264 replies to this topic

[Mr Walker]

Etu Malku, on 06 November 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

So this god of yours, he knowingly created man, then allowed sin, then sent his son here, had him killed for this sin?
Now THAT dude sounds like a real nut . . . a little bipolar are we there, god?

Deliberate misrepresentation. In the bible story, which is NOT history of course, a god creates man as an immortal being, and places himin a sin free pain free wonderful environment; to learn, grow and mature. Humanity in the shape of adam and eve choose to separate themselves from this process and from god  seeking immediate material wisdoms and knowledge, despite the warnings he has given them.

Everything which comes as a consequence, from the harmful natural environment, through pain suffering and death, is a consequence of human choice. The only way god could have prevented this was by eliminating humans ability to choose, then we would not BE humans, we would not be able to grow, mature, evolve, learn, and become.
God knew there was a risk, but he took a punt on us. We let him down. But we also have the chance to make it right again. In the bible story,  every human who accepts this chance is restored to immortality and the life of eden. Sounds a fair deal to me.

In the less allegorical world, every human has an individual chance to make earth a heaven for  them selves and for all, but we also have the opportunity to consign it, and ourselves to a living and very real hell on earth today.. Today some people on earth live in an edenic heavenly state. Others live in hell. It is all in how and what you chose.

[Etu Malku]

Mr Walker, on 07 November 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

Deliberate misrepresentation. In the bible story, which is NOT history of course, a god creates man as an immortal being, and places himin a sin free pain free wonderful environment; to learn, grow and mature. Humanity in the shape of adam and eve choose to separate themselves from this process and from god  seeking immediate material wisdoms and knowledge, despite the warnings he has given them.

Everything which comes as a consequence, from the harmful natural environment, through pain suffering and death, is a consequence of human choice. The only way god could have prevented this was by eliminating humans ability to choose, then we would not BE humans, we would not be able to grow, mature, evolve, learn, and become.
God knew there was a risk, but he took a punt on us. We let him down. But we also have the chance to make it right again. In the bible story,  every human who accepts this chance is restored to immortality and the life of eden. Sounds a fair deal to me.

In the less allegorical world, every human has an individual chance to make earth a heaven for  them selves and for all, but we also have the opportunity to consign it, and ourselves to a living and very real hell on earth today.. Today some people on earth live in an edenic heavenly state. Others live in hell. It is all in how and what you chose.

Or so the story goes

I'm always amazed how everyone misreads this verse

Genesis 2:17:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Metaphorically speaking, the Serpent (Lucifer), represents the divine force of creation that is able to carry out God's idea of creation. The Serpent sinks down to man's level and awakens the power of creation and the sexual energy in man (Kundalini). Thus, man can reach the knowledge which was previously only accessible to God.

In this Promethean light, we see a dishonest and manipulative god hoping to keep mankind in the dark about immortality and from becoming a god as well, and the Serpent bringing the fire to man against this god's wishes.

The Serpent showed Adam & Eve there are two paths they can follow:
Thy Will Be Done (RHP) or  My  Will Be Done (LHP)

Edited by Etu Malku, 07 November 2012 - 01:42 PM.

[Star of the Sea]

Seeker79, on 07 November 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

No you are not you are basing your beliefs that spiritual people are delusional on No evidence what so ever other than your own beliefs. You have no idea what personal evidences some if those people have. You personal beliefs force you to consider them insane if they have personal evidence, but non of these assumptions are based on any kind if empiricism only the idea that people can be insane. Don't you see how illogical it is to claim Someone is insane because they have experiences that you don't? How do you know it is not you that is insane or deficient in some way?

All types.

Not if clinically cleared with a clean bill of health from both doctors and psychologists alike. Luckily most psychologists do not carry the same bias you do.

Empirical evidence right?  If you lived on a planet billions of years from now during the epic that all the galaxies have expanded away from each other faster than the speed of light, and you ran across an ancient satellite from another world that described the expansion of space, other galaxies, quasars and other intergalactic phenomenon you would forever be stuck in ignorance.

Faith in institutions is still faith. Luckily there are those that don't believe everything they read or at least look at it critically.

I'm in agreement with you Seeker. Psychiatrist's and Psychologist's most certainly take spiritual experiences more seriously nowadays and don't always dismiss you as insane and delusional. LOL! Here is a link on spirituality from the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

http://www.rcpsych.a...ty/aboutus.aspx

Edited by Star of the Sea, 07 November 2012 - 04:46 PM.

[Alienated Being]

Mr Walker, on 07 November 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

And if they assert they do because they have encountered them, you refuse to believe them; which is also a argument from ignorance.

Refusing to believe an individual based solely on their claims is not an argument; providing an explanation as to why I do not believe them, and how they most-likely misinterpreted their experience would be an argument. However, a simply refusal to believe an individual is not an argument.

Not an argument
A: I saw a ghost last night.
B: I don't believe you.

versus...

An argument.
A: I saw a ghost last night.
B: I don't believe you, simply because we have no empirical evidence to suggest the existence of ghosts. What I do believe is that you saw something... but that does not mean it was a ghost.

Edited by Alienated Being, 07 November 2012 - 05:05 PM.

[Alienated Being]

Mr Walker, on 07 November 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

The real problem here is that some people with no personal experience of very real paranormal/ supernatural events etc., just refuse to countenance their existence. At all. Ever. For anyone.

The real problem here is that people often do not encounter what they think they encountered; rather, their minds try to form an explanation for a series of unexplained, mysterious events... and they believe what they want to believe.

Quote

They try to impose their disbelief on people who know better, precisely because they have  had real physical experiences with real objective evidences.

But the question that needs to be asked is evidence of what? Yes, they may have had an experience with objective evidences, but that does not indicate that they had an experience with what they believe that they had an experience with.

Quote

I can only guess at their motivations and world views/beliefs in attempting this hegemony.

It's called critical thinking, and trying to find logical reasoning behind seemingly illogical and fantastical experiences.

Quote

It is ok for a person without experience to claim personal disbelief, but they cannot logically or correcly claim their ignorance is superior or outweighs the experience of others. They cant claim to KNOW, based on lack of experience, more or better than a person whose claims are based on experience. That's just dumb, as well as rude.

I have never claimed to know any more or any less than anybody. Rather, I have claimed that we can not know exactly what we have experienced based solely on the experience, rather we believe that we have experienced what we have experienced based on what our mind sees as appropriate in fitting the experience. That does not, however, indicate that what our minds decided that we have experienced is what we have actually experienced.

When the experience is presented in the absence of evidence that can be reproduced, tested, and observed... then the validity of said experience is heavily questioned, as well as the psychological status of the individual in question.

Quote

If i meet a real little grey man on a clear summer's night, who provides to me the same evidences /criteria for his independent existence as everything else in my world, then it doesnt matter what  ANYONE else believes (for or against) the existence of aliens.

Then he should have no problem in providing you with the same evidence for others, as well.

Quote

I  would damned well KNOW they were real. And if i had such an encounter that would mean that, for everyone else on earth, aliens were just as rea,l even if no one else had encountered one. What is real is real, whether it is observed by one person, a million, or none at all.

You would assume that they were real, however... your assumption can be very incorrect.

[Jor-el]

Mr Walker, on 07 November 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

While  some writers of the bible claim omniscience for god, god does not act as person with omnisicience. He interacts with humans as if the future is malleable, and alterable. He also fails in some attempts at things eg in his cleansing of the world throughhte flood because noah eventually falls to sin like all the rest of hummanity If god knew this change in noah would occur, then his plans for the ark and a new sin free world were futile.  God changes his mind after listening to arguments. None of those things is possible/ workable in a world with one fixed linear timeline that god already knows will occur. The revolt of the angels and the fall of man were never  "certain things", and even god, therefore, did not know the outcome, although he knew the potentials. And because there were potentials for great good as well as for great harm, He HAD to take a chance .

I agree that god might know all possible outcomes of a person's choices. He often  shows me future/potential outcomes of some of my choices. But he doesn't know which choice we will make because that is never fixed and we have unfettered free will to make it.

And so he goes to considerable time and effort to influence the choices humans make, in order to maximise outcomes for them, and for societies. He teaches, which is pointless if an outcome is fixed.

I differ in my opinion based solely on the fact that God is demonstrated to know the future both probable and improbable...

Take David as an example...

Let us consider 1 Samuel 23:1-14. Note the highlighting carefully.

1 Now they told David, “Behold, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are robbing the threshing floors.” 2 Therefore David inquired of the LORD, “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” And the LORD said to David, “Go and attack the Philistines and save Keilah.” 3 But David’s men said to him, “Behold, we are afraid here in Judah; how much more then if we go to Keilah against the armies of the Philistines?” 4 Then David inquired of the LORD again. And the LORD answered him, “Arise, go down to Keilah, for I will give the Philistines into your hand.” 5 And David and his men went to Keilah and fought with the Philistines and brought away their livestock and struck them with a great blow. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah. 6 When Abiathar the son of Ahimelech had fled to David to Keilah, he had come down with an ephod in his hand. 7 Now it was told Saul that David had come to Keilah. And Saul said, “God has given him into my hand, for he has shut himself in by entering a town that has gates and bars.” 8 And Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. 9 David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring the ephod here.” 10 Then said David, “O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. 11 Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the LORD said, “He will come down.” 12 Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the LORD said, “They will surrender you.” 13 Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition. 14 And David remained in the strongholds in the wilderness, in the hill country of the Wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand.

In this account, David appeals to the omniscient God to tell him about the future. In the first instance (23:1-5), David asks God whether he should go to the city of Keilah and whether he’ll successfully defeat the Philistines there. God answers in the affirmative in both cases, David goes to Keilah, and indeed defeats the Philistines.

In the second section (23:6-14), David asks the Lord two questions:

1. Will his nemesis Saul come to Keilah and threaten the city on account of David’s presence?
2. Will the people of Keilah turn him over to Saul to avoid an attack on the city?

Again, God answers both questions affirmatively. Saul is going to come down and the people of Keilah will hand you over to him.

But here’s the interesting point... neither of those things actually happen. Once David hears God’s answer, he and his men leave the city. When Saul discovers this fact (v. 13), he abandons his trip to Keilah. Saul never actually goes to Keilah, and therefore David is never handed over by the people of Keilah to Saul. But why is this significant?

This passage (specifically the second section) clearly establishes that divine foreknowledge does not necessitate divine predestination. God foreknew what Saul would do and what the people of Keilah would do given a set of circumstances. In other words, God foreknew a possibility—but this foreknowledge did not mandate that those events be predestinated to happen. The events never happened, so they could not have been predestinated, despite the fact they had been foreknown by God.

God knows all the variations based on our actions and choices. He doesn't guess or calculate. He knows. We cannot limit ourselves to the word "potential".

And Gods attempt at cleansing the earth with the great flood was never solely about mankind, it was about destroying the nephilim more than anything else.

[Seeker79]

Alienated Being, on 07 November 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

The real problem here is that people often do not encounter what they think they encountered; rather, their minds try to form an explanation for a series of unexplained, mysterious events... and they believe what they want to believe.


But the question that needs to be asked is evidence of what? Yes, they may have had an experience with objective evidences, but that does not indicate that they had an experience with what they believe that they had an experience with.


It's called critical thinking, and trying to find logical reasoning behind seemingly illogical and fantastical experiences.


I have never claimed to know any more or any less than anybody. Rather, I have claimed that we can not know exactly what we have experienced based solely on the experience, rather we believe that we have experienced what we have experienced based on what our mind sees as appropriate in fitting the experience. That does not, however, indicate that what our minds decided that we have experienced is what we have actually experienced.

When the experience is presented in the absence of evidence that can be reproduced, tested, and observed... then the validity of said experience is heavily questioned, as well as the psychological status of the individual in question.


Then he should have no problem in providing you with the same evidence for others, as well.


You would assume that they were real, however... your assumption can be very incorrect.

You have got a couple problems here AB.

1) you are assigning likelyhoods and words like "fantastical" based on your own bias. In fact you have no data what so ever of the likely hoods in question are. Only philosophical bias.

2) You are assuming that the experiencer cannot critically think. In fact this person may be better at it than most. Why should any one consider a very real experience anything other than what it appeared to be without thought through evidence to the contrary? ( a philosophical bias of fantastical does not count), Nor does the argument that people CAN get things wrong. CAN does not equal DO.

A reasonable person absolutely should not throw away a personal experience based on the philosophical bias of other people nor the prospect that they can be wrong with out valid reasoning to believe that is the case. Just because Somone can be wrong doesn't in any way mean that they are. It is silly.

Also... Proof of philosophical bias is written all over this need for reproduction. If we can reproduce the experience of God then skeptics claim that it is material in nature because it is reproducible ( just look all over the NDE threads. The argument is used incessantly) Then, if the experience cannot be reproduced then it cannot be considered a reality by standard emprical dogma. So which is it?

Furthermore, If we are dealing with other sentience, then any reproduction would be evidence to the contrary because it would be obviouse that the other sentience is subject to some sort of methodology and does not make choices for itself.  Quit obviously the sentience would make a choices wether it wants to participate or not... My guess is that God will not need to see the need to participate in our experiments. Indeed. To maintain the gift of discovering god for oneself, god would need the individual to do it for themselves. I would never have believed without the personal discovery. Even those who believe on faith don't really know until they themselves find out.

Edited by Seeker79, 07 November 2012 - 07:56 PM.

[Muzzybluezzy]

Bling, on 31 October 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Why would God create humans knowing that a vast number of them would suffer in this life? Does eternity really make up for a life of war, fear, hunger, or _______ (insert issue here). The typical response to this question is, “People could have lived in perfection as God created it, but they chose sin.” But that doesn’t answer the question. God would have known that people would sin. So why start the whole mess at all, even with the promise of a messiah?

hello all,

I'm new here but I liked so much here

for this quote and this topic:

Our life is the vehicle, not the goal.
By way of our lives that we live, we have to climb ladders of divinity.  In Genesis 1:26 God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us..."  also, the meaning of the name Mikael means who resembles God. Obviously we are seeds of God and by improving we have to be like God (Upper forces/Elohim/Allah/God/Galactic Federation whatever you say for the Creator, it's unimportant, it's important that what or who you want to say), it's God's goal that people can be like God (as inner meaning, not physical because god has no/god need no any physical situation, physical existence, physical dasein..and so on, only we are in need of physical existence, extra when we reach divinity, we won't need any physical existence, bodies, sex, eating.. and so on, at end of this world material existence will finish, spiritual life will start).  All in all (excluding holy unity*) there is no any dominant badness or any dominant goodness, all the things serve one goal: "through this life, people are raised upper reality." (In addition to this, Jesus said that you are children of God/they are the sons of God, and in Quran God said: "When your Lord said to the angels: ‘I am placing a caliph on earth" (here "caliph" means successor of God's Kingdom) )

and lastly maybe among us there are people who think existence of hell and heaven, for them:
actually all religious expressions express godlikeness of humanity but especially Prophet Abraham's religions(Judaism,Christianity and Islam) promise existence of hell and heaven, because this situation is necessary to bring under control societies (that is to say that religions have to keep societal order). In fact in world two things seal humans' fate: genetic structure that people were born and environment that people were born. People have no any choice on these two things, due to people have to experience freechoice illusion, in the world they live as if they have own free choice, otherwise they can not keep living by knowing future.

(*holy unity means all people discover existence of god in their inwardness, so they come together with divinity happiness, in other saying "Now my people will know my name. When that day comes, [they will know] that I am the one who says, "Here I am!")

[Mr Walker]

Etu Malku, on 07 November 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Or so the story goes

I'm always amazed how everyone misreads this verse

Genesis 2:17:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Metaphorically speaking, the Serpent (Lucifer), represents the divine force of creation that is able to carry out God's idea of creation. The Serpent sinks down to man's level and awakens the power of creation and the sexual energy in man (Kundalini). Thus, man can reach the knowledge which was previously only accessible to God.

In this Promethean light, we see a dishonest and manipulative god hoping to keep mankind in the dark about immortality and from becoming a god as well, and the Serpent bringing the fire to man against this god's wishes.

The Serpent showed Adam & Eve there are two paths they can follow:
Thy Will Be Done (RHP) or  My  Will Be Done (LHP)

Only problem is; first god did not lie. In the day they ate the fruit adam and eve lost their immortality and died.Iit took a long time but die they did if they hadnt eaten the fruit they would(in the context of the story b alive today The lack of effective punctuation as well as contextual ambiguities does make such interpretaions problematic  but  basically god told the truth The serpent lied. He told adam and eve they would NOT  surely die, but they did.

Second we only have to compare the state of eden (Particulalry as described again in revelations) with the state of earth and humanity today, to see which was the right choice and best path. Humanity would eventually have gained wisdom as it matured and learned The tree of knowege existed in the garden for that purpose (otherwise what logical reason did it have to be there)  The serpent was like a dealer offering drugs or alcohol to a child.

As god pointed out children, especially under the influence of drugs, or powerful knolwedge (the effcts of which they neither understand nor appreciate,) dont make good gods. However in the story, gods eventual purpose for his creations was for them to become as he is. If you think of him as a god then that is our eventual destination. To live forever as pain free creatures in total control of an environment, but with the knowledge and wisdom to live in harmony with it.

Sex is irrelevent. MAn was always a sexual being, from our creation, in the bible story, and was told to go forth and multiply. The origins of sex as a part of sin lies in the   evolved catholic churches fear of women and a desire to keep control of property from them, not in the bible.

As i ve pointed out before, genesis is most likely am allegorical teaching tale about the transition from a spiritual based pre agrarian society  where connection to gods was the most important element of survival, to a material based agrarian one, where human knowledge and technology became more important. It has all the hall marks of such a tale.
But the warnings about losing our spiritual connections came true, and still  apply with tragic consequences in an increasingly materialistic world today

[Etu Malku]

Mr Walker, on 07 November 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Only problem is; first god did not lie. In the day they ate the fruit adam and eve lost their immortality and died.Iit took a long time but die they did if they hadnt eaten the fruit they would(in the context of the story b alive today The lack of effective punctuation as well as contextual ambiguities does make such interpretaions problematic  but  basically god told the truth The serpent lied. He told adam and eve they would NOT  surely die, but they did.

Second we only have to compare the state of eden (Particulalry as described again in revelations) with the state of earth and humanity today, to see which was the right choice and best path. Humanity would eventually have gained wisdom as it matured and learned The tree of knowege existed in the garden for that purpose (otherwise what logical reason did it have to be there)  The serpent was like a dealer offering drugs or alcohol to a child.

As god pointed out children, especially under the influence of drugs, or powerful knolwedge (the effcts of which they neither understand nor appreciate,) dont make good gods. However in the story, gods eventual purpose for his creations was for them to become as he is. If you think of him as a god then that is our eventual destination. To live forever as pain free creatures in total control of an environment, but with the knowledge and wisdom to live in harmony with it.

Sex is irrelevent. MAn was always a sexual being, from our creation, in the bible story, and was told to go forth and multiply. The origins of sex as a part of sin lies in the   evolved catholic churches fear of women and a desire to keep control of property from them, not in the bible.

As i ve pointed out before, genesis is most likely am allegorical teaching tale about the transition from a spiritual based pre agrarian society  where connection to gods was the most important element of survival, to a material based agrarian one, where human knowledge and technology became more important. It has all the hall marks of such a tale.
But the warnings about losing our spiritual connections came true, and still  apply with tragic consequences in an increasingly materialistic world today

"As the tradition of a Fall from the Garden of Eden' is an archetype. The Original Sin is Man's guilt of being carnivorous and lycanthropic."

We are all descended from males of the carnivorous lycanthropic variety, a mutation evolved under the pressure of hunger caused by the climatic change at the end of the pluvial period, which induced indiscriminate, even cannibalistic predatory aggression, culminating in the rape and sometimes even in the devouring of the females of the original peaceful fruit-eating bon sauvage remaining in the primeval virgin forests.

It was the 'clothes of skin' and the 'aprons of fig-leaves', that produced the nakedness of man, and not the other way round, the urge to cover man's nudity that led to the invention of clothing. It is obvious that neither man nor woman could be 'ashamed' (Gen. ii. 25) or 'afraid because they were naked' (Gen. iii. 10 f.) before they had donned their animal's pelt or hunters' 'apron of leaves', and got so accustomed to wearing it that the uncovering of their defenseless bodies gave them a feeling of cold, fear and the humiliating impression of being again reduced to the primitive fruit-gatherer's state of a helpless 'unarmed animal' exposed to the assault of the better-equipped enemy.

The uncovered body could not have been considered 'indecorous' or 'im-moral'. The very feeling of sin, the consciousness of having done something 'im-moral', contrary to the mores, customs or habits of the herd, could not be experienced before a part of the herd had wrenched itself free from the inherited behaviour-pattern and radically changed its way of life from that of a frugivorous to that of a carnivorous or omnivorous animal.

....................... from a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine by ROBERT EISLER
First published in 1951 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited
Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, London, B.C.4
Printed in Great Britain
by Butler and Tanner Limited Frome and London

[Mr Walker]

Alienated Being, on 07 November 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

The real problem here is that people often do not encounter what they think they encountered; rather, their minds try to form an explanation for a series of unexplained, mysterious events... and they believe what they want to believe.


But the question that needs to be asked is evidence of what? Yes, they may have had an experience with objective evidences, but that does not indicate that they had an experience with what they believe that they had an experience with.


It's called critical thinking, and trying to find logical reasoning behind seemingly illogical and fantastical experiences.


I have never claimed to know any more or any less than anybody. Rather, I have claimed that we can not know exactly what we have experienced based solely on the experience, rather we believe that we have experienced what we have experienced based on what our mind sees as appropriate in fitting the experience. That does not, however, indicate that what our minds decided that we have experienced is what we have actually experienced.

When the experience is presented in the absence of evidence that can be reproduced, tested, and observed... then the validity of said experience is heavily questioned, as well as the psychological status of the individual in question.


Then he should have no problem in providing you with the same evidence for others, as well.


You would assume that they were real, however... your assumption can be very incorrect.

I agree tha tthe capacity and nature of the human mind can lead it to false conclusions. it sees patterns and tries to impose rational explanations  as part of its operations. But such false percetion is extremely rare  in the totality of human experince.We are evolved within a natural environment and are exceptionally good intepreters of that environment;  via  physical abilities (sight sound etc) and learned understandings. hence we do not attempt to walk through a wall more than once.

How do we know the wall is there and wh y do we avoid it?

My point is that if I see an "angel" withe same quailities as a wall, then the most likely and logical possibility is that the "angel" is as real as the wal.l it is foolish to rather say, "Well that can't be real because angels ont exist."
And no we dont need sceintific validation to know wah tis real and has objective existence Weve been doing so for millenia long before science as a discipline existed. Science has a purpose and a methodology which works but cannot always be taken into the field.
Your point about wha tis valid But it is we who name, catalogue etc our objective existence. If i call something an angel then, like calling  something a wall it must fit established descriptions and paramenters  of that object.

When the experience is presented in the absence of evidence that can be reproduced, tested, and observed... then the validity of said experience is heavily questioned, as well as the psychological status of the individual in question.
As ive said before, this statement is unworkable and untrue ALL human experince exists without beingreproduced tested and observed even if it sometimes is validated in this way Your argument means that a person iving on an island alone can never validate or be certain that ANYTHING the experience is real. And of course it is; unobserved untested or unreproduced, regardless.
ALL experiences must be personally validated, using the same methodologies and proofs. Ie to be sure a wall exists try walking through it. Beyond that nothing more is required for an individual to know an objective truth. That truth then exists whether others have witnessed it or believe it

[Mr Walker]

Etu Malku, on 07 November 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

"As the tradition of a Fall from the Garden of Eden' is an archetype. The Original Sin is Man's guilt of being carnivorous and lycanthropic."

We are all descended from males of the carnivorous lycanthropic variety, a mutation evolved under the pressure of hunger caused by the climatic change at the end of the pluvial period, which induced indiscriminate, even cannibalistic predatory aggression, culminating in the rape and sometimes even in the devouring of the females of the original peaceful fruit-eating bon sauvage remaining in the primeval virgin forests.

It was the 'clothes of skin' and the 'aprons of fig-leaves', that produced the nakedness of man, and not the other way round, the urge to cover man's nudity that led to the invention of clothing. It is obvious that neither man nor woman could be 'ashamed' (Gen. ii. 25) or 'afraid because they were naked' (Gen. iii. 10 f.) before they had donned their animal's pelt or hunters' 'apron of leaves', and got so accustomed to wearing it that the uncovering of their defenseless bodies gave them a feeling of cold, fear and the humiliating impression of being again reduced to the primitive fruit-gatherer's state of a helpless 'unarmed animal' exposed to the assault of the better-equipped enemy.

The uncovered body could not have been considered 'indecorous' or 'im-moral'. The very feeling of sin, the consciousness of having done something 'im-moral', contrary to the mores, customs or habits of the herd, could not be experienced before a part of the herd had wrenched itself free from the inherited behaviour-pattern and radically changed its way of life from that of a frugivorous to that of a carnivorous or omnivorous animal.

....................... from a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine by ROBERT EISLER
First published in 1951 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited
Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, London, B.C.4
Printed in Great Britain
by Butler and Tanner Limited Frome and London

LOL I dont believe in the bible creation myth, and you offer this as a credible alternative? The biblical mythos did not originate any where near as early as these events, which were tens of thousands of years previous. They may have originated in the change from a hunter gatherer society to a agrarian one in sumer etc and similar mythos can be found in those societies. That puts them from 5000 to a max of 10000 years old

I might be misinterpreting the authors use of pluvial which means a period of heavy rainfall and not a specific date  and thus existed many times but the last pluvial period was still over 10000 years ago.

Edited by Mr Walker, 07 November 2012 - 10:00 PM.

[Alienated Being]

Mr Walker, on 07 November 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

When the experience is presented in the absence of evidence that can be reproduced, tested, and observed... then the validity of said experience is heavily questioned, as well as the psychological status of the individual in question.
As ive said before, this statement is unworkable and untrue ALL human experince exists without beingreproduced tested and observed even if it sometimes is validated in this way Your argument means that a person iving on an island alone can never validate or be certain that ANYTHING the experience is real. And of course it is; unobserved untested or unreproduced, regardless.
ALL experiences must be personally validated, using the same methodologies and proofs. Ie to be sure a wall exists try walking through it. Beyond that nothing more is required for an individual to know an objective truth. That truth then exists whether others have witnessed it or believe it

It seems as if you are not grasping my assertion. My assertion is that if an experience is presented in the absence of evidence that CAN BE REPRODUCED, TESTED AND OBSERVED... Leaves can be subjected to empiricism, sand can be, water can be, humans can be,, air particles can be, dirt can be, and so on and so forth. We do not have to test them in order to know that they are real, as we already know that they can be tested and verified as being real.

[Mr Walker]

Jor-el, on 07 November 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

I differ in my opinion based solely on the fact that God is demonstrated to know the future both probable and improbable...

Take David as an example...

Let us consider 1 Samuel 23:1-14. Note the highlighting carefully.

1 Now they told David, “Behold, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are robbing the threshing floors.” 2 Therefore David inquired of the LORD, “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” And the LORD said to David, “Go and attack the Philistines and save Keilah.” 3 But David’s men said to him, “Behold, we are afraid here in Judah; how much more then if we go to Keilah against the armies of the Philistines?” 4 Then David inquired of the LORD again. And the LORD answered him, “Arise, go down to Keilah, for I will give the Philistines into your hand.” 5 And David and his men went to Keilah and fought with the Philistines and brought away their livestock and struck them with a great blow. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah. 6 When Abiathar the son of Ahimelech had fled to David to Keilah, he had come down with an ephod in his hand. 7 Now it was told Saul that David had come to Keilah. And Saul said, “God has given him into my hand, for he has shut himself in by entering a town that has gates and bars.” 8 And Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. 9 David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring the ephod here.” 10 Then said David, “O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. 11 Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the LORD said, “He will come down.” 12 Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the LORD said, “They will surrender you.” 13 Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition. 14 And David remained in the strongholds in the wilderness, in the hill country of the Wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand.

In this account, David appeals to the omniscient God to tell him about the future. In the first instance (23:1-5), David asks God whether he should go to the city of Keilah and whether he’ll successfully defeat the Philistines there. God answers in the affirmative in both cases, David goes to Keilah, and indeed defeats the Philistines.

In the second section (23:6-14), David asks the Lord two questions:

1. Will his nemesis Saul come to Keilah and threaten the city on account of David’s presence?
2. Will the people of Keilah turn him over to Saul to avoid an attack on the city?

Again, God answers both questions affirmatively. Saul is going to come down and the people of Keilah will hand you over to him.

But here’s the interesting point... neither of those things actually happen. Once David hears God’s answer, he and his men leave the city. When Saul discovers this fact (v. 13), he abandons his trip to Keilah. Saul never actually goes to Keilah, and therefore David is never handed over by the people of Keilah to Saul. But why is this significant?

This passage (specifically the second section) clearly establishes that divine foreknowledge does not necessitate divine predestination. God foreknew what Saul would do and what the people of Keilah would do given a set of circumstances. In other words, God foreknew a possibility—but this foreknowledge did not mandate that those events be predestinated to happen. The events never happened, so they could not have been predestinated, despite the fact they had been foreknown by God.

God knows all the variations based on our actions and choices. He doesn't guess or calculate. He knows. We cannot limit ourselves to the word "potential".

And Gods attempt at cleansing the earth with the great flood was never solely about mankind, it was about destroying the nephilim more than anything else.

I agree with this; perhaps just disagree with what it means.Yyes god can see all potentialities (maybe) because a good enough computer could extrpolate in similar fashion, but cant know which will come to pass; and thus pushes us, as he pushed david, towards one best choice. with the best outcomes.

Im not sure that the nephilim are classicall/traditionally biblical enhtities.They dont really appear as the reason god caused the flood in the bible story, as far as I recall, but i am open to correction.

[Mr Walker]

Alienated Being, on 07 November 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

It seems as if you are not grasping my assertion. My assertion is that if an experience is presented in the absence of evidence that CAN BE REPRODUCED, TESTED AND OBSERVED... Leaves can be subjected to empiricism, sand can be, water can be, humans can be,, air particles can be, dirt can be, and so on and so forth. We do not have to test them in order to know that they are real, as we already know that they can be tested and verified as being real.

And my assertion is that, once tested by an individual, no further scientific  testing is required to establish reality/validity. Further testing, reproduction and observation, only assists in the transferrability of evidences and the accumulation of data.

If god or an angel or a ghost stands up to such testing, just once, then it is real, just as it only needs one test of a leaf or sand or water to know it is real. Similar tests will produce similar results, because it is objectively existent. The difficulty is in capturing the subject, to do the testing.
Actually, every individual human must personally test the validity of every experience, if they wish to know it is real. One cannot use learned or second hand academic/scientific verification to establish this, because this relies on believing, and taking on trust, another's word/findings. Eg Just reading that I cant walk through a wall because its molecules are too densely packed together to allow mine to pass through i,t is not evidence, or convincing proof, but trying to, and failing to, is.
let me just ask, "In your philosophy, if you were illiterate how could you ever know what was real/had objective existence, and what was/did not?"

Edited by Mr Walker, 08 November 2012 - 04:18 AM.