The OT god was eager to bump off the Canaanites, etc.//The new rage are the novels of Steig Larsson- Pippi Longstocking or Harry Potter for adults. http://www,nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23Larsson-t.html After reading this article, the friend who is repairing my window mentioned he had read two with gusto- shall I proceed? lol//About your remark that each day is a "new roll of film"- I like the thought but it is just as likely to recapture the day in a new light or angle- somewhat like Monet and his cathedral or water lilly paintings- and few can stray too far from a talent that seems to work and is profitable.
On May 27, 8:41 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess the real difference is that I don't really care why or how the > earth came about. I see it as part of the solar system and the > universe. I don't go assigning superstitious reasoning to it in order > to establish a myriad of rules, dogma, fear and organizational > structures around it, not to mention the atrocities attributed to it > and the trail of collateral damage that many perceive as justifiable. > > You really did not disprove the anthropological implication but merely > satiated your own rebuttal to it through a personal rationale that is > clearly defined by your affirmed unsubstantiated beliefs. The skew > here is that you try to establish fact on account of, "because it says > so here in this book" and because you believe it to be true. The > books, most of them, are a collection of sage advice and wisdom and > like the read of Kalil Gibran, the Prophet. People love the mystical > and the esoteric labels associated with it, that is how the prophets > and pharisees gained so much popularity and control. It is still the > same, people running to the priest thinking they know something above > and beyond the obvious. > > When it's all about the good stuff then the people say the lord this > and that but you don't hear about the lord when there are horrific > scenarios. You don't hear ".......the lord wanted all those people > to die a horrible death, that is why the genocide took place". Now > you will tell me that it is on account of humanity that these things > take place, which all the more makes me wonder about your "Loving > God". The Omniscience, Omnipotence and Omnipresence just don't seem > to fall into place or make any sense unless of course it is what it > is, eg; a conjured notion of ancient man that fueled the myths. Like > Superman the Movie. > > On May 26, 6:36 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 26 May, 03:31, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well Pat, it seems I'm not alone in recognizing your fruitless efforts > > > in portraying a simple set of faith based beliefs as being anything > > > other than the delusive conjuring that it is. > > > Fruitless? Methinks you've judged this a tad quickly. Let's revisit > > that in another 20 years. > > > >But let's have another > > > look at what might be a plausible viewpoint concerning the spiritual, > > > metaphysical and cosmological world in which we live. Perhaps it is > > > simply the cause and effect of human telepathy and interaction with a > > > collective consciousness that has evolved and expanded throughout > > > time, ergo: the advancement of humanity via the communicative ability > > > of the consciousness with that of the collective consciousness and > > > subconsciousness. In 386 BC no man woke up one morning and discovered > > > laser technology but in time it was discovered through the "collective > > > knowledge of the collective subconscious". > > > Doesn't exactly explain how the Earth came into being, though. So, I > > think there's a distinct lack of 'cosmology' to that viewpoint. > > > > I know you are desperate to prove the existence of a supreme being > > > that created the universe and out of your desperation you conjure > > > ideas just as did the ancients who were desperate to have explanations > > > for lightning, thunder and the solar eclipse. I can only be impressed > > > by the tenacity with which you hold onto these antiquated ideas of > > > what life is all about. Like I said earlier, it can be quite amusing. > > > Always glad to put a smile on someone's face!! ;-) > > > > Vam is right in identifying your approach as totally anthropologically > > > based. > > > Yet, actually, I've proved that false. But, as you liked it, you too > > are wrong. > > > >You actually think that because humans have intent in action > > > there must be a creator who has intent. > > > No, rather, the existence of intelligence and awareness is evidence > > that there is intelligence and awareness at work. I simply have > > joined the dots. > > > >You are simply an advanced > > > organism among the other organisms on the planet that ingest, digest > > > and excrete. (don't forget the toilet paper) > > > What I would really like for you to answer is this.................... > > > Exactly where does this "Great Creator" come from? > > > Energy is neither created nor destroyed. > > > > Who made the "Great Creator"? > > > Energy is neither created nor destroyed. > > > > The Super Creator of Great Creators? > > > Energy is neither created nor destroyed. > > > > Where does it end? > > > As soon as you get it through your head that energy is neither created > > nor destroyed and that energy is the 'stuff' of which God is made. > > > > I can answer that, it ends right here because it is simply another > > > which came first chicken or egg question. > > > IF there is a God then WHO created God and Who created the God who > > > created the God who created God? > > > I refer you to energy. Science is happy with the fact that energy is > > neither created nor destroyed. So, I ask YOU, who created energy? No > > one. Energy exists. It is that simple fact that stands as the > > underlying axiom. > > > > Imagination is a wonderful thing until we take it seriously! Imagine > > > you can fly then jump out the window. Then you will realize the > > > reality of your fantasy. That is if you live and I'm hoping you > > > aren't taking this suggestion seriously but if you are I hope you are > > > living on the first floor or better yet jump out of the basement > > > window. LOL > > > Of course, as I'm in the UK, the first floor is one floor above the > > ground floor. But, I'm not suicidal. Death catches us all > > eventually, it's completely fair in that regard. Whilst some may take > > issue with which HOW death catches us, that is their problem in that > > it takes omniscience to understand why things must be the way they > > must be. Although it does NOT take omniscience to understand that it > > takes omniscience to understand the previous statement; just decent > > insight. ;-) > > > > On May 25, 7:48 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 25 May, 02:23, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > You talk about it all with such affirmation but in all actuality it is > > > > > something that you have bought into and choose to believe based on > > > > > some written text. What makes you think that book is any different > > > > > from any other book, I see no difference between you and a Jehovah > > > > > Witness. What makes your belief more believable. There is absolutely > > > > > not a shred of evidence that even suggests the existence of a god or > > > > > supreme being that is a creator of the universe and life. Even if > > > > > there was one I don't see why such a great creator would have to say > > > > > something through the writings of a bunch of ignorant desert dwelling > > > > > sheep and goat herders. There is no evidence of any heaven or hell or > > > > > anything that suggests consequential outcomes to action. We suspect > > > > > and give in to superstition in fear of it being real when all the time > > > > > we know it is false without foundation. > > > > > LOL!! You know, I was up last night just hoping you'd have written > > > > something like this. OK, lets look at the atheistic alternative. > > > > This whole 'cause and effect' universe was an accident--an effect with > > > > no cause. There is no evidence whatsoever that would lead any > > > > rational thinker to believe in an effect without a cause. With > > > > respect to 'purpose', this whole universe is without one (by atheistic > > > > viewpoint). Yet, as an intelligent entity, when you do something, is > > > > it 'without purpose'? How often do you act without purpose? So, > > > > again, (y)our own experience seems to point to intelligent beings > > > > doing things with purposeful intent. Yet the atheist argument is that > > > > this causeless effect is without purpose; yet they feel it is their > > > > purpose to point that out. No dichotomy there, oh no! Not even > > > > you're own existence stands as any evidence to the committed atheist. > > > > As for there being nothing that suggests consequential outcomes to > > > > action, I refer you to Newton's 3rd Law of motion: For every action > > > > there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you think you have > > > > disproven THAT by mere disbelief, then I applaud you. However, I'm > > > > not clapping, because I think you see, quite clearly, just how > > > > ridiculous your argument sounds. Effects without causes and no > > > > reactions to actions? What universe do you live in? > > > > > > On May 24, 6:30 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 May, 22:36, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any work on me. > > > > > > > Why > > > > > > > do I have to have a god to something to me? > > > > > > > > Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want people to > > > > > > > enjoy > > > > > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" trying to > > > > > > > kiss god's ass? > > > > > > > If He did, He would have said so...but that's NOT what He said. > > > > > > > > I find it all so pathetic. > > > > > > > You're supposed to. It's a test. You may be failing. How would > > > > > > you > > > > > > know? > > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:57 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree that there are many unanswered questions/unexplained > > > > > > > > phenomena > > > > > > > > and the like which can easily be fit into a nice little man > > > > > > > > made "God > > > > > > > > box". It does seem all too convienient while looking at the > > > > > > > > world > > > > > > > > through eyes such as yours. I also look for "proof" and I often > > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > it in the human experience. Truly I do not count this as > > > > > > > > empirical > > > > > > > > though the numbers are convincing.HA! One might conclude this > > > > > > > > is mass > > > > > > > > dilusions of grandure on a global scale but the diversity of the > > > > > > > > numbers is what is convincing to me. You see, many of these > > > > > > > > "believers" are > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
