Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Chatter / Re: Indiana (New Church)
« Last post by Nick on Today at 08:45:48 AM »
The fix will be nothing more than word massaging.  And it looks like Arkansas wants to jump into the fire.
12
Chatter / Artist Luis Quiles caught my attention this morning
« Last post by Jag on Today at 08:19:06 AM »
Spanish artist reveals the ugly side of society in controversial illustrations

There's some interesting ideas raised in these images.
13
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Mind, the Brain and Free Will
« Last post by Graybeard on Today at 08:00:34 AM »
14
Evolution & Creationism / Re: Does evolution disprove (bible) god?
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Today at 07:44:50 AM »
Thank you, NGFM. :)

By the way, did you know that nearly 8 % of or DNA is VIRAL???

Meaning, 8 % of our DNA came from parasites and whatnot that infected our ancestors' cells, after which their RNA was reverse transcripted into our own chromosomes, and boom. Just more sources of diversity and chance mutations. :)

And many of the viral DNA are prehuman infections which directly contradicts the creation story.
15
Religion & Society / Re: Atheist only!
« Last post by junebug72 on Today at 07:39:34 AM »
I thought there would be; more.  Votes that is.  I like the Humanism philosophy.  You can not make a conclusion with so few votes.  Looks like this survey may take a while or drop dead. 

I got the answer I was looking for.  That's all that matters.
16
General Religious Discussion / Re: Determinism vs Free Will.
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Today at 06:53:24 AM »
But, in Acts, what we actually see is Paul bickering with the Jews, and being persecuted from them.  While he has a couple brief encounters regarding those preaching circumcision who also claim to be in Christ, this is settled at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.

That is ignoring what Galatians actually says about the council. Those preaching circumcision were the original disciples and Jesus own brother, James.

Quote
Paul is illustrating very clearly here, as most of Christendom would attest to, is that salvation comes through faith in Christ alone. It does not come through circumcision, and that is a standard orthodox belief.

Modern christians say it, so it must be true? Talking snakes, talking donkeys, mass graves opening and dead people walking around Jerusalem, it has all got to be true because modern christians say it is?

Do you believe everything that modern christians say, or do you try to find out what actually happened at the time of Jesus and the disciples?

Quote
The twelve, the apostles and Paul (the main writers of the majority of the NT, and those who actually walked with Jesus) all are in agreement.

Hell, they are. This is called religious blindness.

I am sure you only accidentally overlooked this post.

Those wolves preaching a different gospel of circumcision which Saul hated so much, were Jesus' original disciples and his brother James. So you are basing your beliefs on Saul's claims and not what Jesus and his disciples said.

Since you think that no one is forced into acceptance of the correct beliefs, you should be able to see that Saul had not accepted the correct beliefs of Jesus and his disciples. Saul was spreading false beliefs based on his own claim that he had a vision. Jesus' own disciples and James knew that Saul was spreading false beliefs, and we know today that Saul was spreading false beliefs because Saul's doctrine was based on the false idea that the creation story was true.

Peter and the other 12 disciples did not continue to preach this. James was part of the council of Jerusalem that declared gentiles did not have to be circumcised.  As I mentioned in the above post, Peter entirely affirms Paul's teaching.  If you have your own questions on this matter, you should read Acts 15.  The Church (apostles, disciples, elders) were in agreement with this, and sent Paul and Barnabas out with a letter after discussing this issue at length with some Jewish believers who were part of the party of the Pharisees (some of the same Jews who were responsible for Jesus' crucifixion).

Acts is a propganda piece designed to rehabilitate the disciples after they were safely dead. All the fanciful stories about Peter's visions with food show how desperate Luke was to paper over the cracks. Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus disciples changed their mind about Jesus because Saul, who never met Jesus, told them he knew better?

If you want to read what really happened at that council, you should read the contemporary letter of Galatians written by Saul, who was very angry that the disciples were interfering with his own idea of what Christianity should be, and wanted to pretend that his ideas prevailed although they clearly did not. Gal 2:3 My companion Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. It was only a concession to "those interfering false brethren". (Yes, really, only a concession? and why did he have to make a concession at the Jerusalem council to people he was so angry with? And why this concession?)

And you did not comment on the fact that we know Saul's inspiration was false because it was based on the idea that the creation story was true and that there was a first pair of humans who were created and sinned, which is obviously just ancient how did we get here myth.
17
General Religious Discussion / Re: Determinism vs Free Will.
« Last post by Mrjason on Today at 06:36:58 AM »
as OAA says, just a bunch of woo bullshit designed to impress people who won't really think about it?

Hey now, I never said it was woo... I was in somewhat of a hurry and forgot. ;D

Its the thought that counts...
18
General Religious Discussion / Re: Determinism vs Free Will.
« Last post by One Above All on Today at 06:09:06 AM »
as OAA says, just a bunch of woo bullshit designed to impress people who won't really think about it?

Hey now, I never said it was woo... I was in somewhat of a hurry and forgot. ;D
19
General Religious Discussion / Re: Determinism vs Free Will.
« Last post by Mrjason on Today at 05:36:56 AM »
The "central" message of the Bible is Jesus (who is love).

You do understand that an emotion is not alive, right? Of course you don't. This is the kind of BS that sounds good to the deluded, but doesn't make any sense when you actually think about it.

There is at least 1 other thread discussing this statement.

I really don't get how anything other than love can be love.

b.a.worldchanger, can you explain how jesus/god is love or is it, as OAA says, just a bunch of woo bullshit designed to impress people who won't really think about it?
20
General Religious Discussion / outline of all this quantum mind banter
« Last post by eh! on Today at 05:22:30 AM »
thought this would be a clearing house thread for reputable (non-WOO) articles re physics approach to mind.

awesome quote;
 
1. I don't understand consciousness.
2. I don't understand quantum physics.
3. Therefore, consciousness must be a function of quantum physics.


following link is good background theory and reading;

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

Sir Roger himself;



more takes on it;

http://www.livescience.com/37807-brain-is-not-quantum-computer.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness

why not;



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10