I think its pretty obvious you cannot go from chaos to utopia in one go. And remember God's original plan supposedly was just Adam and Eve, not a world of 6 billion humans.
Are you sure? This relates to the Key of David. Biblically speaking, if God destroyed the world to save the 1/3 of his children that fell off the boat, why would he then go and only care about 2 people? You would have to go into genealogy, but looking after those 2 brought about the chance to save all 100%.
You have to accept that as evident as it seems to you, to an equal number, the opposite holds true. You have to accept that your God is not a universal truth, but rather an individual one. You don't have the right to judge the quality of others search for God (much as BrianLewis has judged my understanding of the Bible). It goes against Christian principles.
I really don't want to offend you, I just get annoyed when people post their opinions as fact and don't back it up with examples. Actual scripture can be explained and interpretations can change. Saying things that may not be true with nothing to back it up only confuses other people looking for answers.
Please go back and deal with the actual terms of the matter. What I had presented before is secure and more likely the case.
I guess you missed my point. I was attempting to say that it is a mater of relation to an individual's perspective.
Strong's Concordance, BrainLewis, is just that, a concordance. There is a difference between a concordance and a lexicon. All Strong's does is list the particular word base for an assigned English word in the KIng James. It offers a very general, over-all sense of the particular base word, and nothing more. If one wants to learn more about the actual word usage, and not just the NT related documentation, one will have to use a lexicon and some dgree of grammars. I wish to encourage sound and rational thinking on this very major concern too--after all, it's not English that they had been working within.
Should we focus on the 0.1% of Christians that might have a masters degree in Greek, or should we focus on the 99.9% of people that want to answer a question? The Concordance does a fine job for what it is intended for. Would you translate it "hate" over "love less?"
This is flat out mistaken. There is no such notion with Yahweh's description and prescription. This silly notion came from without early Christianity, and is mere foolishness to the max. The mere fact that so many people still hold to such a crazy lie as this, is a big blemish on the whole of a number of theist-involved religious belief systems.
Are you saying that the New Testament has nothing to do with YHVH?
This is very incorrect (if not an outright intellectually dishonest jab) in some fair number of cases, less likely in others, and questionably so in others. One thing that needs to be done is to refrain from making such broad-sweeping blanket statements all the time.
If you are a Christian, you believe in the "Spirit of Truth." You are right that it does not make sense in a scientific sense, but having an awareness of something in error or something dangerous is a gift, not a gene (so I guess you wouldn't understand). The proof does not come in testing this sense, but in finding that it was right, by finding the error.
There's this patronizing "you'll see!" attitude here which makes it hard to continue discussions. I'm saying, "You do what's right for you, and I do what's right for me. You're saying, "I know I'm right and one day you will too."
I hope you will forgive me if I sound arrogant with this matter. When one has no question anymore about what they believe in, because they have seen proof uncountable times, and the vast majority of questions have been answered all because of one book, you tend to believe what it says in the last few chapters.
I guess you missed my point. I was attempting to say that it is a mater of relation to an individual's perspective. (For the details of this flow, see post #132, and post #135 [my note here])
I did miss that intended statement, then. I missed it because it is irrelevant to the actual situation. We have to go by what they intended to communicate, rather than what we have later come to know of. We cannot correct their errors for them there because they have already long died. It would be greatly an erroneous methodology to go and alter what they had penned simply because it was inaccurate or incorrect. The perspective they held was that the sun was a source of light put in the dome which divided what they called the heavens. It was their understanding that the sun ran a path across the surface of that dome, in some fashion (left unspoken), which would otherwise amount to revolving around the earth. Thus, in the generalized pattern of wording which AquaLung had used earlier (although I would always encourage folks to refrain from doing as much as possible), the Bible taught that the sun went around the earth.
Should we focus on the 0.1% of Christians that might have a masters degree in Greek, or should we focus on the 99.9% of people that want to answer a question?
Why of course we should focus on grasping as great an accurate and correct understanding of the documentation which makes up the information source for Christianity at large. That will absolutely deem it necessary to learn the original tongues. To push for answers to questions before that is done correctly and more fully, is a fallacy. Additionally, it does not take one's being a Christian to do that, either.
That's exactly what I had essentially said. A concordance does what a concordance does, right? A concordance, however, is neither a lexicon nor a grammar.
I personally doubt that I would do it on all occasions. If I were to go over each point, I would think (thinking outloud here from memory at this particular moment) I might find some that might be filled out with a clause which renders a weakening of the concept of 'hate.' The point being that any historical Yeshua would not have been speaking Greek, but rather Aramaic. Then, the English expression 'love less' is still a postitve--it's just that it's been weakend some. In other words, to love more and to love less, are both loving. Loving in English remains in the positive. If we were to remove the weakening modifier and the sense remained intact, then O.K., if not, we'd be better off leaving the negative, 'hate.' That's the way the languages differ. The Hebrew/Aramaic was not of the same nuance as the Greek, but did have a broader range of sense than the more contrastive English styling. Of course, in amplifying a translated portion of text, the amplification can deal with the sense range differences, so no problem about the translation word assignment itself.
No, I am saying the god model that later early Christian leadership began to slip into and publish, was not Yahweh. The earlier early Christian group of course worshiped and declared YHWH. All the canonical texts save John and Revelation maintain a rather strict and definitive standard on that; so it can be concluded soundly and validly enough.
If you are a Christian, you believe in the "Spirit of Truth." You are right that it does not make sense in a scientific sense, but having an awareness of something in error or something dangerous is a gift, not a gene (so I guess you wouldn't understand). The proof does not come in testing this sense, but in finding that it was right, by finding the error. (For flow check post #147 and post #164 [my note here])
The original statement you had made towards nahadef's number 143 was a very wide spread, cover-all-attempt of a blanket statement--at least in the form in which you had worded it. I then pointed out that that was wrong. I gave three areas of degree in incorrectness. (Check my post again, if need be.) What you had insintuate in that post of 147, was that anything nahadef (and by extension, presumably others too) had found to be wrong or mistaken, was wrong or mistaken because of an error in translation or understanding. If we take nahadef to be reading an English copy of the Bible, then it would amount to your saying that the English is a mistranslation of the original tongue, and thereby, an error, or mistake (and thus wrong). That is not so true a statement at all. Furthermore, to verify that one will have to learn the original tongue firstly, right?
However, you had then extended that by suggesting that it would either also be due to simply not understanding what had been written. This is more so a matter of interpretation. There are a number of methods in doing such, but a cross-referencing of the better methods in combination is the safest. Therefore, each and every occurence of such problematic areas will have to be considered one by one within their immediate and over all contextual settings, as well as with intra-and extra-biblical usage comparisons.
For example, you have above stated that if one were a Christian (as in firm believer, for argument), one would believe in 'the Spirit of Truth.' You did not provide a more concrete definition example so as to allow all to understand more fully just exactly what this concept will be for you. That's one thing that will have to be done. Another matter which should be answered to, is where this notion had come from. What is it that one who is a Christian will believe it, and, does this 'believing' entail the usual 'holding something to be an external actuality of nature at large?' Furthermore, why the capitalization? We don't usually need to capitalize the word 'truth' even when following philosophical treatises on it. What is true, to the degree that sound and valid knowledge supports it well enough, is therefore true. A sound and valid belief is therefore a very substantially demonstrated belief which rests on underlying sound and valid knowledge. Spirit is an emotional frame of mind, or a vigor of personality drive and activity level. Please explain the above questions to provide the opportunity to look at what I have been saying about the error of the blanket statement style.
I hope you will forgive me if I sound arrogant with this matter. When one has no question anymore about what they believe in, because they have seen proof uncountable times, and the vast majority of questions have been answered all because of one book, you tend to believe what it says in the last few chapters.
No problem. I am not one to tend to usually read into how a person may sound through their writing style. I realize that you are presenting from what you hold to be the case in your brain, and in that way, presenting what you believe to be matters of an external actuality of nature at large. I am simply presenting from sound and valid knowledge and belief, with and through pragmatic, rational, honest and fair inquiry and deduction through. These are required for determining sound and valid belief.
Religion should only taken to heart of those who want to accept the facts about it and not judged. In the words of my master "it is not what it says but how you see it in which you use it" I never understood him but what do i know he was wiser than me
There are billions of believers as well, just so you know.. Anyways, we all have reasons on what we choose to believe, at least I have shared to you guys what should be told on to you. It's up to you people if you would gonna believe or not, but as for myself - no one will or nothing will move my faith away... I didn't judge you, don't worry for I have a friend as well who do not believe, actually lots of them.. But I didn't choose to hate them or of some sort think that I'am better than them, never I was.. So I totally respect your beliefs, it is just that I kind of want to help you guys as well to know him. Well, just TRYING TO HELP, not convincing.
That's exactly what I had essentially said. A concordance does what a concordance does, right? A concordance, however, is neither a lexicon nor a grammar.
I personally doubt that I would do it on all occasions. If I were to go over each point, I would think (thinking outloud here from memory at this particular moment) I might find some that might be filled out with a clause which renders a weakening of the concept of 'hate.' The point being that any historical Yeshua would not have been speaking Greek, but rather Aramaic. Then, the English expression 'love less' is still a postitve--it's just that it's been weakend some. In other words, to love more and to love less, are both loving. Loving in English remains in the positive. If we were to remove the weakening modifier and the sense remained intact, then O.K., if not, we'd be better off leaving the negative, 'hate.' That's the way the languages differ. The Hebrew/Aramaic was not of the same nuance as the Greek, but did have a broader range of sense than the more contrastive English styling. Of course, in amplifying a translated portion of text, the amplification can deal with the sense range differences, so no problem about the translation word assignment itself.
So you agree with my interpretation, yet want it to sound like I don't know what I am talking about? OK, got it.
For example, you have above stated that if one were a Christian (as in firm believer, for argument), one would believe in 'the Spirit of Truth.' You did not provide a more concrete definition example so as to allow all to understand more fully just exactly what this concept will be for you. That's one thing that will have to be done. Another matter which should be answered to, is where this notion had come from. What is it that one who is a Christian will believe it, and, does this 'believing' entail the usual 'holding something to be an external actuality of nature at large?' Furthermore, why the capitalization?
There are billions of believers as well, just so you know.. Anyways, we all have reasons on what we choose to believe, at least I have shared to you guys what should be told on to you. It's up to you people if you would gonna believe or not, but as for myself - no one will or nothing will move my faith away... I didn't judge you, don't worry for I have a friend as well who do not believe, actually lots of them.. But I didn't choose to hate them or of some sort think that I'am better than them, never I was.. So I totally respect your beliefs, it is just that I kind of want to help you guys as well to know him. Well, just TRYING TO HELP, not convincing.
Nope. It's necessary to take in all the pertinent information, and let it all have its role, to the degree that it does. It does seem that you have a habit of skipping detail that has bearing on conclusions--whatever they may be, even. I would urge more care.
O.K., maybe you fail to take it all in, or perhaps you have missed something. Let me see if I can help straighten it out. If you were to go back and do so, you'll see that I have never denied the nuanced sense of the Greek word in question--it's just a Greek word which carries that nuanced sense and is used in a lot of different writings in the classical Greek language. What that amounts to, then, is that your point that the Greek word, as a Greek word, carries a certain nuance, was never in question; right?
What I essentially had pointed out earlier, is that that nuanced sense does not carry the weight of interpretation across the board, as some apologists who are quick to point to it, wish it to. In other words, so what?! As far as Aramaic speaking peoples, that nuance would not have automatically been there in their word choices in Aramaic. As far as Greek speakers, it was the common nuanced sense, and thus to that degree fits within a spectrum of the explanation of the emotion range of strong disgust to strong attraction. What this means, in turn, is that it falls within the range of positive, at the lesser degree of strength than some word which carried the higher degree of strength for the positive. In a contrasting context wherein a negative is required but a lesser positive is found, the word usage is assigned the role of the negative. In our case here, therefore, the fact that the word itself carries the nuanced sense says absolutely nothing at all. It is totally useless to even bring it up--yet some have, in their hopelessly erred apologetic drives.
Otherwise, therefore, we cannot make blanket statement claims about any imagined power of the nuanced sense of the Greek word itself in supposed translated-from-Hebrew-or-Aramaic dialog, nor can we do so for any document written in Greek without verifying the immediate and over all contextual setting. I hope you see this more clearly now? It is not that I had been making any statements about your degree of knowledge per se, but rather having seen that you evidently were lacking some information, had simply expounded on the situation so as to help you gain something. Sure, it could have been that I had erred in reading any intent into your having raised that particular point, yet it is just that if you had had the more filled out understanding, you would not have raised that point--because, actually, and in the end, it is quite useless a point to make.
I see. Let's look at the facts gleaned, then. So here, you have identified the source of that concept--namely, a document written by two, or three, people sometime during the last two years of the first century CE, or the first decade of the second. Looking at that document, we will find no capitalization; for one thing (so that still needs to be explained). Additionally, we'll notice that it involves a concept which had been circulating some 1,900 something years before most of us on this forum had even been born; leaving the explanation of where it had come from still open, actually. Then, when reviewing the immediate, and overall context of the particular occurrence of that concept, we will find that the authorship had been intending to convey some sort of 'magical force.' (Jo 14:12b - 17; 25, 26; 15:26; 16:5 - 16 (note the editorial emphasis of vs 16; 17:14 - 19; 20:19 - 23 [also cross-compare 1 Jo 2:20, 21, 27; 5:6c])
It is this last point which is that of the authorship's making a claim to know of an external actuality in nature at large. In street terms, we could say that they were claiming to know a fact of nature. O.K., all claims to know of any fact of nature can be tested. We will thus need to get them to verify how they had come about to such claimed knowledge. The problem, however (as can easily be seen) is that they have been dead for a really, really long time, so we cannot ask them. Thus, the only thing left to do is to investigate the claim itself, and any extant documents which tend to explain, expound on, or verify, or deny, the claim to know.
At this point, then, the statement that a firmly believing Christian will believe in this presented concept is yet an open question--meaning it has not yet been answered. Of course, this is not to imply that a person will not believe something simply because, and only because, they believe it because it is merely there (and nothing else)--we get that degree of credulity all the time--but to point out that no sound and valid reason for believing it will have as yet been presented. You do understand this much, right? Therefore the next questions are, where did that concept come from for the authorship of that document, and what did they stipulate and demand of that concept in their writings so as to naturally and logically substantiate it now, and, finally, what pragmatic, sound, and valid knowledge of nature at large, of the accumulated empirical knowledge to date, do we have to affirm that the claim of the authorship was a sound and valid claim to know. Let's work on these.
Now while I do, like Mark of Zorro, appreciate your candor, pauro12, in the post I am responding towards herein, there are yet some matters which should be allowed the same degree of candor, I both feel (emotion) and reason (ration). It is my hope that I can encourage deeper inquiry and critical thinking. These two things, are not such that amount to trying to convince one of a certain proposition, or understanding of a matter, but, rather, to encourage a process of analytical thinking. (Surely something one will have to use in med school, for example... and in life at large, as well.)
Yes, all kinds of believers in all kinds of things; I do know. We will but only have to admit, however, that the person who firmly believes that a certain Jewish man had himself been YHWH, is not going to be able to admit any degree of belief at all, in the denial of that claim. You understand this, right, pauro12? It is like the flat self-contradiction of saying in one breath, that I believe the failed invasions from what is now China, into what is now Japan, had been simply due to unforeseen weather conditions, and, in the very next breath, claiming to believe that they had failed due to the intervention of the Shinto gods. So, being a believer in a thing, or not, is going to have to eventually answer some hard-core questions. We cannot afford--at the international level of social in-group bonding in our presently small world--to live in la-la land much longer. Sooner or later we're going to have to face up to the contradicting beliefs and try to either neutralize them, or agree to allow them without recourse. (Meaning, for example, that In Saudia Arabia it would be fully accepted to allow one to keep a statue of Mary in their yard, or to drink beer down at the local restaurant, or for a person in Big Springs, Texas, to freely be understood with acceptance and allowance when he, or she, leaves the office several times a day to pray towards Mecca.)
Anyways, we all have reasons on what we choose to believe, at least I have shared to you guys what should be told on to you. It's up to you people if you would gonna believe or not, ...
First of all, I do very much wish to praise you for your efforts and endeavor being that most likely English itself is not your mother tongue--that can be hard when working within this general field, too. I agree (since it is most obviously a fact of nature [a truth]) that everyone will have a reason for the circumstance that they belief something--regardless of what level of analysis will prove to be baseline. I mean, a person sadly affected by certain misconstructed pyramidal cell pathways in the prefrontal-temporal circuitry in schizophrenia, will be found to have a reason for believing that the wall is talking to him, or her (in such cases). A women (in such cases) who had believed that that man had actually raped her, will have a reason for having so firmly believed so, until sound and valid DNA testing proved otherwise. The priests who had cut out the hearts from yet alive sacrifice victims on the top of the temple of the sun god, believed that good was being done.
What I am saying, I am sure you'll understand. Sure, we can say with truthfulness that everyone has a reason for what they believe to be the case of a certain thing, but that fact, in and of itself alone, does not confirm the soundness nor validity of the reason, or reasons, itself, or themselves. To do that, we need free inquiry and critical thinking skills. Honing these, has always, and will always, prove to be successful mental tools to keep sharp and ready for use.
I didn't judge you, don't worry for I have a friend as well who do not believe, actually lots of them.. But I didn't choose to hate them or of some sort think that I'am better than them, never I was..
I am not exactly sure of what you wish to communicate with the 'I don't judge you' phrase. I notice that you do seem to contextually tie it in with the matter of 'hating' someone, but cannot fully clench that relationship.
If you mean to say 'condem,' then I would tend to wonder how you might associate and compromise that with what is pretty much a required doctrinal stance for a firmly believing post-3rd-century CE Christian--namely that all not believing that Jesus is YHWH are condemned and lost sinners. If you mean to say 'decide on the correctness of a matter, or a stance,' then I tend to reason that you have contradicted yourself in that very post--and I am still left to wonder just what it is that you had meant. If you had meant to say something along the lines of, 'I love you all even if I do think your are wrong for not believing the way I do,' then I can understand. I would then feel prodded to ask you about what it would mean to you, to 'love' someone, then. The reason I feel this way (and I could be wrong on this) is that to me (at least) to say something along the lines of 'I believe that I know that you are mistaken in a way that is a grave danger to your well being, but it's O.K., go ahead and believe the way you do, and I'll go ahead and believe the way I do,' without making a certain effort to substantiate that belief to know, would be questionable as per showing love.
I am not (in this sentence just here) talking about you, pauro12, but if someone were to come up to me and said that they believed that they knew that I was going to be punished by a being I could not ever have had any external sensory input of in any direct manner, and then in the same breath say that it was O.K. if I didn't believe that, but that they wished I would believe that, and then, upon my asking for more information provided through sound and critical thinking, as to why they believed that they knew that, said some along the lines of, 'oh, never mind... you just have to believe it,' I would not feel as though they would be expressing an act of love. Can you see what I am getting at here? I am just checking for understanding of the logic of the scenario.
Again, I do appreciate you candor; really !! I hope, of course, in turn, that you can appreciate (at least) my belief when I point out that I believe that you are completely mistaken in your belief. It seems that if one chooses the word 'respect,' they are choosing the emotion of allowance; at least (if not more). So what might one really be wanting to say with such word usage? I am not sure of this one.
The only thing that strikes me with this above portion, is that since you have expressed an emotional desire to relate the content of your belief to (for now, for example here) me, yet have earlier not been willing to actually do that, that your expression here does seem rather empty. At any rate, I do appreciate your candor, and your efforts in communicating your ideas. It is my desire, to encourage free and deeper inquiry (thus no 'the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it ... end of conversation' tactics allowed) and critical thinking (thus pragmatic, reasonable and logical, honest and fair investigation and questioning, on all pertinent points will remain open until firmly enough concluded). It is as good as fact that in the year 700 BCE there was no Jewish god from which any other YHWH-based theist-involved religious belief system could ever have branched off. There were other gods which people firmly believed in, fought under, and so on... but you believe that their beliefs to know were mistaken, right? That's a point to consider most carefully, in our desired, better thinking process.
It's really difficult to share what really did happened to me and my God... And yes, English is not my mother tongue and thus giving me more difficulties explaining. Either way, what makes my faith so strong that it can't be move is because of my personal experience, and not of something that is thought to me or is provided by facts.. Though facts are spread all throughout the globe about him, but those were just the tip of my reasons of believing in him. Anyways, about the I don't judge you phrase, I guess I need to rephrase it into something like I don't hate/condemn you for disbelieving for I believe (just my believe) that all of us will know him someday, I prayed every night that people including me will KNOW HIM MORE... So it's a matter of treating you guys like "non-believers YET", something like that.. BUT! I repeat, I'm not convincing anyone for it is not my duty to convince, but is just to inform.. I'm 100% sure that I'm having no schizophrenia (delusions of grandeur), and thus this is pure faith and love to him.. Anyways, let me just share to you guys about what I've noticed about atheist or let's just say non-believers.. Most of their reasons of not believing is that once in their life they have called upon God for help, but never did help..
Anyways, let me just share to you guys about what I've noticed about atheist or let's just say non-believers.. Most of their reasons of not believing is that once in their life they have called upon God for help, but never did help..
What made this statement of mine not respectful? I was just stating my own observation.. I didn't say anything that this is the reason, but was just telling you guys that most of the people I've encountered who disbelieved had this reason.. Of course I haven't met all disbelievers in this world, so it may be by chance that almost everyone that I've met had this unique reason.. But seriously, I have encountered many, and most of them that I've encountered; I mean 90% of them have this reason that is why they don't believe..
What made this statement of mine not respectful? I was just stating my own observation.. I didn't say anything that this is the reason, but was just telling you guys that most of the people I've encountered who disbelieved had this reason.. Of course I haven't met all disbelievers in this world, so it may be by chance that almost everyone that I've met had this unique reason.. But seriously, I have encountered many, and most of them that I've encountered; I mean 90% of them have this reason that is why they don't believe..
Either way, what makes my faith so strong that it can't be move is because of my personal experience, and not of something that is thought to me or is provided by facts.. Though facts are spread all throughout the globe about him, but those were just the tip of my reasons of believing in him.
I am sure that you will understand, however, that this particular god which you are saying you believe in, you only could have learned anything at all about, via what someone had presented, and through that alone, from the very moment you even started learning as a child. Additionally, it would have been the very same thing for your great grandparents--whether they had been Christians or not--from way before you were even born.
Therefore to say that you have had an experience (which matter I do not doubt at all) in no demonstrates that the particular god you had learned of from others who had learned from others, and so on, back to the very beginning of that particular god's ever having been published at all in the human world, is an external reality of nature at all. In other words, to say you have had an experience, and to attribute that, even, to the particular god which you have learned of by other means, does not demonstrate that that particular god is a reality, exists as an actual supernatural being. It simply does not work that.
While I do appreciate your efforts, do you not see that this has incurred a fatal logic error? How can, and for what reasonable purpose, would anyone 'call' upon an unseen, only talked about from ages past--and in an untruthful manner at that--being unless they believe there is any rational and realistic reason for doing so in the first place?
Or, for those who once did believe, as you believe now, why would they not believe any longer if it had only been a matter of not getting what that one had wanted (help in whatever way), when, most obviously all around us all the time, many do not get what help they need and want from many sources which seemingly would supply such. That's just the way nature works. However, if part of the supplied message of that said believed in god-of-choice has turned out to untrue, then surely we could question that particular gods degree of reality. Therefore, for at least some who may have at one time been believers in a particular god, and who then are later non-believers in that same god, it is not the matter of unanswered prayers (as one country singer had sung about upon meeting his high school sweetheart after so many years... hee, hee, hee....) but rather that what that god is said to have said and done is demonstrably untrue--a flat out lie. Now, that is something to not believe in... a god, which claims honesty, along with knowledge and intention to act, but which fails to know and does not act, and, otherwise, therefore, tells lies.
If it is true that most of those who do not believe in the Christian god, do not believe for the reason you had pointed to earlier, then I understand that they had never really tried to understand what it was all about in the first place anyway. That's what's sad. We have to get better education out there, and it's just still lacking.
As an agnostic, I guess that is another trap I avoided.
And this thought reminds me of a South Park Episode where a bunch of religious people were in Hell complaining that they did not belong there. But Satan reassured them they were all in the right place because they chose the wrong religion. So they check around and find Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. Not being able to figure out what was the "right" religion, they ask Satan. Turns out it was the Mormons. Only they went to Heaven. I pity people who cannot see how utterly absurd the situation is, with their almighty God and Gods who somehow chose only a minority group of the world to reveal Himself/Herself/Themselves to or cannot convince a majority who is the correct deity or deities to worship. Its like having people in the world who watch a Monty Python skit not as a comedy, but as serious guide on how to live life. And if you dared laugh at Monty Python, they would call you a heretic.
Edit: The South Park was a little different than I explained but you get the gist. Season 4 Episode 11 "Probably" from 8:45.
Which is by far, I couldn't comprehend that much as well.. Maybe you were right, either way there will be no end I believe in encountering none believers so my observation my or may not change in due time...
@Mars Man (Sorry I don't know how to seperate quotes) : I want to point out that you were wrong about my so called experience as something that is taught to me by my parents, or whatsoever it is.. As what I have said, it was a PERSONAL experience.. Okay, let me share to you a brief story about my life experiences that makes me say that it was a PERSONAL experience that made me believe God.. My oldest memory of my life was when I was 3 years old, at that time I lived with my aunt and his son (my cousin), I was oppressed by my aunt to a point of beating me and there was an evident mother to son biases thereof. Anyways, there were almost no information regarding God to me at that time.. I mean to summarized my life from up to the present, I can pinpoint out on where did I start believing (discovering him on my own for there were no one in our family who had seriously devoted themselves in praying, going into church, or sharing something about God to us) starting from grabbing an old bible on our garage, read it and understand it with my own understanding.. No one really teaches me that much about this religion (in fact I don't treat it as a religion, but a relationship) to start with.. It was of my own will that I seek, and when I did I found him and of course believe.. Just to share a little about this so called PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of mine. When I pray every night, I only ask God to bring us all to heaven someday, forgive us of our sins, I also pray as well for the lost souls, that in general.. And after that, I sort of share to God what happened to my life today, or what is happening in the moment, and pray for his will.. After that I give thanks.. I'm not actually the type of believer who prays to God because he wants something, I'am someone who prays that is as if I just want to talk to him and share to him what is happening and ask him for answers about some things in my life that I didn't know why is it happening.. To make it short, I only pray for his will for me.. So much for prayers, let me now share you about how I live my life - simple, I just go with the flow.. Honestly, I never have had any plans in my life.. I just ask God of his will to me, AND NEVER ONCE IN MY LIFE AFTER I STARTED TO PRAY FOR HIS WILL that I didn't thank him.. There might have been time that I've asked why did this happened, but in the long run after few weeks or months I've realized that if those things didn't happened, I wouldn't be like this right now.. One year ago I was like, oh my God what is it now; my life had become so boring (Sleep, eat, play computer games, sleep, eat, play computer games) and I don't have any goals in life.. Then after a year, my prayers had been answered.. I already have a goal now, and it was a goal that I didn't wish for, it was something that I've just found recently, completely by chance (as what would non-believers might think) maybe for others but for me it is God given.. Look, what I went through before I've found this goal.. I played an online game, chat with some RANDOM FRIENDS, talking about stuffs everyday, and one day out of curiosity, we've talked about japanese, and then one stranger (in game) just passing by suggests for a japanese study, and then I've studied, and who would have thought that because of those random and very much scripted like events, I've found something that I would cherished for the rest of my life, and thus giving me a goal that I've asked from God.. See? What if that stranger didn't passed by? or let's say any of those mentioned didn't happened? I guess, I won't be having any goals up until now.. And to tell you guys, I HAVE SO MUCH MORE TO SHARE SIMILAR TO THIS ONE, and I couldn't just believe that it happened randomly.. I mean, it is much much much more reasonable (for me) to believe that God is manipulating a part of events in my life, rather than believing that it happens by chance.. Like seriously speaking. But, as what I have just said, it was MY PERSONAL experience.. By the way, Am I safe to say (Please correct me if I'm wrong) that if by any chance supernaturals exist and that would absolutely proves God's existence as well? supernaturals like ghost, lost Spirits, evil spirit, or the likes..
I want to point out that you were wrong about my so called experience as something that is taught to me by my parents, or whatsoever it is.. As what I have said, it was a PERSONAL experience..
Pauro12, I'm afraid that you did not understand correctly. I did not say, and I did not insinuate, that your experience was something that had been taught to you from others. (your parents, grandparents, society at large, etc.) What I had said is that the Christian concept of the later Christian god (later means, generally, post mid first century CE [do you understand what this time stamp is?])
I will read what you have written about your experience, and I will study over it well, ask questions if I don't understand something, or if there are inconsistent English sections, and all, but I just wanted to firstly, and quickly deal with this. We are, basically, on a very close time zone, so our exchanges do not really have to wait for the Earth to spin around a good bit to expect the other to read a post.
It is a fact that the later Christian doctrine of that particular god had been in circulation and in the eye of the public at large, for a good long while before you had been born. That means two things up front. One, is that those people who begin publish this doctrine will have to answer the questions we ask them about their claims to have known. (pauro12, whenever [and I do mean whenever] a person makes any highly absolute, positive statement to the effect that X is as such, they are simultaneously making a claim to know that to be the case. I hope you understand this fact. If you don't please let me know, and I'll explain it more specifically by PM) Secondly, it means that your entire knowledge and intelligible access data (the data that brain can work on and with) has been input from that which has been in your immediate, direct, and indirect environment. Being in the Philippines, and (I take it) not in the more Muslim areas, this is clearly going result in your environment as having been rather emotionally Christian-based. Any subjective experience, we know, is going to use what is accessible (even that portion which may not usually be accessible to consciousness anyway) to the individual's brain who has the experience. That through and by your subjective experience, your brain tagged the data of the Christian god to that experience through association processes, is going to be a given.
Those who had kicked started the doctrine of the late Christian doctrine, are dead; we cannot ask them. However, we investigate their claims to know. We can test them against empirical knowledge which has stood the test of ample sample space, over a longer course of time, in a much higher level of consistency, and clarify each doctrinal point's degree of truth value, accuracy, or correctness. If a person has not yet done this, but has, through up-bringing, simply accepted all of it at full value, and then that person has some extraordinary personal, subjective experience, it is pretty much a given that the emotional tagged data, the accessible knowledge, will be pulled up by brain areas which work in association and re-configuration, and present to access consciousness, as well as phenomenal consciousness, a picture of that experience as having contained data which had been input earlier. This is the way brain works.
So, your experience (which I will study after this) was real. The data (information) amounting to the knowledge you will have had in your brain up to the point in time of the experience on the late Christian system (regardless of how much of that had previously not been accessible to the state of having consciousness) contains a very high degree of low, to very low truth value, to absolutely false content. Your up-bringing will likely not have given you the chance to have understood that before the experience, and that will have been used by your brain, to reconstruct and emotionally tag the data which higher processing allows access, and phenomenal effect of, to the state of having consciousness.
Pauro12, please do read this carefully. In fact, I would really suggest printing it out, enlarging it (these pages print in fine print), and study it carefully. If you have any questions about the English syntax, or whatever, please, I am fully willing to spend time in carefully going over the points and expounding on them, or amplifying them in paraphrase, so as to help you understand. I will get back after I have looked over your experience carefully. I may have questions, but will do that by PM.
Additionally, if possible, it may be good to at least edit that last post, and paragraph a little more. (for future readers)
O.K. pauro12, I have gone over it carefully now. I see that some parts of my earlier post were incorrect to some degree in that your up-bringing was a bit different from a more common household setting--in a certain way. I see where there is a jump, however. Also, I see that this is different from the usual 'I had an experience' presentation.
Anyways, there were almost no information regarding God to me at that time. ... I can pinpoint out on where did I start believing (discovering him on my own for there were no one in our family who had seriously devoted themselves in praying, going into church, or sharing something about God to us) starting from grabbing an old bible on our garage, read it and understand it with my own understanding.
With this much it is obvious that you did have information about Christianity and the present Christian god in your immediate environment, but had simply lacked the consistency and depth of emotion being around you. You would surely have known (I take it) what the Bible was.
When I pray every night, I only ask God to bring us all to heaven someday, forgive us of our sins, I also pray as well for the lost souls, that in general.
There are a number of counts of inaccuracy and error here. For one, what gives you the idea that people go to heaven? (What is heaven anyway?) You had read what someone had written about some thing we'll call 'heaven' in English, and you automatically took their word for it? Why? What line of reasoning did you use? What do you mean by 'sin?' Do you mean doing something against the law? Do you mean doing something wrong (according to someone who holds that act to be wrong)? Do you mean simply being a human being? Who is this 'us?' What is a 'lost soul?' etc...
Why would anyone do this? Considering the particular concept you have formulated (a being who is supernatural and controls the lives of people, human activity at large, and nature at large), who is going to do his will anyway, why would you need to pray that he does what he is going to do anyway? This doesn't seem to make much sense.
One year ago I was like, oh my God what is it now; my life had become so boring (Sleep, eat, play computer games, sleep, eat, play computer games) and I don't have any goals in life.
You did not give us enough information to deduce when it had been when you had first read that old Bible you had found in your garage, but one year ago means you had been praying for some time without results of much interest, I would reason. It looks like that was pretty much your own doing.
Then after a year, my prayers had been answered.. I already have a goal now, and it was a goal that I didn't wish for, it was something that I've just found recently, completely by chance (as what would non-believers might think) maybe for others but for me it is God given.
I am certain that this descriptive wording exactly fits the reality of the situation, however, will not push that. For I have realized something else now.
Look, what I went through before I've found this goal.. What if that stranger didn't passed by? or let's say any of those mentioned didn't happened? I guess, I won't be having any goals up until now. ... and I couldn't just believe that it happened randomly.. I mean, it is much much much more reasonable (for me) to believe that God is manipulating a part of events in my life, rather than believing that it happens by chance.. Like seriously speaking. But, as what I have just said, it was MY PERSONAL experience.
By the way, Am I safe to say (Please correct me if I'm wrong) that if by any chance supernaturals exist and that would absolutely proves God's existence as well? supernaturals like ghost, lost Spirits, evil spirit, or the likes..
It is more than just safe to say, that while supernatural phenomena is a total error of a concept, there are surely a whole, whole lot of things about nature at large which we do not yet know of--some which we will probably never know of, or even cannot possibly know of. The concept of ghosts, spirits, and that kind of imaginary stuff, is just that imaginary stuff--things in the brain, but otherwise non-existent.
@Mars Man: Okay, I prayed for his will to me because I have had faith in him that he will direct me to a good path .. There were so MANY instances that I've realized that such happenings were so perfect that it was as if manipulated by someone.. It's like, if that thing never happened and I would have been so fcked up or whatever it is called.. Another thing, there were as well so MANY times in my life that I have been into a situation that is as if my life already ends here and was so anxious of what would gonna happened next.. Just like the story (about goal stuffs) in my last post. I mean, sorry for my bad English and thus being poor in critical explanation of things (There's really something in my head that I wanted to explain that I couldn't explain much in English). By the way I'am a professional Nurse, so of all the people here I should be the one who understands more on how well a human brain functions in any given situation and happenings.. I know as well of how people gets insane, how will it start and I know so much of its pathology.. So I'am 100% sure that I wasn't imagining stuffs and making stories here.. We also have psychology and thus having knowledge on how people would gonna react in such stimulus that has been given. So I don't think that there is something wrong with me based on those that I have studied, and in such there were lots of professionals as well who is a believer.. Anyways, let's put aside my life and jump into the supernaturals.. Okay I don't force you to believe but just please give your time to read.. Give your feedback though about these EXPERIENCES of mine.. Okay we have a house somewhere here in Davao City. It is a house with an underground.. the underground part has a room, a kitchen and a living room.. There were no one living in our underground part of the house and thus use it only for visitors... So every night around 3 in the morning WE, I mean WE (my uncle, aunt, and my cousin) hear Chains being pulled in our underground's living room (our room is exactly the opposite of that living room) .. It's locked.. And then every night.. But of course we ignore it because we're used to it... Nothing was lost as well so thievery will not be the reason.. Another thing is that our neighbor (non-ghost believer) saw a beheaded japanese soldier (his testimony says that it was clearly a soldier but do have a japanese flag on one side of its upper clothes).. So we all wonder from our town of why of all the people, it was a japanese.. Then we've researched about our hometown and later we've realized that it was a japanese base during the world war II. Hence, not just this but lots of experiences.. I have seen one as well, floating female child wearing an oldish dress.. hehe.. I'm very much aware of the word hallucination, but it will defeat the cause of hallucination if the one who sees it is in relaxed state, plus hallucinations from schizophrenia or any mental problems will last at least days or weeks.. But to me, it happens just ONCE.. So for me, supernaturals do exist and thus God (I strongly agree),
You are not dealing with the heart of the matter, not getting down to the nitty-gritty and getting your hands dirty in the details of coming to a more fully drawn out understanding. Who, may I ask, is this person you are saying is controlling things for you, just you? Who is this? I know English will be not as easily to control for you as Tagalog. I am making a little effort to keep my sentences in easier forms (not doing so well, though, perhaps). Pauro12, just throw around this name, God, is completely meaningless, actually. For example, do you think that Yahweh is controlling things for you? Or, do you think Dagon is controlling things for you? You'll need to be most explicit with detail and better accuracy and facts.
There were so MANY instances that I've realized that such happenings were so perfect that it was as if manipulated by someone.. It's like, if that thing never happened and I would have been so fcked up or whatever it is called.. Another thing, there were as well so MANY times in my life that I have been into a situation that is as if my life already ends here and was so anxious of what would gonna happened next.. Just like the story (about goal stuffs) in my last post.
As I have said above, you'll have to explain more about who this is you have in your head. As I see what you have said, I see absolutely no reason at all to think that you are simply' patternizing'--]that is, reading into random occurrences simply because they favor positive changes relative to what you would like.
. By the way I'am a professional Nurse, so of all the people here I should be the one who understands more on how well a human brain functions in any given situation and happenings.
You may be speaking a little too soon here. I have no reason yet, based on what you have said in your posts so far, to understand that you have a well-rounded out and somewhat detailed understanding of cognitive neuroscience findings and knowledge. Of course, however (at the same time) I can give some room, because I have found some in this field who do know, and understand, but who yet ignore the import of much of what has been learned, simply due to emotional override. What that amounts to, however, and most unfortunately, is intellectual dishonesty.
Another thing is that our neighbor (non-ghost believer) saw a beheaded japanese soldier (his testimony says that it was clearly a soldier but do have a japanese flag on one side of its upper clothes)..
I'll take this elsewhere since it is off topic. (Although it will only be included as being deep embedding in the other location, and solely for reason of answering towards, or to, the concern at large (the subject matter theme) of that other location. I will do that either today, or tomorrow, so please be patient.
No, I am saying the god model that later early Christian leadership began to slip into and publish, was not Yahweh. The earlier early Christian group of course worshiped and declared YHWH. All the canonical texts save John and Revelation maintain a rather strict and definitive standard on that; so it can be concluded soundly and validly enough.
The Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church would disagree with this B.S. that Christians worshipped the Tetragrammaton. Jesus Christ declared His divinity quite openly as the Church has maintained for close to 2,000 years- and He was executed for it. He called himself I AM (or I WAS, I AM, I WILL BE).
Anyone who says that Christians worshiped "Yhwh" is a follower of the heresy of the judaizers. The Jewish god is an idol of nationalism and ethnocentrism and vanity, just like the Allah of the Mohammedans. How many Jews or Muslims in Japan can you drag out for example? They aren't the Yamato People but scum. Only a Christian can understand what it means to be a Follower of God. There is an Archdiocese in Tokyo and it's easy for anyone in any country to follow the Way of Christ in whatever country (Japan, U.S. U.K., etc.).
I am not so sure that you are being clear enough with this. Additionally, I am very certain that you have not considered a large number of facts, and as-good-as-facts, in that you have asserted that what I had presented was B.S.--unless you had intended to imply something other than our good ole-fashioned cow manure with that term. I ask you to present the details of the argumentation which you would hold supports, in a sound and valid manner, what you are trying to assert here.
Do you know what is meant by the word 'tetragrammaton?
Now, finally you have at least said some which has a bunch of sound and valid enough evidence and data to secure the said assertion. Yes, that is quite correct.
I very, very seriously doubt that this assertion has any degree of content worth taking seriously at all. However, to give you room to exercise your degree of background, I ask that you tell me exactly what you mean by this 'God,' that you refer to, and how, and through what means, you have come to know about this 'God.' I do not have the time at this sitting to go into detail here and now, but will, when I can. I look forward to some real answers from you, and some more serious participation.
You are not dealing with the heart of the matter, not getting down to the nitty-gritty and getting your hands dirty in the details of coming to a more fully drawn out understanding. Who, may I ask, is this person you are saying is controlling things for you, just you? Who is this? I know English will be not as easily to control for you as Tagalog. I am making a little effort to keep my sentences in easier forms (not doing so well, though, perhaps). Pauro12, just throw around this name, God, is completely meaningless, actually. For example, do you think that Yahweh is controlling things for you? Or, do you think Dagon is controlling things for you? You'll need to be most explicit with detail and better accuracy and facts.
As I have said above, you'll have to explain more about who this is you have in your head. As I see what you have said, I see absolutely no reason at all to think that you are simply' patternizing'--]that is, reading into random occurrences simply because they favor positive changes relative to what you would like.
You may be speaking a little too soon here. I have no reason yet, based on what you have said in your posts so far, to understand that you have a well-rounded out and somewhat detailed understanding of cognitive neuroscience findings and knowledge. Of course, however (at the same time) I can give some room, because I have found some in this field who do know, and understand, but who yet ignore the import of much of what has been learned, simply due to emotional override. What that amounts to, however, and most unfortunately, is intellectual dishonesty.
I'll take this elsewhere since it is off topic. (Although it will only be included as being deep embedding in the other location, and solely for reason of answering towards, or to, the concern at large (the subject matter theme) of that other location. I will do that either today, or tomorrow, so please be patient.
As what I have just said, it is so much easier to believe that God is here directing my paths other than believing it happened randomly.. I should have started a diary for like 10 years or maybe 15 years ago so that I would have a brief and more informative recordings of my life.. The key here is I couldn't just one by one put it in here each that happens to me that made me realized that God really is there for me.. Sorry if I couldn't provide you of much details, but if ever I would remember something that relates to this, I'll be back with you in no time.. But as of the moment, let us consider the off topic stuff that I've uttered, and yes I do believe because it happens to me and neither I did lie.. To be specific with the detail, we were playing (with my cousins) cards outside our house and another friend of ours who was from the outside of the house approaching us have had someone floating (girl in a oldish dress) in his back and was heading into the other side of the road and disappeared in 5 secs.. Anyways, most likely no one will believe me as my friends as well didn't (I was the only one who saw it).. So I'm pointing out that at least if spirits do exist, then that would also mean that God do exist as well..
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
