Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Programming
Kader
Member (Idle past 3726 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 166 of 223 (372774)
12-29-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by jar
12-29-2006 12:51 PM


Re: On Maps
The Bible is NOT more of a Map than Greek Mythology. How many times must I say this. All religions are but Maps, none are the actual Territory.
All Maps will have areas of greater correspondence with the Territory, and areas where there is lesser or even total disagreement with the Territory.
I brought up Jack and the Beanstalk way back in this thread as a perfect example. Other good examples are the Pied Piper or the parables of Jesus.
While none of these are factually correct, they are also all true from the point of view of teaching lessons.
The Bible is the same. There are many parts of the Bible that are simply not factually true. The flood certainly has not happened in at least the last 600,000 years, the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan certainly never happened as described in the Bible, there was never a confusion of languages that stopped the building of a tower, the descriptions of Creation found in Genesis are incorrect.
Those things have nothing to do with the validity of the message of the Bible.
As to other myths, they too are but Maps. And in places they can be tested against a Territory. Where the Maps do not correspond to the Territory, it is the Map that is wrong.
You continue to claim conditioning.
If my Christian beliefs were solely the result of conditioning, why would I be testing the Map against the Territory?
I'm sorry but I dont see how you see yourself as a christian if you think greek mythology is as valid as the bible.
If all religions are only map, why call yourself a christian ? There is fundamental difference in christianity vs other religions. You cannot simply accept all religious belief to be equal.
I understand that you view every religion as maps, but why did you chose christianity ? Meaning why you believe in Jesus and not in Zeus ?
And when you are testing the map against the terrotory what are you testing ?
Ps: Dont lose patience with me Im trying my best to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 12-29-2006 12:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by jar, posted 12-29-2006 2:05 PM Kader has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 167 of 223 (372782)
12-29-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Kader
12-28-2006 10:34 AM


I will take a chance at replying to you again, since from reading the thread it seems like no progress is being made.
And I would like to ask you how it is that you keep denying the possibility that YOUR beliefs are programmed? Are you saying that the default position of humanity is to never think about God unless someone else told you to?
I would disagree. The belief in a higher power of some form or another has sprung up in every corner of the globe. The only thing we may be conditioned to is how we describe the higher power.
If you were to lock an infant in a cell until it became adult, do you absolutely think that the adult would NEVER wonder if there was something more to life? Being in a cell he would almost certainly wonder. What is the difference if our cell is large or small? The oceans used to be boundaries, and we wondered. The skies were boundaries, and we wondered. It may be controversial of me to say so, but being atheist could be putting limits on the extent of our curiousity.
Kader writes:
Well on the ground that it happen 2000 years ago, and the way it have come to you isn't orally (not anymore anyways) it's from a book. Who would argue that christianity is though from a book (or any religion for that matter..any religions I know of) ? I don't think a bunch of people who discovered jesus just by looking in there innerselves.
The Bible did not start religion, ok? It is a collection of stories which God fearing men wrote to illustrate their beliefs, or even stories about times when God helped them to understand their beliefs. That is what I mean, after the fact. Whether it is oral or written has no impact if the same stories are being told. BTW people do not discover Jesus by looking in there inner selves, but they could discover God, and if you believe Jesus is God, it is the same difference.
So where else ? Oh and when you say written after-the-facts, well, what im trying to say is your taking them for facts. Your taking Jesus for a fact, million of people do. Million of people believe that mohamed is the last prophet and Jesus was a prophet too. They think of it as a fact. While in reality it is only a belief. It can be a fairy tale or for all you know jesus might of been a prophet.
Whether Jesus is a fairy tale or not, the gospels were written AFTER the fact, even if it is just the fact that some man invented Jesus. I DO believe Jesus was a prophet, and I do not see any reason to not believe in his existance OR the existance of Muhamed, Buddha, etc. For that matter, how can I ever prove there was an Aristotle? Beyond any shadow of doubt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Kader, posted 12-28-2006 10:34 AM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 5:59 PM anastasia has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 168 of 223 (372785)
12-29-2006 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Kader
12-29-2006 1:16 PM


Re: On Maps
I'm sorry but I dont see how you see yourself as a christian if you think greek mythology is as valid as the bible.
Just where do you get the idea that I think that?
I have said, and I repeat, that all religions are but Maps.
Imagine you are visiting some new country. There are all kinds of maps you can get, from ones hand drawn on the back of an envelope to ones produced by restaurants in the area that show only their locations to atlases that show the general outlines or political boundaries. Some will be more current than others, some more detailed, some oriented to a particular area of interest.
If all religions are only map, why call yourself a christian ? There is fundamental difference in christianity vs other religions. You cannot simply accept all religious belief to be equal.
I call myself a Christian because that happens to be the Map I am currently using. No where have I ever said that all religious beliefs are equal. In fact, I have said that many religious beliefs are quite wrong.
I understand that you view every religion as maps, but why did you chose christianity ? Meaning why you believe in Jesus and not in Zeus ?
Well, if you test the myth of Zeus Thunderbolt against what we now know to be facts, we find that many of the features of the Map Greek Mythology are simply incorrect. Thunder and lightning are not caused by an angered God, there is no domain and residency of Gods on Mount Olympus.
Deciding between the Map called Greek Mythology and the Map called Christianity is simply based on comparing the relative accuracy of those parts of the Map that can be tested.
And when you are testing the map against the terrotory what are you testing ?
There are limits to what can be tested. For example, the absolute existence of GOD cannot be tested. As I have pointed out many times at EvC:
If GOD exists, She exists regardless of any evidence She does not exist.
If GOD does not exist, It does not exist regardless of any evidence that GOD does exist.
What can be tested varies. Some things like a home of the Gods on Mount Olympus or the actuality of a Flood can be tested.
Tenets of Faith can be tested. Is the lesson "Love others as you love yourself" a valid one?
Other things remain untestable. Is there life after death? Will we be judged? Will the judgment be based on how we have lived our lives or on some arbitrary thing such as acknowledgment of some deity or individual?
No one knows the answers to such questions. We can though base our beliefs about such questions on reason or logic and I have explained some of my reasoning about such questions many times here at EvC.
The point is that a persons beliefs can be based on reason. Granted, many folk may well be programmed or conditioned, but that is not universal. Take some time to look at the writings of Bishop Spong or Richard Holloway.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 1:16 PM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 6:09 PM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 223 (372793)
12-29-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Kader
12-29-2006 1:07 PM


Re: critical?
But why I did argue is simply because I am taking in consideration the scientifical value of theses evidence.
Initially you were saying that my subjective evidence is not evidence at all. Now you are saying that it is not scientifical evidence. Well I agree that it is not scientific evidence.
Since science is the only way we have to understand the world around us.
That is not true (I’d agree it’s the best way though). And that’s one of the reasons I can rely on my subjective evidence to come to a conclusion.
Personal evidence is not something we should base anything on.
I tend to agree but one exception is using a witness as evidence in a court case. A verdict could be based on that personal evidence.
I mean, you can then simply say that to you the sky is red and that is evidence enought to believe it is so. Thats not how it should be. First you must validate thoses evidence against what we know.
That’s one of those annoying things you do. If I take the position that something can be based on personal evidence it doesn’t me I am saying that everything can be based on personal evidence. Thinking up a ridiculous example of basing something on personal evidence does not mean that nothing can be based on it. Let alone that I never even said that any personal evidence is enough to believe something.
Also, if I look up at the sky and it looks red, then that IS evidence to believe that it is red. One persons eyesight is not scientific evidence for determining the color of the sky but it IS evidence, for that person that science might be wrong about the color of the sky. That individuals critical thinking comes into play in determining if what they are witnessing if wrong or not. What we cannot say, though, is that the person’s vision of a red sky is not evidence at all. Sure its evidence, its just not scientific or objective evidence. I’ll call it subjective evidence.
And so If god appears to someone, it is (you were right) an evidence FOR HIM. But is it an evidence we can base ourselve to believe ? Of course not. (the example of Muhammed)
For sure we can base a conclusion for ourselves with subjective evidence. I conclude that Muhammad was wrong.
I also conclude that I have a soul and that God exists with subjective evidence that was not received from conditioning. This is why I am arguing against your claim that all religious belief comes from conditioning. Now, I realize that you are backing away from this claim and changing it to most religious belief is conditioning, but if that was your original claim then we wouldn’t be arguing, because I would have agreed with you. You have also made some sorta claim that belief in the bible comes from conditioning but I haven’t really touched that one.
I contend, the I, myself, am an example of a person who believes in a religion, not because of conditioning, but because I have come to that conclusion with subjective evidence. That is why I think your claim that all religious belief comes from conditioning is wrong. I also think that jar is another example that disproves your theory. If you want to change that all to a most then I won’t argue with you. (well maybe on how were gonna decide which people are conditioned and which ones aren’t so that we can determine which one there are more of.)
Ah, but that is a new religion. I'm talking about the source of religion, in general. If it can only come from conditioning, then it couldn't have arrisen in the first place. There has to be some other cause which, admittedly, doesn't have to be god.
I do not know the source of religions. But if I follow the train of though, Scientolody doesn't condition people since it couldn't have arisen.
Ill try to explain why I said that
If it can only come from conditioning (teh religious belief)
then it couldn't have arrisen in the first place.
But I’m not talking about a specific religious belief. I’m talking wholly about religion, in general. If it can only come from condition then it could not emerge. There has to have been some cause other than conditioning for religion to have emerged.
Well first I think that Scientology followers are conditionned (there is nothing logical in there belief, how can someone blindly belief in Xenu an evil ruler of the univers otherwise ?)
If they are only conditioned the you’re wrong. If it was soley from conditioning, then how could someone like Tom Cruise, who converted to scientology late in his lifetime be conditioned to believe it? Here I’m thinking of condition in the typical sense of religious conditioning where as you are raised as a child to believe something and that’s why you believe it. This is how conditioning has been used in this thread. Certainly you could argue that Tom Cruise was brainwashed, a form a conditioning, to believe in scientology, but that would fuck up the analogy. The point is, Tom Cruise probably was shown some kind of evidence (no matter how ridiculous it was) that scientology is true, before he decided to become a scientologist. I doubt that he was simply brainwashed.
But anyways, for the purpose of discussion I will agree that all scientologists are conditioned.
If we agree they are conditionned, then If i follow your train of thoughs it couldn't have arisen in the first place. Understand how I came with this conclusion ?
But that is not my train of thought (annoying). Even if scientology was a result of conditioning alone, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have emerged because religions have existed before it emerged. If they are a product of conditioning, then they scientologist conditioners would be able to use previous religion’s techniques to condition people to a different religion.
My point was that if that is the only way that religious beliefs can be formed, then the first religion could never have emerged because it wouldn’t have been able to be conditioned. It would have been something entirely new. That’s why there has to exist some other cause for religion, as a whole, to emerge in the distant past. It says nothing about new religions emerging today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 1:07 PM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 6:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3726 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 170 of 223 (372828)
12-29-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by anastasia
12-29-2006 1:52 PM


And I would like to ask you how it is that you keep denying the possibility that YOUR beliefs are programmed? Are you saying that the default position of humanity is to never think about God unless someone else told you to?
-It is quite natural to ask question about our existance and how we came to be.
-It is also quite natural to fill this "ignorance"
Does that warrant the belief in a religious book ? No
-The bible is today the only "proof" that jesus ever existed.
-No record of biblical miracle have been registered(scientifically)
-No divine intervention have been recorded (scientifically)
-The existance of Jesus has never been prooved (scientifically)
-Science is the most reliable tool we have to observe the world around us
-Science has enabled us to predict what will happen accuratly(theorically)
Today we're just believing in somthing different, that's it, and history showed us how our ancestor were wrong in there worship. Are we really better then them ? They believed with NO DOUBT that X god(s) existed, they went as far as to sacrifice themselve. It takes a lot of faith to do that.
We know today (some thousand of years later) that they were just a bunch of primitive people and there ignorance fuelled there faith.
The more scientific knowledge people acquire, the less religious they are. The more we understand the world around us, the less you are inclined to believe in God (biblical or islamic or somethin like that).
It may be controversial of me to say so, but being atheist could be putting limits on the extent of our curiousity.
I completly agree. Certainty kill the advancment of humanity. So every atheist (the one that are SURE that God doesn't exist) are on the wrong path in my opinion. But the same applies to the faithful believer.
Worst, the believer thinks they know the absloute truth of life.
The Bible did not start religion, ok? It is a collection of stories which God fearing men wrote to illustrate their beliefs, or even stories about times when God helped them to understand their beliefs. That is what I mean, after the fact.
The Bible could very well be a story. And I don't see any other reason to believe in this story but for conditionning (cultural conditionning or programming from parents at a very young age) Everyone knows about Jesus because of the Bible. But the bible is NOT a proof of jesus.
Faith mostly fill the gap science can't yet understand or answer.
But when science doens't fit what the bible says, most believer find themsels excuses. THAT is what conditioning is. Something it is very hard to detach ourselves from.
BTW people do not discover Jesus by looking in there inner selves, but they could discover God, and if you believe Jesus is God, it is the same difference.
People discover God within themselves? No, people are tought about God. I don't know any example of someone who found God with no basic religious knowledge.
For that matter, how can I ever prove there was an Aristotle? Beyond any shadow of doubt?
Nop but there is more scientifical evidence to show that aristote existed then Jesus existed. So to believe in aristote (or simply the work of someone who used a pseudonym) is more founded then the belief in Jesus or Muhammed(as the prophet of God and not just a con artist).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by anastasia, posted 12-29-2006 1:52 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3726 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 171 of 223 (372831)
12-29-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by jar
12-29-2006 2:05 PM


Re: On Maps
Okay JAr, you sure are a special christian
Look it might be how I view the word : christian.
To me a christian believe in life after death and believe in Jesus, He believe in the story of adam & Eve because with no original sin there is no Jesus, he believe in the Bible (albeit there is many possible interpretation).
s there life after death? Will we be judged? Will the judgment be based on how we have lived our lives or on some arbitrary thing such as acknowledgment of some deity or individual?
No one knows the answers to such questions. We can though base our beliefs about such questions on reason or logic and I have explained some of my reasoning about such questions many times here at EvC.
The point is that a persons beliefs can be based on reason. Granted, many folk may well be programmed or conditioned, but that is not universal. Take some time to look at the writings of Bishop Spong or Richard Holloway.
Christian knows the answer to thoses questions,
To a christian there is a life after death
there will be a judgment
etc etc
Since you seem not to know the answer to theses questions, you are not a christian (as per my definition...) So I ve been trying to understand you, but your definition of christian isn't at all the same as mine.
Deciding between the Map called Greek Mythology and the Map called Christianity is simply based on comparing the relative accuracy of those parts of the Map that can be tested.
To you is christianity the most accurate maps we have ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by jar, posted 12-29-2006 2:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 12-29-2006 6:55 PM Kader has replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3726 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 172 of 223 (372836)
12-29-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by New Cat's Eye
12-29-2006 2:53 PM


Re: critical?
Catholic Scientist lets resume
You believe in God because of evidence (for your mind)
Theses evidences are never (not even one of em) scientifically validated
And then you conclude with evidence you gathered (evidence that have no scientifical weight at all) that God and Jesus exist.
Is this right ?
Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-29-2006 2:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-02-2007 11:33 AM Kader has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 173 of 223 (372837)
12-29-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Kader
12-29-2006 6:09 PM


Re: On Maps
To me a christian believe in life after death and believe in Jesus, He believe in the story of adam & Eve because with no original sin there is no Jesus, he believe in the Bible (albeit there is many possible interpretation).
Well that simply shows that you have a very limited knowledge of Christianity. The story of Adam and Eve is simply fable, poetic, and certainly not to be taken literally. Original Sin is a fairly recent concept, mostly post reformation. There are quite a few of us Christians that consider all of the stories in Genesis as allegory and poetic.
Christian knows the answer to thoses questions,
To a christian there is a life after death
there will be a judgment
etc etc
While many of us believe we know the answer and a few might even claim to actually know the answers, they are simply lying to themselves. None of us can really know such answers until after we die.
Since you seem not to know the answer to theses questions, you are not a christian (as per my definition...) So I ve been trying to understand you, but your definition of christian isn't at all the same as mine.
You are of course, welcome to hold any such beliefs you want. Worry not, you are not the first person to make such assertions. Fortunately, your opinion of whether or not I am a Christian is of no worth or importance.
But is it possible that your definition of a Christian is what is limited?
To you is christianity the most accurate maps we have ?
Actually, I think quite a few Maps are as accurate overall as Christianity. I imagine overall Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and many other Maps work well.
Remember that the Map is only one part. The reader must also be able to read and interpret the Map. Some folk just plain can't read a map no how.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 6:09 PM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 8:03 PM jar has replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3726 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 174 of 223 (372843)
12-29-2006 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by jar
12-29-2006 6:55 PM


Re: On Maps
While many of us believe we know the answer and a few might even claim to actually know the answers, they are simply lying to themselves. None of us can really know such answers until after we die.
Well yes I agree with you although most christian don't.
You are of course, welcome to hold any such beliefs you want. Worry not, you are not the first person to make such assertions. Fortunately, your opinion of whether or not I am a Christian is of no worth or importance.
Yes I know ..But im not the first person for a reason. Although I honestly think your way of thinking is more logical. (simply put, you do not replace ignorance with faith..not all the time)
If you do not know if there is life after death, you are wiser then most christian I know.
What is the christian belief
Believing in hevaen is pretty mandatory from what I can see. But neverthe less
Back on topic.
So Jar.
You disagree that cultural conditionment (or any kind) is not the factor for your belief.
But what then how can you explain the belief in God without any scientific evidence ?
How can we get to believe in God in the first place with no scientifical evidence ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 12-29-2006 6:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 12-29-2006 8:23 PM Kader has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 175 of 223 (372846)
12-29-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Kader
12-29-2006 8:03 PM


Re: On Maps
You disagree that cultural conditionment (or any kind) is not the factor for your belief.
No, that is NOT what I said. What I have said is that my beliefs are not solely the result of conditioning. I have said that to claim that all beliefs is just conditioning is overly simplistic.
Please.
I don't fit in small boxes.
But what then how can you explain the belief in God without any scientific evidence ?
How can we get to believe in God in the first place with no scientifical evidence ?
The existence or non-existence of something that by definition is supernatural is not subject to scientific inquiry. It is just one of those questions where science is irrelevant.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 8:03 PM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 9:10 PM jar has replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3726 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 176 of 223 (372851)
12-29-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by jar
12-29-2006 8:23 PM


Re: On Maps
quote:
The supernatural involves faith, because it pretends not only that nature is not working the way it ordinarily does, but also pretends to be able to explain it -- those laws are being deliberately suspended by agents who are somehow "above" or "beyond" nature. The element of wilful action on the part of sentient beings (gods, by any other name), prevents an atheistic outlook from including any notion of the supernatural.
Science isn't irrelevent. For example supernatural event can still be recorded by science.
ie :
Someone that dies and then ressurect.
The power of prayers
So the question is never if god exist.
It is always "do we EVER have recorder supernatural events". Do we have any scientific data that would corroborate the validity of a religions ?
If not, then the other option I can see is conditionning.
Do you see another?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 12-29-2006 8:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 12-29-2006 9:17 PM Kader has replied
 Message 180 by anastasia, posted 12-29-2006 10:49 PM Kader has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 177 of 223 (372853)
12-29-2006 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Kader
12-29-2006 9:10 PM


Re: On Maps
Science isn't irrelevent. For example supernatural event can still be recorded by science.
Of course science is irrelevant to the supernatural. If science can explain it it is not supernatural.
Religion, God, beliefs in an afterlife can be reasoned. They could be wishful thinking, they could be simply a hope.
But that is NOT conditioning.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 9:10 PM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 10:02 PM jar has replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3726 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 178 of 223 (372869)
12-29-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by jar
12-29-2006 9:17 PM


Re: On Maps
Religion, God, beliefs in an afterlife can be reasoned. They could be wishful thinking, they could be simply a hope.
But that is NOT conditioning.
Yet im talking about people that believe, not people that hope or wish.
Just for a moment lets talk about christian that knows that there is life after death or the one that think the bible is the word of God.
EDIT :
Of course science is irrelevant to the supernatural. If science can explain it it is not supernatural.
Recording and explaining is quite different. Science may lack an explanation, but we didnt even record any supernatural event. (like for example the disapearance of a mountain)
Edited by Kader, : No reason given.
Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 12-29-2006 9:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 12-29-2006 10:11 PM Kader has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 179 of 223 (372870)
12-29-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Kader
12-29-2006 10:02 PM


Re: On Maps
Yet im talking about people that believe, not people that hope or wish.
What is your point? I believe in an afterlife. I also acknowledge that I may well be wrong.
Just for a moment lets talk about christian that knows that there is life after death or the one that think the bible is the word of God.
No one can KNOW that there is life after death.
What does the phrase "word of God" mean?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 10:02 PM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 11:33 PM jar has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 180 of 223 (372881)
12-29-2006 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Kader
12-29-2006 9:10 PM


Re: On Maps
[qs=Kader]If not, then the other option I can see is conditionning. Do you see another.{/qs
Let's see...we have;
A. Proof that God exists/validity of a religion.
B. Someone 'programming' us to believe.
C. Belief?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 9:10 PM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Kader, posted 12-29-2006 11:29 PM anastasia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024