Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Between two Opinions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Between two Opinions

    Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him." But the people said nothing. I Kings 18:21

    This is a very serious case among sinners, specially among family members: Standing between two opinions.

    I asked sinners in the past if they would like to accept Jesus as their personal Saviour and they look straight at me as if I am mugging them. They immediately say, NO.
    I ask within myself, who in the world are you to say no to? I immediately say to them, Listen, tomorrow is not promised to one.
    Take for example the men and women that lost their lives at the WTC.
    Did any of them KNEW that those planes were coming? NO. How many of them heard the Gospel for the last time that Sunday Sept 9th?
    How many of them went to church that Sunday and walked out of the church, thinking to themselves that they have all the time to give their life to Jesus?
    How many were deceived by Satan to walk out of the church that last Sunday, after they heard the Gospel and the Devil, convincing them, that you are still young, you know, enjoy life for now and when you get old you will be able to give more attention to the things of God?

    Because, when you are old, you are very matured and you will be able to handle things with ease and good judgment.

    You know, by then you will be fully retired and and your children are off to college, so now you will be able to give more attention to the things of God. Huh. Well, let's see. You spent your entire youth living in sin, bound by alcohol, drugs, sex and whatever have you, and now that you are old, do you THINK that perhaps YOU MIGHT give heed to God? I don't think so.
    You must take into consideration that as long as you hold on and continue living without God, the harder it will be to accept Jesus. But you see, we believe the stupid notion that we will get away with it.

    To be saved is a must. To be born again is a must. To give both your heart and life to God is a must. To repent from sin is a must:
    "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
    Acts 17:30-31

    So, standing between two opinions is not such a great idea. The truth of the matter is, you either serve God or Satan.
    Your beloved Friend and brother in Christ-Viva Zapata


    Zapata_46

  • #2
    Greetings.

    Permit me ask you the following questions.

    1. What do you believe people need to be saved from? And if you beleive you know the answer, what has your experience been that give you certainty of it?

    2. Why deliberately place people in a spot of creating conflict for them in the first place? There are other ways of guiding people to their inner Christ consciousness.

    3. Should not the teacher discover the place of inner wisdom first before attempting to guide others?

    A priest was once sent to a location to preach at a new church in South America. When he arrived at the airport he had no idea where the church was or how to find it. The priest asked a little boy if he could direct him to the church. The boy replied that he would take him there himself. Once at the steps of the church, the priest asked the boy, "Wouldn't you like to come into the church and be saved?" The boy replied, "Padre, you couldn't even find your own way to the church and I had to lead you by the hand. How then can i be saved through you when you didn't even know the way to your own church?

    Blessings to you.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by FreeSoul
      Greetings.

      Permit me ask you the following questions.

      1. What do you believe people need to be saved from? And if you beleive you know the answer, what has your experience been that give you certainty of it?

      2. There are other ways of guiding people to their inner Christ consciousness.

      3. Should not the teacher discover the place of inner wisdom first before attempting to guide others?

      A priest was once sent to a location to preach at a new church in South America. When he arrived at the airport he had no idea where the church was or how to find it. The priest asked a little boy if he could direct him to the church. The boy replied that he would take him there himself. Once at the steps of the church, the priest asked the boy, "Wouldn't you like to come into the church and be saved?" The boy replied, "Padre, you couldn't even find your own way to the church and I had to lead you by the hand. How then can i be saved through you when you didn't even know the way to your own church?

      Blessings to you.
      This is very simple, if only you follow the rule of thumb: read with the context. By following this rule you will be able to undrstand what Iam saying, if not, then you will make nonsense of everything.
      1. "What do you believe people need to be saved from?"
      Actually, from one's sins. Jesus came to save the lost and to keep throught his name those that believe in him. The word of God is very clear in this matter,
      "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Romans 10: 8-10

      2. And if you beleive you know the answer, what has your experience been that give you certainty of it?

      I gave my heart and life to the Lord back in 1975, when I was still in high school.
      I was told about the saving knowledge of Jesus my Lord and Savior and I was told to repent from my sins and to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all my haert.
      And ever since that time until now I have serving the Lord. I left off serving the Devil. I was in the service of the Devil and doing his desire. Now I am serving Jesus and walking in the light JUST as He is in the light.

      2. I am not trying to create conflicts with no one. However, the word of God spefically states that such will be offended for hearing the truth of the Gospel. If you are offended by what I am sharing, which IS the word of God, then, the word of God has nom place in you. You cannot possibly be a child of God. "Great peace have them the fear you and nothing shall offend them." Psalms.
      3. There are NO other way of leading people to the Christ, for is there was, then we might as well burn the Bible. If a sinner gets offended because I am sharing the word of God and begins to kick and act stupid, then he or she has a root problem. Ima not here, in this website to pat people on the back, neither aam I here to make you hear sweet things so that I can water down the truth. No way. You hear the truth of the Gospel, and if you accept it, good. If not, then that's your choice between you and God. Jesus Loves you.
      Zapata_46

      Comment


      • #4
        Well Zapata, first let me say that I'm happy your personal demons have departed from you. This is always a good thing for the soul. Now to your response.

        However, the word of God spefically states that such will be offended for hearing the truth of the Gospel. If you are offended by what I am sharing, which IS the word of God, then, the word of God has nom place in you. You cannot possibly be a child of God.
        First, no one actually knows exactly how correct the New Testament is because of the many errors and contradictions contained in it. Men decided what books should compose what came to be known as the Holy Bible, is none of the NT books are translated from original manuscripts but have undergone many, many revisions and translations. Before St. Jerome, there were many different Bibles, and all were different translations. The pope of that period commissioned Jerome to create a new more accurate Bible. The enemies of the pope waited until the he passed away and then did things there own way. These translation issues continued all the way to the time of Constantine the Great. And he had to do the same thing, getting all the cardinals of that period together in one room, and not permitting them to leave until they all agreed on content and translation. It was this group of men who decided to coin a new term, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," a term not mentioned at all in the Scriptures.

        In your response you hint that I, or others, may be offended by the truth. First, you could not know the core heart of others to say who is or is not offended. Only God can know this truth. By the question I asked, you may have even supposed that I may be offended. But you didn't know who I was, what I do, or what my life experience in spirit is. It happens that I am an ordained clergy with a PH.d in religion and metaphysical counseling. My experience with Christ came into my life in quite a direct and unexpected way, a supernatural way in the spirit. In 1972, when I knew absolutely nothing about God, Chrsit, or the Bible, I was visited by a spirit messenger shortly after prayer. my spirit was then lifted out of my body and guided through the heavens, where I was then brought into the presence of Christ. In his presence I rexperienced a spiritual baptism followed by a second experience of being saved. Believe me when I say that it is unlike anything taught in any church today. I was afterwards tld several things and returned to my body a transformed soul. Since then Christ has been my life. I was led to become both a spiritual counselor and Naturopathic Physician.

        Religious dogma and excess preaching without the power of demonstration will always cause devisions in the world. It is what has the world at the brink of war right now. Not even Christians agree with each other. Jehova Witness, Christian Science, Evangelist, Catholics, Protestants, and Greek Orthodox denominations to name a few, all clash in their religious perspectives and practices. You were saved because God was "always" there at the core of your being and there was nothing you could do to change that. Knowing the nature of truth is knowing the nature of Love in us. One doeas not have to preach Christ or God, because if one has love God is already in it and will rveal His truth directly to the soul. Love and God are one and the same light.

        The true gospel must be sought after from within, directly, and is received according to one's level of understanding. One learns to reach the hearts of others according to what they can digest. Paul spoke of giving milk to those who were not ready receive meat. This is what I was trying to see if you understood from my line of questioning. It is why Jesus said, "Cast ye not pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and again turn and rend you" (Matt. 7:6). Preaching to others is like fishing, and a good fisherman knows his fish, where they dwell, what they feed on, which tackle will work, and the time of day the fish will bite. And so a good preacher doesn't throw his line out randomly, but is careful not to lose both fish and tackle together.

        Blessings.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by FreeSoul
          Well Zapata, first let me say that I'm happy your personal demons have departed from you. This is always a good thing for the soul. Now to your response.

          However, the word of God spefically states that such will be offended for hearing the truth of the Gospel. If you are offended by what I am sharing, which IS the word of God, then, the word of God has nom place in you. You cannot possibly be a child of God.
          First, no one actually knows exactly how correct the New Testament is because of the many errors and contradictions contained in it. Men decided what books should compose what came to be known as the Holy Bible, is none of the NT books are translated from original manuscripts but have undergone many, many revisions and translations. Before St. Jerome, there were many different Bibles, and all were different translations. The pope of that period commissioned Jerome to create a new more accurate Bible. The enemies of the pope waited until the he passed away and then did things there own way. These translation issues continued all the way to the time of Constantine the Great. And he had to do the same thing, getting all the cardinals of that period together in one room, and not permitting them to leave until they all agreed on content and translation. It was this group of men who decided to coin a new term, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," a term not mentioned at all in the Scriptures.

          In your response you hint that I, or others, may be offended by the truth. First, you could not know the core heart of others to say who is or is not offended. Only God can know this truth. By the question I asked, you may have even supposed that I may be offended. But you didn't know who I was, what I do, or what my life experience in spirit is. It happens that I am an ordained clergy with a PH.d in religion and metaphysical counseling. My experience with Christ came into my life in quite a direct and unexpected way, a supernatural way in the spirit. In 1972, when I knew absolutely nothing about God, Chrsit, or the Bible, I was visited by a spirit messenger shortly after prayer. my spirit was then lifted out of my body and guided through the heavens, where I was then brought into the presence of Christ. In his presence I rexperienced a spiritual baptism followed by a second experience of being saved. Believe me when I say that it is unlike anything taught in any church today. I was afterwards tld several things and returned to my body a transformed soul. Since then Christ has been my life. I was led to become both a spiritual counselor and Naturopathic Physician.

          Religious dogma and excess preaching without the power of demonstration will always cause devisions in the world. It is what has the world at the brink of war right now. Not even Christians agree with each other. Jehova Witness, Christian Science, Evangelist, Catholics, Protestants, and Greek Orthodox denominations to name a few, all clash in their religious perspectives and practices. You were saved because God was "always" there at the core of your being and there was nothing you could do to change that. Knowing the nature of truth is knowing the nature of Love in us. One doeas not have to preach Christ or God, because if one has love God is already in it and will rveal His truth directly to the soul. Love and God are one and the same light.

          The true gospel must be sought after from within, directly, and is received according to one's level of understanding. One learns to reach the hearts of others according to what they can digest. Paul spoke of giving milk to those who were not ready receive meat. This is what I was trying to see if you understood from my line of questioning. It is why Jesus said, "Cast ye not pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and again turn and rend you" (Matt. 7:6). Preaching to others is like fishing, and a good fisherman knows his fish, where they dwell, what they feed on, which tackle will work, and the time of day the fish will bite. And so a good preacher doesn't throw his line out randomly, but is careful not to lose both fish and tackle together.

          Blessings.
          Here you are with phd and discrediting the word of God as having errors. What cemetary you attended? First of all, I am shocked to know your knowledge of the Bible. Again, what cemetary you attended? "Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." I corinthians 12:3 That includes the word of God. You sound more like a Moslem that is incensed against true born again believers. It is that spirit of anti-christ that is always finding fault with the word of God. The word of God has been attacked over and over again by men like yourself. Wait a minute, could it be what the Great Apostle Paul said in one of his epistles. It goes something like this, "Men, destitutre of the faith."
          You also sound like the men that the Apostle Paul spoke about in the book II Timothy 2:18, that says, "Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some."
          By you contradicting the word of God, many young born again christians, who have begun the walk, read your utter nonsense and cause them to fall, and YOU will be held ultimately responsible. JUST THINK Before you write.

          Zapata_46

          Comment


          • #6
            What cemetary you attended?
            Are you sure you mean cemetary, spelled cemetery? A cemetery is where people are buried. I'm sure you meant "Seminary."
            You sound more like a Moslem that is incensed against true born again believers.
            My friend, read again what I wrote. It was the Holy Spirit which took me into the presence of Christ. Muslims do not see Christ, neither do they know him. They follow Mohammed. Try to keep your discussion on a respectful level if it is possible for you, and leave the insults out. As it is written, God is not a respector of persons. He searches the heart of man. If I was brought into the presence of Christ, and was baptised by him, then I belong to him, and "he who has seen the son has seen Father," said the Lord. It could very well be that I was led to post something in your thread for your benefit. But if you become inflexible you will learn nothing from our exchange.

            There is a difference between blind acceptance of all Scripture, as you are doing, and acknowledging evidence of truth, that man-made errors exist in the Scriptures. The word of God is the word of God, and this can never change because it is a universal law. But what men do, say, and write is much different. I will give you just a few examples, and there are many more, of man's error and failure to transcribe the New Testament "accurately" from original which no longer exist, eliminating any possibility of verification by comparison.

            [/b] Example: In the New testament, each of the versions of what happened at the tomb of Jesus all differ. See: Mark 16:2-5, Luke 24:1-4, Matthew 28:1-4. Tell me, which of the three different versions is the correct account of what actually happened? How many Mary's went to the tomb at the beginning, 1, 2 3? Was the stone already moved when Mary got there, or did she see lighting moved it? Was there an angel sitting on the stone when Mary got there, or did two other angels speak to her on the way to the tomb? Which account is accurate and true? Because no Biblical scholar or theologian, including myself, can answer this question. Not even the Pope in Rome can answer it. Does this mean there was no resurrection? Of course not. Goes it mean the word of God is of less effect? Of course not. It only means that after many repeated transcribings by man's hand, accuracy has been lost and errors made with NT literature as compared with the accuracy of the Torah (the five books of Moses), or the prophets up yo Malachi. The Hebrews were very strict with preserving accuracy of the Torah.

            In addition, Mark and Luke were not even direct apostles of Jesus, only Matthew and John were. Bible scholars and historians believe that Matthew copied from Mark, who was an apostle of Paul, not of Jesus. Also a fact, in the gospel of Mark, seventh chapter, he reports that Jesus went through Sidon on his way to Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon geographic in the opposite direction, but there was "no road" to from Sidon to the Sea f Galilee in the "first century AD," but only on from Tyre. A good teacher and preacher knows there are two sides to all things, and searching further into the facts can make a better case on the side of truth, on the side of Christ, and God.
            It is that spirit of anti-christ that is always finding fault with the word of God. The word of God has been attacked over and over again by men like yourself..."Men, destitutre of the faith"... and so on and so forth.
            By your above statement, as a professing born again Christian that you claim to be, you have made a second error that stands against the teachings of Christ, who specifically taught that one should not judge others, as you have done. There is a difference between "narrow mindedness," which sees only what it wants to see, and "open mindedness," which seeks truth in "ALL THINGS."

            You see Zapata, the word of truth, of God, is ONE. Therefore it should not be necessary that there be more than "one" teaching, "one" Gospel. But there are many teachers and many gospels, and they "all" differ in many ways; not because God is wrong, or Christ, but because man's methods of translating and transcribing is flawed and imperfect. Have you read the manuscripts of Jesus' other disciples: Phillip, Thomas the twin, James, and other manuscripts that were discovered in 1947 by archeologist? Did you know there was a Gospel of Peter (the Rock), that was used by early Christians and that a portion of it was discovered? And have you read it? Did you know that the "Beatitudes" (Jesus' Sermon on the Mount), had been spoken "word for word" by a man referred to as the "Teacher of Righteousness," 200 years before the birth of Jesus? This archeological discovery in the Essene caves shocked the Vatican? There are now 800 more ancient manuscripts in Israel related to Old and New Testament that are still being worked on.

            Zapata, knowing the truth of things has nothing to do with believing in Christ and God. You have a lot to learn. But right now you are too programmed, like the Jehova Witness who believe they are the 144,000 the Bible says will be saved. By the way, since you asked, I have a Bachelor and Masters degree in Theology from Hamilton University, my Ph.D. was from The American College of Theology, I taught Bible study in Princeton, have been a spiritual counselor for 30 years. I was ordained a minister and Reverand both from the church and the college. I am currently finishing a book to be published sometime next year. Since you asked me, now what about you? What are your credentials, degrees, and studies?

            [Edited by FreeSoul on 4th December 2002 at 06:13]

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi guys,

              Just want to ask a question (by the way, I am a youth pastor at an evangelical church, saved by Jesus in 1991)...

              Weren't the dead sea scrolls the earliest fragments of the Bible ever found? And, did they not correspond (when translated) to the Bible we have today? Thus rendering your argument that the Bible has undergone many translations, and therefore is erred?

              Not trying to attack, but just continue the discussion.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hello diaz-uno.

                Wonderful that you are saved by Jesus. Also great that you are a youth pastor. Stay with it, and stay with the Lord, but also seek to increase your knowledge of the records and controversy. It is important to understand what the controversy of biblical literature is all about, because if you don't know about it you are less prepared when engaged in biblical debates from disbelievers who are sometimes more educated about the bible than believers who haven't study any further than their bible, and are then caught off guard. I for example, have been engaged in debates with many such individuals; but because I am prepared, I can bring up questions and present logical arguments they've never though about. And this has often led many disbelievers to rethink their position concerning Christ and God. Also study science, because it is often the strongest tool used by atheist and others who argue against the reality of God. To be prepared as a soldier of the Lord today, means undersytanding what tools the enemy uses and the arguments they preasent. And if you speak their language, they listen. Do this and you will be prepared as a soldier of the Lord in every front. Now to your question, which is a very fair question and far from being construed as an assault.

                Weren't the dead sea scrolls the earliest fragments of the Bible ever found? And, did they not correspond (when translated) to the Bible we have today? Thus rendering your argument that the Bible has undergone many translations, and therefore is erred?
                You may wish to read:
                The complete world of the dead sea scrolls by Philip R. Davies, George J. Brooke, and Phillip R. Callaway http://www.sciencenewsbooks.org/comworofdead.html
                Here's a brief by the author: "Ever since a Bedouin shepherd found the first scrolls in the Judean desert in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been the subject of passionate speculation and controversy. The possibility that they might challenge many assumptions about ancient Judaism and the origins of Christianity, coupled with the extremely limited access to the scrolls imposed for many years, only fueled debate on their meanings.

                With all the scrolls-more than 800 documents from 11 caves-now finally available in translation, conclusions can at last be drawn as to their authorship and origins, their implications for Christianity and Judaism and their link with the ancient site of Qumran. This timely book, written by three noted scholars in the field, draws together all the evidence and presents the first fully illustrated survey of every major manuscript, from the Copper Scroll, the Community Rule and the Temple Scroll to less well-known scripts such as the Angelic Liturgy and Reworked Pentateuch."

                When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, the archeologists had no idea that there were other caves in the same area that also contained over one thousand other ancient manuscripts, some much older than those of the dead Sea Scrolls. It was only by chance that these other caves were found, when a sheperd boy threw a stone into one of the caves and heard something break inside. It's because of these new manuscripts that we a re getting a better picture of Jesus' life and missing years. It is now beleieved that he studied in the libraries of the Essenes, and that he and Mary were members of that Hebrew sect, a sect by the way, which were omitted from the Bible by Jews and Christians for political reasons. As for the New Testament manuscripts, they dated to have been created approximately 100 to 300 years after the death of Jesus, and were not written by the hand of the apostles themselves. The fact is that no one knows who wrote them. Even the manuscripts of Paul handed down were not from his own hand. All the originals for making comaparisons to their accuracy do not exists. Are they of less spiritual value, of course not. Anything that has truth in them will live. Anything that is controversial will in time be clarified and corrected. This is what truth is about.

                I also recommend you read: The Nag Hammadi Library, which are are the published manuscripts that archeology discovered in 1947. This material is studied at Princeton University.

                Also read: Jesus the Evidence by Ian Wilson. This material deals with the Dead Sea Scrolls and later discoveries. Also read: The Gnostic Gospels, an analysis of the teachings of Jesus by his other apostles in the new manuscript discoveries. The Archko Volume, or, The Archeological Writings of the Sanhedrim & Talmuds of the Jews, translated by Drs. McIntosh & Twyman. This material was buried in the Vatican basement library and discovered by a researcher back in the 1800's. They are letters about the life of Jesus that had been written during his time and were suppressed by the Sanhedrim. One letter concerns the arrest and trial of Jesus written to Caesar from Pontius Pilate and the problems it caused. Another letter is an account of an interview of the parents of Jesus by a representative of the Sanhedrim; and there are more interesting letters. In addition to all this, read as many of the Biblical Controversies by scholars on the internet, just type into your search engine "biblical controversy." It may shake you up a bit in the beginning, but ultimately it will strengthen your faith even more, because you will learn to weed out truth from error, and the truth of God and Christ cannot be shaken.

                Here's one website listing and comaparing numerical errors in the Old testament: http://www.mbdojo.com/~rssl/familycensus.html

                Comment


                • #9
                  Now, now Free Soul...don't refer to scientists as enemies

                  Free Soul said:

                  "Also study science, because it is often the strongest tool used by atheist and others who argue against the reality of God. To be prepared as a soldier of the Lord today, means undersytanding what tools the enemy uses and the arguments they preasent. And if you speak their language, they listen."

                  F.S., I was simply surfing the internet and came upon your post. And I never 'dreamed' that I would post anything on a Religionist Forum. But your statement above has prompted me to respond to your attack!

                  Consider the following that I wrote on the Philosophy Forum, which is my preferred 'stoa' in the market place of concepts:
                  As a Christian doing research at M.I.T., Dr. Hutchinson says, "The marvels of the scientific world are little revelations of God?s creative thoughts. ."



                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Folks;

                  Religionists, like Dr. Hutchinson, have the "notion" that things are the way they are, BECAUSE they believe or have faith that they are so.

                  On the other hand, scientists have the concept that things are the way they are, BECAUSE they can prove that they are so through the scientific method of discovering the invariant relationships or iron laws of nature, by going from things that are known and making inferences to things that are not known. In point of fact, though testing and reproducing or repeating the results of the tests, scientists can discover a scientific explanation which is biunique with prediction. Such a scientific explantion of the way things are is in a one-to-one correlation with predictability. And the results are the scientific laws discovered concerning the universe.

                  Theists, on the contrary, never have to prove anthing, because they have "belief". And when in ecclesiastical history, they tried to prove the existence of what they termed "God", they were never able to do it. And so they resorted to believing that it was so; in short, advancing the notion of faith in that it was so. All of it, is without proving that it was so. And when they challenged atheist scientists to DISprove the existence of what they termed "God", such scientists made it clear and unequivocable that they did not have to disprove it, because it was beyond the limitations of human understanding to prove the nonexistence of what religionists believe, which is that there is an omnipotent, infinite, and omniscient being who created everything and to whom they are obliged to worship.

                  Religionists went on to charge the scientists with having a religion and/or a cult in atheism. But astute scientists have pointed out that their atheism is merely the ABSENCE OF BELIEF OR FAITH, and not a denial of the existence of "God". For the term "god" refers to that which is beyond the boundaries of finite human understanding, and is therefore in effect NOTHING. And anything that is multiplied by nothing, zilch, or zero is NOTHING or ZERO, no matter what it is. Therefore, even multiplying DENIAL by ZERO is zero. And, therefore, atheist scientists can never be accused of being cultists or religionist in their atheism.

                  Only the religionists can have a religion of nothingness, because they introduce the element of their belief or faith into a failed attempt to prove the existence of "God".

                  Yours truly,
                  EddieR
                  E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Eddier1.

                    First: It is wiser not to make assumptions that one is making attacks. Particularly since I was not being specific as to which sort of atheist I was referring to. I made a statement based on a) observation, b) exposure, c) experience. I was not referring to the conventional scientific community (which is also debatable ) that you assumed I was writing about. I was indirectly referring to individuals who use science as part of their arsenal and dedicate themselves to combating and trying to destroy the belief of God in others.

                    Second: That God amounts to nothing, Zero, has been a debate among scientists themselves. A well known physcist points out the following {i}First Law of Thermodynamics[/i], which states: "Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." He also stated: "The problem is that neither mass nor energy can appear from nothing, yet there is no denying that the universe is here, and that it is an ongoing event, and that the universe is still growing and expanding."

                    Third: That faith through religion has proven "nothing" is also an error. Due to what faith and prayer has been been able to accomplish in area of health recovery and healing, medical physician scientists a few years ago decided to conduct a major fist time double blind test on "distant healing" by application of faith and prayer. The statistical results were beyond chance and proved positive on the side of reliogious beliefs. Not only that, but their statistical studies also showed that people who have faith in God and pray, and attend church services, were shown to live longer than people who didn't. This resulted in a new department being created at Harvard Medical School for the first time in history. Now science is studying the effects of faith and prayer and it may someday become a conventional practice in medicine. My wife, a critical care nurse, witnessed a believing cardiac physician and head of cardiology gather all the nurses around a patient who was in a coma. They held hands and he led in prayer over the patient. The patient became conscious within minutes. He wrote a book about prayer and healing afterwards.

                    The problem with science studying the contributions of religious faith and prayer, and everything else it has to offer, is that there is no money in it for them. They can't bottle it; they can't put it into a pill; they can't market faith and prayer to sell it in the stock market. That's the real problem in why professors as you quoted haven't enough information. But it's out there and happening all the time. But very very few are paying attention. I can site cases of my own as well, which have defied medical science. But I cannot do so here because of client confidentiality.

                    In addition to all this, if you read the Scriptural literature of various religions, which includes the Bible, you may discover knowledge in it that has correct science behind it, science that was not understood until modern times, and, science that still defies modern science and its technologies. The question then is, how did the knowledge emerge and how did it reach the minds of the men who wrote it?

                    [Edited by FreeSoul on 5th December 2002 at 22:20]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks for the kind reply, Free soul. The information you have posted about the Dead Sea Scrolls is indeed different than information I have read about these scrolls. I'll check out the links you gave me. Take care!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm game, but can't be 'deked'...

                        F.S., it would not be wise of me to permit you to 'DEKE' me into becoming a so-called "militant atheist". If you read with perspicacity what I wrote, you could never come to the conclusion that I am that type of an atheist.

                        What you said about scientists, and followed immediately with militant language about being a "soldier"
                        fighting "enemies", speaks for itself; and that you made no exclusion with respect to scientists who may be atheists, but NOT militant ones.

                        You are not prudent in 'splitting hairs' over what I wrote, but, hey, I understand that with your academic background 'splitting hairs' is an occupational hazard. LOL!

                        Let each and everyone who reads your posts and mine, judge as to what they signify. For my part, I have no 'brief' to make, and have no inclination whatsoever to be militant over religionist issues which I have long ago consigned to the desuetude of archaic usages.

                        Time is definitely on my side, and history has and will continue to prove that!

                        Regards,
                        EddieR
                        P.S. I think that Zapata is a true Christian, who has put you into the shade. You have a fight on your hands with that Christian. LOL!
                        E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Eddier1.

                          First, I don't know what you mean by "Deke." It's not a dictionary word. Second, I never at any time implied that "you" are a "militant atheist." But if you prefer to see yourself in that light by anything I wrote, that's your personal choice. Let me now explain something. The word "soldier" in Christian circles is a common term. It is not used in the context that offends you so much. Being a soldier, in this case, means being a "spiritual soldier," or one who stands his/her ground on faith in God and Christ. The "enemy," a word I used "without further explaination," and written in a separate sentence by itself, was meant for evil energies and elements working behind the scenes that manipulate mankind into conflict through the collective consciousness. I did not explain further because it is an entirely different subject which I didn't want to go into. These two terms "soldier of God" and "enemies" of God, are associated with "Armageddon" conflicts such as the world seems closer and closer to realizing. And such negative elements manage to find their vehicles to work through mostly in those who are "atheistic." The dictionary definition for "athiest" is quite clear. It states: "Atheist: One who denies the existence of God." Such a position is taken by choice based on personal reason; and these reasons become the beliefs and tenets that are defended by atheist when challeged. Therefore it is a belief system. Scientist, astronomer, Carl Sagan, a was a professed atheist himself, who openly said that he "did not" believe in God. He said he "believed" in the "Big Bang Theory" and "evolution."

                          On the philosophical points of science you quoted, that God basically amounts to "Zilch, Nothing, Zero," which you would not have brought up unless you sided with this belief...
                          For the term "god" refers to that which is beyond the boundaries of finite human understanding, and is therefore in effect NOTHING. And anything that is multiplied by nothing, zilch, or zero is NOTHING or ZERO, no matter what it is.
                          ...I responded with a known fact of physics, First Law of Thermodynamics, which has perplexed all scientist and caused many of them to have second thoughts about the existence of God along with other new studies in quantum physics and other areas of science. I can put you in-touch with a professional "Theoretical Physicist" who makes his living in this field, and you can try and convince him that God must be Zilch, Nothing, Zero. Let me know and I'll connect you with him via another forum.
                          To your additional point, that...
                          "Theists, on the contrary, never have to proven anything, because they have "belief"
                          To this above statement I responded with facts from experiments and studies made by medical scientists.

                          To both my above responses you had nothing to say about it. Instead you chose to take up the argument of what I may or may not have meant when referring to "atheist," "soldier, enemies." This must imply that you are of the atheist camp. Am I wrong? By the way, I never associated atheism with being a cult. However, it is a belief system and cult like in terms when certain groups refer to themselves as "Evolutionist," which is actually a theory that has never been proven and yet is promoted as if it was. Many scientist who were former believers of evolution and the Big Bang theory have left that camp of belief based new scientific evidence and discoveries. But they have had tremendous problems in trying to get this new knowledge into school books in the advancement of truth and knowledge. This has led to a split among scientists and the creation of opposing camps.

                          Since you felt challenged at my mention of "atheist," why don't you simply state what your own beliefs are and what your position is? Are you an atheist? If so, how did you personally arrive to a belief which excludes a personal God in your life?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Mopping-up operations...

                            Originally posted by FreeSoul
                            Eddier1.

                            First, I don't know what you mean by "Deke." It's not a dictionary word. .................................................................................................... ...................................................................................
                            The dictionary definition for "athiest" is quite clear. It states: "Atheist: One who denies the existence of God." Such a position is taken by choice

                            F.S., since you mentioned that you took a degree (perhaps, your first one) at Hamilton University, which I think is in Canada, just across the border from the U.S., I entertained the thought that you were a Canadian, and would know definitly what 'deke' means. If you aren't a Canadian, it comes from the players in the NHL, who use the word to refer to tricking and/or deceiving an opponent player, like the goalie, for example, so that a goal can be scored.

                            Now, as to your dictionary, which defines an atheist.."as one who denies the existence of God", let me say that the author of the definition, from THAT dictionary, could use the assistence of a Samuel Johnson, the first writer to compile a dictionary of the English Language. In short, that definition from your dictionary is in error, and definitely behind the times. Johnson wrote the first dictionary in the latter part of the Restoration era, just prior to the turn of the century that began the Age of Reason, i.e., the 18th century.

                            Sir, we atheists (not militant ones) have had to put up with all the sloppy research of you Christians for many a year now. And as often as we explain to you guys what an atheist is, one who has AN ABSENCE OF BELIEF OR FAITH, you continually try to 'force' us into the position that we are 'denying the existence of god'. And in my former post to you, I presented you with our real position, quite clearly and uniequivocally that there is no denial whatsoever by us, nor do we have to prove the non-existence of god, as it is your wont to have us to do.

                            Finally, sir, I am conversant with some of the latest findings in 'particle theory' in physics, and with the problems of the 'reductionists' who have discovered that no effort by their meticulous research has been able to do away with 'matter'. Of course, they can do away with the Newtonian concept of 'continuous matter' by their discoveries that all matter is not continous but actually is discrete (although to the naked eye of man, we have not yet EVOLVED to the point were our vision can see such discreteness in matter).

                            And yes, I do support that the Theory of Evolution is no longer a theory, but a demonstrated fact. Today, most evolutionists only discuss how evolution takes place, (the details are being worked out), and no longer the 'what' of the proved hypothesis of Evolution.

                            Have a good day,
                            EddieR
                            P.S., For a theist to ask an atheist to disprove what is beyond the boundaries of human understanding is like asking a person to disprove what is TO THE NORTH OF THE NORTHPOLE?

                            E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Greetings Eddier1.
                              F.S., since you mentioned that you took a degree (perhaps, your first one) at Hamilton University, which I think is in Canada, just across the border from the U.S., I entertained the thought that you were a Canadian, and would know definitly what 'deke' means. If you aren't a Canadian, it comes from the players in the NHL.
                              Sorry to disappoint you E1, but I'm an American. I've never followed Hockey, if that is what the initials NHL are for. My sport, if one can call it a sport, was martial arts and boxing. I'm a black belt in Chineses martial arts, trained in various styles, and trained by a Philippino martial art masters in Arnis I was also a instructor for 15 years, an interest I persue after doing my hitch in the Marine Corps in the mid 60's.

                              Now, as to your dictionary, which defines an atheist.."as one who denies the existence of God", let me say that the author of the definition, from THAT dictionary, could use the assistence of a Samuel Johnson
                              Well, you'll have to write a letter to Franklin American dictionary and offer to correct them, cause it's their definition word for word. Webster's dictionary is similar. Defining atheist with words such as: unbeliever, irreligionist, agnostic, heathen, infidel, pagan. I'd say they put out a mouthful that would requires some adjustments by your definition. Wouldn't you agree?
                              Sir, we atheists (not militant ones) have had to put up with all the sloppy research of you Christians for many a year now. And as often as we explain to you guys what an atheist is, one who has AN ABSENCE OF BELIEF OR FAITH, you continually try to 'force' us into the position that we are 'denying the existence of god. And in my former post to you, I presented you with our real position, quite clearly and uniequivocally that there is no denial whatsoever by us.
                              I personally have nothing against atheistic beliefs. I believe that everyone has a right to believe or disbelieve whatever they choose to which agrees with way of life. I also believe that people of opposing views, those with open minds, can discuss topics in ways that make for interesting conversation without being combative and initiating negative defensive responses. I do not bundle all atheist in the same catagory as you have the Christians, when you wrote, "you Christians." And I do believe, by your word alone, that you are not of the militant catagory. I personally believe there is a plus and minus to every belief and opinion. It is the nature of things in this world, and the reason for contradicting elements to exist in religion, atheism, science, philosophy, medicine, and man himself. Name it, and it has an opposite side automatically built into it. Just as every problem has a solution, every solution creates new problems. It is the yin/yang of all things in this universe.

                              Not all Christians are interested in expending their energy in shoving their religious beliefs down the throats of others, or seeking the conversion and confession from atheist to one of religious perspectives. The only time I, for instance, have had serious debates with militant atheist is when they initiate a challenge without giving the benefit of doubt and asking a question or two before launcjing an asault, sort of what some atheist might experience from theist. What they don't know is that for half my life I too was a skeptic and understand both sides of the coin. The personal experience that changed my perspective is my own to live with, and yours is your own. We can discuss issues intellignetly, respectfully, and enjoy it. And we could agree to disagree, which is a civilized way of discussing issues. I'm certain you feel the same way. After we each leave this planet for good, we will each discover whatever truth we needed to know while here on earth.
                              I am conversant with some of the latest findings in 'particle theory' in physics, and with the problems of the 'reductionists' who have discovered that no effort by their meticulous research has been able to do away with 'matter'. Of course, they can do away with the Newtonian concept of 'continuous matter' by their discoveries that all matter is not continous but actually is discrete (although to the naked eye of man, we have not yet EVOLVED to the point were our vision can see such discreteness in matter).
                              Then you already know that these above issues can go on forever in point counter point, because neither side has definitive proof of anything. The only proof one can rely on is one's personal experience. This brings me to one of my issues skeptism in general. In the period of my life as a skeptic, the possility occurred to me that I may be shortchanging my own mind and knowledge by at least not ;ookong into what this God idea was all about, and seeing if there was any truth to it at all. So I decided to approach this issue from an entirely different angle that did not involve my needing to knock at the door of conventional religion. Instead, I purchase a Bible and methodically took it apart chapter by chapter, taking notes in a scientific analytical fashion. I then established a criteria and selected seven disciplines from biblical text and began my experiement. Six months later, to my absolute astonishment, and having had no former religious indoctrination or religious upbringing whatsoever, because my parents were of entirely difference religions, I entered into a realm of undeniable experiences that left an open door for continued knowledge of a mystical nature which continue to this day. The final result was an automatic transformation of my life my mind through actual and direct experience that had nothing to do with traditonal religious avenues. In fact, in a conversation with a pastor and priest, trying to convince of what I had done and experienced was as difficult as trying to convince a conventional medical physician that I helped several people cure their terminal cancers, which was true; and one of those patients was my own sister who is still alive today 18 years later.

                              Basically, I felt that to be fair with life itself, I should know both side of the coin before I make a choice for or against either side, to remain a skeptic or know whatever truth is hidden but is possible to know of. This life, in my opinion, is too short to live in rigid terms according as dictated by man's ideology alone. Living a whole life, in my view, means trying making use of the living part of what life is. And such knowledge has never required that anyone be religious or atheist. It only requires a desire to know thyself, as the ancient Greeks put it.

                              By the way, I found one organization on the internet that lists all its tenets for their atheist members. On their list they write, (#3) Atheist..."sees religion as not only useless and silly, but detrimental to the individual, bringing misery to mankind." In my view, they are taking a position against religion and even trashing it. Wouldn't you agree that any intelligent person would read this as an invitation for conflict by the opposition they are clearly attacking? If so, it is organizations such as this that give all atheist a bad name.

                              For a theist to ask an atheist to disprove what is beyond the boundaries of human understanding is like asking a person to disprove what is TO THE NORTH OF THE NORTHPOLE?
                              Why would it be so impossible disprove? All that would be required is personal experience itself. Whatever is truth would reveal its nature to one's consciousness in an undeniable fashion, as occurred with me. Because I now have that personal knowledge, I have also been able to guide others to acquire their own experience, from this point they decide for themselves without preconceptions of having to prove or disprove anything.

                              Take care.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X