Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
kartikg

How will God prove himself?

616 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Sherapy said:

 This is awesome and a wonderful way to use writing it offers you an opportunity to deal with shyness, learn to articulate and express thoughts.

 

That's very true, speaking of myself, yet not so wonderful when one's words are taken too literally without the context of feeling and intent, as I've found, much to my chagrin. I'll have to be more careful in my choice of words in the expression of my thoughts. The thought of seeming callous and uncaring, troubles me.

After my job ended at the '82 Worlds Fair, I took a job as an assistant manager trainee at SuperX Drug Store, once a subsidiary of Kroger's.  My boss was a really nice lady named Priscilla and I was tasked with arriving first and opening the store. She had the habit of leaving me notes of constructive criticism and instruction that--on reading--often seemed very abrasive--even insulting. When I tasked her with my feelings about them, much to her surprise, I found, to my dismay, the meaning I was reading into them was entirely of my own invention and she thought I was doing rather swimmingly and even liked me, a lot. I had a lot of egg to wipe off my face. :blush:

 

Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
17 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

From you previous posts claiming to have earned/given away millions over time. 

Which cannot be gained without practical contact with and observation of facts or events. By definition.

Reading about something =\= having an experience.

So external events do affect your ability to make choices about how you feel.

So they don't.

It seems to me you just contradict yourself all the time. Once I arrive home and I'm not on a phone I'll pull together a post that highlights this in a very clear way.

 

Read ALL of what i said and make an attempt to understand it.Iit realy is not very complicated .

That is all I have to say on this, except that, as an adult human being you demonstrate, every day, an abilty to construct and decide what emotional responses and feelings you will have. Your body does not simply compel you to feel anger, hate, love, joy, fear or guilt etc.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

18 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

From you previous posts claiming to have earned/given away millions over time. 

Which cannot be gained without practical contact with and observation of facts or events. By definition.

Reading about something =\= having an experience.

So external events do affect your ability to make choices about how you feel.

So they don't.

It seems to me you just contradict yourself all the time. Once I arrive home and I'm not on a phone I'll pull together a post that highlights this in a very clear way.

 

Yes Indeed.  But you claimed i was STILL rich 

Yet you still have millions, are making more and have never left your own country. You preach at people about materialism and there you are hoarding your material wealth. 

The way the mind works, reading or media can create in the mind memories ideas understandings  etc exactly the same as, and indistinguishable from,,  those created by physical experience Hence  you can hear a piece of music which will make you cry OR you can read the same piece of music and descriptions of it by others and also cry. In our minds and our memories therefore  reading about something or viewing it , if the writing is good enough CAN exactly equal personal experience.  

External influences CAN influence how you chose to feel but they do not have to.

The mind can control, manipulate and choose to create alternate emotional responses feelings and beliefs. Mostly we respond as we have learned, or been taught, to respond.  So for example most people would feel anger at the murder of a loved one and hate the person who did it But his is a learned response. Another choice is to    feel peace, and to love the murderer.

  Most people assume the first response is innate or natural, but it is actually learned or conditioned into us  as we grow up in a society with those values.

There is no contradiction.  It is  really quite simple  

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Walker all of those links still show that it is not universally accepted.

You still are avoiding to show documentation for your other claims.

The links also discuss the authors and intent of who and why the bible was Written which you have avoided responding to and was part of your claim as well please address all of the points that we are discussing.

jmccr8 

I have done. If you don't like, or want to accept,  the answers, that is a different problem   i suspect you originally thought i was saying something i was not and i can't understand what you are asking for   I have supported with evidences all my original claims.

The links show that  the opposition to a real christ is so minimal in academic history as to be almost   non existent   They show that the christ as myth theory is NOT accepted by historians and that those who hold it are viewed with suspicion because the y are not using historical methodologies   i suspect that, what you're saying is that if ONE historian doubted the realityy of christ you would see that as evidence that  historians were divided on the issue They are not.  they are the flat earthers of academic history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

17 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

I downloaded a pdf for teacher's incomes for a 40 year span starting from 1974 in Australia and out of curiousity am running calculations as to the feasability of his claim. I am curious as to just how many agencies he contributes to as this changes with different topics from orphans, impoverished children in third world countries, abused women, single mothers and a couple of other groups and then supported teens and single mothers and kids with drug problems in his home. I am interested in how he managed to pay for his and his wife's personal existence  on top of that.

I won't post my findings here but if you are interested I can PM what results I find to you. To better understand the financial aspects I am also in contact with mortgage lenders in Australia for comparative financial payments based on age health and income that would be similar to Walker, I do not have all of the specifics and they are not necessarily  needed for a general inquiry.

jmccr8 

Ive actually provided the same sources  on this forum  to explain how my claim is possible. I doubt you took many variables into account

For example for every dollar i donated i could claim back about  30% a  deduction depending what tax bracket i was in  This meant giving one dollar allows one to give a percentage of it over and over again after a tax refund is allowed for.  Plus Our living costs have always been low We don't take holidays, dont buy new clothes or goods, only replace things which wear out  We dont go out  to restaurants and rarely to a hotel for a meal don't drink don't smoke.   Generally when we were married i budgeted a dollar for each main meal and today i cook and budget  for a main meal to cost  about $ 5

The two of us in retirement live very comfortably on 30000 dollars a year    I earned up to about  100000 per year before tax, as a teacher in my later years,  (and  also earlier while i was a senior teacher, or coordinator or counsellor) and  we gave away about 30000 dollars, gaining a tax deduction of around 10000 (or more in Rough figures ) which we also donated  giving a tax deduction of 3000 dollars for further donation.

So each year, allowing for re- donating deductions,  by originally donating 30000 dollars  we could  actually donate    45000 dollars or so As you can see, in just the lastt 10 years it is possible to donate over 400000 dollars, and still  live very well. Of course we were also supporting a couple of young homeless people and my wife's parents out of that income for many of our married years  

Do you suppose tha t even if i was lying i would be stupid enough to post facts which could easily be disproven

We bought our first house A  transportable home on 2.5 acres  for 42000 dollars around 1995 after living in it and renting it for 10 years at 40-50 dollars a week rent  We had just paid it off 10 years later when it was burned out in a bushfire We  received 120000 dollars in insurance and 45000 for the land which we invested in a house  for later retirement  this cost  275000 dollars  It paid for itself through tenants and negative gearing while we lived in a small town in subsidised govt housing   allocated to  us after the fire.    

we sold that in 2015 when i retired  getting the same price we paid for it  and bought a house in another small community  which cost about 250000  i've used some of the equity for different things including putting in solar energy new electrics and plumbing and we now owe about 90000 on it  So the average figures you got probably don't apply to us given subsidised govt  rental for a total of  18 years and very cheap rental of a country property for another 15 or so and using  negative gearing and rental income to build up equity in our investment property. Ive really only had to pay a mortgage as such for  about 12 years out of the forty for which we have been married   

Ps we give to three separate agencies sponsoring the education of children Four difernt ones assisting animals and one central one associated with   an NGO to give the rest which involves food building water and sanitation facilities, and doing things like setting up cottage industries, establishing green houses and irrigation systems, and providing medical equipment, musical and sporting gear, for young people   We also gave for quite a while to an organisation  i found  which provided nutritious meals to children in the third world for a few cents (since risen to about 50 cents per meal)  probably 2/3 of what we donated went to that main organisation  

I've told oyu i dont lie on Um it is against my ethics and also would be counter productive  because i would slip up somewhere if i began lying, and then my credibility and honour would be lost.

 ps while some of the children we support in education ARE orphans it is local homeless or abandoned young people we have  generally supported in our homes  Several of the se had lost their fathers and were alienated from their mothers   In general i wouldn't know how many of the  hundreds of children children we fed overseas, over the years, were orphans. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Do you think the issues with arguments from authority only apply to certain topics or something?

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you struggle so mightily with arguments from authority and find them so compelling.  I do 'accept' to some extent the views of professionals, especially in science, math, medicine, etc.  What I don't do is when discussing why the consensus believes what they do bring up that there is a consensus and experts believe as they do, it's not really relevant and in this context is besides the point. I'm not aware that their certainty has been comprehensively measured either; that the majority accepts a historical Jesus doesn't mean the are certain about it.

In this specific case, there is a limit on how certain anyone should be.  This isn't science which can confirm theories with multiple experiments.  In this case we have no accounts of Jesus from anyone who actually met him and the most 'evidence' we have is from people who are starting a religion.  My understanding is that the 'consensus' used to think that Moses was a real person too... until they didn't.  That's how valuable what the consensus thinks about topics with so little evidence available.

Oh I know why i accept the authority of experts First as a child i was taught to accept the authority of adults  Then  i've been a student and a teacher all my life.

i know respect and understand the knowldge of expert authorities.

In generalI i never argue with them unless i am very certain of my own facts.

History has an accepted set of methodologies and requirements just like any discipline.

Christ mythers operate outside those accepted criteria, and thus are not accepted within mainstream academia,  just like a  scientist who argued for  creationism would not be accepted in the science community. 

If you could apply historical methodologies and come to a   reasonable conclusion that christ never existed then this would be mainstream consensus   but you cannot and so it is not.

   There is a lot less evidence for moses as a real person, but that question is indeed still being argued and disputed by historians.

Again the problem is the associated miraculous mythology tied to both characters  not so much their existence as significant historical characters.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Read ALL of what i said and make an attempt to understand it.Iit realy is not very complicated .

That is all I have to say on this, except that, as an adult human being you demonstrate, every day, an abilty to construct and decide what emotional responses and feelings you will have. Your body does not simply compel you to feel anger, hate, love, joy, fear or guilt etc.     

Thank you for your standard insult regarding comprehension. If your body does not compel you then explain 'love at first sight' or 'the fight or flight' response please.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Mostly we respond as we have learned, or been taught, to respond

Incorrect.  Mostly we respond to our biology and our environment - we then apply cultural conditioning on top of this.  Culture is nothing more than a product of these two things and holds similarities the world over.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Do you suppose tha t even if i was lying i would be stupid enough to post facts which could easily be disproven

No.  I would expect a competent liar to make untestable (or extremely difficult to test) claims and then declare those as facts.  

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Christ mythers operate outside those accepted criteria, and thus are not accepted within mainstream academia,

2+ Billion people want Christ to be proven to exist - as it is not something that cannot be proven either way why would many people want to incurr the wrath of mainstream dogma? Even you admit that, at best, it is probable and certainly not definite that Jesus existed as a real person.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

There is a lot less evidence for moses as a real person, but that question is indeed still being argued and disputed by historians.

Again the problem is the associated miraculous mythology tied to both characters  not so much their existence as significant historical characters.   

That is the secondary problem to the problem of their actual existence.  

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Oh I know why i accept the authority of experts First as a child i was taught to accept the authority of adults  Then  i've been a student and a teacher all my life.

This still doesn't explain why you don't seem to understand the difference between an argument from authority and one based in verifiable facts.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

In generalI i never argue with them unless i am very certain of my own facts

You argue against them constantly when they are not your own 'accepted' experts or experts who do not support your worldview.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I've told oyu i dont lie on Um it is against my ethics and also would be counter productive  because i would slip up somewhere if i began lying, and then my credibility and honour would be lost.

I don't believe you.  You make fantastical claims without a shred of evidence to prove said claims (super-alien transmat beams curing your nicotine addiction, psychic powers & remote viewing) and then ask people to accept what you say as true because you have said so.  How would it be possible for you to damage your credibility more than you already have done? 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Thank you for your standard insult regarding comprehension. If your body does not compel you then explain 'love at first sight' or 'the fight or flight' response please.

Incorrect.  Mostly we respond to our biology and our environment - we then apply cultural conditioning on top of this.  Culture is nothing more than a product of these two things and holds similarities the world over.

No.  I would expect a competent liar to make untestable (or extremely difficult to test) claims and then declare those as facts.  

2+ Billion people want Christ to be proven to exist - as it is not something that cannot be proven either way why would many people want to incurr the wrath of mainstream dogma? Even you admit that, at best, it is probable and certainly not definite that Jesus existed as a real person.

That is the secondary problem to the problem of their actual existence.  

This still doesn't explain why you don't seem to understand the difference between an argument from authority and one based in verifiable facts.

You argue against them constantly when they are not your own 'accepted' experts or experts who do not support your worldview.

I don't believe you.  You make fantastical claims without a shred of evidence to prove said claims (super-alien transmat beams curing your nicotine addiction, psychic powers & remote viewing) and then ask people to accept what you say as true because you have said so.  How would it be possible for you to damage your credibility more than you already have done? 

 

It is our mind which has the final say in how we behave not our biology Once humans developed a certain level of self aware consciousness their minds became capable of controlling their behaviours deliberately and consciously They could foresee the results of different behaviours and thus chose the more constructive or beneficial behaviours  Otherwise we would still be raping every pretty woman we saw and killing any rival  Fight and flight is an an anachronistic mechanism.   Using the mind to visualise plan and react is actually more likely to promote survival than a simple fight or flight reflex, in a modern society. 

We DO use cultural conditioning. I made that point but also explained that one can simply override any conditioning, especially as one becomes aware of its existence and nature.This includes a conditioned response which constructs   fear anger or hate love or homophobia.

You would still notice major  inconsistencies in my narratives over 14 years, if i had just made them up.

You do not appear to  understand or accept the nature of academic history and its methodologies requirements etc  There is no mainstream dogma Only certain standards agreed on by the professional body which are required to establish or refute a position.  

Their nature is not connected to the issue of their actual existence  One cannot simply believe christ did not exist because you dont believe the myths around his existence. You have to separate out the established historical record from the myths then assess ONLY the records showing the existence of a real male jewish teacher who was baptised by john, preached in judea, and was executed at the request of the conservative faction of jews in control at the time (who also had executed and killed many OTHER members of christs liberal judaic school  

This issue is not one about arguing FROM authority. It is about arguing that which IS the authoritative position; a subtle but critical difference.  It is not legitimate simply to appeal to the authority of a single authority  in a field for  example  but it IS legitimate to appeal to the authority of an entire discipline. Thus one could not use the authority of a single scientist to settle a dispute or to make an argument but one can use the established authoritative position of all scientists on an issue  to do so.  

No I do not. In some cases there may be disputes between authorities on matters such as the effects of eating meat  I will choose the facts statistics and case studies which support my view and compare them with alternative arguments Then I will decide which is safest and most likely to be true and stick to arguing that side.

Belief is your problem not mine i know  i tell the truth.

 I cant prove things, which only i witness,  to another, although i can establish their reality for myself, but i can prove  other things. For example you  don't even believe i can control my emotional  responses yet humans are capable of much more than this.

A human can learn to regulate their body heat  so they do not feel hot or cold. Some trained people can turn up that body heat to generate enough hea t energy to dry wet towels within minutes, creating steam,  using the heat they are generating in their body. Some long distance endurance swimmers do the same thing to overcome hypothermia.

 Just controlling the construction of  emotional responses is quite a simple skill compared to that level of control.

I can regulate my blood pressure and heart rate  by a wide range, using mental discipline and i could once (as a teenager and young adult)  hold my breath underwater for nearly five minutes, by slowing down my body's metabolism,  but compared to some I am an amateur. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

It is our mind which has the final say in how we behave not our biology

Nope, for all the reason I've previously stated there are many examples of how and why this is definitely not the case at all. Your mind and your biology are inseparable and one in the same, hence clinical depression having a chemical cause.   I see you didn't address the 'love at first sight' issue as this can't be explained away anachronistically.

17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You would still notice major  inconsistencies in my narratives over 14 years, if i had just made them up.

Not at all, this is called sticking with your story.  When your story lacks a testable component and your conclusions are unverifiable it is simple to stick with them and not be inconsistent.  

20 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Once humans developed a certain level of self aware consciousness their minds became capable of controlling their behaviours deliberately and consciously They could foresee the results of different behaviours and thus chose the more constructive or beneficial behaviours

Ludicrous hyperbole. Let me give you an example of someone who thought they could predict the consequences of their actions but couldn't because we are actually terrible at doing so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.

Yup, the man put lead in petrol and CFC's in aerosols.  History is littered with examples just like it.  So I ask you this; how can you know which behaviours are beneficial when you are not party to the unforeseen consequences of your actions? Is not the road to hell paved with good intention? 

27 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Belief is your problem not mine i know  i tell the truth.

Not believing you isn't a problem.

34 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You do not appear to  understand or accept the nature of academic history and its methodologies requirements etc

I do, however you don't seem to understand the difference between a statistical likelihood and definitive proof.

35 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

One cannot simply believe christ did not exist because you dont believe the myths around his existence.

You can believe anything you like as long as it isn't 100% verifiable as untrue.  Can you 100% verify the existence of Jesus as a person? 

47 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 I cant prove things, which only i witness,  to another, although i can establish their reality for myself

No you can't.  It is impossible for a single person to verify a reality that has not previously been verified by others.  You especially cannot trust your own mind to conclude things which you cannot possibly know i.e. the intent of an Alien being.

49 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

For example you  don't even believe i can control my emotional  responses

No, I believe you can control your emotional responses to some degree - I also know that external and biological factors can stop you from being able to do this.  

51 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Using the mind to visualise plan and react is actually more likely to promote survival than a simple fight or flight reflex, in a modern society. 

It's a shame the mind evolved before modern society and so this can't be used in a survivalist argument.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

A human can learn to regulate their body heat  so they do not feel hot or cold

Perhaps you care to explain paradoxical undressing? It appears the mind can be tricked, even when you are aware and trained to take precaution against it.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Some trained people can turn up that body heat to generate enough hea t energy to dry wet towels within minutes, creating steam

Show some examples please.  I'd love to see some of this in action.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I can regulate my blood pressure and heart rate  by a wide range, using mental discipline and i could once (as a teenager and young adult)  hold my breath underwater for nearly five minutes, by slowing down my body's metabolism,  but compared to some I am an amateur.

What point are you making? Of course you can control certain aspects within certain limits.  All of this is pretty well explainable using science and doesn't support your claim to have psychic powers.  In fact you prove my point that mind and body are one and not in fact separate.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Ive actually provided the same sources  on this forum  to explain how my claim is possible. I doubt you took many variables into account

For example for every dollar i donated i could claim back about  30% a  deduction depending what tax bracket i was in  This meant giving one dollar allows one to give a percentage of it over and over again after a tax refund is allowed for.  Plus Our living costs have always been low We don't take holidays, dont buy new clothes or goods, only replace things which wear out  We dont go out  to restaurants and rarely to a hotel for a meal don't drink don't smoke.   Generally when we were married i budgeted a dollar for each main meal and today i cook and budget  for a main meal to cost  about $ 5

The two of us in retirement live very comfortably on 30000 dollars a year    I earned up to about  100000 per year before tax, as a teacher in my later years,  (and  also earlier while i was a senior teacher, or coordinator or counsellor) and  we gave away about 30000 dollars, gaining a tax deduction of around 10000 (or more in Rough figures ) which we also donated  giving a tax deduction of 3000 dollars for further donation.

So each year, allowing for re- donating deductions,  by originally donating 30000 dollars  we could  actually donate    45000 dollars or so As you can see, in just the lastt 10 years it is possible to donate over 400000 dollars, and still  live very well. Of course we were also supporting a couple of young homeless people and my wife's parents out of that income for many of our married years  

Do you suppose tha t even if i was lying i would be stupid enough to post facts which could easily be disproven

We bought our first house A  transportable home on 2.5 acres  for 42000 dollars around 1995 after living in it and renting it for 10 years at 40-50 dollars a week rent  We had just paid it off 10 years later when it was burned out in a bushfire We  received 120000 dollars in insurance and 45000 for the land which we invested in a house  for later retirement  this cost  275000 dollars  It paid for itself through tenants and negative gearing while we lived in a small town in subsidised govt housing   allocated to  us after the fire.    

we sold that in 2015 when i retired  getting the same price we paid for it  and bought a house in another small community  which cost about 250000  i've used some of the equity for different things including putting in solar energy new electrics and plumbing and we now owe about 90000 on it  So the average figures you got probably don't apply to us given subsidised govt  rental for a total of  18 years and very cheap rental of a country property for another 15 or so and using  negative gearing and rental income to build up equity in our investment property. Ive really only had to pay a mortgage as such for  about 12 years out of the forty for which we have been married   

Ps we give to three separate agencies sponsoring the education of children Four difernt ones assisting animals and one central one associated with   an NGO to give the rest which involves food building water and sanitation facilities, and doing things like setting up cottage industries, establishing green houses and irrigation systems, and providing medical equipment, musical and sporting gear, for young people   We also gave for quite a while to an organisation  i found  which provided nutritious meals to children in the third world for a few cents (since risen to about 50 cents per meal)  probably 2/3 of what we donated went to that main organisation  

I've told oyu i dont lie on Um it is against my ethics and also would be counter productive  because i would slip up somewhere if i began lying, and then my credibility and honour would be lost.

 ps while some of the children we support in education ARE orphans it is local homeless or abandoned young people we have  generally supported in our homes  Several of the se had lost their fathers and were alienated from their mothers   In general i wouldn't know how many of the  hundreds of children children we fed overseas, over the years, were orphans. 

Thank's for the input it really wasn't required although your dilligence would be appreciated in other responses of inquiry directed towards a debate that we are currently engaged. This present discussion will be carried out in PMs with the person that it was made to.Once again thank you for your assistance and as expected my usual recourse will be to research your older posts for material.:tu:

jmccr8

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I have done. If you don't like, or want to accept,  the answers, that is a different problem   i suspect you originally thought i was saying something i was not and i can't understand what you are asking for   I have supported with evidences all my original claims.

The links show that  the opposition to a real christ is so minimal in academic history as to be almost   non existent   They show that the christ as myth theory is NOT accepted by historians and that those who hold it are viewed with suspicion because the y are not using historical methodologies   i suspect that, what you're saying is that if ONE historian doubted the realityy of christ you would see that as evidence that  historians were divided on the issue They are not.  they are the flat earthers of academic history. 

Walker did you read the whole of all of the links? They show that it is not accepted by ALL academics and that the authorship is unknown and much was written long after the last man standing so when I asked YOU to show support for the claim that you made for the people that you named your response was to tell me that the Romans had tax records for Christians period which does not support your claim as there was no documentation specific to those individuals which is what your initial claim stated. No you have NOT shown that those people existed outside of the bible which is not considered a historical document by academics, so you are still making non-points to claim that you have satsfied the question posed to you.

At no time is this comparable to flat earth theory so again a pointless rebuttal.

jmccr8

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2017 at 2:48 AM, kartikg said:

I was just thinking, if God does come down to earth, how would he prove that he is god. Without breaking any laws of nature.

Whether you believe in the spirit, duality or materialism, God is defined as a purely spiritual entity.  there would be no interaction between the two.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 0:48 PM, kartikg said:

I was just thinking, if God does come down to earth, how would he prove that he is god. Without breaking any laws of nature.

What if God is conscious energy and we are all a piece of that consciousness energy. Such as a drop of water in the ocean. Isn't a drop of water in the ocean still the ocean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

What if God is conscious energy and we are all a piece of that consciousness energy. Such as a drop of water in the ocean. Isn't a drop of water in the ocean still the ocean?

Not necessarily a drop of water can be seen in the puddle near the gutter or falling from a leaf.

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 Some how I don`t believe who a god or a creator is, but I believe Jesus was a angel :rolleyes: 

Gods were called ancient peoples and animals and then one invisible. So really what creator made planets and made life to consume life to survive ?

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Not necessarily a drop of water can be seen in the puddle near the gutter or falling from a leaf.

jmccr8

Well yea that is obvious. I was using an analogy with a drop of water and the ocean but maybe you missed that. I'm sure you could make another analogy with a puddle near a gutter and a leaf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.