Are there any substitutes for having inner peace?

Kant said

quote:

---

Reason is an active principle which ought not to borrow anything from mere authority of others - nay, not even from experience, in cases where the pure use of reason is concerned. But the indolence of very many persons makes them prefer to tread in the footsteps of others rather than to exert their own understandings. (252) Such persons can never be anything but copies of others, and if all men were of this sort the world would for ever remain in one and the same place. It is, therefore, highly necessary and important not to confine the young, as is commonly done, to mere imitation.

---

Introduction to Logic by Immanuel Kant 1963 Philosophical Library New YorkI just am not at peace yet with Russell's

quote:

---

We have not succeeded in proving that any progression or regression in u has a limit, because we do not know an example of a compact series of which no term is not a principal element (in the language of Cantor).

---

page 38 "The logic of relations" in Logic and Knowledge edited by Marsh 1956-1971.I can not say what is the limit in the use of Kant's Transcendental Doctrine of Method in Russell's sphere of thought but that he did not use Cantor's defintions as far as I am trying to biogeometrize that much is triangularly philosophical to me. It is a prejudice of somesort however. I never could have reached these statements by imitating what was attempted in higher education at Cornell. The web shows when the place has moved on.

Dear Wmscott,We certainly are at an impasse, but I cannot let your misstatement of our respective positions go unchallenged.As Rahvin pointed out earlier, there is no requirement that I have to "come up with anything that you find convincing". Both Rahvin and I have rebutted your argument, however.from my post 174 Your response has ignored this.I also note that while you were very willing to question my open-mindedness, you demonstrated your own lack of it by also ignoring the link I posted in the same message. No surprise.This is a debating forum, and you cannot win debates by dodging the difficult questions.All the best, Firebird.

Dear Arachnophilia; lycanthropy- a delusion that one has become a wolf, Merriam-wester's Dictionary, or another animal such as a bull in this case. Nebuchadnezzar went mad for seven years thinking he was a bull or whatever. You should have looked the word up before charging off. Ok, my last post went way over your head, let me see if I can spell it out for you in a way that you can see it for yourself. First in (Isaiah 11:1) "And there must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jesse; and out of his roots a sprout" the Davidic line of kings is represented by the stump of a tree that has been cut down, and Christ will as heir to David's throne, act as a sprout and reestablishes the line of kings by taking the throne as king. So we have a tree here that is cut down and later regrows, which is what we have in Daniel.Next we have Jesus statement that until he came in kingly power, or while the tree was still just a stump, the appointed times of the nations would run.
(Luke 21:24) "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled."
Paul also referred to these times which would run until Christ came in power.
(Ephesians 1:10) "for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth."
In both of these scriptures, "times" that have been "appointed" run while the tree of Jesse is cut down. The question is how many times and where have they been appointed? Jesus referred to the book of Daniel a number of times and his reference to times at Luke 21:24 is a reference to the seven times in Daniel 4:25 just as (Luke 21:27) "they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." is a reference to (Daniel 7:13-14) "a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him." Otherwise, if Luke 21:24 is not a reference to Daniel 4:25, how many are the times that Jesus refers to? And where have they been appointed or stated in the OT?Hopefully if you think about that you will see it. I will leave your other points for other posts so we can stay focused on this point for now. Because you are confusing now with then. The command from God was that the Jews should not form marriage alliances with people of the nations. In Ezra's day, some of the Samaritans wished to help rebuild the temple.
(Ezra 4:2-3) "Let us build along with YOU; for, just like YOU, we search for YOUR God and to him we are sacrificing since the days of Esar-haddon the king of Assyria, who brought us up here." 3 However, Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the paternal houses of Israel said to them: "YOU have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God,"
The Samaritans were regarded even then as being non-Jewish in both their identity and religion and that marring them was the same as marring people of the nations.
(Ezra 9:2) "For they have accepted some of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; and they, the holy seed, have become mingled with the peoples of the lands, and the hand."
That is the ancient Jewish attitude towards the Samaritans recorded in the Bible, Jesus comments in John indicate that was still the view in that day, that the Samaritans were not considered Jews or as practicing the Jewish faith. So your earlier ridiculous post on this is still wrong. In each of the gospels it is clearly stated that they knew that he claimed to be the son of God.
(Matthew 27:43) "for he said, 'I am God's Son.'"
(Mark 15:39) "Certainly this man was God's Son."
(Luke 22:70-71) "Are you, therefore, the Son of God?" He said to them: "YOU yourselves are saying that I am." They said: "Why do we need further witness? For we ourselves have heard [it] out of his own mouth."
(John 19:7) "The Jews answered him: "We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God's son."You don't have a scriptural leg to stand on for this one.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

I'm not an adherent of the JW faith and I disagree vehemently with their doctrine concerning blood transfusions but I thought in fairness I should post the following article and in spite of any controversy the end result is a good news story.Jehovah's Witness teen pronounced cancer-free
CTV.ca News StaffA British Columbia teenager who won a legal battle over her cancer treatment is on her way home to the Okanagan after being pronounced disease free by doctors in New York.The 15-year-old Jehovah's Witness' victory in court enabled her to be transferred from a Vancouver hospital to Schneider Children's Hospital in New York. There, she received cutting edge blood avoidance chemotherapy treatment that began last May."She is doing extremely well, has no evidence of disease at all and we're very optimistic about her being cured," said Dr. Jeffrey Lipton, director of Schneider hospital's Pediatric Hematology-Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation unit.Identified only as Sarah due to a court publication ban, the teenager was diagnosed with osteogenic sarcoma -- the most common type of bone cancer in children -- in her right leg in December, 2004.She was being treated at Vancouver's Children's Hospital but refused to consent to blood transfusions because of her religious beliefs.After losing her fight in a B.C. court for her right to refuse transfusions, Sarah's family appealed to an Ontario judge. But that judge denied her request as well.Sarah learned of the bloodless treatment centre in New York, but the courts refused her request to be treated there.Adults have the right to deny blood transfusions; but children under the age of 18 do not.In mid-May, however, her lawyer Shane Brady said Sarah had been transferred to the New York facility from Vancouver after a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that allowed it -- based on an agreement reached between the director of child, family and community service, the teenager and her parents.Sarah told reporters in New York Monday that she hoped her experience would create change in the Canadian medical system."I hope that other doctors and hospitals will learn from this experience and try to incorporate the blood avoidance program," she said."They've treated me as a woman and not as a child."Sarah's father said he was happy that his daughter was finally able to focus her energy on her treatment."Sarah's been able to fight for her dream on her own terms without having the added stress of fighting the government,'' he said."It's a real victory. This is more of a human rights issue ... Being deemed old enough to make her decision, being treated that way here at the hospital has been great."Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood is a sacred source of life, and they interpret literally a passage from scripture (Acts 15:20) that forbids the ingestion of blood."(The Bible) says if you keep doing these things, then good health to you," said Sarah. "So that was the scripture that I based my decision on, because I want to apply God's standards, and that was one of them."Dr. Lipton told reporters that Sarah was battling an aggressive form of bone tumour that, untreated, has a 100 per cent mortality rate."With chemotherapy, it is largely curable, not 100 per cent ... but (Sarah's) reached a point in her treatment that she has finished her chemotherapy. And by all tests that we have, she shows no evidence of disease. So we're very optimistic in her case."

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Dear Firebird; No there is no requirement that you come up with a convincing counter argument, and you haven't, but if you don't why should I be convinced? The peace from God is only described in the Bible which you reject as proof of anything, which only leaves examples of this special type of inner peace in action, but you have rejected those as well. So it is not that I haven't presented any evidence, I just haven't been able to present any evidence that you accept, and I suspect that you would reject any evidence that supported what I am saying, so what is the point? Since the two of you are already victorious in your own minds, why spoil that with arguments that you will not listen to anyway. I can't make you believe or accept anything you don't want too, so enjoy your hollow victory. Oops! My mistake, I generally cut posts and paste them in my word program so I can take my time and write my responses thoughtfully, and I just missed seeing that the word "here" was in yellow because it was a link. I was waiting for you to present your argument and hadn't realized that you already had. I read over the material in the link and found it mostly old news, despite what the web page claimed, all of this information is available in Watchtower publications, I was aware of it from reading them. It doesn't effect my statement about the date 1914 never having to be changed, it was and still is viewed as the end of the Gentile times. At the time, the Witnesses or IBSA as they were known then, had many misconceptions about what would occur on that date. The web page is on an anti-Witness site and is very negative of course, with some of the quotes taken out of context and some false statements are made, etc. Their main claim that there has been a deliberate attempt to portray Russell as teaching 1914 as the beginning of Christ presence rather than the end as he believed at the time, is unsupported since the apparently erroneous statements quoted could easily be errors on the part of the writer. A writing committee was formed in later years to review pre publication material to prevent this possible sort of mistake or misphrasing as some of the quotes may be. At worst, with over a hundred years of publishing so many magazines and books, the Watchtower has certainly stepped on it's tongue a few times. Like I said, old news, mistakes happen, so what was your point on this anyway?Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

I cannot speak for another poster, but I feel no need to convince you of anything. If you had demonstrated that there was an appreciable difference in health, capability or any other beneficial quality between people with true inner peace and people without it, I would have been seriously interested, and that’s mainly why I responded. I would even agree that people who believe strongly in something have an advantage over those who do not, especially in times of hardship. Your definition of true inner peace, though, is much more restricted than this, and I’ve seen no evidence that inner peace is related to what is believed strongly.Since you do not accept individuals as evidence, perhaps we could consider another religious group. The Society of Friends(aka Quakers) have over many years demonstrated a steadfast refusal to participate in wars, and immense courage in helping and protecting escaped slaves. Yet their beliefs are different from those of JW’s. Another case is the amazing courage displayed by thousands of followers of Mahatma Ghandi, in peacefully resisting British armed forces. How is the inner peace displayed within these groups less than that of JW’s? What have I posted that makes you suspect this? This time you insinuate, rather than assert, closed-mindedness. I would rather by far have seen real evidence concerning inner peace than to have any kind of victory. That does not mean that I’ll accept dismissal as having failed to convince you when you have preached instead of supporting your assertions.Now, to the page I referenced.Firstly, I’ve already mentioned the problem that searching on any material related to JWs gets responses that are emotionally biased for or against the religion. I understand that it is more difficult for you, but please try to address the content rather than your feelings concerning what a former JW may be trying to do.In summary, I understand that your response is that the quotes from Watchtower publications are accurate, but misused to suggest problems which in your opinion, do not exist. Is this correct? But in fact your religion originally believed that Christ would become king in 1874 , so the date has changed I posted the link is because, in response to my comment from post 108: you posted in post 118 So, the link is in support of my rebuttal. JWs (even if known by another name) have had to change the date. And additionally, if you believe that an invisible event occurred on this or that date, fine. But it is not evidence of anything, and therefore does not help your argument concerning the man of lawlessness.Also, you have taken a very invincible, always-right tone, in this thread as in the example below (to MikeHager) - - and I was just trying to suggest that you — and the authors of the Watchtower articles — can be wrong, or even reluctant to admit mistakes - like the rest of us.Cheers, Firebird.

or:

quote:

---

Main Entry: lycanthropy
Pronunciation: lI-'kan(t)-thr&-pE
Function: noun

​

2 : the assumption of the form and characteristics of a wolf held to be possible by witchcraft or magic

---

also, merriam-webster. perhaps you haven't seen simple's thread where he arued that nebuchadnezzar "evolved" into a wolf? also, it's pretty obvious that he didn't THINK he was a wolf. i don't think wolves are common in babylonia, and even if they were, i doubt they eat grass as king nebby did. no, just show me that the "seven times" refers to anything other than the seven times in the next few verses. i'm not arguing that there is not a biblical idea that there will a time of destruction followed by a time of rebirth and heaven on earth. that's more or less the plot of the book of revelation.what i'm saying is that nebuchadnezzar's "lycanthropy" had nothing to do with that, nor does the NUMBER SEVEN. even if it did, it doesn't actually indicate a time frame. i see no references to 1914, for instance.you never answered what happened in 1914. yes, that is the biblical view of samaria. yes, it was present in jesus's day. what i'm saying is that it's clearly evident in ANOTHER GOSPEL, the book of luke, that jesus himself does not buy into that idea. how do you rectify the story of the good samaritan with that view? he's clearly being contrary to the accepted idea that samaritans are the enemies of the jews.he even tells the jews "god and be like the samaritan." psalm 53:1: "There is no God."quotemining is awesome! let's read the WHOLE passage, now, shall we?

quote:

---

Mat 27:41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking [him], with the scribes and elders, said,
Mat 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
Mat 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

---

they are saying that he said that. did he? show me where? are the people accusing him of the crime he supposedly commited right? if so, well, i really hope you don't like salvation. if they're right -- there is none. your faith relies on not believing these people.

quote:

---

Mar 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

---

after jesus is dead, someone else says it. hey, that's ok. we're asking if JESUS said it. you're still taking christ's accusers words over his own. he doesn't say he is. he doesn't deny it, either. he says that THEY are making that claim, not him. they are being decietful. no, actually, you don't. that's pretty evident from the fact that you have to resort to intellectual dishonesty to prove your point: quotemining and citing the opponent's argument.

---

אָרַח

Dear Firebird; Yes. Originally believed yes, made the prediction no, the date of 1874 was made by someone else and was taught by IBSA for some time. The date 1914 has not been changed, it was and still is viewed as the end of the gentile times. What did change was what they thought happened on that date, they later realized that Christ's presence started on that date rather than 1874. Once the date 1914 was viewed as the start of Christ's presence, it has never been changed. Yes we have made only one prediction, but did once teach an earlier date inherited from someone else. I should have been more clear here and just referred to the end of the gentile times rather than the start of Christ's presence which wasn't understood until after 1914. The two events are connected, and the date was known early, just that it is easy to forget that Russell messed up the presence part of it and only had half of it right. So on technical points I have to say that I messed up and over stated my case by referring to Christ's presence when I should have just referred to the end of the gentile times. I think that is what happened in the Watchtower quotes, they messed up like I did, it is so easy to do. The two events happened on the same date, but Russell only had the date right for one and not the other. We all make mistakes and we do not view anything the Watchtower publishes as inspired and they have had to changes things and have admitted their mistakes. w80 3/15 p. 17 "statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated." yb80 pp. 30-31 "The brothers also appreciated the candor of this same talk, which acknowledged the Society's responsibility for some of the disappointment a number felt regarding 1975."Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Arachnophilia; The parallelism between the tree in Daniel and the stump of Jesse is obvious that they are one in the same. Daniel 4:17 "that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind."" The stated purpose of the dream and what happened to Nebuchadnezzar was to show mankind that God is the rightful ruler over mankind and he gives the throne to whom he wants, "the lowliest one of mankind" Jesus Christ, who was rejected by most people and executed as a criminal. Isaiah 53:3 "He was despised, and we held him as of no account."The tree is cut down for seven times, so the question is, how long is a time? Here in the next two verses we see the same time period given in both days and times.
Revelation 12:14 "But the two wings of the great eagle were given the woman, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place; there is where she is fed for a time and times and half a time away from the face of the serpent." (1+2+=3)Revelation 12:6 "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and sixty days."Take the 1,260 days and divide by 3.5 = 360 days per time. Is this for real? Yes look at the same thing in this verse.
Revelation 11:2-3 "and they will trample the holy city underfoot for forty-two months. And I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days dressed in sackcloth.""
Once again, 1,260 days equals 42 months or 3.5 times. Daniel also referred to the period of three and half times. Daniel 12:7 "It will be for an appointed time, appointed times and a half." So the tree in Daniel is cut down for 7 times or 2,520 days. Now since the time of the gentiles was still in effect when Jesus was on earth, Luke 21:24 "and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled." and run until he comes as King, the 2,520 days are longer than a literial period of 2,520 days. Sometimes days stand for years in the Bible.Numbers 14:34 "By the number of the days that YOU spied out the land, forty days, a day for a year, a day for a year, YOU will answer for YOUR errors forty years,"
Ezekiel 4:6 "And you must lie upon your right side in the second case, and you must carry the error of the house of Judah forty days. A day for a year, a day for a year,"
Ezekiel 4:4-5 "And as for you, lie upon your left side, and you must lay the error of the house of Israel upon it. For the number of the days that you will lie upon it you will carry their error. And I myself must give to you the years of their error to the number of three hundred and ninety days, and you must carry the error of the house of Israel."Now 2,520 years would run from the biblical date for the destruction of Jerusalem of 607 BC down to the year 1914. The Biblical date for the destruction of Jerusalem is twenty years earlier than the currently accepted date in secular history. The Biblcial date is the correct date as shown by the fact that both Biblical dates and secular dates agree on the destruction of Bablyon and the later release of the Jews. If the historical date was correct the Jews would have been in bablyon for 50 years instead of the 70 years that the Bible states. The fact that it was 70 years is shown by what the Bible writers wrote.Jeremiah 25:11 " And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."'"2 Chronicles 36:21 "to fulfill Jehovah's word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."Daniel 9:2 "in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years."Zechariah 1:12 "So the angel of Jehovah answered and said: "O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?""Zechariah 7:5 ""Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, 'When YOU fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth [month] and in the seventh [month], and this for seventy years, did YOU really fast to me, even me?"They all agree that it was 70 years and not 50. So the starting point for the times of the gentiles is 70 years back from the relase of the Jews from captivity, or 607 BC.Now as to what happen in 1914 is that the times of the gentiles ended and the tree was unbanded and Jesus Christ became king in the messianic kingdom in heaven as the Davidic heir to the throne. Starting with this we entered into the last days, the time of the end, as described in Matthew the 24th chapter. Mark 14:61-62 ""Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed One?" Then Jesus said: "I am; and YOU persons will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven."" This scripture was in my last post, it shoots down your whole argument, yet you persist in contradicting the Word of God. You also accuse me of "quotemining" in an attempt to prove that the Jewish leaders thought that Jesus was God's Son, which was not what I was doing. You had claimed in your earlier post that Jesus did not tell the Jewish leaders that he was God's son, while the above verse shows that is exactly what he did. Luke 17:16-18 "And he fell upon his face at [Jesus'] feet, thanking him; furthermore, he was a Samaritan. In reply Jesus said: "The ten were cleansed, were they not? Where, then, are the other nine? Were none found that turned back to give glory to God but this man of another nation?""See, even in Luke Jesus himself states that Samaritans are not Jews, but are considered people of another nation. The reason Jesus used the story of the good Samaritan was because of the Jews dislike for the Samaritans, here someone they looked down on was the one that helped when the ones that should have, walked right by. It is like telling a story of a poor southern farmer in need who is deserted by all his friends and neighbors, but is rescued by a kindly black man, to a prejudiced southern white audience. It gives the story a much greater impact and carries the message that we should be will to help those that other people look down on. Jesus clearly didn't look down on the Samaritans or he wouldn't have preached to them, but he did not consider them as Jews or as practicing the Jewish faith. So your earlier ridiculous post on this is still wrong.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

From http://home.earthlink.net/~defender/de01011.htm"The Watchtower organization claims to be the only channel of communication between God and man. The following quotes support this assertion:Is not the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society the one and only channel which the Lord has used in dispensing his truth continually since the beginning of the harvest period? (Watchtower, April 1, 1919)
Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do. (Watchtower, Dec. 1, 1981)Testimony from a court trial in 1943 is even more revealing. Olin Moyle, a member of the Watchtower legal staff, sued Joseph Rutherford and several members of the board of directors in 1939 for libel and won his case. Under oath the leaders of the Watchtower organization claimed that God is responsible for all the information contained in The Watchtower. Fred Franz, a Watchtower Vice-President, gave the following testimony under oath:Q: At any rate, Jehovah God is now the editor of the paper, is that right? Franz: He is today the editor of the paper. Q: How long has He been editor of the paper? Franz: Since its inception he has been guiding it. Q: Even before 1931? Franz: Yes, sir.
Nathan Knorr, the Watchtower President, gave the following testimony under oath:
Q: But you don't make any such statement, that you are subject to correction, in your Watch Tower papers, do you? Knorr: Not that I recall. Q: In fact, it is set forth directly as God's Word, isn't it? Knorr: Yes, as His word. Q: Without any qualification whatsoever? Knorr: That is right.
The Watchtower leaders claim that God Himself is the editor of Watchtower publications and that these publications are set forth as God's word. The Watchtower claims that 'truths' set forth in Watchtower publications should be considered 'light' or 'new light'. Let's take the time and examine this 'light'."So which is it, Scotty, inspired or no?edited for clarityThis message has been edited by Nighttrain, 08-26-2005 12:45 AM

yeah. ok, let's look at that.

quote:

---

Dan 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

---

sound familiar?

quote:

---

Gen 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

---

here's something actually written by king nebuchadnezzar of babylon, on the ziggurat at borsippa:

quote:

---

I have completed its magnificence with silver, gold, other metals, stone, enameled bricks, fir and pine. The first which is the house of the earth’s base, the most ancient monument of Babylon; I built and finished it. I have highly exalted its head with bricks covered with copper. We say for the other, that is, this edifice, the house of the seven lights of the earth, the most ancient monument of Borsippa. A former king built it, (they reckon 42 ages) but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time, people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words. Since that time the earthquake and the thunder had dispersed the sun-dried clay. The bricks of the casing had been split, and the earth of the interior had been scattered in heaps. Merodach, the great god, excited my mind to repair this building. I did not change the site nor did I take away the foundation. In a fortunate month, in an auspicious day, I undertook to build porticoes around the crude brick masses, and the casing of burnt bricks. I adapted the circuits, I put the inscription of my name in the Kitir of the portico. I set my hand to finish it. And to exalt its head. As it had been in ancient days, so I exalted its summit.

---

kinda sounds like bab-el doesn't it? nebuchadnezzar completed the monument in about 623 bc. you will see lots of biblical references to it, particular to god destroying the monument, or nebuchadnezzar claiming he's as high as god and god tossing him (see isaiah 14).daniel 4 is no exception.

quote:

---

Dan 4:20 The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth;

​

Dan 4:21 Whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation:

​

Dan 4:22 It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.

---

the tree = nebuchadnezzar, as per the text of daniel of daniel 4. and he does it by cutting down the tree of nebuchadnezzar. this is a very common jewish theme in the bible. god rules the world, and give authority to whom he wants -- means "god's coming to get you." shall i refer you to isaiah 14 again? ezekiel 28? it's all over.(those verses are commonly confused with refences to the devil. you're confusing this one with a reference to god. just try to get the text straight before you make ridiculous commentary) doesn't matter. the prophecy is fulfilled IN THE SAME CHAPTER.

quote:

---

Dan 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling [shall be] with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

​

Dan 4:33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' [feathers], and his nails like birds' [claws].

---

i'm sorry. the rest of this numerological crap just doesn't matter. you're wrong at the very first assumption. it applies to nebuchadnezzar, PERIOD. end of prophecy. that's a still a little different from the following:

quote:

---

Jhn 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

​

Jhn 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

​

Jhn 5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

​

Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

​

Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

---

quote:

---

Jhn 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

​

Jhn 9:36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?

​

Jhn 9:37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.

---

quote:

---

Jhn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

---

in mark, jesus admits it under pressure, and then reverts to calling himself "the son of man" or "lowly mortal." admitting something under interrogation and walking around preaching it are a little different. yes, and he's using it to get at the jews, too. he's saying the samaritans were better jews than the jews. and do you think jesus would be against black people?this is pretty basic bible-study, scott. jesus says love your neighbors. jesus says love your enemies. the samaritans are one or the other. jesus is not about exclusion and hatred. any attempt to say that he is, i consider blasphemy, and more importantly hypocracy -- if jesus excludes outsiders, than none of us are saved.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-26-2005 05:12 PM

---

אָרַח

Hi Wmscott, Fair enough. My point was never to suggest that your beliefs are better or worse than mine, only that they cannot be a basis for proving something to anyone who believes differently.That's why I looked for some research work to find a common ground, something verifiable. Even if the results are of limited significance, at least it is something based in fact.Well, in the absence of such work, I guess my position stays the same - no formula or set path to inner peace, but a strong belief does give people a focus.All the best, Firebird.

Well, I've been gone from these boards for a few weeks it seems, being satisfied at the final points I drove home. It seems as if they've yet to be accepted, and If I was in the debating mood, I'd go over the posts, point by point. But actually, we're actually getting to the point where that probably won't even accomplish much. I realize this is a message board, and the purpose is to debate and argue, but when people are being unreasonable with their reasoning skills (as I feel...to avoid conflict), it just begins to become one big waste. I thought we already went over this.... Anyway, if your're going to keep with your defiant stance, which appears to be: "you can't give me any cold hard facts, therefore, I will shove it in your face..." then there really is no point in continuing. Please re-read what I had originally posted. You can't argue that, and that's the thing. Peace is defined as "Inner contentment; serenity." The above is clearly just that. All you can say, is I haven't provided any "statistical data," which is really just a cop-out. You know the above is true, whether or not you can say on a message board, "You haven't proven anything." And if I can't make it past that baby step--no intention at talking down to you, but that was posted a while back--there is no need to continue this discussion.It's actually a good thing that I'm not in a debating mood, because If I were I figure we'd keep going round and round. I imagine--and if I was a gambler I'd put big money on this--that you're still going to be in defiance of the above. And that's fine, you're your own person, and get to defy whatever you choose (It's actually becoming more than evident that the defiance stems from you believing you have no hope after death yourself, and perhaps being in somewhat of a denial over where that leaves you--actually proving my point some more, perhaps jealousy?--... your subjective stance is extremely conspicuous). When it's relentless, however, it can tend to get aggravating, so I'm sure I'm doing everyone a favor. I guess--even though I really hope for your sake (IMO) you're just playing devil's advocate--we'll have to agree to disagree.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-05-2005 05:49 PM

No, WmScott, I am not. I hope that clears some things up for you.It's just some of the egregiously odious stances that were being taken against you, I couldn't let go. When someone is being ganged up upon by others who I don't even feel are in the right, I simply can't stand for that. When you have a message board full of mostly flagrant atheists, you're walking in a dark ally at night. It's not the safest place to get ideas across. I only wish there was one other person to support me, with my conspicuously accurate viewpoint. (And no, I never asked you to agree with my last statement )P.S.- I realize the slightly frequent name calling I used in my posts was wrong, and not proper and mature message board etiquette, so I'm asking for your beforehand forgiveness. I try my best not to use it, but it's really necessary if I want to fully convey how I feel. That's somewhat important correct?I take it everyone here is so pugnacious because they feel that they have just as much inner peace as any Christian? Am I right, or am I right? I'm not saying it's not possible to live a happy, full, and peaceful life as an atheist, but you must accept that what I've stuck to is true. There is no shame in accepting, just living in denial.Take my grandmother for example. She's near her death, and all that gives her comfort is the fact that she has a hope for the future. It keeps her going, very very much so. And this is just one individual example, but it helps to exemplify that as a whole, what I speak is true.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-06-2005 11:24 PM

But that's something different than you've been arguing. You haven't been arguing for peace, you've been arguing for true peace. To extend your excellent candy example, which child is truly peaceful? The child who wants candy, has been told that he will get candy, but who never will; or the child who has accepted that no candy is coming and no longer desires it?How can true peace come from false hope? That doesn't appear to be a question you're prepared to answer.