Wooster

Ohhh... I need to stock up on popcorn! Starting to run low here and that last post is a goldmine..

:eating_popcorn: :eating_popcorn:
:eating_popcorn: :eating_popcorn:

IamJoseph

There is chosen - and there is chosen. Choose your chosen as you wish:

TO BE A LIGHT UNTO THE NATIONS

NO SALVATION BUT THROUGH ME

NO GOD WITHOUT MOHAMMED AS HIS PROPHET.


# Only one of the above allows you to have your own freely chosen belief. My math says millions of innocent folk were murdered because of bad chosen doctrines.

Keith&Co.

NO science is embedded therein. Eyesight does not affect offspring.
Claiming it does, that the practice is valid or has use in describing how the real world functions is abysmal science and quite apart from reality.

The fact remains, the passages of the bible may be based upon facts, fancy or absolute stone-to-the-gills delusion based on cheap trendy mind expanding locally produced pharmaceuticals.
We can't know which is which, we can't trust the bible's claims, reports or records unless and until actual science, actual history, actual investigation has produced real observations that can stand up to peer review and objective analysis. And by then, we don't need the bible passages for anything, we have the science or history.

IamJoseph

IMHO< - YES AND NO applies here. There is such a thing as inexplicable compulsions - and these seem to appear where it fits best. 'Knowledge comes from Heaven' is the applicable metaphor - we have no explanation how a great idea comes into a man's mind, but we know it comes to one who merits it by application, and that the idea is not limited to that one man - it can come through other avenues, even by accident [as with Penicilin]; we also must know, an idea only comes when its due time has arrived and never before.

This has me thinking that it does not matter, for example, if we see any belief as not true or historical, even if it makes no sense at all, even if it is totally wrong in another's vew. The fact that it becomes accepted without question, is a mystery. I see christianity's acceptance as a total mystery - that it could have been accepted by people far away from ground zero, without demanding proof or even asking it; thus its greatest vindication is not its historical veracity, but its inexplicable belief.

Contrastingly, anyone making a claim for science - will find an avalanche of counter challenges, and if it cannot be proven, it will get erased. I don't think mankind could have evolved or survived, unless there is a control centre operating what knowledge is filtered down to us - involuntarilly and suspiciously evident. If this is not critically controlled - too little knowledge or too much knowledge - will destroy humanity and the planet. It does seem we are pawns beating our chests. Its just a thought.

spamandham

I'll take that as a "yes".

IamJoseph

That report is about sheep, not humans. We know that sheep follow a path most unquestionably, even going to their slaughter the most willingly. We know also that environment impacts. The factor of two sheep being locked into a grid, one facing only a stripped design, the other a blank wall - and that it can effect the offspring's skin - is a fascinating premise. Eye shapes and skin color can alter in offspring when one lives in a region of extreme sunlight for many generations. The point is, this report is inclined with science - not occultism.


This must be decided not on the kind of unprovable examples you choose, but on provable historical depictions - which are pervasive in the Hebrew bible. Instead of asking how a sea can be split [after all, the text is presenting these as non-provable, non-imperical events!], ask if all the historical data around that event are fiction and not authentically contemporary - which means it cannot be retrospective!

The correct analysis is that we cannot DISPROVE any FX miracles; we can prove all the non-FX historical stats as no other document in existence.

IamJoseph

With regard the answer was responded to - that the buck ultimately stops at ONE - I'll take that as a "NO". :wave:

spamandham

I'm sure you do, regardless of how meaningless the statement is.

IamJoseph

Enlighten me: how/why is it meaningless that if we backtrack to origins ultimately we must end up with one indivisable and irreducable entity?

Johnny Skeptic

How does one adequately test the existence and characteristics of a God?