption?
>How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
God is really going to like your company in the next world, Aron-Ra,
because He gave you a mind to ask these questions, and is proud of you
to see you using your intellect, and investigating, and asking such
probing questions.
>If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe he
>exists/existed? (if you do)
>
it can be verified, bit by bit.
>SATAN:
>Is Satan an agent of God in punishing souls for him?
no. He is a fallen angel, once called Lucifer, who, with his
followers, are now confined to this earth where they are the main
cause of evil in this world.
> Or does God do that
>himself?
God is not into punishment. He knows the consequences that come with
breaking His laws and He warns us not to "go there."
>What is the origin of Satan?
a created being that once held an exalted position in God's
government.
> Is he a god too?
no.
> If not, then how best can he
>be described?
see above.
>What are the properties of Satan?
he is spirit.
> How old is he?
don't know. Older than 6,000 years.
> Where / what did he come
>from?
God created him.
>What is his motivation?
to paint God as evil, harsh, bad, hateful. The mystery of iniquity is
within him, and he is the father of liars.
> What is his ultimate Goal?
to get as many people as possible to doubt God and join him in his war
against God.
> Can that change?
he has passed the point of no return.
>Why is he considered evil?
because of what he has caused humans to do to this world and to each
other.
> Why is he considered to be the lord of lies?
because he chose to turn away from the God of truth, and that left him
the only other option -- lies.
>What is his opinion of his situation, status, duties, or place in the
>universe?
he knows he has lost in the Great Controversy, and now he has come to
us like a roaring lion, seeking whom he can devour, because he knows
his time is short.
>Why would he want our souls?
misery loves company. Plus he still has the fool's notion that he can
still somehow win, if he can get all of earth's inhabitants on his
side.
> What purpose do they serve him to have them?
so he can go "Hah!" in God's face every time he gains a follower, for
it is his great goal to hurt God as much as possible -- again, the
mystery of iniquity.
>Do souls in his possession perform some service or function for him?
yes, they are used to influence other souls to turn away from God.
>How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
not in a test tube. Through logical, prayerful consideration of
scripture.
>If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe he exists?
>(if you do)
it can be verified, but not in a test tube. Through personal
experience and change of life.
>
>DEMONS and ANGELS:
>Are they similar?
yes. Demons are fallen angels, once good, now evil. Angels remain
loyal to God.
> Perhaps related species?
yes. Both originally created by God.
>What are their physical characteristics, properties, and limitations?
more powerful than humans. Demons have lost their ability to convert
their energy into matter. Angels still have the ability to convert
back and forth from matter to energy to matter.
>What is their history?
Lucifer chose to turn away from God, and inspired one-third of the
angels in God's government to follow him. Those became devils. There
was war in heaven, and they were cast out, and they found a foothold
here on earth when Satan succeeded in causing Eve to doubt God's love.
> What is their origin?
God created them.
>Do they have extra-planerial characteristics which can be defined as
>physical in how they vary from each other, or from human souls, or divine
>ones?
yes.
>What can they do and what are they incapable of?
they are more powerful than we are. The evil angels are very powerful
and we should not deal with them through seances or spiritualism. The
angels loyal to God are more powerful than the evil angels, but it is
a struggle as "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities and powers and rulers of this present darkness, against
spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places."
the evil angels are incapable of forcing us to choose the wrong, if we
call upon God for help to do right. The good angels are incapable of
forcing us to do right if we refuse to call upon God for help to do
right.
> And why?
free will.
>How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
see above.
>If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
>(if you do)
experience outside the test tube that is as valid as any scientific
experiment in a lab.
>
>SIN and SALVATION:
>What constitutes sin?
turning away from God in distrust. Cutting ourselves off from the
source of eternal life.
> And why is it of consequence?
we die when we unplug ourselves from the source of all life.
> How is the measure of
>sin versus good works and belief measured against accountability and
>forgiveness
there is no measurement in Christ. His life and death is sufficient
to cover all sin, as long as we surrender and accept Him into our
minds (hearts) as our Lord and Saviour. No amount of good works can
save us, only this connection (reconnection) to Jesus-God can save us.
>to determine whether one is destined for Heaven,
which is a real world out there in the universe.
> Hell,
there is no hell -- just the destruction and cleansing of this earth
by fire for a short period of time.
>Purgatory,
no purgatory. That has been made up by man.
> resurrection,
there will be a resurrection when Jesus-God comes back in the near
future. And if there is a resurrection, then there aren't dead souls
or spirits floating around in heaven, or there would be no need for a
resurrection.
> reincarnation,
there is no reincarnation.
>or oblivion?
oblivion for now -- but there comes a time when we will say, "O death,
where is they sting, O grave, where is thy victory?"
>Why are issues of sexuality such a focal point of sin?
it is no greater sin than any other sin.
> And why did God
>design sexual drives
because sex is beautiful and healthy and to be enjoyed.
> and assign orientations
He did not assign orientations outside of the norm. Misdirected
orientations are just another evidence of sin and how it has twisted
us.
> and desires all to be the
>strongest forces in all of biology that can still be survived in their
>abstinence without physical damage?
what?
>How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
>If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe these exist?
>(if you do)
>
see above.
>Speculative bonus question for purposes of illustration / further
>explanation
>of sin & salvation: Each of the following have been petitioned for
>placement in both paradise and damnation, (including oblivion) for various
>reasons by various people. To further illustrate the criteria of divine
>judgement, evaluate each according to the beliefs you adhere to determine
>the current location of the following souls:
>
>Pope Alexander VI
>Alcestis (of Euripedes)
>Mohamed Atta
>Queen Baudicca of Iceny
>Bahá'u'lláh
>Giordano Bruno
>William Jennings Bryan
>Gautama Buddha
>Sammuel Clemmons
>Emporer Constantine
>Bishop Cyril of the Opposition
>Leonardo DaVinci
>Eve of Eden
>Mahatma Ghandi
>Gilgamesh
>Ham of NASA
>Adolph Hitler
>Hypatia of Alexandria
>Judas Iscariot
>Reverend Jim Jones
>Vladimir Lenin
>John Lennon
>Abraham Lincoln
>Martin Luther
>Lady Mary Madonna, mother of God
>Cotton Mather
>Michaelangelo
>Moses
>Muhammad
>Nostrodamos
>Sri Prabupada
>Lord Rama
>Grigori Rasputin
>Carl Sagan
>Joseph Smith
>Socrates
>Vlad Tepesh (the Impaler)
>Mother Theresa
>Torquemada
>Trigger
>George Washington
>Rabba Y'shua Bar Yosseff
>
they're all dead, except for Moses, who was brought back to life and
taken to heaven. The rest remain in the earth, and I refuse to judge
who is saved or lost amongst them.
>Final question: What will become of your essence following your mortal
>demise?
you become nothing. You disappear. You become as if you never were.
Oblivion, until the resurrection time, at which time, your final
destination will be decided.
>(one of the) Heaven(s) [clarify which one]
>(one of the) Hell(s) [clarify which one]
>Purgatory
>stasis
>resurrection
>reincarnation (human only)
>reincarnation (non-human possibility)
>reincarnation (extra-terrestrial, planerial possibility)
>oblivion
oblivion until the resurrection.
>syndication
>other
>
>Additional questions are expected and encouraged of course.
>
nice diversion, Aron-Ra, on my way to trying to catch up on some old
threads. Will have to leave that for tomorrow.
--
zoe
Filip van den Bergh
is no doubt in my mind that religion has had a great influence on society
and individuals. That influence can be researched. As parts of theology, one
can see history of religion, psychology of religion and sociology of
religion. The assertions and methods are the same as for the respective
sciences, but the topic is different, making it theology. But I can already
see this thread turning into a search for uber-sciences, when you tell me
that's not theology, but history, psychology or sociology.
Anyway, there are a lot of researchers interested in religion and it's place
in society (or even biology) that are completely atheist.
Filip
[snipped as fair as I can]
> > > But religion and theology aren't science to start with.
> > Why isn't theology science? I think that's a bit too easy.
> My understanding is that theology consists of the
> reasonable conclusions drawn from a given set of
> assertions.
> Since the assertions are not open to question, the
> resulting theological conclusions are suspect.
> Science questions the assertions....
> I'm an atheist. Since I don't assert the existence
> of any supernatural agents, I have no theology.
>
> Jim
>
Anti Fundies
> Aron-Ra wrote:
> >
> > Anti Fundies <anti_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3abe2e68.01110...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > But religion and theology aren't science to start with.
> >
> > this forum to present the Theory of Creation as if it were scientific. All
> > of which so far, have actively avoided actually explaining anything. Or
> > explaining how anything could be tested for quantified, qualified, verified,
> > or falsified. I just posted this because these are the sorts of questions
> > that I asked as a child and I think they are therefore basic enough that
> > they might be answered if there is any truth to them.
> >
> > I do wish I'd listed a couple more people in my "where are they now" list.
> > Lilith, Lucy, and that guy who founded the American flat Earth Society for
> > example.
> >
> > Its too bad that Newbie is such an abominable distraction that no one is
> > even trying for that part. I thought that would be quite amusing to see
> > debated. Oh well.
> >
> > Aron-Ra
>
> Since religion and theology aren't science, we have
> to find some other way of deciding what is true, and
> what isn't. And unfortunately science is the only
> reliable method we have of deciding what's true.
>
Science isn't about truth, it's about theories of how nature works and
how well they're supported by evidence.
> I guess Anti Fundies is proposing that religion and
> theology are all bs.
>
I wouldn't call philosophy science, or economics, accounting, music,
etc. I'm not proposing they're all BS though.
> Or perhaps he will give us some other way of
> deciding whether or not they are true?
>
> Jim
I'm quite happy sticking to science when it comes to about figuring
out how nature works.
Back in a hostile mood Jim? What's up?
Anti Fundies
> Anti Fundies <anti_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3abe2e68.01110...@posting.google.com...
>
> > But religion and theology aren't science to start with.
>
> Well yeah. Obviously. But there have been a couple of recent attempts in
> this forum to present the Theory of Creation as if it were scientific. All
> of which so far, have actively avoided actually explaining anything. Or
> explaining how anything could be tested for quantified, qualified, verified,
> or falsified. I just posted this because these are the sorts of questions
> that I asked as a child and I think they are therefore basic enough that
> they might be answered if there is any truth to them.
>
> I do wish I'd listed a couple more people in my "where are they now" list.
> Lilith, Lucy, and that guy who founded the American flat Earth Society for
> example.
>
> Its too bad that Newbie is such an abominable distraction that no one is
> even trying for that part. I thought that would be quite amusing to see
> debated. Oh well.
>
> Aron-Ra
Then it should be titled "Elevating creation to Theory".
Nathan McKaskle
> > disappointed, I won't be anything.
>
> Don't worry though. I'll not be right there with you.
>
> Aron-Ra
>
isn't that comforting?
J Forbes
That make sense to me...because once you understand,
it doesn't work any more.
Jim
J Forbes
Your questions are the right ones to demonstrate
what you set out to demonstrate, which is that the
belief systems are false.
But understanding how they came to be is a whole
other area of study.
Jim
J Forbes
And it's the only reliable method we have to
determine whether our concept of how the world
works, matches the true way that the world works.
> > I guess Anti Fundies is proposing that religion and
> > theology are all bs.
> >
>
> I wouldn't call philosophy science, or economics, accounting, music,
> etc. I'm not proposing they're all BS though.
I consider accounting to be science, and economics
is more religion than science...but it does use
scientific methods at times. Music is art.
Philosophy is art which tells us what we don't know.
Of course, that's not what I asked, which was
whether religion and theology are bs. Are they?
> > Or perhaps he will give us some other way of
> > deciding whether or not they are true?
> >
> > Jim
>
> I'm quite happy sticking to science when it comes to about figuring
> out how nature works.
Me to. And I even stick to science to figure out
how religion and theology work. After all, they are
just natural human behavior.
> Back in a hostile mood Jim? What's up?
Hmmmm, I guess I may sound hostile. Bs does that to
me.
Jim
J Forbes
>
> I think you may be wrong for as far as many theologists are concerned. There
> is no doubt in my mind that religion has had a great influence on society
> and individuals. That influence can be researched. As parts of theology, one
> can see history of religion, psychology of religion and sociology of
> religion. The assertions and methods are the same as for the respective
> sciences, but the topic is different, making it theology. But I can already
> see this thread turning into a search for uber-sciences, when you tell me
> that's not theology, but history, psychology or sociology.
> Anyway, there are a lot of researchers interested in religion and it's place
> in society (or even biology) that are completely atheist.
>
> Filip
That may all be well and good, but the assertions
upon which theologies are based may still be false.
The work that follows from the assertions is indeed
part of history, society, etc, and can be reasonably
studied within the context of the assetions being
true. But the basic assertions are still suspect.
And the validity of the conclusions is still
suspect. The difference between science and
theology, is that science *requires* questioning the
assertions, while theology *requires* faith that the
assertions are true.
I'm somewhat interested in religion, but my interest
is "from without". I think it's fascinating that
folks can believe all that bs, and I want to
understand how/why it works. This is scientific
inquiry about religion.
Jim
J Forbes
>
> On 4 Nov 2001 17:11:37 -0500, "Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >How old is the eldest extant god? (To be hereafter referred to simply as
> >"God").
>
> ageless.
>
> >Is he related in any way at all to any others of his kind?
>
> He is the only true God.
>
> >Can others of his kind exist?
>
> no. All others are false.
>
Hey Aron-Ra, you gots a live one here! Be careful
reeling her in...
Jim
J Forbes
But there's already a thread with that
subject...Zoe's thread on ToC.
She has not really presented any theory yet, though.
I think the examination of theology is appropriate,
as theology is usually considered as rationale for
creationism.
Jim
Bill Hudson
>
> Bill Hudson <bi...@rmp.com> wrote in message
> news:3BE6BC80...@rmp.com...
> > Aron-Ra wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like to see everybody respond to this at least in part.
> > >
> > > All things that exist in reality can be evaluated and understood in some
> > > way. To that end, answer the following questions to the best of your
> > > ability.
> > >
> >
> > I'm going to bypass the list, because, while I think the attempt to
> > explain, or demand explanations for those things is a useful exercise, I
> > also believe it is a futile one.
> >
> > The demand is essentially to 'naturalize' the 'supernatural'. Of
> > course, by doing so you would be pulling the 'supernatural' object or
> > concept across the boundry between the 'natural' (real) world and the
> > 'supernatural' one. If we can quantify it in some manner, it becomes
> > part of the 'natural' world.
>
> It already is.
>
> God cannot hide in the netherworld of dreamscapes if there is to be any
> evaluation of what is real. And he cannot claim sanctuary from the rules of
> reason if he attempts to interact with the world of cause and effect.
Which is exactly why I believe such an attempt is futile.
We will never find unambiguous proof of God. Nor can God be
'disproven'. God is ignored by science, becuase God is unobservable,
invisible and untestable.
We can go on from here about the 'nature' of God, but let me reassure
you that I (for one) do *not* believe in the traditional christian image
of a large humanoid with flowing white hair in glowing robes.
>... If
> deities or angels or any of these other fantasies can manipulate the events
> of our lives, then they have dipped their supernatural toes in the prime
> material plane and have become soaked with natural law. Their miracles are
> no longer considered beyond reality because they have altered it measurably.
> And in so doing, have left at least one facet of God quantifiable and even
> testable at least to some extent
Unless of course the 'natural world' is just a part of God (a'la
pantheism). Or if God simply started the whole universe up like a
clockwork mechanism, and is watching from a distance (a'la deism). You
seem to be singling out a narrow theological view as the focus for your
argument, and then, having declared victory over that narrow theological
view, extend that to declare victory over all forms of theological
belief.
While I agree that so-called 'miracles' and other evidences promoted as
proof of God all have perfectly good naturalistic explanations, some
might counter that's just how God works; via the natural world.
> Exactly *how* profound was said effect? How many people prayed for it?
> What were their qualifications? Their doctrines? Prophets? Diocese? or
> Covenants?
What effect? I have proposed none.
> What were the results and how were they acheived? What evidence remains?
> And what talismans or componants were used? How could this be repeated?
> Or tested?
>
> Unfortunately for these shadow creatures who hide in the realms of
> imagination, supported solely in blind unsubstantiated faith and sheltered
> within a domicile of impenetrable irreality, their effects upon matter are
> also quantifiable. Those miracles of Biblical proportions, are also
> verifiable. And they number zero.
Poetic, but loaded. What makes you think I support the notion of
'miracles' (supernatural intervention in the natural world)?
> To date, the gravity of their effects upon events in the natural world
> measures a sum total of zero. The verifiable quantity of these events
> numbers exactly zero.
>
> The evidence that supports their existence in the first place.......you do
> the math.
I don't have to. As I said above, I believe that there will *never* be
unambiguous proof or disproof of God. Being 'verifiable' would remove
the ambiguity, and the free will.
>
> Aron-Ra
I see and recognize your argument for the pragmatic athieism of science,
and you (as well as many others) have extended this into philosophical
atheism. I have no problem with that belief system, and think it has
much to recommend it. What I do have a problem with is you (or anyone
else) telling me what I should believe. I don't accept it from the
fundamentalists or the evangelists, and I don't accept it from the
atheists either.
You can hold your nose in disdain all you'd like about what others
believe, but the fact is, you're not going to reason someone out of a
deeply seated position that they did not arrive at through reason.
The argument 'The natural world is all there is' is an unwarranted
extension of 'The natural world is all we can examine.' One is
metaphysical, the other pragmatic.
--
Bill
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and
the success of liberty." - President John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address,
January 20, 1961
Dunk
wrote:
<snip>
>> Good Omens
>> by Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett, David Frampton (Illustrator)
>> Originally subtitled "The nice and accurate prophecies of Agnes
>> Nutter, Witch"
>> It seems they have dropped the subtitle
>> http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0441003257.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
>Is that the Merkin edition? That doesn't surprise me - any industry that
>fears the use of the word "Philosopher" as in _Harry Potter and the
>Philosopher's Stone_ could be expected to dumb down that lovely title
>and its archaic use of "nice".
Oh, you noticed that? Don't you get the pure British editions?
Bummer! The stone has the properties of the 'real' philospher's
stone. How are kids to learn anything? Outrageous to cut them off
from the cultural heritage and romance of early chemical philosophy.
The change to 'sorcerer's stone' is made throughout the book. Here
in the US almost no one knows the original title.
>> I thought you read everything by Pratchett. I don't know about
>> _Men at Alms_.
>> Dunk
>
>Oh *Good* Omens, yeah. I thought you meant *God* Omens...
>
>[Oh alright, I should stop making puns based on typos, sure]
Rats! Now I see it...
Dunk
Nathan McKaskle
"Dunk" <pdu...@magicnet.net> wrote in message
news:3be81b0f...@fl.news.verio.net...
J Forbes
-big snip-
> The argument 'The natural world is all there is' is an unwarranted
> extension of 'The natural world is all we can examine.' One is
> metaphysical, the other pragmatic.
>
> --
> Bill
But we can also examine the proposed "unnatural"
worlds...as being the natural result of the way
humans think.
We cannot disprove God, but we can explain the gods
that humans believe in, in natural terms.
Jim
Martin Crisp
wrote (in message <3be6...@news.iprimus.com.au>):
[snip all of aron-ra's questions]
> Get stuck into the Word of God and prayer and alot of your questions will be
> answered, and the ones that arent, are usually God's own business which will
> be revealled in Heaven.
What? Do you have so little pride and confidence in your beliefs
that you can't answer those questions? Why not? Are the
contradictions too painful?
Did you miss the verse that exhorts you to preach to all creatures?
Converted your gastric flora yet?
No? Cues Deep Purple _Burn_
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
PGP Key (ID 0xED55A6D0) Fingerprint:
A7C7 F865 B317 ABBB B10E D8AC F4AD 347D ED55 A6D0
Martin Crisp
(in message
<t2jF7.14283$S4.13...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>):
> I'd like to see everybody respond to this at least in part.
>
> All things that exist in reality can be evaluated and understood in some
> way. To that end, answer the following questions to the best of your
> ability.
I've only replied under the headings, in most cases. Those should
make the responses to the bits I snipped obvious.
> In the performance of science, it is necessary to answer all of these
> questions with the best explanation possible. Even a wrong answer is less
> wrong than no answer at all as wrong answers can still be tested for to
> further define our understanding. All ideas will be tested and compared.
> But if you can't come up with anything of merit on your own, don't worry
> about it. Just answer what you can as best you can if you have something to
> present that might be of interest. Then those answers will be tested for
> however or whenever possible by everyone who wants to participate.
>
> Anyone who can contribute an idea which can withstand peer reviewed
> scrutiny, will be recognized accordingly, regardless of qualification,
> reputation, or orientation. In this way, we can and will eliminate what is
> probably true from what is not possibly true.
>
> Assuming each of the following might exist....
I can't, either for lack of definition, or inconsistency of
definition. I have as much chance of successfully assuming square
circles exist. [Which is the basis I first tried penning a response
around ... but I couldn't stay 'serious']
>
> GODS:
> How old is the eldest extant god? (To be hereafter referred to simply as
> "God").
I'm an atheist. Gods as are as old as the myths in which they
appear.
[snip]
> MIRACLES:
I am an atheist, miracles are works of divine beings which break the
actual laws of physics. WITS: myth.
[snip]
> Does telepathy exist?
> Is teleportation possible? If so, is it possible to teleport objects other
> than one's self? How could it be done?
> Does telekinesis exist? If so, how does it work?
all three of these, potentially, but apparently not as an innate
feature of Life on Earth.
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
Scientific tests.
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they exist?
> (if you do)
n/a
> SOULS:
I have no evidence for the existence of souls. They seem to appear
in the same places as miracles and gods: myth.
[snip]
> CREATION:
Assumes the actions of a being I consider is myth: creation is myth.
[snip]
> The FIRMAMENT:
Well, in my first draft I associated testing telepathy by thinking
'improper proposals' at potential mates.
That's the 'firm' Ah meant.
Seriously: More myth.
[snip]
> HEAVEN, HELL, and the OTHER PLANES:
myth.
[snip]
> JESUS the CHRIST:
The Jesus bit: possibly not entirely myth.
[snip]
> SATAN:
> Is Satan an agent of God in punishing souls for him? Or does God do that
> himself?
No, Satan is my cat.
> What is the origin of Satan? Is he a god too? If not, then how best can he
> be described?
David (works at a firm called Quantum) owned Spasm.
Spasm begat Tic
Tic begat Bast
Bast begat Satan
Satan is therefore the result of a Quantum Spasm (the event is often
called a bang, but speculating as to the size, or temperature, would
be, well... speculation). Previous history is inaccessible.
<g>
> What are the properties of Satan? How old is he? Where / what did he come
> from?
Small, female, ginger & white, tabby cat. _She_ is about 5 (of your
Earth) years old.
> What is his motivation? What is his ultimate Goal? Can that change?
Producing spawn. Yes, if I take her to the vet.
> Why is he considered evil? Why is he considered to be the lord of lies?
The looks she gives people who sit where she wanted to.
Because she pretends not to have been fed for a month.
> What is his opinion of his situation, status, duties, or place in the
> universe?
Well, the cat-flap isn't locked, so she can leave if she wants.
> Why would he want our souls? What purpose do they serve him to have them?
Soles? Well, she, like most cats, is partial to fish. They serve as
nutrient.
> Do souls in his possession perform some service or function for him?
As previous.
> How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
Photos, other than the name, that you'll have to take on faith :-)
> If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe he exists?
> (if you do)
Because she's under my daughter's bed, nursing the latest spawn.
> DEMONS and ANGELS:
> Are they similar? Perhaps related species?
Yep, almost identical: myth
[snip]
> SIN and SALVATION:
> What constitutes sin? And why is it of consequence? How is the measure of
Breaking the mythic rules of a mythic being. A mythic punishment.
[snip]
> Speculative bonus question for purposes of illustration / further
> explanation
> of sin & salvation: Each of the following have been petitioned for
> placement in both paradise and damnation, (including oblivion) for various
> reasons by various people. To further illustrate the criteria of divine
> judgement, evaluate each according to the beliefs you adhere to determine
> the current location of the following souls:
mythic destinations for mythic things. The ones who have been dead
for a little while are either in urns or coffins (as well as various
small organisms); those who have been dead for a long time tend to
be part of other things (including me, my desk, the apricot tree
outside my window...)
[snip list of 'saintly sinners']
> Final question: What will become of your essence following your mortal
> demise?
essence? I don't know what you mean.
My conciousness dies with my brain, barring technological advances
in the interim.
[snip, mainly mythic, destinations and sign-off]
John Wilkins
Oddly, not.
--
John Wilkins at home
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Martin Crisp
wrote (in message <3BE73267...@yahoo.com>):
> John Wilkins wrote:
>>
>> Dunk <pdu...@magicnet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Nov 2001 17:26:55 -0500,
>>> mor...@REMOVETHISwytchcraft.REMOVETHISASWELLnet (Morgoth's Cat)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And lo, the Lord did giveth his eleventh commandament to the people,
>>>> and the people did rejoice:
>>>>
>>>> "THOU MUST SNIPPEST"...
>>>
>>> My translation is:
>>> "Thou shalt snippeth"
>>>
>>> <snip extra lines at bottom>
>>> Dunk
>>
>> The revised standard version translation is:
>>
>> "Snip!"
>> --
>> John Wilkins
>> Occasionally making sense for over 45 years
>
> Go forth and snip! and be fruitful.
Hang on, I went forth and was snipped, just so as not to be
fruitful...
> Or is that, be fruits...
Well, sweetie, that's entirely up to you...
John Wilkins
> They freakin CHANGED the TITLE? WHY!?
A philosopher's stone in the alchemical traditions of the middle ages
was supposed to confer eternal life upon those who could find and employ
it. It was the "true" (insofar as anything literal in alchemy was
"true") goal of the alchemical enterprise (not the transmutation of lead
into gold, which was, I believe, both a metaphor and a scam).
In American popular culture, a philosopher is a dread thing that reduces
sales and muddies marketing pitches. [Parenthetically, did anyone not
ethat one of the best philosophers of the past 100 years died recently?
David Lewis was his name - I met him but once.] Hence the word could not
be included in the title of the first Harry Potter book, and hence the
word "sorceror" was substituted, and hence also throughout the book,
losing all cultural referents to the alchemists.
Thus the alchemical power of marketing is demonstrated, through
transmuting the gold of Rowlings' prose into the lead of an advertising
slogan.
Nathan McKaskle
> was supposed to confer eternal life upon those who could find and employ
> it. It was the "true" (insofar as anything literal in alchemy was
> "true") goal of the alchemical enterprise (not the transmutation of lead
> into gold, which was, I believe, both a metaphor and a scam).
>
> In American popular culture, a philosopher is a dread thing that reduces
> sales and muddies marketing pitches. [Parenthetically, did anyone not
> ethat one of the best philosophers of the past 100 years died recently?
> David Lewis was his name - I met him but once.] Hence the word could not
> be included in the title of the first Harry Potter book, and hence the
> word "sorceror" was substituted, and hence also throughout the book,
> losing all cultural referents to the alchemists.
>
> Thus the alchemical power of marketing is demonstrated, through
> transmuting the gold of Rowlings' prose into the lead of an advertising
> slogan.
Still mostly confused, but ok lol
Aron-Ra
news:3be75b2b....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>On 4 Nov 2001 17:11:37 -0500, "Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>snip>
>
> >How old is the eldest extant god? (To be hereafter referred to simply as
> >"God").
>
>ageless.
That doesn't really jive with the idea of a universe that is not "ageless",
now does it? What did God do for 'leventy jillion years mulitplied by a
googleplex of eons, while he sat all alone in his uniquely infinite
solitude?
> >Is he related in any way at all to any others of his kind?
>
>He is the only true God.
I have to ask then, why there is no evidence of his following that is more
than 2200 years old, but there is a lot of evidence for a lot of other
gods', going all the way back through the third millenia BCE? If your god
is the "One true God" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then why isn't he at least
one of the gods of any religion previous to that?
> >Can others of his kind exist?
>
>no. All others are false.
The Hindi Vedas, (which also predate your Bible) declare that they are the
only truth of God. They also have a holy trinity of three individuals that
compose the "God-head". And many modern Hindus consider Jesus to be the
ninth avatar of Krishna, and as such is also the successor of Lord Rama.
> >Where/what did he come from?
>
>He has always been.
Twiddling his thumbs in his eternally dark abyss for a million billion years
to the trillionth power is how I guess he learned to be so reclusive now.
And its kind of funny to imagine him sitting there floating on nothing in
the dark waiting for just the right moment to create existence. He already
knows every aspect all possible futures, including everything that will ever
make him feel wroth so he knows some reason why he has to wait some infinite
span of successive ages without measure before he can invent time. He looks
at his watch; Its only half-past 400 quintillion BAE. (before anything
existed) He heaves sighs and goes back to twiddling his thumbs and
whistling to himself in his infinite patience.
> >How was he created?
>
>He is not created.
Then he does not exist.
> >How does God's infinite perception function?
>
>I don't know.
Its best to try to answer everything. It doesn't matter if you get it
wrong. But any attempt to explain is better than not even trying.
> > How does he perceive?
>
>the Bible gives insights.
But that doesn't really answer the question, does it?
> >How does he think?
>
>the Bible reveals some of His thoughts.
But that doesn't answer the question either.
> > How does divination work?
>
>foretelling the future? He can see all possible paths that life forms
>can take. It's like knowing every possible path that particles will
>take, and predicting which path will be followed at any given time.
Yes. But the question was; how does it work?
And your answer doesn't bode well on his experiment with putting the serpent
in the garden with an immortal girl who doesn't know right from wrong, but
who will live forever with a shiny prize set before her for all eternity,
does it? But then, one doesn't have to be too terribly wise to realize that
the poor girl will eventually take the bait if you wait long enough. I
would think that this answer should create some pretty serious questions for
believers.
> >Can any operation of God's capabilities or properties be reproduced,
> >measured, or examined with any technology which currently exists?
>
>operations produced by God's capabilities can be measured and examined
>with technology currently existing and technology yet to come.
Such as? Please give examples.
>God's properties (Himself) cannot be measured or examined with our
>present technology. He is beyond our reach in that sense. It is like
>hoping that ants will be able to wrap their ant-minds around
>understanding human beings, or expecting the inhabitants of flatland
>(two dimensions) to comprehend a three-dimensional world. Maybe in
>the world to come, we will be given more dimensions that will enable
>us to understand more.
>
> >What type technology could perform this task?
>
>for the operations, the usual instruments and methods of science.
Give examples please. No one on Earth knows of any scientific method which
could or ever has provided any such evidence of any miraculous nature at
all. And several theists in this forum have recently stated that such is
impossible and even inconceivable, even though they believe that God exists.
> >Can he change his mind once he has been initiated?
>
>don't know what "once He has been initiated" means, but, yes, He can
>change His mind. He never changes the laws of the universe, though,
>moral or natural.
This would call miracles into question.
> >What is the logic behind sacrifice?
>
>pre-Calvary, it was an object lession meant to impress upon the minds
>of humans the awfulness of sin that would cause the death of the
>innocent, and to point the minds of humans to the true sacrifice --
>that of God dying in our place in order to give us life again -- a
>scientific process if there ever was one.
I'm sorry. I fail to see either logic or science in your example.
> > Why does he appreciate that?
>
>He does not appreciate it. He wants US to appreciate the meaning of
>this awful sacrifice.
How "awful" was this sacrifice, anyway? I mean Jesus is still supposed to
exist, right? I mean, he was only dead for three stinking days, right? You
and I are both gonna die, and there isn't dick we can do about it. So why
should we get so excited when rich boy wants to go slumming for the Easter
week-end? And he knew in advance that he was going to bring himself back to
life anyway, so big deal.
Now Alcestis, on the other hand; She didn't know that Hercules was gonna
haul her ass back out of the land of the dead after the holiday when she
sacrificed herself for all of man's sins. So if Jesus hadn't saved himself,
there was a mythic precedent set that some other god might save him instead.
> >On a universal scale, what makes him happy?
>
>our happiness.
And what of the godzillions of other species on gazillion other worlds? How
do they relate? Are they also subject to death following Eve's sin? Were
all their worlds created all at once in a single day about three days after
the Earth?
Does this mean "our" happiness as in all life in general? Or just
terrestrial life? Is it humanity exclusively? Or just everybody but the
Midianites and Canaanites. I mean, their happiness doesn't seem to matter
too much to him.
> >How and why is he pleased by whatever we do?
>
>He is pleased when we use the faculties He gave us for the purpose
>they were given, to question, reason, create, and communicate with Him
>and each other in a growing fellowship.
Then he is actually against our adherence to faith then? Interesting, if a
bit paradoxical.
> >What are the limits of what he can or will do?
>
>the limits lie in the end of good and the beginning of evil.
That sounds like a very fine line indeed. Are you sure you would force him
into such a tiny space?
> >How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
>
>through an experimental knowledge gained from experience in walking
>and talking with God as a Friend.
When you walk with your friend, God...and he talks to you...he doesn't speak
to you through your dog, does he?
And this presents a whole other problem. As Hindi have knowlege gained from
experience in walking with Krishna in the same capacity. And there are
numerous other polytheists in the same situation. Pantheists too,
paritcularly Buddhists and Shaman, (although the Dharma is a concept
somewhere beyond the context implied by walking with a friend). Among
modern monotheism, Muslims, Jews, and Bahai all have this benefit as well.
As do all the Christian variants from Catholics through Mormons, Santee, and
Jehovah's Witnesses. And yet all their "knowlege" is questionable on an
individual basis and contradictory by all comparison.
> >If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it exists?
> >(if you do)
>
>it can be verified.
Then we have to know how. And with this answer, you could acheive fame
beyond equal! As everyone else on Earth labors over the idea that this is
an unsubstantiated matter of pure blind faith. And thus, hardly probable.
> >
> >MIRACLES:
> >Exactly how does he effect miraculous events?
>
>through laws that we do not yet understand and therefore call the
>effects of such laws magical or miraculous.
In science, it is a good idea to suggest any possible answer that might be
tested for, rather than to ever through up your hands in acceptance of a
non-answer.
> > Is it by manipulation of
> >atomic weight?
>
>that's part of it.
>
> > Or magnetism?
>
>that, too.
Please explain.
> >Does he move through time?
>
>yes.
>
> > Or does he exist outside of time?
>
>yes.
>
> > If so, how?
>
>God is Spirit. Spirit is not confined by matter.
If he is an extra-planerial entity, then he, and / or aspects of him are
still bound by something equivicable to physics. Perhaps we should evaluate
and evidence the astral plane to better understand the metaphysical laws to
which God must adhere.
> >How does he communicate?
>
>through His written Word, through dreams and visions via prophets,
>through our thoughts, through people who are willing to be used by
>Him.
1. How do we determine the difference between those who are used by him and
those who are deceived by the devil into thinking that they speak for him or
do his bidding? Remember the son-of-Sam? The Manson family? Hitler,
Torquemada, etc. etc.
2. What has he ever actually written? Because all I know are books written
by people claiming to speak for God. They include the Koran, the Bhagivad
Gita, the Talmud, the Torah, the Gospels, the book of Mormon, Enuma Elish,
and the Zend Avesta, among many many others that are less closely related to
each other.
> > If no one can actually hear God's voice in any
> >sane state, then what means does he use?
>
>thoughts, the validity of which are based on scriptural standards.
Please see above.
> > Exactly what does it mean to be
> >"moved" by God?
>
>to be susceptible to the promptings of His Spirit, so that His
>thoughts become your thoughts.
Full trans mediums? How do we identify the source? How do we determine
accuracy? And how do we compare it to the Mormon prophets? Bahá'u'lláh?
Coyote?
> >Does telepathy exist?
>
>yes.
Do you have an example for verification?
> >Does telekinesis exist?
>
>yes. The devil and his spirits know of these laws and use them for
>evil purposes.
1. How do you know that?
2. What are these evil purposes?
> > If so, how does it work?
>
>don't know.
We are attempting to explain reality remember? Gods and demons may be
metaphysical, but if they are outside reality, then they are not real.
> >How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
>
>don't know.
>
> >If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they
exist?
> >(if you do)
>
>it can be verified, because it has been shown to exist in seances and
>spiritualistic activity (this source not recommended to be
>investigated).
You don't know how it can be verified, but you know it can be? One of these
appears to be an belief and not "knowlege" at all.
And exactly why should we not investigate spiritualism? Is it because all
of the seances and spiritual activity analyzed so far has been fraudulent?
And if this source is not to be investigated, then why did you say that this
was a means of verification?
> >
> >SOULS:
> >What might compose them?
>
>we do not have souls. We ARE souls.
So then, souls are composed of particles of matter and can produce waste?
> >How do they function?
>
>we do not have souls. We ARE souls. We function.
"How do they function?" cannot be answered by repeating half the question,
but leaving out the "How".
> > How might they be
> >evidenced?
>
>we do not have souls . We ARE souls. The dust of the earth combined
>with the breath of life, and we became living souls. We didn't get
>living souls. We BECAME living souls. Take away the breath of life
>and we go back to dust, and we are no longer souls. We do not have
>souls that go floating off to some distant clime.
Perhaps you are familiar with the panthiest concept of metakirlian particles
which compose the astral plane. That's obviously not what you adhere to.
But that's what you seem to be describing.
> > Or tested for / against?
>
>we ARE souls. Body, mind, and spirt=soul.
Then how would we differ from say, a being who is visiually and
comparatively identical to us, but composed entirely of nannobotic cells
(for example)? How far into microbiology does this "breath of life" concept
extend beyond respiration? Are simple replicative protiens also souls? Or
does this apply only to metabolic protiens?
> >Is there any existent technology which can measure, detect, or otherwise
> >evidence a soul?
>
>look in the mirror.
When I do, I see a composite of cells, which have become so dependant on the
the colonial whole that the failure of the super entity would result in the
indevidual deaths of each of the millions of contributors. I see no
evidence of a soul at all. I see essentially nothing more than a biological
machine, which will one day fail to run the operating system due to overall
structural damage, mechanical failure, or physical wear.
> >What type of hypothetical technology could do this?
>
>a mirror will do.
No, it clearly doesn't. All my mirrors have an ape in them, as do yours.
> >How do souls process thoughts in lieu of any brain?
>
>souls have brains in their heads via which they process thoughts.
Except the ones without brains? or heads? Right?
> >Is this process similar to the mental processes which God possesses?
>
>there is an eternity of info to learn about God. Bit by bit.....
Then we aught to start somewhere, right? Which means this question deserves
an answer.
> >How do souls move?
>
>on feet, or in vehicles meant to take the place of feet.
Except for those souls that don't have feet, right?
> > What do they move through?
>
>the atmosphere of this earth, breathing, eating, sleeping, loving,
>hating, accomplishing -- and then we die and there is no more soul.
>We are nothing.
So upon their demise, they obviously no longer move through anything. Hence
there is no afterlife.
> > Can they effect matter,
> >organisms, or concepts on the prime material plane of mortal existence?
>
>yes, we do it all the time.
But only while they are alive. Hence there is no afterlife. Your
definition of a soul seems to match my definition of any normal living
organism. Both can only exist while alive.
> >What is the difference between a soul and an astral form?
>
>a soul is you and me and every living creature breathing the breath of
>life.
What about those creatures which do not respire? What about plants, and
algae? Bacteria? Viruses?
> What exactly do you mean by an astral form? Unless the spirits of
>devils try to pass themselves off as such forms?
That portion of us that is said to travel beyond this plane, either through
meditational projection, or trauma (near-death experiences) and of course
actual death. Some people see the astral form as a seperate componant than
are the soul and the physical bodies. Others say that life forms are the
combination of the physical body and the astral body, which they define as
the soul. Upon death, the physical body is recombined with the componants
of the material plane while the astral soul is recombined with the astral
plane.
Another analogy is the concept of water and clay combining to make a
substance which has capabilies that neither of the two componants possess on
their own. When the water evaporates out of the mud, it loses its fluidity
and returns to the Earth. The water floats away back into the clouds and
the cycle begins anew.
The concept is that the addition of the astral componant allows for the
animation of matter into a living being. For pantheists and Hindi, it
allows for both universal "oneness" and/or reincarnation. Theists often
view the astral form as retaining a mirror image of its physical structure,
allowing for ghosts and also for some semblance of self which can survive
death. But your philosophy doesn't include this and doesn't appear to allow
any kind of afterlife.
> >Can ghosts exist?
>
>yes. They are the spirits of devils -- fallen angels, followers of
>Satan, once known as Lucifer. They have the ability to exist as
>energy forms.
Astral forms. You do realize that the word, Lucifer means "bringer of
light" and was an ancient god of wisdom, right? And that philosophies
defies literally every last single ghost story I have ever heard!
> > What is the difference between a soul and a ghost?
>
>a soul is a living natural body of flesh and blood. A ghost is the
>spirit without the natural body. Souls on earth do not have the
>ability to be spirits without bodies.
As I said, your philosophy doesn't appear to allow for an afterlife at all.
But it is a fluid one. One minute, we ARE souls. The next we are spirits
with bodies again. Consistency, Dear.
> >If all souls are to be judged, what happens afterward?
>
>some die in the destruction of the earth -- an eternal death forever,
>no coming back, oblivion -- and some are allowed to live on forever in
>a better, more abundant life.
In what state? Since you don't allow for the possability of a spiritual
form for any biological organism. And this whole utterly vile notion of
being "cleansed" by fire! How do you expect people to believe that this god
of yours has any capacity for love, when he would hang something this
repulsive over our heads? And how do you relate tales like this without
listening to your words and realizing how complicated and contradictory it
all is. How easily it is all contested, how immediately obvious is this
utter lack of any love either in the Old Testamant or in Revelations and
even half the crap in between.
If you want to live a better, more abundant life, give up this notion of
your lake of fire and start cleansing the Earth before its destroyed and
there is no mystic rabbi to save you at the last minute. There will be
afterlife for anything. And it will be too late to realize it.
> >What happens after the last very last soul has been judged?
>
>the earth, after being cleansed by fire, is made new again, recreated
>by the Creator, and harmony once again pulses through the entire
>universe, the sore spot (sinful earth) cleansed forever.
Then why was it ever dirty in the first place? And how was it ever sinful?
And how would this relate to the zillions of other worlds which might also
contain life, but which would be far far removed from any terrestrial lake
of fire? Are they far enough away, that their generations might be spared
God's infinite rage that one of his children longed to be more than a pet?
And why speak of "forever"? Creationists have a problem with an Earth that
has been around for billions of years, but they have no problem casually
speaking in eternities. Do you know how long that is? Take the secular age
of the universe in years and multiply that by centuries, then add one
billion zeros to your answer, multiply the whole thing by Pi times a
googleplex, and what you'll have is effectively such a small fraction of
eternity as to be immeasurable against it. Now put that before the date of
creation and add another billion billions to it to give yourself an idea of
what the eternal abyss was like before God made anything. Now octuple that
number and stick it on the other end, in the future. And that will reveal
an insignificant fraction of the time that we will all be sitting around
with our friend God, having already been judged so many years ago that
centuries pass like microseconds in our infinite monontony. And our
judgement? Easily the most interesting time of our lives and that which we
will still find a means to bring into conversation a godzillion eons from
now, was based on a mere instantaneous flash of only 6,000 years. Now what
part of any of this remotely sounds to you like wisdom or divinity?
> >How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
>
>after establishing a reasonable foundation for belief, the rest has to
>be taken on faith and cannot now be quantified or qualified in a test
>tube.
There isn't the slightest hint of reason in any of your beliefs. Niether is
there foundation.
> >If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they
exist?
> >(if you do)
> >
>
>I believe because the foundation has been verified through personal
>experience and a logical weighing of the data, and I therefore feel
>safe in taking the rest on faith.
What data would that be? I know of none.
> >CREATION:
> >What is the motivation behind creation?
>
>love.
That would call numerous Biblical atrocities into serious question.
The flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorah (even before anihilation)
and all the tens of thousands of men, women, children, and animals who were
murdered or tortured at God's command throughout the Old Testament.
Basically, the whole of the Pentateuch defies your answer. But your welcome
to point which paragraph demonstrates this illusive notion of love that you
seem to think is there. It ain't in any Bible I've ever read!
> > What is God's desire in his work in
> >terms of eternal success?
>
>to see His created beings grow in intellect and knowledge and
>understanding of the universe, and add their own creativity to the
>universe, and to have them grow up to be intelligent company for
>Himself.
In what context (in each case)?
> >What exists beyond the linear boundaries of the material universe?
>
>don't know. I expect to find out one day.
How?
> >How is
> >that boundary defined?
>
>don't know.
>
> >Is this God's first universe?
>
>don't know.
>
> >Is this God's only universe?
>
>don't know.
Please try a little objective speculation.
> >Are there other universes, that were created by other gods?
>
>no, God speaks only truth, and He says that He is the only God.
And in the same breath, he denies the existence of both Jesus and Satan,
while crediting himself with the creation of all evil. How does that figure
into your philosophy?
And whether or not, God speaks the truth, how do you know the Bible does?
> >What happens to the Earth and all spiritual planes after the end of the
> >Earth?
>
>don't understand the question.
After the Earth is physically destroyed. Let's say by either an impact from
space, a super nova, environmental annihilation of all life by various means
already in effect, or by the cooling of the core, which would kill Earth as
effectively as it has killed Mars. Without a molten core, tectonic movement
would cease and the magnetosphere would fail. As a result, no life would be
able to survive here in the manner we understand today.
For another possibility, we can look the other way, to Venus. If global
warming continues and exceeds its tolerance for recovery, we could see an
escalation to something similar to Venusian conditions. (no polar ice, dense
atmosphere, and no oceans). As the permafrost is now melting for the first
and only time in geological history, we could be seeing the beginning of
this state.
Every glacier on Earth is currently receding at an alarming rate. All of
them! Glacier national park is now believed to be only thirty years away
from having no glaciers at all! Without permafrost or glaciation, we lose
ice caps and global thermal control. The oceans would rise temporarily, but
without stabilization from the poles, the water would evaporate into a vapor
canopy that would increase the greenhouse effect, which of course would only
speed up the evaporation! As a result, one would have Venusian conditions
where there is an incredibly thick atmosphere of hot greenhouse gases at
about 90x our air pressure and with a surface temperature of over 900
degrees.
At least one of these scenarios will see fruition. And our habitation of
this globe may be brought to an end even before that, again by factors
already enacted. We're already in the 2nd worst extinction events in
biological history! We've wiped out so many species in the last 10,000
years that it moves me to tears to list them all! Most of these were
dessimated in the last century alone!
And that's not enough. There are also man-made biological agents, not just
limited to already living organisms, but even in nanotechnology. A couple
of years ago, one of the executives at Sun Microsystems was on PBS with the
rather alarming warning that he projected the extinction of the human
species by nano-infestation within three decades. Such an infestation would
also take out most other biological organisms as well as these machines eat
just about everything organic, and can even replicate themselves
indefinitely. Basically, they have potentiality of replacing genetic
organisms. If he's correct, in another several decades, the dominant
life-form on this planet would have a schematic instead of DNA.
Would they be considered to be souls?
The point is, that at some point in the (apparently near) future, human
beings will be extinct on this planet. We may be survived by other
organisms, either genetic or schematic. Or everything might be taken out
with us. In either case, the world as we know it will effectively be
destroyed. When that finally happens, as it eventually must, what will
become of the spiritual planes, judged souls, God's plan, etc. when the
Earth is either uninhabited or inhospitable? Especially, if we beat him to
the punch and destroy it all before he could?
> >How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
>
>don't know.
>
> >If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it
occurred?
> >(if you do)
>
>believe what occurred?
Creation.
> >
> >The FIRMAMENT:
> >What is the firmament?
>
>our atmosphere.
Our atmosphere might appear to contain the sun and moon and all the stars
within some vast dome that is blued by the infinite ocean of water above it,
but it would only appear that way to someone who lives in a time and place
where astronomy is not yet known, such as the bronze age whence the Bible
was writ.
Our atmosphere is niether solid nor a dome. So no known translation of the
word, firmament applies to our little layer of permeable gas around this
globe.
> > And where is it located?
>
>troposphere.
And how have you determined that?
> >If one can travel beyond the furthest stars, beyond the boundaries of the
> >universe as we know it, what will one encounter?
>
>more universe extending beyond our ken.
Forgive me. What is our ken?
> >Is there an impassible firmament of some sort there?
>
>no.
>
> >What's on the other side?
>
>stratosphere, mesophere, thermosphere, ionosphere.
These things exist beyond the boundary of the universe?
> >Beyond that boundary, does this plane still exist?
>
>what plane?
The prime material. The one you can feel and touch.
> >If so, does matter still exist?
>
>where?
Beyond the boundary of the perceptible universe.
> >Do physical laws vary?
>
>they vary from law to law, but the laws themselves do not change.
Not even between planes?
> >How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
>
>scientific methodology.
Please provide an example. Everything that can be quantified can and will
be by scientific methodology. So this is particularly vague and answers
nothing.
> >If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe it exists?
> >(if you do)
>
>
>everything can be verified eventually, if not at the moment.
Please provide an example of how.
> >
> >HEAVEN, HELL, and the OTHER PLANES:
> >What is the purpose of Hell?
>
>to cleanse the earth by fire in preparation for creating it anew.
Please explain. I know nothing about this. And it sounds like
anti-everything-god-could-have-ever-wanted madness to me.
> >What is the value of eternal punishment with no option of parole or
> >rehabilitation?
>
>there is no eternally burning hell. The punishment is eternal in the
>sense that it is executed once and for all and there is no coming back
>for the rest of eternity.
So its rather like reality then?
And its interesting that you adhere to a 6,000 year-old Earth, but you
reject the rest of the Bible.
According to Mattew 3:12, 8:12, 10:21, 13:30 & 42, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, Luke
13:28, and
John 5:24; "Some will spend eternity burning in Hell. There will be weeping,
wailing and gnashing of teeth".
>But it does not mean that lives are
>roasting in hell for eternity. This is, indeed, a hellish doctrine,
>and serves the devil's purpose of making people hate God.
The Old Testament did that for me. Particularly Exodus through Numbers.
But that was before I heard about your dessimation of creation with God's
napalm of loving forgiveness.
> >Where did souls go before Christ?
>
>the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything.
>Their thought, their memory, their works, their emotions all perish in
>the grave. Souls go back to dust, and the breath of life that belongs
>to God goes back to Him. The soul disappears. But a record of that
>soul is kept by God and when the time comes, those who are His
>friends, they will be reassembled and brought back to life to live
>forever.
Then if I'm reading this right, you don't believe in a soul at all. Your
beliefs are atheist with regard to the soul. You're just using the wrong
word for "organism".
> >Why / how did this change?
>
>no change. We still all die and go back to dust, from whence we came.
>
> >How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
>
>not everything can be quantified or qualified in a test tube, but that
>does not mean those things are untrue.
Provide any *other* example of that.
> >If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they
exist?
> >(if you do)
>
>because of the solid foundation or reason upon which they rest.
That doesn't exist. And that's the very most polite way anyone could ever
say that.
> >
> >JESUS the CHRIST:
> >How was Jesus conceived?
>
>it is called the mystery of incarnation. Scripture quotes Jesus as
>saying, "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. A body hast Thou prepared
>for me." Beyond that, I do not understand.
I'm biting my tongue.
> >Was it similar to corporal transfer?
>
>don't know, except that Jesus was considered to be fully human and
>fully God.
Then he was a transitional species, like Rahonavis, or Acanthostega?
> > Was it a parthenogenic birth?
>
>don't know.
I'll repeat this again. The idea is not to gather what you know, nor even
what you believe, but what you *think*.
> >How was his gender manipulated?
>
>don't know.
>
> >And why was it necessary that he be male?
>
>don't know. Interesting areas into which to inquire.
Could he have been equally successful in 1st Century Judeah as a woman? Or
if he were born female, would he have had to been born a Celt in order to
gain recognition and following?
> >What was Jesus' purpose?
>
>to show us what God is like, and to die in our place so we could have
>another chance at eternal life.
I'm sorry. That whole concept still makes no sense to me. It is one of
three popular Christian notions which I could not accept even when I was a
Christian myself, simply because it made no sense at all. Not only that,
but as I see it, his demise was unnessisary and counterproductive to his
purpose.
> >What were his limitations?
>
>as a human, all the limitations of humanity.
So none of his miracles ever actually occurred?
> >Define his exact relationship to God.
>
>He was God incarnate, voluntarily taking on the role of a being lower
>than God, and "who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but
>humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant."
I guess you're not a Biblical literalist then. Because Jesus denies this
throughout the New Testament. He specifically counters this point quite
clearly several times. But then, Gautama Buddha denied divinity too, and
some of his following have deified him posthumously anyway. I suspect
something similar happened to rabba Y'shua bar Yosseff.
> >What means did he use to perform his miracles?
>
>requests to His Father who called into action laws of the universe
>that we have yet to understand.
You mean requests of himself, right? I mean, is Jesus the same person as
God? An extension of him, like a little Jesus hand-puppet at the end of a
very long arm? Or are they seperate entities? One minute, he's god
incarnate. The next, he's asking Daddy for favors. In the NT, you got
Jesus tempted by Satan. But in the OT, God says there ain't no one but him
alone. And that he does it all, good and evil. Which is it, really?
> >Were they psychic or psionic in nature?
>
>what is "psionic"?
Powers of the mind; telekinesis, telepathy, etc.
> >A) How did he convert water to wine?
>
>through laws of nature that we have yet to understand.
Not if he were still limited by his human conditions.
> >Wine to water is more immediately conceivable. But how did Jesus create
> >pectin, alcohol, sugar, and the
> >necessary tastes and pigments to qualify as wine? Were these molecules
> >manufactured by some telekinetic means out of particles in the air? Were
> >they modifications of hydrogen or other molecules, rearranged to become
the
> >chemical components required?
>
>one day you may get a chance to ask Him. It should be an interesting
>science lesson from the Master Scientist.
You are aware that this trick is a popular illusion among Hindu "holy men",
right? And you can't do science if there is nothing unknown left to
discover. And Jesus never did a moment of science in his life. You're
welcome to dispute me of course. But it isn't possible.
> >B) How did he create food immaculately?
>
>same as above. Here is an endless science to be learned throughout
>eternity.
Well, let's just say that since God hasn't ever said anything reliable yet,
the he ain't gonna when we die either. Not only that, but according to you,
we will never have the opportunity to meet him anyway, since we're just
going to die and never come back. So, if we're ever going to know, we'd
better figure it out for ourselves, and we'd better do it now, while we
live. This means taking several blind guesses and testing for them until we
find one that works.
Currently, there is only theory that really works and which explains all the
available data. And that is that there never were any gods and that Jesus
couldn't have done any of the miracles that people imagine that he did. He
may not even have existed in any manner you would recognize.
Part of the purpose of this exercise is to illustrate the fact that there is
no other theory which works. You could contest that. But to do so, you
would have to answer all these questions with something that isn't
demonstrably fraudulent and which doesn't depend on God himself answering
these questions for you.
> >Could he have made copies of those materials through some psychic means?
How
> >did he amass the necessary matter
> >of the right molecular configuration and arrangement to constitute bread
and
> >fish? Were these once living things teleported to his location? Or were
they
> >created already in a dead and processed state, ready for consumption?
> >How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
>
>God is really going to like your company in the next world, Aron-Ra,
>because He gave you a mind to ask these questions, and is proud of you
>to see you using your intellect, and investigating, and asking such
>probing questions.
Thank you. Inquiring minds wanna know.
> >If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe he
> >exists/existed? (if you do)
> >
>
>it can be verified, bit by bit.
Please state by what means.
> >SATAN:
> >Is Satan an agent of God in punishing souls for him?
>
>no. He is a fallen angel, once called Lucifer, who, with his
>followers, are now confined to this earth where they are the main
>cause of evil in this world.
Again, not according to your Bible. But then, you're obviously not a
Biblical literalist. And that's OK.
> > Or does God do that
> >himself?
>
>God is not into punishment. He knows the consequences that come with
>breaking His laws and He warns us not to "go there."
Its a good thing you're not going by what the Bible says. Because it
implies something completely different! Remember what his warning was to
Adam and Eve? Remember what he said he would do if they ate of the
forbidden fruit? Remember what he actually did? How did his words and his
actions differ?
> >What is the origin of Satan?
>
>a created being that once held an exalted position in God's
>government.
Let me guess, it was a theocrasy?
1. From when to when this government was in place, or that Satan occupied
said position.
2. Describe the heirarchy in which he worked. What were some of the other
positions, etc.
3. Why did he leave that position?
4. Who was his replacement? Who were his co-workers, peers, and
subordinates?
And how do you know any of this? What was your source?
> > Is he a god too?
>
>no.
>
> > If not, then how best can he
> >be described?
>
>see above.
I'd rather see below when we get to the part where you describe angels and
demons.
> >What are the properties of Satan?
>
>he is spirit.
And in lieu of astralism in your philosophy, what then is a spirit?
> > How old is he?
>
>don't know. Older than 6,000 years.
Please be a smidge more specific.
> > Where / what did he come
> >from?
>
>God created him.
I would call your attention to one of your earlier answers.
"foretelling the future? He can see all possible paths that life forms can
take. It's like knowing every possible path that particles will take, and
predicting which path will be followed at any given time".
One would think that with this ability, creating Satan and giving him an
exhaulted position would be an effort in futility, much like going eternally
ballistic over one naive girl's quest for knowlege. Such behaviors denote
the possability of surprise. As does his evident surprise when Satan makes
his first Biblical appearance and God askes him "Where did you come from?"
But as I said, you're not a Biblical literalist, so your theories are
independant of anything contained in that tome.
> >What is his motivation?
>
>to paint God as evil, harsh, bad, hateful.
So it was Satan who wrote the Torah?
>The mystery of iniquity is
>within him, and he is the father of liars.
Wait a minute, maybe he did? .
> > What is his ultimate Goal?
>
>to get as many people as possible to doubt God and join him in his war
>against God.
1. How does one go to war with something that you don't believe to exist?
2. How does a creature of limited physical/spiritual/political/psionic
power, (but with any more intelligence than I have) actually expect to wage
a war against an absolutely incredible indestructible insurmountable
immeasurable intangible unfathomable omnipotent omnipresent omniscient
unlimited ubergalactic psychic ultra-force who can see all possible futures
and has absolutely no weaknesses?
Maybe because Satan knows him so well, he's found a weak spot?
Maybe Satan has seen God wrestling Jacob and thought "He's not so tough".
Maybe because Satan knows from empiracle evidence as opposed to the
non-knowlege of blind faith, that God isn't such a powerful super psychic
and really can't see the future?
Maybe neither of these characters are any more real than Thor and Loki?
Zeus and Hera? Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman? Krishna and Visnu?
> > Can that change?
>
>he has passed the point of no return.
How do we know that? And what is his opinion of all this?
And no one knows his opinion, how can we find it out from him directly?
> >Why is he considered evil?
>
>because of what he has caused humans to do to this world and to each
>other.
Please provide specific examples.
I can't personally imagine anything that could be more evil than the god of
Moses myself.
> > Why is he considered to be the lord of lies?
>
>because he chose to turn away from the God of truth, and that left him
>the only other option -- lies.
Have you read the Zend Avesta of Zoroaster? Do you know why I ask that
question?
> >What is his opinion of his situation, status, duties, or place in the
> >universe?
>
>he knows he has lost in the Great Controversy, and now he has come to
>us like a roaring lion, seeking whom he can devour, because he knows
>his time is short.
Are you sure this isn't the same creature giving out all those horrible
commands in the O.T.? I mean, if he is the lord of lies and that entity
advised the Jews to lie, steal, commit genocide and rape traumatized
children, then would you consider that a possibilty? Especially when
considering the conquests of Constantine, the Spanish Inquisistion, the
murder of Hypatia, the Salem witch trials, the "Holy" wars, the Mormon
Massacre in Illinois, the Guyana cult, the Branch Davidians, the
Protestant/Catholic conflicts in Ireland since 1919, the Mid-East conflict
that has been ongoing since Muhammad himself, and the perpetually continuous
wars of Isreal that have been ongoing since the days of Moses, and of course
our current little World War III against religious zealots who worship the
same god as Moses and you do?
I mean, it would make sense that Satan would deceive people into worshipping
him. So much of Biblical history would start making sense in that case!
Especially when the Jews are instructed to lie to the Egyptians and steal
their money and jewels just so they can journey to a volcano to receive
further orders. I mean what's more Satanic than that?
> >Why would he want our souls?
>
>misery loves company.
Exactly how is Satan believed to be miserable?
>Plus he still has the fool's notion that he can
>still somehow win, if he can get all of earth's inhabitants on his
>side.
Maybe if he deceived his followers and initiated a prime directive to
convert as many people as possible? In addition, he could initiate a
blind-faith policy, wherein his unwitting minions would have to accept all
the evils done to them without complaint. He would sate them with feelings
of false euphoria and would be so demanding in their faith that he would
have them murder their own children without question at his command. And he
could actually fulfill his evil plan if he were to sternly warn them all
never to ever question his mysterious ways under penalty of damnation. My
word! Suddenly, its all so crystal clear!
And he could conceal his own limitations with yet another lie. He would
simply claim to be bigger than big, stronger than strong, older than time,
and already aware of absolutely everything. That'd sure keep the peasants
from revolting! And even those smart enough to question that would be
thwarted by increased threats. Dissention in such cases would be thwarted
by claiming to make fools of wise men while praising idiots. Its a perfect
plan!
And it would leave God helpless, since he had to cheat just to beat Jacob in
a wresting match!
> > What purpose do they serve him to have them?
>
>so he can go "Hah!" in God's face every time he gains a follower, for
>it is his great goal to hurt God as much as possible -- again, the
>mystery of iniquity.
Exactly who's decision is it that we must accept an unsubstanciated belief
without evidence at all, or suffer the wages of sin, etc. etc.? I thought
God laid down these unwavering judgements and maintained these callous
grudges? It was him that hit us with his curse and threatened to destroy
his own magnificent creation in the most pointless and stupid manner
possible.
......unless that wasn't really him! THAT's IT! Satan has asserted himself
as the supreme being of love in a devilish plan to unleash Hell upon the
Earth, where poor Lucifer would never be able to do anything. Why? Because
Lucifer is the bringer of light and wisdom, and Satan knows this. That's
why he insists on unsubstantiated yet unshakeable faith! And listen to all
those threats made against anyone who even begins to question Satan-god's
clever ruse!
> >Do souls in his possession perform some service or function for him?
>
>yes, they are used to influence other souls to turn away from God.
They must be the ones handing the racist, sexist, and intentionally
inflammitory Chick tracts.
I'm so beginning to understand it all now!
> >How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
>
>not in a test tube. Through logical, prayerful consideration of
>scripture.
Prayerful? Sorry, if it is Satan lying to us, we're gonna need some other
source than him to confirm it. Especially since he's concealed absolutely
all physical evidence and has given us only written lies. But then of
course, you don't adhere to those, so they don't matter as much to you. But
there are others who believe only in those written words. You and I are
among the decreasing few who can see through the mythology of the text to
invent some whole other meaning than what it actually says.
> >If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe he exists?
> >(if you do)
>
>it can be verified, but not in a test tube. Through personal
>experience and change of life.
But, not if its Satan lying to you. And another thing, Buddhists, Mormons,
Hindi, Polytheists in Thailand and even the Taliban all experience that same
sensation. Of the combined group only one of them at maximum could possibly
be correct, right? Why then should any of them be?
> >
> >DEMONS and ANGELS:
>
> >Are they similar?
>
>yes. Demons are fallen angels, once good, now evil. Angels remain
>loyal to God.
>
> > Perhaps related species?
>
>yes. Both originally created by God.
Gosh. THAT narrows it down!
OK, so give me an example of an *unrelated* species?
> >What are their physical characteristics, properties, and limitations?
>
>more powerful than humans.
Chimpanzees!
>Demons have lost their ability to convert
>their energy into matter.
You mean they don't matter?
(sorry. Couldn't help myself)
>Angels still have the ability to convert
>back and forth from matter to energy to matter.
Who ha?
> >What is their history?
>
>Lucifer chose to turn away from God, and inspired one-third of the
>angels in God's government to follow him. Those became devils. There
>was war in heaven, and they were cast out, and they found a foothold
>here on earth when Satan succeeded in causing Eve to doubt God's love.
OK. But there are two sides to every story. Your source has only one.
Where can I find the other? I wanna hear what Lucifer has to say. Yeah
yeah, I know."God" already said "Don't listen to him! He's lying!" But
that already sounds so suspicious, doesn't it?
> > What is their origin?
>
>God created them.
You're not real good with this whole independant thought thing, are you?
OK, so did God breath on little clay angel-golems when he created them?
If Adam and Angels are created by God, and you've nothing else to say, then
I must assume that he makes everything this way.
> >Do they have extra-planerial characteristics which can be defined as
> >physical in how they vary from each other, or from human souls, or divine
> >ones?
>
>yes.
(ahem) .......and they are.....?
> >What can they do and what are they incapable of?
>
>they are more powerful than we are.
Could you define power? You said *more* power, so I have to think it is
comparable to whatever power we already have as opposed to metaphysical
stuff that we don't have at all.
Are we talking political, financial, intelligence?
Could Hulk Hogan beat one at arm-wresting?
Could Stephen Hawking beat one at Chess?
Could Brian May play better?
>The evil angels are very powerful
>and we should not deal with them through seances or spiritualism.
I'll try to be careful not to let that happen.
You really aught to search the Google archives my post of "How to be an
occult initiate for fun and prophet". You would get such an amazing insight
out of that!
>The
>angels loyal to God are more powerful than the evil angels, but it is
>a struggle as "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
>principalities and powers and rulers of this present darkness, against
>spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places."
You really should study Zoroaster.
>the evil angels are incapable of forcing us to choose the wrong, if we
>call upon God for help to do right. The good angels are incapable of
>forcing us to do right if we refuse to call upon God for help to do
>right.
I want to ridicule this statement. But I think you beat me to it.
> > And why?
>
>free will.
Wait. Wait. Didn't you just say....Oh nevermind.
> >How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
>
>see above.
Oh no. Once is enough.
> >If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe they
exist?
> >(if you do)
>
>experience outside the test tube that is as valid as any scientific
>experiment in a lab.
Then you'll have no difficulty laying it all out here for me to see.
If you cannot, then your last statement is a lie.
Select your words more carefully.
> >
> >SIN and SALVATION:
> >What constitutes sin?
>
>turning away from God in distrust. Cutting ourselves off from the
>source of eternal life.
But how can you know if you've even done that?
> > And why is it of consequence?
>
>we die when we unplug ourselves from the source of all life.
You said we die anyway.
> > How is the measure of
> >sin versus good works and belief measured against accountability and
> >forgiveness
>
>there is no measurement in Christ. His life and death is sufficient
>to cover all sin, as long as we surrender and accept Him into our
>minds (hearts) as our Lord and Saviour. No amount of good works can
>save us, only this connection (reconnection) to Jesus-God can save us.
So if it were Satan behind it all, then of course he wouldn't give a rat's
ass how sweet and kind we were. All he would care about is that we abase
ourselves to him. We can be as good or bad lazy and stupid as we like. But
we better believe whatever he says, or he'll wreak his vengeance again.
And as for the list below, and what you said became of them.
Be sure to pay special attention to the last name on that list.
> >to determine whether one is destined for Heaven,
>
>which is a real world out there in the universe.
Real? Heaven is a real world? In our universe? Where is it? I'll go look
for it tonight.
Oh and how do you know this, by the way?
Didn't you say earlier that in some future, you would have more dimensions?
Didn't you say you would see beyond the boundary of the universe, which you
then said did not exist?
> > Hell,
>
>there is no hell -- just the destruction and cleansing of this earth
>by fire for a short period of time.
Which will probably happen whether your god exists or not if we keep raping
the environment.
> >Purgatory,
>
>no purgatory. That has been made up by man.
(cough. sputter.) Biting my tongue really hard!
> > resurrection,
>
>there will be a resurrection when Jesus-God comes back in the near
>future. And if there is a resurrection, then there aren't dead souls
>or spirits floating around in heaven, or there would be no need for a
>resurrection.
So.....there is no Heaven in the spiritual sense. There is just some other
planet that we'll all go to after we clusterf__k this one irreparably? And
then, Satan-god is only gonna keep his boys around him. And to Hell with
the rest of us, (so to speak).
> > reincarnation,
>
>there is no reincarnation.
And exactly how do you know this? I've heard an awful lot of past-life
testimonies delivered under hypnosis. So how can you be sure?
> >or oblivion?
>
>oblivion for now -- but there comes a time when we will say, "O death,
>where is they sting, O grave, where is thy victory?"
I would hope there'd be better songs out than that.
I'd rather sing John Lennon's tunes, thank you.
> >Why are issues of sexuality such a focal point of sin?
>
>it is no greater sin than any other sin.
What *exactly* is no greater sin than any other? You were awfully vague
there and allowed for all attempts at procreation to be sinful.
> > And why did God
> >design sexual drives
>
>because sex is beautiful and healthy and to be enjoyed.
Now I'm ever so confused. Didn't you just say....oh nevermind.
> > and assign orientations
>
>He did not assign orientations outside of the norm. Misdirected
>orientations are just another evidence of sin and how it has twisted
>us.
(sigh) There is nothing that Eve could have done to make a modern person
homosexual. She desired knowlege and God went ballistic and blamed every
living thing for her intellectual curiosity. So he cursed every living
thing for all time in his unruly judgementalism. If there are gays, God
made 'em. Not sin.
Hell, for that matter, God made SIN in the first place!
(or Satan did disguised as God)
And all of this reminds me of how Satan likes to reverse and perverse
things. And if he is promoting himself as the supreme being while in fact,
he is the Lord of Lies, (and we couldn't know if he was or not) then who
would the REAL god be? Lucifer means "bringer of Light"
Oh my god. I've been kissing the wrong ass all through my childhood!
> > and desires all to be the
> >strongest forces in all of biology that can still be survived in their
> >abstinence without physical damage?
>
>what?
A central tenet of evolutionary biology, dear. You know, the stuff you can
only prove with test-tubes and empiracle experiments. The things we can
prove, but which God never tells us about.
> >How can any of this be quantified or qualified?
> >If it cannot be verified in any way at all, why do you believe these
exist?
> >(if you do)
> >
>
>see above.
I can't. My head hurts.
> >Speculative bonus question for purposes of illustration / further
> >explanation
> >of sin & salvation: Each of the following have been petitioned for
> >placement in both paradise and damnation, (including oblivion) for
various
> >reasons by various people. To further illustrate the criteria of divine
> >judgement, evaluate each according to the beliefs you adhere to determine
> >the current location of the following souls:
I should really have added Lilith to that list! According to the most
ancient legends in archaeology, Lilith never died. She was created by God as
a special one-on-one work and came before Eve. But Adam rejected her. She
was exiled from the garden, but not before eating of the fruit of eternal
life. She returned to the garden disguised as a serpent, just to ruin
Adam's relationship with his new younger woman.
She is mentioned in Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. And once travelled
under the name Nefertiti. But her current whereabouts are unknown.
>>Lady Mary, mother of God
Ma God is dead?
> >Lord Rama
8th Avatar of Krishna and a previous incarnation of Jesus Christ.
> >Rabba Y'shua Bar Yosseff
AKA Jesus Christ himself. Are you sure he's dead?
And I knew I should have listed Elvis in this list!
>they're all dead, except for Moses, who was brought back to life and
>taken to heaven. The rest remain in the earth, and I refuse to judge
>who is saved or lost amongst them.
>
> >Final question: What will become of your essence following your mortal
> >demise?
>
>you become nothing. You disappear. You become as if you never were.
>Oblivion, until the resurrection time, at which time, your final
>destination will be decided.
What final destination? Life on some other remote and isolated planet
somewhere, except this time forever in the same form? Whatever for?
I've studied various religions my whole life. And I really thought I had
the Christian ones down. But I've never ever heard anything like yours. It
is certainly among the least desireable religious notion I have ever heard.
And I've heard most of them, I thought. None of them were ever remotely
like this.
So what makes you think yours is right over all the others? And do remember
that Buddhists and Polytheists cite the same "knowlege through prayer" that
you do. So you can't depend on that.
> >(one of the) Heaven(s) [clarify which one]
> >(one of the) Hell(s) [clarify which one]
> >Purgatory
> >stasis
> >resurrection
> >reincarnation (human only)
> >reincarnation (non-human possibility)
> >reincarnation (extra-terrestrial, planerial possibility)
> >oblivion
>
>oblivion until the resurrection.
I think I'll sit this one out. Thanks.
I mean, I may as well, since I'll have already gone through that whole death
thing. The rest is a peace of cake.
I've really enjoyed this opportunity to get inside a psyche with which I
haven't the slightest frame of reference whatsoever. Reading this has been
beyond fascinating. And I want to thank you sincerly for contributing this
post to let me get a glimpse of where you're coming from. But you are quite
unquestionably insane.
So you wipe off the brimstone and go on ahead to that next world without me.
And say Hello to those nice Heaven's Gate guys when you get there.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
> you that I (for one) do *not* believe in the traditional christian image
> of a large humanoid with flowing white hair in glowing robes.
I don't care about that. But if there are other planes, souls, miraculous
events, etc. I can't help but think that there would indeed be evidence of
them. Verifiable psychics, astral projection, detectable life-force, etc.
But to protect God's existence by hiding him outside of reality itself, is
too much. If he hails from another plane, there's going to be something
testable about it. He can be immaterial and still detected and verified.
But if he is unreal, then he simply is not real. What else can one say?
> > Exactly *how* profound was said effect? How many people prayed for it?
> > What were their qualifications? Their doctrines? Prophets? Diocese?
or
> > Covenants?
>
> What effect? I have proposed none.
I was imagining hypethetical instances for purposes of illustration. I
didn't think you had suggested any such thing.
> Poetic, but loaded. What makes you think I support the notion of
> 'miracles' (supernatural intervention in the natural world)?
I don't. I was just feeling a bit poetic and a bit loaded. 8^)
> I see and recognize your argument for the pragmatic athieism of science,
> and you (as well as many others) have extended this into philosophical
> atheism. I have no problem with that belief system, and think it has
> much to recommend it. What I do have a problem with is you (or anyone
> else) telling me what I should believe. I don't accept it from the
> fundamentalists or the evangelists, and I don't accept it from the
> atheists either.
>
> You can hold your nose in disdain all you'd like about what others
> believe, but the fact is, you're not going to reason someone out of a
> deeply seated position that they did not arrive at through reason.
>
> The argument 'The natural world is all there is' is an unwarranted
> extension of 'The natural world is all we can examine.' One is
> metaphysical, the other pragmatic.
My point remains that if there are other planes, they can be detected.
There must be a way. And my contest here is the eternal nature of the
excuse that God can't be understood no way no how not in any capacity. I
disagree. If it exists, there is a way to study it. At least I could,
because I think I can think outside the box enough to perceive
extradimensional entities and energized realms.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
Nathan McKaskle <zil...@zillien.com> wrote in message
news:3be7ebde$0$13462$39ce...@nnrp1.twtelecom.net...
OK, so we can't say "See you on the other side".
But we can still say, "Nice knowing you". Which still works.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1f2hpm4.1xex7gdmebo00N%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> Nathan McKaskle <zil...@zillien.com> wrote:
>
> > > > That's your belief. I have mine. If it's all fade to black, I
won't be
> > > > disappointed, I won't be anything.
> > >
> > > Don't worry though. I'll not be right there with you.
> > >
> > > Aron-Ra
> > >
> > And I'll not be there with you either, we'll all not be with eachother,
> > isn't that comforting?
>
> Oddly, not.
We'll all go together when we go, yet we'll travel alone and we'll never
arrive.
Or to put it another way, we won't ever leave. But we still ain't comin'
back.
And you have my sworn promise that I will return, resurrected from the
grave!
right after my eternal nap.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
spirit, here's your own ball of atmospheric gasses, (your soaking in it
right now). Plus a year's supply of widgets, tiny invisible, intangible,
immaterial, inconsequential amatter to keep you feeling fulfilled.
And don't worry. Amatter isn't anti-matter. Oh no. That would be
dangerous. No. Amatter is non-matter, or un-matter. In fact, its too
apathetic to matter!
Now feel like you belong. And try not to lose any of that immaterial
atmosphere I gave you.
Martin Crisp <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:01HW.B80E9B940...@news.ozemail.com.au...
Barrett Richardson
On 6 Nov 2001, zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> yes. They are the spirits of devils -- fallen angels, followers of
> Satan, once known as Lucifer. They have the ability to exist as
> energy forms.
Lucifer was Heyleyl, a Babylonian King. It is thought St. Jerome
and his scribes while translating the hebrew into latin, preferred the
idea of a fallen angel over that of a fallen king. Heyleyl was deemed to
be Lucifer (the morning star in Roman astronomy derived from "lucem ferre"
-- bringer of light). Around KJV time he backslides further and becomes
synonymous with Satan.
It was claimed by Joseph Smith that he translated The Book of Mormon
from the original ancient texts. The one and only verse that
mentions Lucifer gives it away as a KJV copy, or at best a copy
of St. Jerome's latin reproduction.
Of course it's only a problem for literalists (especially Mormons).
-
B