Guest rbwinn Posted April 22, 2007 Posted April 22, 2007 On Apr 22, 9:16�am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1177257267.412733.176850@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >On Apr 22, 8:43?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> BTW: I don't think I've seen your answer to my train problem yet (maybe > >> you've replied and I've not gotten to it yet).- Hide quoted text - > > > I didn't get a train problem. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1177285310.442916.140220@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... On Apr 22, 9:16?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1177257267.412733.176850@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >On Apr 22, 8:43?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> BTW: I don't think I've seen your answer to my train problem yet (maybe > >> you've replied and I've not gotten to it yet).- Hide quoted text - > > > I didn't get a train problem. Post it again and I will be happy to > > answer it. > > OK ..thanks for that .. as I said .. I do still hold hope for you > > > Train problems are my best accomplishment. > > :) > > Here you go.... > > As we are both so fond of trains (and really don't like crushing them) .. > here's a little train thought-experiment problem for you. As usual.. > > We have a train of rest length L > Lets have a FoR S which correspond to a train track (build a station there > if you like) > The train moves at velocity v in the x-direction along the tracks > Lets have a FoR S' which has the rear of the train as its origin and moves > with the train, so S' also moves at velocity v long the x-direction. > > Now at the rear of the train put a light source which we can turn on. > At the front of the train is a little light detector, and when a photon > from > the light source hits the detector, the train stops instantly (really good > brakes). > > When the rear of the train arrives at the station (t = t' = 0, x = x' = 0) > the light turns on. > > Where is the train when it stops (ie when the light hits the detector at > the > front of the train. > > Please supply the working from the FoR of the track S, and separately for > the FoR of the train S' > > ie > 1a) at what time does the observer in S' see the photon strike the front > of > the train > 1b) and where is the station relative to the train at that time > 2a) at what time does the observer in S see the photon strike the front of > the train > 2b) and where is the train relative to the station at that time > > Shouldn't be too hard to do. >Your station is the origin of S, the rear of the train is the origin >of S'. The front of the train is b'. You did not specify where >observer O was so we will put him at x where x=.5L. > >1a) Neither observer sees a photon strike the front of the train. But it does get there. And the front of the train exists in both frames of reference, and thestation, and the light source, and the detector all exists regardless of the frame of reference > What an observer can do is calculate when the brakes of the train > engage. That happens when t'=L/c. Ok .. that is what I'd expect so far But you did not answer 1b .. so WRONG (on incomplete) on that one. >2a) The observer by the track can compute exactly when the brakes > engage by the equation t'=L/c. WRONG .. I asked you to do it in S. At what time in S does the photon reach the front of the train. The train exists regardless of the FoR .. it is at a given position at a given time. And the photon exists in S. So when does it arrive at the front of the train from the FoR of S. > 2b) The train has gone a distance of vt when the brakes engage. WRONG .. You've not said what t is. Well.. you got one answer correct .. one missing .. two incorrect Try again Quote
Guest jientho@aol.com Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 On Apr 17, 1:23 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > jien...@aol.com wrote: > > On Apr 16, 3:51 pm, Septic <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote: > >> H. Wm. Esque wrote: > >>> ... is claiming to possess evidence of no Gods. > > >> It's not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof). > > > That's a Fallacy of Petitio Principii from Septic. > > Petitio Principii is the fallacy of begging the question, You beg the question of whether a statement of possession of evidence is a claim. <snip Fallacy of Red Herring from Septic> Jeff Quote
Guest rbwinn Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 On Apr 22, 5:22�pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:1177285310.442916.140220@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 22, 9:16?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message > > >news:1177257267.412733.176850@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > >On Apr 22, 8:43?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> BTW: I don't think I've seen your answer to my train problem yet (maybe > > >> you've replied and I've not gotten to it yet).- Hide quoted text - > > > > I didn't get a train problem. Post it again and I will be happy to > > > answer it. > > > OK ..thanks for that .. as I said .. I do still hold hope for you > > > > Train problems are my best accomplishment. > > > :) > > > Here you go.... > > > As we are both so fond of trains (and really don't like crushing them) ... > > here's a little train thought-experiment problem for you. As usual.. > > > We have a train of rest length L > > Lets have a FoR S which correspond to a train track (build a station there > > if you like) > > The train moves at velocity v in the x-direction along the tracks > > Lets have a FoR S' which has the rear of the train as its origin and moves > > with the train, so S' also moves at velocity v long the x-direction. > > > Now at the rear of the train put a light source which we can turn on. > > At the front of the train is a little light detector, and when a photon > > from > > the light source hits the detector, the train stops instantly (really good > > brakes). > > > When the rear of the train arrives at the station (t = t' = 0, x = x' = 0) > > the light turns on. > > > Where is the train when it stops (ie when the light hits the detector at > > the > > front of the train. > > > Please supply the working from the FoR of the track S, and separately for > > the FoR of the train S' > > > ie > > 1a) at what time does the observer in S' see the photon strike the front > > of > > the train > > 1b) and where is the station relative to the train at that time > > 2a) at what time does the observer in S see the photon strike the front of > > the train > > 2b) and where is the train relative to the station at that time > > > Shouldn't be too hard to do. > >Your station is the origin of S, the rear of the train is the origin > >of S'. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message news:1177300538.765535.15550@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >On Apr 22, 5:22?pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message >> news:1177285310.442916.140220@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>> On Apr 22, 9:16?am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> > Here you go.... >>> >>> > As we are both so fond of trains (and really don't like crushing them) >>> > .. >>> > here's a little train thought-experiment problem for you. As usual.. >>> >>> > We have a train of rest length L >>> > Lets have a FoR S which correspond to a train track (build a station >>> > there >>> > if you like) >>> > The train moves at velocity v in the x-direction along the tracks >>> > Lets have a FoR S' which has the rear of the train as its origin and >>> > moves >>> > with the train, so S' also moves at velocity v long the x-direction. >>> >>> > Now at the rear of the train put a light source which we can turn on. >>> > At the front of the train is a little light detector, and when a >>> > photon >>> > from >>> > the light source hits the detector, the train stops instantly (really >>> > good >>> > brakes). >>> >>> > When the rear of the train arrives at the station (t = t' = 0, x = x' >>> > = 0) >>> > the light turns on. >>> >>> > Where is the train when it stops (ie when the light hits the detector >>> > at >>> > the >>> > front of the train. >>> >>> > Please supply the working from the FoR of the track S, and separately >>> > for >>> > the FoR of the train S' >>> >>> > ie >>> > 1a) at what time does the observer in S' see the photon strike the >>> > front >>> > of >>> > the train >>> > 1b) and where is the station relative to the train at that time >>> > 2a) at what time does the observer in S see the photon strike the >>> > front of >>> > the train >>> > 2b) and where is the train relative to the station at that time >>> >>> > Shouldn't be too hard to do. >> >> >Your station is the origin of S, the rear of the train is the origin >> >of S'. The front of the train is b'. You did not specify where >> >observer O I have no observer O .. so there is no need to "put" him anywhere >> > was so we will put him at x where x=.5L. If you like .. it doesn't matter .. he doesn't enter into the problem. >>> >1a) Neither observer sees a photon strike the front of the train. >>> >>> But it does get there. And the front of the train exists in both frames >>> of >>> reference, and thestation, and the light source, and the detector all >>> exists >>> regardless of the frame of reference >>> >> > What an observer can do is calculate when the brakes of the train >> > engage. That happens when t'=L/c. >> >> Ok .. that is what I'd expect so far >> >> But you did not answer 1b .. so WRONG (on incomplete) on that one. Still no answer from you for 1b >> >2a) The observer by the track can compute exactly when the brakes >> > engage by the equation t'=L/c. >> >> WRONG .. I asked you to do it in S. At what time in S does the photon >> reach >> the front of the train. The train exists regardless of the FoR .. it is >> at >> a given position at a given time. And the photon exists in S. So when >> does >> it arrive at the front of the train from the FoR of S. >> >> > 2b) The train has gone a distance of vt when the brakes engage. >> >> WRONG .. You've not said what t is. >> >> Well.. you got one answer correct .. one missing .. two incorrect >> >> Try again- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >No, my answers were correct. No .. they were not. 1b was missing, 2a was given in the wrong FoR, 2b was incomplete. > This is real light, not observer controlled light. WTF is "observer controlled light" .. and what is this observer you invented? > Neither observer can see any photons. There aren't any observers .. you made them up. > That is all in the imaginations of scientists. > t is time. t=t' t'=L/c. You're avoiding the questions .. so I guess I'll have to ask them again .. and I'll make it a little simpler for you AS described above, we still have have two frames of reference S and S' .. we have a train of length L and a station and a track with the train moving at v relative to the station along the track .. and we have photon(s) emitted from the back of the train when it coincides with the station, with the photon moving in the same direction as the train toward the front of the train. There is no observer there .. no need to invent one .. and I've even gotten rid of the light detector in case that confused you. 1a) at what time t' does a photon arrive at the front of the train from the back of the train in the FoR S' 1b) at what position is the station relative to the train at that time in the FoR S' 2a) at what time t does a photon arrive at the front of the train from the back of the train in the FoR S 2b) at what position is the train relative to the station at that time in the FoR S Please show your working if you can, and do not leave out answers. I look forward to you having a solution that shows how your combination of Galilean transforms and constant speed of light will work. Quote
Guest Spirit of Truth Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:132gtf5cnndpbfb@corp.supernews.com... > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message > news:oKZVh.402$ns5.20@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... >> >> >> I have long been concerned with Einstein's ''Time dilation" >> and "Lack of simultaneity". >> >> After a lot of help and much enquiry into these matters from >> many many works I have deduced the following: > > I think your 'help' has not been helpful and you've been misguided. > >> Time dilation is synonymous with speed of process change >> e.g. aging at a slower rate and is not a slowing down of "Time" >> in a so-called time dimension. After all, if something went >> slower in classical-sense time it would disappear out of >> our now flowing existence! > > There is no change in the speed of process though. If you are in a > spaceship, travelling along at a reasonable percentage of the speed of > light (as see nfrom earth, say), you do not age any faster or slower, > clocks don't tick slower, things don't get compressed or crushed, things > that happen at the same time happen at the same time. Basically, you > can't really tell you're moving (except you might notice subtel changes in > the position of stars) The change is from the viewpoint of the non-local observer. > > That's the problem .. people mistakenly think that spaceships (or trains > or whatever) get crushed. > > You seem to have been grossly misled about special relativity. > >> Lack of simultaneity is incorrect. There no length contraction >> contrary to such ideas in relativity (both SR and GR), and >> it's counterpart the Ether length contraction concept. > > Unless you have all three effects of length contraction, time dilation, > and lack of simultaneity, then things do end up crushed etc. They aren't > really three separate things .. they are just three observed results from > the one thing. Spherical time dilation only. Length and speed appear contracted because of that...from the viewpoint of the non-local observer viewing the locally concerned distance. .. > > With time dilation only you will get contradictory results > >> The actual answer is as follows: > > You mean your theory follows .. I doubt it will be the answer .. but lets > see > >> Time dilation is spherical.... >> >> Time dilation is spherical, greatest in the direction of motion, least in >> the transverse direction, and opposite in the reverse direction to the >> motion, where change is speeded up. > > That's not spherical What other word would you call it? >> There is no length contraction nor lack of simultaneity.... >> Relativity does not demand length contraction. > > Actually it demands all three things. You can't have onewithout the other > two As above, spherical time dilation only. Length and speed appear contracted because of that...from the viewpoint of the non-local observer viewing the locally concerned distance. >> To be actually RELATIVE >> to such a thing as Einstein's relativity, calculations such as M-M's have >> to >> EQUAL the AT REST condition NOT a length contraction to equal the >> transverse return distance. > > Could you explain that statement more clearly .. > What does "relative to such a thing as Einsteins relativity" mean? Observer's are always at rest. > What 'calculations' are you talking about? M-M experiment. > What do you mean by 'at rest condition' .. at rest relative to what? In that it would be from the viewpoint of an outside observer 'at rest' viewing all the motions taking place. >> It has to equal the SAME DISTANCE for c gap closure in all directions >> as the AT REST observation of the traveling c. > > But the apparatus is at rest (certainly close enough for the duration of > the experiment) in the frame of reference of the laboratory. So thats all > fine You are not looking at the experiment nor the math which they were using. >> The Time element has to be brought back to 2L / C return connected >> with the direction of motion, the transverse direction, and the reverse >> to direction of motion. > > What do you mean by "The Time element"? > What does "brought back" mean? > What does "return connected" mean? It has to equal the SAME DISTANCE for c gap closure in all directions as the AT REST observation of the traveling c. >> Related to the above, the gamma equation only functions in the transverse >> direction as you will see below. >> Orienting to first the direction of motion Time is dilated as follows: >> Rest Time divided by 1-V/C. >> Then, Transverse to the direction of motion: >> Rest Time divided by SqRt 1-Vsq/Csq [= t x gamma (y)]. >> Then opposite to direction of motion: >> Rest Time divided by 1+V/C. > Are you saying time changes depending which direction you are actually > looking? > Really this makes no sense at all. Of course it does. It has to equal the SAME DISTANCE for c gap closure in all directions as the AT REST observation of the traveling c. > You would need to explain this much better than you have. > >> Simultaneity is thus also regained for all observers by this fact. > > Really? Yes. >> The false concept of lack of simultaneity which leads inevitably to the >> block-time/ frozen river of time concept (The Fabric Of The Cosmos >> by Brian Greene) which falsely concludes that THE actual past and >> future exist at all times and thus there would be no free will is thus >> debunked by Simultaneous Relativity [sR - new definition]. > Special relativity dosen't say that is the case anyway. Actually does when one fully understands the math.and concepts. >>You may ask how time in a moving system can have different >> time dilations. > I was just going to do that > >> The answer is that it is each particle that has the >> dilation depending on it's various motions in the moving system. > What moving system? Like Earth, or a spaceship. from: Spirit of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)! >simply based on c being c for all observers > > I would hope that still applied .. but you've not shown how it does > >> AND the simple trajectory differences that each lightwave/particle >> has for the observer of the moving system compared to the >> observer at rest. > > where is 'rest' ? > >> Do the math, it finally works. > > that whole theory, from what you've shown is absolute nonsense. There is > no math to do .. there's not enough information about what the terms mean. > > if you want it to be considered seriously, you'll need to explain it MUCH > better than you have. > > Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 23, 2007 Posted April 23, 2007 "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:4cYWh.854$Ea5.150@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... > "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:132gtf5cnndpbfb@corp.supernews.com... >> "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message >> news:oKZVh.402$ns5.20@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... > >> There is no change in the speed of process though. If you are in a >> spaceship, travelling along at a reasonable percentage of the speed of >> light (as see nfrom earth, say), you do not age any faster or slower, >> clocks don't tick slower, things don't get compressed or crushed, things >> that happen at the same time happen at the same time. Basically, you >> can't really tell you're moving (except you might notice subtel changes >> in the position of stars) > > The change is from the viewpoint of the non-local observer. Yes .. its observed change .. but from the FoR of where the process is happening, there is no change > Spherical time dilation only. Length and speed appear contracted because > of that...from the viewpoint of the non-local observer viewing the locally > concerned distance. Can you provide some more equations .. and how the work together in your theory .. there is a lot of talk about it .. but not much actual definition and forumla . >>> Time dilation is spherical, greatest in the direction of motion, least >>> in >>> the transverse direction, and opposite in the reverse direction to the >>> motion, where change is speeded up. >> That's not spherical > What other word would you call it? Well .. as you've only said what happen in four directions, and not combination of them, its hard to tell Also if it were spherical, that would imply some similarity in dilation at a given radius, and you're saying the exact opposite of that. >>> There is no length contraction nor lack of simultaneity.... >>> Relativity does not demand length contraction. >> Actually it demands all three things. You can't have onewithout the other >> two > As above, spherical time dilation only. Length and speed appear > contracted because of that...from the viewpoint of the non-local observer > viewing the locally concerned distance. We need some formulas to show how that is derived >>> To be actually RELATIVE >>> to such a thing as Einstein's relativity, calculations such as M-M's >>> have to >>> EQUAL the AT REST condition NOT a length contraction to equal the >>> transverse return distance. >> Could you explain that statement more clearly .. >> What does "relative to such a thing as Einsteins relativity" mean? > Observer's are always at rest. O...kay ... but you didn't talk about observers, you said "relative to einseins relativity" >> What 'calculations' are you talking about? > M-M experiment. That's an experiement .. what calculations? >> What do you mean by 'at rest condition' .. at rest relative to what? > In that it would be from the viewpoint of an outside observer 'at rest' > viewing all the motions taking place. >>> It has to equal the SAME DISTANCE for c gap closure in all directions >>> as the AT REST observation of the traveling c. >> But the apparatus is at rest (certainly close enough for the duration of >> the experiment) in the frame of reference of the laboratory. So thats >> all fine > You are not looking at the experiment nor the math which they were using. Then please explain how it was different >>> The Time element has to be brought back to 2L / C return connected >>> with the direction of motion, the transverse direction, and the reverse >>> to direction of motion. >> What do you mean by "The Time element"? >> What does "brought back" mean? >> What does "return connected" mean? > It has to equal the SAME DISTANCE for c gap closure in all directions > as the AT REST observation of the traveling c. I'm still not following what you're trying to say here .. are you making claims about a problem in how the epxeriement was set up, or about what your theory predicts, or what special relativity predicts or .... Really though .. I'd rather see what your theory entails that descriptions about MMX experiements. We can look at applications of it after we understand it more. >>> Related to the above, the gamma equation only functions in the >>> transverse >>> direction as you will see below. >>> Orienting to first the direction of motion Time is dilated as follows: >>> Rest Time divided by 1-V/C. >>> Then, Transverse to the direction of motion: >>> Rest Time divided by SqRt 1-Vsq/Csq [= t x gamma (y)]. >>> Then opposite to direction of motion: >>> Rest Time divided by 1+V/C. >> Are you saying time changes depending which direction you are actually >> looking? >> Really this makes no sense at all. > > Of course it does. It has to equal the SAME DISTANCE for c gap > closure in all directions as the AT REST observation of the traveling c. Please .. provide formulas with defintions of what you mean The above do not define what motion they are talking about and what frame of reference etc etc .. very vague >> You would need to explain this much better than you have. >>> Simultaneity is thus also regained for all observers by this fact. >> Really? > Yes. Can you please show how this works. >>> The false concept of lack of simultaneity which leads inevitably to the >>> block-time/ frozen river of time concept (The Fabric Of The Cosmos >>> by Brian Greene) which falsely concludes that THE actual past and >>> future exist at all times and thus there would be no free will is thus >>> debunked by Simultaneous Relativity [sR - new definition]. >> Special relativity dosen't say that is the case anyway. > Actually does when one fully understands the math.and concepts. I do understand the math and the concepts >>>You may ask how time in a moving system can have different >>> time dilations. >> I was just going to do that >>> The answer is that it is each particle that has the >>> dilation depending on it's various motions in the moving system. >> What moving system? > Like Earth, or a spaceship. OK .. so can you please provide this theory with better definitions the define what objects and frames of reference and directions and velocities and distance are being used. Then maybe we can begin to understand it. Quote
Guest Prime Minister of the Kingdom of G Posted May 9, 2007 Posted May 9, 2007 Jacob, the firstborn son of Stalin, a son of a Jewish bitch Quote
Guest UnderdogFL Posted May 10, 2007 Posted May 10, 2007 On Apr 5, 5:53 pm, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote: > rbwinn wrote: > > On Apr 3, 11:59 am, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the actual > > > existence of millions of atheists. > > > > If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill the > > > atheists and send them to his Hell. > > > > If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly communicate > > > his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them of its > > > existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden causing the > > > atheists to spend eternity in his Hell. > > > What about a God who sent his only Begotten Son to die for the sins of atheists? > > In what way is justice served by punishing an innocent? Why can't an > omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god grant forgiveness without > all the rigamarole? Atheists don't require innocents to die for > someone else's crime; why are they more reasonable and just than an > all powerful, all loving god? There are no innocents. Quote
Guest UnderdogFL Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On Apr 3, 2:59 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the actual > existence of millions of atheists. > > If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill the > atheists and send them to his Hell. > > If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly communicate > his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them of its > existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden causing the > atheists to spend eternity in his Hell. If God were to judge the athiests then no one would be left out. Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On Apr 3, 2:59 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the > actual > existence of millions of atheists. > If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill the > atheists and send them to his Hell. > If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly communicate > his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them of its > existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden causing the > atheists to spend eternity in his Hell. > God did come for atheists in particular, for He came for the lost, sinners, the sick and the weary and burdened. He came in the flesh of one Yeshua, later known a Jesus the Christ, and unbelievers promptly nailed Him to a cross. What would do you think atheists would do to anyone claiming to be God, the Son of God or even just a messenger from God? But then Atheists are looking for evidence of God in the form of a miracle, don't they? I.e. a giant talking face in the sky saying: I am God and I want you to do as I tell you, or I'm going to fry your sorry ass in hell for all eternity, ...or something of that nature. LOL Presumably thereafter atheists all over the world will become theists, as the fall all over themselves being sly, obsequious, sycophants to a God they hate. Pastor Frank Jesus in Mt:11:28-30 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Bill M Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they rely on religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of death. "Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message news:bis1j39l3etaes11mua9pvflj0sge9sdj6@4ax.com... > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:09:07 -0400, "Pastor Frank" > <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: > >>"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message >>news:1176723436.306260.254190@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>> Pastor Frank wrote: >>>> "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1176600022.622001.298550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >>>> > On Apr 3, 2:59 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the >>>> >> actual >>>> >> existence of millions of atheists. >>>> >> If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill >>>> >> the >>>> >> atheists and send them to his Hell. >>>> >> If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly >>>> >> communicate >>>> >> his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them >>>> >> of >>>> >> its >>>> >> existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden >>>> >> causing >>>> >> the >>>> >> atheists to spend eternity in his Hell. >>>> > >>>> > What if he is neither "mean and intolerant" or "caring and loving"? >>>> > >>>> Bill is in the habit to ignore our God incarnate, Jesus Christ >>>> "communicating His existence" well enough, and he forgets, that we >>>> killed >>>> Him for it. >>> >>> In a popular fairy tale, you mean. >>> >> That's an assertion needing evidence. > > Quite the opposite. > > There is no objective evidence, what so ever, and that makes it a > faery tale. > Reality is supported by objective evidence. > > Quote
Guest Dubh Ghall Posted November 6, 2007 Posted November 6, 2007 On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:09:07 -0400, "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: >"JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message >news:1176723436.306260.254190@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> Pastor Frank wrote: >>> "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:1176600022.622001.298550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >>> > On Apr 3, 2:59 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the >>> >> actual >>> >> existence of millions of atheists. >>> >> If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill the >>> >> atheists and send them to his Hell. >>> >> If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly >>> >> communicate >>> >> his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them of >>> >> its >>> >> existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden causing >>> >> the >>> >> atheists to spend eternity in his Hell. >>> > >>> > What if he is neither "mean and intolerant" or "caring and loving"? >>> > >>> Bill is in the habit to ignore our God incarnate, Jesus Christ >>> "communicating His existence" well enough, and he forgets, that we killed >>> Him for it. >> >> In a popular fairy tale, you mean. >> > That's an assertion needing evidence. Quite the opposite. There is no objective evidence, what so ever, and that makes it a faery tale. Reality is supported by objective evidence. Quote
Guest Bill M Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet... > On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: > >> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they rely >> on >> religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of death. > > So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence and > never supply it. You apparently cna' or don't read. Hear is some I have supplied frequently. I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations. There is a wealth of objective verifiable material evidence that NO gods actually exist. Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Floods, Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect and punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both young and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way? Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children" to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others pauper poor? Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die of starvation every year? Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate into a miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious affiliation? God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam and Eve's 'original sin'. Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children and animals with thousands of diseases, birth defects, starvation and to be eaten by other animals? Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks, jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, wolves, poisonous snakes, stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring and benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully kill and eat other animals to survive? World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths. World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more millions maimed for life. The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 200,000 men, women and children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally INNOCENT children! There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th. and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and totally innocent children. The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and innocent children indiscriminately. Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and malnutrition. These indiscriminately afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of all religious persuasions. Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling, purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and transportation systems including flying through the air. Man has created a wonderful medical and drug system and improved housing and food production. The result of MAN'S inventiveness has DOUBLED the average life span. None of this was created by any gods. Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think he will let us enjoy peace and eternal happiness in his Heaven? And why does he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead parents, siblings and friends? (Or this god?) There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL god beliefs are based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions and claims' of errant men. If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about the welfare of the creatures on Earth. The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite; that man created gods! There is NO objective verifiable evidence for the existence of ANY gods. Lots of opinions but NO evidence! God beliefs are no more sound or realistic than beliefs in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy Evidence of gods; There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever spoken to any sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men. There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever appeared to any sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men. Why does this all powerful god creator never communicate with us? Why does he never authenticate his very existence? There is NO objective verifiable evidence that any Heavens, Hells, Gods, Spirits, Angels or Saints actually exist except in the imaginations of man. Quote
Guest Andrew Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: > Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they rely on > religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of death. So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence and never do. > > "Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message > news:bis1j39l3etaes11mua9pvflj0sge9sdj6@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:09:07 -0400, "Pastor Frank" >> <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote: >> >>> "JessHC" <jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1176723436.306260.254190@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>>> Pastor Frank wrote: >>>>> "Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:1176600022.622001.298550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> On Apr 3, 2:59 pm, "Bill M" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The simplest and most obvious evidence that there are no gods is the >>>>>>> actual >>>>>>> existence of millions of atheists. >>>>>>> If a god existed that was mean and intolerant it would simply kill >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> atheists and send them to his Hell. >>>>>>> If a loving and caring god existed it would it would directly >>>>>>> communicate >>>>>>> his existence, wishes and commands to the atheists to convince them >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> its >>>>>>> existence. No loving and caring god would keep himself hidden >>>>>>> causing >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> atheists to spend eternity in his Hell. >>>>>> >>>>>> What if he is neither "mean and intolerant" or "caring and loving"? >>>>>> >>>>> Bill is in the habit to ignore our God incarnate, Jesus Christ >>>>> "communicating His existence" well enough, and he forgets, that we >>>>> killed >>>>> Him for it. >>>> >>>> In a popular fairy tale, you mean. >>>> >>> That's an assertion needing evidence. >> >> Quite the opposite. >> >> There is no objective evidence, what so ever, and that makes it a >> faery tale. >> Reality is supported by objective evidence. Quote
Guest Andrew Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 On 2007-11-07 14:03:30 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: > > "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message > news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet... >> On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: >> >>> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they rely >>> on >>> religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of death. >> >> So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence and >> never supply it. > > You apparently cna' or don't read. Hear is some I have supplied frequently. > > I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that > their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations. This is not objective evidence. > > There is a wealth of objective verifiable material evidence that NO gods > actually exist. > > Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent > designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Floods, > Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and > serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect and > punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both young > and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions > of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way? This is not objective evidence - it is rhetorical questioning. > > > Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children" > to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed > brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and > others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others > pauper poor? Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die of > starvation every year? Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate > into a miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious > affiliation? This is not objective evidence - it is rhetorical questioning. And are you suggesting that when people die while in robust good health and at the peak of their abilities this is a good thing? > > God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam and Eve's > 'original sin'. Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children and > animals with thousands of diseases, birth defects, starvation and to be > eaten by other animals? Your first sentence here (and your first non-question) is an inaccurate understanding of Christian belief. And it is not objective evidence. The rest is not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning. > > > Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks, > jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, wolves, poisonous snakes, > stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring > and benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully > kill and eat other animals to survive? This is not objective e vidence - rhetorical questioning. > > World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths. > > World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all > ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more > millions maimed for life. All of this was carried out by human beings. > > The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 200,000 men, women and > children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally > INNOCENT children! > > There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th. > and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and > totally innocent children. > > The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and > innocent children indiscriminately. > > > > Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions > indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and > malnutrition. > > These indiscriminately afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of > all religious persuasions. All these are facts, but you do not show how they are evidence for the non-existence of God. > > > Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of > serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling, > purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and transportation > systems including flying through the air. And dropping bombs that slaughter millions of people. We have developed with biological and chemical weapons. We have invested hugely more of our wealth and inventive powers on developing ways of maiming, destroying and killing than we have on healing, building and life. Are you beginning to see just how subjective all this is? > > Man has created a wonderful medical and drug system and improved housing and > food production. The result of MAN'S inventiveness has > > DOUBLED the average life span. None of this was created by any gods. > > > Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and > torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think > he will let us enjoy peace and eternal happiness in his Heaven? Not objective evidence - no reference to any statement of fact whatsoever. > And why does > he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead parents, > siblings and friends? (Or this god?) Not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning. > > There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE > VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL god > beliefs are based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions and claims' of errant > men. Use of the word 'errant' circularises the argument - an error in logic. > > If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an > all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The > objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about the > welfare of the creatures on Earth. You haven't actually demonstrated any of this. > > > The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite; > that man created gods! You have given no objective evidence of anything of the sort. Rhetorical questioning does not qualify as evidence. Evidence implies that you supply information - you don't demand it. > > There is NO objective verifiable evidence for the existence of ANY gods. > Lots of opinions but NO evidence! God beliefs are no more sound or realistic > than beliefs in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy Category error - Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are KNOWN not to exist; there is no question otherwise. They are a social fiction and universally recognised as such. I have been both Santa and the Tooth Fairy. The same cannot be said for God. > > > Evidence of gods; > > > > There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever spoken to any > sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men. Use of the word "errant" implies an assumed conclusion. There is no objective verifiable evidence that I have ever spoken to my sister. > > > There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever appeared to any > sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men. Use of the word 'errant' implies a subjective judgement and opinion - not objective evidence. > > > Why does this all powerful god creator never communicate with us? Why does > he never authenticate his very existence? Not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning. > > There is NO objective verifiable evidence that any Heavens, Hells, Gods, > Spirits, Angels or Saints actually exist except in the imaginations of man. I wasn't the one offering objective evidence - you were. And you simply haven't provided any. Look at your point about lions and sharks etc. Lions and sharks are magnificaent animals. They are beautiful and elegant. To regard them as 'evil' implies a subjective viewpoint. And that holds for everything else you've written here. Most of your points take the form "Would a loving, caring, parental God allow X?" where 'X' is something you regard as bad. Even leaving aside the question of whether things can be objectively bad, you're making the assumption at every turn that the answer ought to be 'no'. The very fact that you're making an 'ought' assumption should show you that you're simply peddling subjective opinion. You are making the assumption all the way through that a loving caring parent will prevent at all costs any harm, physical or emotional, coming to his child. Is that a valid opinion? I think not. To cases. My son recently broke his arm. It caused him pain. I could have stopped that pain - along with all the suffering he has ever experienced. If, when he was born, I had ensured his nursery was 100% safe, then never let him out, I could have guaranteed him years of pain-free, worry-free life. He would have wanted for nothing. Would that have been the behaviour of a loving, caring parent? I think not. I think most people would regard it as self-indulgent and abusive. And this is the problem you have. Your assumptions about what it would mean to be a loving caring God suggest an infantile percetion of things. And I use the word in its precise sense. A very small child has an entirely self-centred view of the world. It expects all its wants and needs to be supplied by an adoring parent. This is reasonable in a one-year old; but a loving caring parent does not allow it to continue into adulthood. Quote
Guest Bill M Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message news:2007110719344116807-thecroft@macunlimitednet... > On 2007-11-07 14:03:30 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: > >> >> "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message >> news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet... >>> On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: >>> >>>> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they >>>> rely >>>> on >>>> religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of death. >>> >>> So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence >>> and >>> never supply it. >> >> You apparently cna' or don't read. Hear is some I have supplied >> frequently. >> >> I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence >> that >> their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations. > > This is not objective evidence. Right. YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. >> There is a wealth of objective verifiable material evidence that NO gods >> actually exist. >> >> Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent >> designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, >> Floods, >> Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and >> serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect >> and >> punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both >> young >> and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish >> millions >> of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way? > > This is not objective evidence - it is rhetorical questioning. > Right. YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. >> >> Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent >> children" >> to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed >> brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and >> others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others >> pauper poor? Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die >> of >> starvation every year? Why are his human creations designed to >> deteriorate >> into a miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious >> affiliation? > > This is not objective evidence - it is rhetorical questioning. And are you > suggesting that when people die while in robust good health and at the > peak of their abilities this is a good thing? > Right. YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. >> God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam and >> Eve's >> 'original sin'. Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children and >> animals with thousands of diseases, birth defects, starvation and to be >> eaten by other animals? > > Your first sentence here (and your first non-question) is an inaccurate > understanding of Christian belief. And it is not objective evidence. The > rest is not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning. Right. YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. >> >> Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks, >> jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, wolves, poisonous snakes, >> stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this >> caring >> and benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully >> kill and eat other animals to survive? > > This is not objective e > vidence - rhetorical questioning. Right. YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. >> World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths. >> >> World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all >> ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more >> millions maimed for life. > > All of this was carried out by human beings. > >> >> The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 200,000 men, women and >> children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally >> INNOCENT children! >> >> There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, >> 14th. >> and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and >> totally innocent children. >> >> The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and >> innocent children indiscriminately. >> >> >> >> Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions >> indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and >> malnutrition. >> >> These indiscriminately afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of >> all religious persuasions. > > All these are facts, but you do not show how they are evidence for the > non-existence of God. You can't read intellignetly. >> >> Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of >> serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling, >> purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and >> transportation >> systems including flying through the air. > > And dropping bombs that slaughter millions of people. We have developed > with biological and chemical weapons. We have invested hugely more of our > wealth and inventive powers on developing ways of maiming, destroying and > killing than we have on healing, building and life. Are you beginning to > see just how subjective all this is? Which is evidence of what? >> Man has created a wonderful medical and drug system and improved housing >> and >> food production. The result of MAN'S inventiveness has >> >> DOUBLED the average life span. None of this was created by any gods. > > >> >> >> Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean >> and >> torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you >> think >> he will let us enjoy peace and eternal happiness in his Heaven? > > Not objective evidence - no reference to any statement of fact whatsoever. > >> And why does >> he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead >> parents, >> siblings and friends? (Or this god?) > > Not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning. Can't answer any of the questions can you? dodging and weaving is only evidence of your inability to deal with the facts.- >> There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO >> OJECTIVE >> VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL >> god >> beliefs are based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions and claims' of errant >> men. > > Use of the word 'errant' circularises the argument - an error in logic. Just more dodging and weaving! >> If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an >> all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The >> objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about >> the >> welfare of the creatures on Earth. > > You haven't actually demonstrated any of this. Read the post with some degree of decernment. >> The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the >> opposite; >> that man created gods! > > You have given no objective evidence of anything of the sort. Rhetorical > questioning does not qualify as evidence. Evidence implies that you supply > information - you don't demand it. Still dodging and weaving! >> There is NO objective verifiable evidence for the existence of ANY gods. >> Lots of opinions but NO evidence! God beliefs are no more sound or >> realistic >> than beliefs in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy > > Category error - Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are KNOWN not to exist; > there is no question otherwise. They are a social fiction and universally > recognised as such. I have been both Santa and the Tooth Fairy. The same > cannot be said for God. Why not??? You have not supplied any objective verifgiable evidence for the existence of your god. >> >> Evidence of gods; >> >> >> >> There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever spoken to >> any >> sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men. > > Use of the word "errant" implies an assumed conclusion. There is no > objective verifiable evidence that I have ever spoken to my sister. > still dodging and weaving! >> There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever appeared to >> any >> sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men. > > Use of the word 'errant' implies a subjective judgement and opinion - not > objective evidence. Opinion based on facts. >> >> Why does this all powerful god creator never communicate with us? Why >> does >> he never authenticate his very existence? > > Not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning. More dodging and weaving! >> There is NO objective verifiable evidence that any Heavens, Hells, Gods, >> Spirits, Angels or Saints actually exist except in the imaginations of >> man. > > I wasn't the one offering objective evidence - you were. And you simply > haven't provided any. When will you learn to read intelligently? Look at your point about lions and sharks etc. > Lions and sharks are magnificaent animals. They are beautiful and elegant. > To regard them as 'evil' implies a subjective viewpoint. How does this make them gods loving creatures? > And that holds for everything else you've written here. Most of your > points take the form "Would a loving, caring, parental God allow X?" where > 'X' is something you regard as bad. Even leaving aside the question of > whether things can be objectively bad, you're making the assumption at > every turn that the answer ought to be 'no'. The very fact that you're > making an 'ought' assumption should show you that you're simply peddling > subjective opinion. And how does your subjective opinion answqer any fo the questions? > You are making the assumption all the way through that a loving caring > parent will prevent at all costs any harm, physical or emotional, coming > to his child. Is that a valid opinion? I think not. More dodging and weaving. I made NO claims or comments about loving and caring parents. > To cases. My son recently broke his arm. It caused him pain. I could have > stopped that pain - along with all the suffering he has ever experienced. > If, when he was born, I had ensured his nursery was 100% safe, then never > let him out, I could have guaranteed him years of pain-free, worry-free > life. He would have wanted for nothing. Would that have been the behaviour > of a loving, caring parent? I think not. I think most people would regard > it as self-indulgent and abusive. Why are you dodging and weaving and getting off topic? > And this is the problem you have. Your assumptions about what it would > mean to be a loving caring God suggest an infantile percetion of things. > And I use the word in its precise sense. A very small child has an > entirely self-centred view of the world. It expects all its wants and > needs to be supplied by an adoring parent. This is reasonable in a > one-year old; but a loving caring parent does not allow it to continue > into adulthood. More nonsensical subjective and rude opinion. Is this the activity of a loving Christian? Quote
Guest Andrew Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 On 2007-11-07 20:09:09 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: > > "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message > news:2007110719344116807-thecroft@macunlimitednet... >> On 2007-11-07 14:03:30 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: >> >>> >>> "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message >>> news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet... >>>> On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: >>>> >>>>> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they >>>>> rely >>>>> on >>>>> religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of death. >>>> >>>> So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence >>>> and >>>> never supply it. >>> >>> You apparently cna' or don't read. Hear is some I have supplied >>> frequently. >>> >>> I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence >>> that >>> their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations. >> >> This is not objective evidence. > > Right. YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. You're really not following this, are you? You're the one that said you had objective verifiable evidence for his position. I made no such claims. I merely asked you to provide the evidence that you claimed that you had. All I got in return was a sequence of rhetorical questions and no objective evidence. Look at the sentence immediately below. YOU are the one claiming objective verifiable material evidence - not me. Now, bearing in mind that rhetorical questions do not qualify as evidence of any kind, do you stand by this statement? > >>> There is a wealth of objective verifiable material evidence that NO gods >>> actually exist. >>> >>> Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent >>> designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, >>> Floods, >>> Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and >>> serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect >>> and >>> punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both >>> young >>> and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish >>> millions >>> of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way? >> >> This is not objective evidence - it is rhetorical questioning. >> > Right. YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. See above > >>> >>> Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent >>> children" >>> to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed >>> brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and >>> others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others >>> pauper poor? Why does he permit over 2,000,000 innocent children to die >>> of >>> starvation every year? Why are his human creations designed to >>> deteriorate >>> into a miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious >>> affiliation? >> >> This is not objective evidence - it is rhetorical questioning. And are you >> suggesting that when people die while in robust good health and at the >> peak of their abilities this is a good thing? >> > > Right. YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. See above > >>> God supposedly created the world like it is, to punish man for Adam and >>> Eve's >>> 'original sin'. Why does he also punish supposedly innocent children and >>> animals with thousands of diseases, birth defects, starvation and to be >>> eaten by other animals? >> >> Your first sentence here (and your first non-question) is an inaccurate >> understanding of Christian belief. And it is not objective evidence. The >> rest is not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning. > > Right. YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. See above >>> >>> Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks, >>> jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, wolves, poisonous snakes, >>> stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this >>> caring >>> and benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully >>> kill and eat other animals to survive? >> >> This is not objective e >> vidence - rhetorical questioning. > > Right. YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. See above > >>> World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths. >>> >>> World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all >>> ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more >>> millions maimed for life. >> >> All of this was carried out by human beings. >> >>> >>> The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 200,000 men, women and >>> children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally >>> INNOCENT children! >>> >>> There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, >>> 14th. >>> and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and >>> totally innocent children. >>> >>> The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and >>> innocent children indiscriminately. >>> >>> >>> >>> Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions >>> indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and >>> malnutrition. >>> >>> These indiscriminately afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of >>> all religious persuasions. >> >> All these are facts, but you do not show how they are evidence for the >> non-existence of God. > > You can't read intellignetly. Try writing intelligently > >>> >>> Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of >>> serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling, >>> purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and >>> transportation >>> systems including flying through the air. >> >> And dropping bombs that slaughter millions of people. We have developed >> with biological and chemical weapons. We have invested hugely more of our >> wealth and inventive powers on developing ways of maiming, destroying and >> killing than we have on healing, building and life. Are you beginning to >> see just how subjective all this is? > > Which is evidence of what? It's not evidence of anything - that's the point. It's a subjective evaluation, just as your comments are. But I'm NOT the once claiming to have evidence for his position - you are. > >>> Man has created a wonderful medical and drug system and improved housing >>> and >>> food production. The result of MAN'S inventiveness has >>> >>> DOUBLED the average life span. None of this was created by any gods. >> >> >>> >>> >>> Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean >>> and >>> torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you >>> think >>> he will let us enjoy peace and eternal happiness in his Heaven? >> >> Not objective evidence - no reference to any statement of fact whatsoever. >> >>> And why does >>> he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead >>> parents, >>> siblings and friends? (Or this god?) >> >> Not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning. > > Can't answer any of the questions can you? dodging and weaving is only > evidence of your > inability to deal with the facts.- > >>> There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs but NO >>> OJECTIVE >>> VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL >>> god >>> beliefs are based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions and claims' of errant >>> men. >> >> Use of the word 'errant' circularises the argument - an error in logic. > > Just more dodging and weaving! Your invariable remark when yoiu know you're wrong. > >>> If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an >>> all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The >>> objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about >>> the >>> welfare of the creatures on Earth. >> >> You haven't actually demonstrated any of this. > > Read the post with some degree of decernment. There's no "discernment" required. You claimed to have objective evidence for your position. Everything in your post is a matter of subjective opinion based on a premise which is not valid. > >>> The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the >>> opposite; >>> that man created gods! >> >> You have given no objective evidence of anything of the sort. Rhetorical >> questioning does not qualify as evidence. Evidence implies that you supply >> information - you don't demand it. > > Still dodging and weaving! See above. > >>> There is NO objective verifiable evidence for the existence of ANY gods. >>> Lots of opinions but NO evidence! God beliefs are no more sound or >>> realistic >>> than beliefs in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy >> >> Category error - Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are KNOWN not to exist; >> there is no question otherwise. They are a social fiction and universally >> recognised as such. I have been both Santa and the Tooth Fairy. The same >> cannot be said for God. > > Why not??? You have not supplied any objective verifgiable evidence for the > existence of your god. I'm not the one claiming to have evidence - you are. And you still haven't provided it. > >>> >>> Evidence of gods; >>> >>> >>> >>> There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever spoken to >>> any >>> sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men. >> >> Use of the word "errant" implies an assumed conclusion. There is no >> objective verifiable evidence that I have ever spoken to my sister. >> > > still dodging and weaving! See above > >>> There is NO objective verifiable evidence any gods have ever appeared to >>> any >>> sane men. There is only the 'subjective opinions' of errant men. >> >> Use of the word 'errant' implies a subjective judgement and opinion - not >> objective evidence. > > Opinion based on facts. All opinions are based on facts. That doesn't make opinions evidence. > >>> >>> Why does this all powerful god creator never communicate with us? Why >>> does >>> he never authenticate his very existence? >> >> Not objective evidence - rhetorical questioning. > > More dodging and weaving! Translation: "Damn! He's right" > >>> There is NO objective verifiable evidence that any Heavens, Hells, Gods, >>> Spirits, Angels or Saints actually exist except in the imaginations of >>> man. >> >> I wasn't the one offering objective evidence - you were. And you simply >> haven't provided any. > > When will you learn to read intelligently? As soon as you learn to write intelligently > > Look at your point about lions and sharks etc. >> Lions and sharks are magnificaent animals. They are beautiful and elegant. >> To regard them as 'evil' implies a subjective viewpoint. > > How does this make them gods loving creatures? It doesn't. Why do you think that they should be? >> And that holds for everything else you've written here. Most of your >> points take the form "Would a loving, caring, parental God allow X?" where >> 'X' is something you regard as bad. Even leaving aside the question of >> whether things can be objectively bad, you're making the assumption at >> every turn that the answer ought to be 'no'. The very fact that you're >> making an 'ought' assumption should show you that you're simply peddling >> subjective opinion. > > And how does your subjective opinion answqer any fo the questions? Because without the invalid assumption you are making that the answer should be "no", then the obvious response is "why not?" > >> You are making the assumption all the way through that a loving caring >> parent will prevent at all costs any harm, physical or emotional, coming >> to his child. Is that a valid opinion? I think not. > > More dodging and weaving. > I made NO claims or comments about loving and caring parents. Every question you have asked is based on the assumption that if God existed he would be loving and caring in a parental way. Every one of them. > >> To cases. My son recently broke his arm. It caused him pain. I could have >> stopped that pain - along with all the suffering he has ever experienced. >> If, when he was born, I had ensured his nursery was 100% safe, then never >> let him out, I could have guaranteed him years of pain-free, worry-free >> life. He would have wanted for nothing. Would that have been the behaviour >> of a loving, caring parent? I think not. I think most people would regard >> it as self-indulgent and abusive. > > Why are you dodging and weaving and getting off topic? No I'm not. I'm challenging your assumptions about what "loving and caring" means. I'm suggesting to you that every question you have asked is based on a complete misrepresentation of what it means to love as a parent. Let me be clear - every question you have asked boils down to "Would a loving, caring God allow the possibility of pain or suffering?" I'm saying that the answer to that question is "yes". Now go back and look at your questions with that answer in mind and decide if they prove what you think they prove. > >> And this is the problem you have. Your assumptions about what it would >> mean to be a loving caring God suggest an infantile percetion of things. >> And I use the word in its precise sense. A very small child has an >> entirely self-centred view of the world. It expects all its wants and >> needs to be supplied by an adoring parent. This is reasonable in a >> one-year old; but a loving caring parent does not allow it to continue >> into adulthood. > > More nonsensical subjective and rude opinion. Is this the activity of a > loving Christian? There's nothing unloving about being clear. You have 'love and care' confused with 'cloying, smothering sentimentality'. Your understanding of what Christians mean by "the love of God" is wildly out of whack as a result. Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet... > On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: >> >> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they rely >> on religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of >> death. > > So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence and > never do. > Bill doesn't need "objective evidence", for we all agree, that Bill's gods don't exist. However our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in Jesus Christ giving His life for us sinners on the cross of Calvary. We therefore know our God and have seen Him. (Jesus in John 14:6-10) Atheists don't know our God and therefore cannot see Him, (Jesus in John 3:3) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:mltYi.16988$W9.3923@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message > news:2007110719344116807-thecroft@macunlimitednet... >> On 2007-11-07 14:03:30 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: >>> "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message >>> news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet... >>>> On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: >>>> >>>>> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they >>>>> rely on >>>>> religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of >>>>> death. >>>> >>>> So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence >>>> and never supply it. >>> >>> You apparently cna' or don't read. Hear is some I have supplied >>> frequently. >>> >>> I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence >>> that their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations. >> >> This is not objective evidence. > > Right. YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. > Looks like Billy is after our money again, to evidence that we love him in the Lord of course. Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in Jesus Christ giving His life for us sinners on the cross of Calvary. We therefore know our God and have seen Him. (Jesus in John 14:6-10) Atheists don't know our God and therefore cannot see Him, (Jesus in John 3:3) and no, we won't send Billy all our money as "objective, verifiable evidence", to prove our love for you. That's what you are after, aren't you? You will just have to believe us, that we answer your posts because we love you in the Lord and that this loving action evidences our God, whose essence is that very love and care we show others. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Ghamph Posted November 8, 2007 Posted November 8, 2007 "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message news:47338f34$0$4647$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... > "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message > news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet... > > On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: > >> > >> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they rely > >> on religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of > >> death. > > > > So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence and > > never do. > > > Bill doesn't need "objective evidence", for we all agree, that Bill's > gods don't exist. However our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become > fully manifested in Jesus Christ giving His life for us sinners on the cross > of Calvary. We therefore know our God and have seen Him. (Jesus in John > 14:6-10) > Atheists don't know our God and therefore cannot see Him, (Jesus in > John 3:3) Not seen, but spiritual. Christianity is occult. oc Quote
Guest Andrew W Posted November 9, 2007 Posted November 9, 2007 On Nov 9, 6:22 am, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote: > "Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message > > news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...> On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> said: > > >> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they rely > >> on religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of > >> death. > > > So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence and > > never do. > > Bill doesn't need "objective evidence", for we all agree, that Bill's > gods don't exist. However our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become > fully manifested in Jesus Christ giving His life for us sinners on the cross > of Calvary. We therefore know our God and have seen Him. (Jesus in John > 14:6-10) > Atheists don't know our God and therefore cannot see Him, (Jesus in > John 3:3) You've seen God? I don't believe you. Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted November 9, 2007 Posted November 9, 2007 "Ghamph" <ghamph@localnet.com> wrote in message news:13j78nc8v38jdfe@corp.supernews.com... > "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in message > news:47338f34$0$4647$88260bb3@free.teranews.com... >> "Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message >> news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet... >> > On 2007-11-06 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said: >> >> >> >> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they > rely >> >> on religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of >> >> death. >> > >> > So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence >> > and never do. >> >> Bill doesn't need "objective evidence", for we all agree, that Bill's >> gods don't exist. However our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) > become >> fully manifested in Jesus Christ giving His life for us sinners on the > cross >> of Calvary. We therefore know our God and have seen Him. (Jesus in John >> 14:6-10) >> Atheists don't know our God and therefore cannot see Him, (Jesus in >> John 3:3) > > Not seen, but spiritual. > Christianity is occult. > > oc Quote
Guest Pastor Frank Posted November 9, 2007 Posted November 9, 2007 "Andrew W" <ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:1194598172.512680.84300@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 9, 6:22 am, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote: >> "Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message >> news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...> On 2007-11-06 >> 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> said: >> >> >> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they >> >> rely >> >> on religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of >> >> death. >> >> > So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence >> > and >> > never do. >> >> Bill doesn't need "objective evidence", for we all agree, that Bill's >> gods don't exist. However our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) >> become >> fully manifested in Jesus Christ giving His life for us sinners on the >> cross >> of Calvary. We therefore know our God and have seen Him. (Jesus in John >> 14:6-10) >> Atheists don't know our God and therefore cannot see Him, (Jesus in >> John 3:3) > > You've seen God? I don't believe you. > We all have seen God in Jesus Christ, including you. If you think you have not, than you don't believe Christ is our Christian God incarnate. See below Christ explaining it to a sceptical Philip. Pastor Frank Jesus explains further in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE KNOW HIM AND HAVE SEEN HIM." Philip saith unto him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." Jesus saith unto him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then: Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself, but the FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOETH THE WORKS." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Andrew W Posted November 9, 2007 Posted November 9, 2007 On Nov 10, 6:57 am, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote: > "Andrew W" <ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message > > news:1194598172.512680.84300@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Nov 9, 6:22 am, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote: > >> "Andrew" <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message > >>news:2007110718563716807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...> On 2007-11-06 > >> 19:11:36 +0000, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> said: > >>> >> Religious wackos will not face up to objective evidence because they >>> >> rely >>> >> on religious beliefs to assuage their panic fear of the finality of >>> >> death. >>> >>> > So you say Bill - but you keep promising to supply oibjective evidence >>> > and >>> > never do. >>> >>> Bill doesn't need "objective evidence", for we all agree, that Bill's >>> gods don't exist. However our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) >>> become >>> fully manifested in Jesus Christ giving His life for us sinners on the >>> cross >>> of Calvary. We therefore know our God and have seen Him. (Jesus in John >>> 14:6-10) >>> Atheists don't know our God and therefore cannot see Him, (Jesus in >>> John 3:3) >> >> You've seen God? I don't believe you. >> > We all have seen God in Jesus Christ, including you. If you think you > have not, than you don't believe Christ is our Christian God incarnate. See > below Christ explaining it to a sceptical Philip. But you have never seen Jesus Christ. Unless of course you have a time machine that is. > > Pastor Frank > > Jesus explains further in John 14:6-10: Jesus saith unto him: "I am the > way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If > ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also, and from henceforth YE > KNOW HIM AND HAVE SEEN HIM." > Philip saith unto him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." > Jesus saith unto him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast > thou not known me, Philip? HE THAT HAS SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; > and how sayest thou then: Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am > in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak > not of myself, but the FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOETH THE WORKS." Unless you actually met Jesus you cannot be sure what he was really about. In fact in the scriptures it says that even the apostles often misunderstood what Jesus was explaining. Jesus' words have been incorrectly interpreted in a legalistic way by many of his followers. The only way to really know what Jesus and God were/are about is to study spirituality. Unfortunately most Christians don't know much about spirituality so they wrongly make God and Jesus into harsh and punitive disciplinary rulers. It is the ego in men that causes this distortion of truth. You can read the Bible till you're blue in the face but you will never get to know Jesus that way, especially since the scriptures have been rehashed, edited and censored by the Roman Government and others in the process of producing (mass producing) the Bible. You probably didn't know that no document can be nor ever has been released to the public before it has first been censored of potentially dangerous verses that individuals could use to empower themselves and use against the state. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.