Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My roe with myself - I'm either a fundamentalist Christian or a pantheistic monist, the later scares me because I know that's the stuff of the NWO and the 6's however I still have to, in full honesty to myself, pursue the truth.
There's a Nobel prize in your future if you do. Unfortunately common descent is one of the most well-evidenced observations humanity's ever made - even the existence of atoms is more uncertain than universal common descent.I do think that common ancestry is the biggest point that I want to either clinch or properly disprove.
How does that follow? What does clinching common descent have to do with the observation that most religions have a deity?If clinched things get a lot more interesting for the bible and for reality in general just in that it seems every religion seems to have active deity in it
Sadly for David Flynn, they don't. Paris and London are picked because they have international clout, and thus have influenced Jerusalem for centuries - no matter the distance to Paris, something French in 1799 would have affected Jersualem. Ignoring the facts that 'capital' and 'country' are so loosely defined, and 'nautical mile' is a hilariously arbitrary unit of measure, one can pick the capital of other countries and the idea falls apart - take the ancient capital of Zacpeten and find the spiritual significance of that.we have this, also tend to call the heads of the others powers and principalities (lots of evidence to show that Asteroth has been a VERY busy lady in the last century or so) however if world events are conformed to the bible as much as distances in nautical miles from the temple mount have a direct correlation with their relationship to Israel (such as Paris 1,799 and London, 1,948)
The evidence begs to differ.and all the other stuff - we may very well be looking at a much different bottom line of reality.
What evidence do you have that anything supernatural or occult exists?For me its sealed that the 'supernatural' and occult exist in actual as well as nonphysical intelligence and agency.
Perhaps, but that all hinges on that 'if'. There is simply no evidence to corroborate any of the world's religions.If all religions however were peer rather than there being one true religion - then we really would be looking at Classroom Earth style ontology where we're all eternal beings of eternal stature and delegated some to be the teachers or maintain the structure of the 'game' or lesson plan. The bible would still be a fascinating treatise on metaphysics, the Christian trinity would continue to also be the most forthright and high integrity/honesty deity.
In what way is the Bible an "incredible treatise" on quantum metaphysics?My roe with myself - I'm either a fundamentalist Christian or a pantheistic monist, the later scares me because I know that's the stuff of the NWO and the 6's however I still have to, in full honesty to myself, pursue the truth. I love the bible, its an incredible treatise on the spiritual and quantum metaphysics of our world (John Edwards 'In the Hands of an Angry God' is also a great extension on understanding sin as well as the solidity of reality and what it means IMHO about what happens when and if that collapses or at that time when the restrainer proverbially takes his hand away).
Delightful, but I'm still left wondering how this relates to your original post about evolution.The more I read the OT the more I feel like I understand why things went the way they did or what metaphysical rules or decisions kept Yahweh from simply changing the design of human thought such as correcting generational memory or why he didn't create a floating sky island somewhere to give a permanent violation of physics for all eyes of all generations to behold (then again the problem back then wasn't Epicureanism so much as other gods and goddesses seducing the people of Israel).
This sentence seems horridly misguided.
So much so that I have little hope for you.
No worries, I care to get this right.This sentence seems horridly misguided.
So much so that I have little hope for you.
Looks like vocabulary broke down on this. What I meant by clinch was prove beyond all doubt. I'm not out to destroy it, I just want to be either 100% sure of it or I want it out of my way - one or the other.There's a Nobel prize in your future if you do. Unfortunately common descent is one of the most well-evidenced observations humanity's ever made - even the existence of atoms is more uncertain than universal common descent.
No worries, I care to get this right.
Atheism was the first one that went in that regard so I'm not getting that one back, fortunately or unfortunately.Well my first bit of advice then would be to disregard self reinforcing ideas with little merit in the way of evidence.
Atheism was the first one that went in that regard so I'm not getting that one back, fortunately or unfortunately.
I'm really not wild on debating the issue because I know that fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and fundamentalist Epicureans are pretty well on par in respect to being sold-out devotees to worldview.I have my doubts as to you using that standard objectively among the various ideas.
I do think that common ancestry is the biggest point that I want to either clinch or properly disprove.
I'm pretty certain it is confirmed, I just didn't want to be in the trap of believing it just because the public school system says so. Evolution and common descent always sounded remarkably intuitive and in line with natural processes as we know them, I just wanted to make sure I have the 'really well built confabulation' possibility of it ruled out.I guarantee if you take a DNA sample of yourself, then take a DNA sample of any other life form anywhere on Earth. Have the two samples sequenced and compared. You will indeed find both samples can be traced back to a common ancestor.
Every organism has a line of decendency that intersects with another, the organism at this intersection is the common ancestor. Chimps are our close "cousins" zebras and bats more distant, reptiles, insects, plants and mushrooms even more distant.
So all life does indeed share the same genealogy.
Darwin's suspicions confirmed!
This is old news now.
I'm really not wild on debating the issue because I know that fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and fundamentalist Epicureans are pretty well on par in respect to being sold-out devotees to worldview.
To at least give you a snippet of where I'm coming from or why I'd say such a thing - a good part of what got me started down that road was the current NDE work being done by people like Mario Beauregard, Pim Van Lomel, etc.. I'd add Princeton's random number generator work as well regarding either personal consciousness effecting them or world events doing so. Wanting to figure out what it all meant and what I could do with it I had a run in with theosophy last year, did some things I probably shouldn't have, got results that confirmation bias doesn't explain, and I also got to find out some things about Luciferianism and new age as well as refamiliarizing myself with the book of Revelations and getting the distinct sense that we may be closing in on the trib.
I won't ask you to agree with any of that, just trying to line up my background so that things have some kind of context.
Its similar to what happens to people when they start researching conspiracy, secret societies through history, UFO phenomena, etc.. I agree it can be corrosive/caustic to mental health, albeit I've had the luck of getting my sanity hammered on from a much younger age so I'm willing to dive off into this stuff and try sorting it all out to the best of my ability.Well at least you've got some raw curiosity going for you.
Be careful though I've found though that the more raw intelligence someone has to work with when they are a believer, the more elaborate the justifications become.
I've seen people collapse into paranoid delusional states over the book of revelations and such so I worry when people go down that road.
Fear of worldview bias is reasonable. At some point, we have to trust reputable sources that are prepared to show cross references and give links and demonstrate little or no bias. Wikipedia is one such source.What's the best place to go?
I'm looking for the most dead-pan, non-biased, and all encompassing source that I can find which just as readily points out the strengths as well as the weaknesses of both sides and speaks as well to the nature of carbon dating, the age of the universe, etc..
While I read Signature in the Cell a long time ago I still feel like I understand an argument but that it still didn't elucidate things much aside from attempting to poke holes in evolution with statistical analysis and probability multipliers which could mean something or nothing all depending on whether or not the author had all of the catalysts considered.
While I absolutely do believe that what's going on in the world today from all angles proves without a doubt that there is something of a hidden/occult war between opposite forces and I consider myself on the sold-out Christian side of that war I still want to get my head around Genesis a little bit better, ie. to understand what it is and what it isn't.
For anyone whose done this kind of research and wanted to get the raw truth rather than simply getting patted on the back for views they already had (in favor of either evolution or creation) - what sources did you find to be of the best quality at explaining these things? Who had their order of salience laid out best in terms of addressing the logical lynch-pins of both and tearing down or edifying those pieces of logic in the most honest manner possible?
Looks like vocabulary broke down on this. What I meant by clinch was prove beyond all doubt. I'm not out to destroy it, I just want to be either 100% sure of it or I want it out of my way - one or the other.
To redraw the context of that whole post from what I just said - Christianity + creationism, everything jives. Christianity + common descent - things get hairy for Genesis. In either case however I'm not a reductive materialist so if evolution as commonly thought of holds as such, things just get strange for the big picture.
I guarantee if you take a DNA sample of yourself, then take a DNA sample of any other life form anywhere on Earth. Have the two samples sequenced and compared. You will indeed find both samples can be traced back to a common ancestor.
Every organism has a line of decendency that intersects with another, the organism at this intersection is the common ancestor. Chimps are our close "cousins" zebras and bats more distant, reptiles, insects, plants and mushrooms even more distant.
So all life does indeed share the same genealogy.
Darwin's suspicions confirmed!
This is old news now.
Ah, my mistake. I apologise if I became a bit... gruffLooks like vocabulary broke down on this. What I meant by clinch was prove beyond all doubt. I'm not out to destroy it, I just want to be either 100% sure of it or I want it out of my way - one or the other.
Maybe. Personally I think they only get hairy for those who put a lot of stock in the gritty details, but it seems the driving point of Genesis is "humans as a whole are sinners by nature, and are thus in need of a divine saviour (Jesus) to redeem them"; Eden isn't so much paradise lost, as a story of how humans will always corrupt paradise, hence why we don't have it today. The Serpent isn't a literal talking reptile, but more a metaphor for that whispering voice of temptation that we have all heard once or twice (or more).To redraw the context of that whole post from what I just said - Christianity + creationism, everything jives. Christianity + common descent - things get hairy for Genesis. In either case however I'm not a reductive materialist so if evolution as commonly thought of holds as such, things just get strange for the big picture.
not at all and insisting that it is so does not make it so - our closest cousins sre water melons and jelly fish as i read it - twinc
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?