Based on an interview at the url I shared elsewhere, he shares Scripture (John 1:1) and discusses a proof for the existence of God. If anything, the "god of our own making" is the result of the Technical Singularity he describes.
Mockers abound. You have your time. How one approaches the Scripture makes a difference on what is gleaned from it. Some strike out because God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. I challenge you to check your attitude at the door, and read the book of Matthew in one sitting from beginning to end with an open heart, even a prayerful one.
That is B.S. We could never possibly create the God of the Bible, who spoke the world into existence (John 1) He is far beyond our comprehension. Show some humility. He is coming back as the righteous Judge.
The Bible is written by those of us who claim by faith, i.e., without proof, that they were inspired or guided by 'God.' Why do you require proof of me if faith is your guiding light (O ye of little faith ;-)? Where true faith and belief are concerned proof is not required or even logically possible, and in the case of religion it is frowned upon as requiring it can amount to blasphemy. The awesome power of faith is indisputable, but it can be faith in anything, including mRNA vaccines or even Dr Malone.
So basically you can state an opinion as fact without even doing the work that paleographies do in establishing the authenticity of ancient texts who find staggeringly more confirmation that the four Gospels of the New Testament are authentic historical accounts than they can provide to prove that Plato wrote Republic.
People chose to put their faith in a lot of different things based on a lot of different criteria. What they want or donтАЩt want; what they know experientially; what they know through scientific inquiry. It is not wise to put our faith in things that are not based on truth. So we all have to examine how we are determining what is truth.
Maybe you should read the entire Bible and consider how you determine truth before you write it off as fiction.
There are several versions of the Gospel. The Council of Nicea in 325 AD shit-canned several of them. Of the four that remain, there are many inconsistencies and contradictions. Thomas Jefferson's THE LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH is Jefferson's cut/paste of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that contains no stories of magic and which appear in all four books.
Not only are their historic and logical inconsistencies in the Bible, there are some things inserted, words allegedly spoken by Jesus (John 14:6) that seem incompatible with Jesus the Jewish rabbi.
And the answer to you questioning JesusтАЩ words as being inconsistent with Jesus the Jewish Rabbi in John 14:6 are in 14:7:
тАЬJesus said to him, тАЬI am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Oneness with the Father
7 тАЬIf you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.тАЭ
Jesus is more than just a Jewish Rabbi. He is God who became man in order to offer Himself as the Perfect Sacrificial Lamb to pay the debt we cannot pay ourselves.
People complain that God does not intervene in human affairs enough when situations bother them. But when He does prove His existence and His nature sinful man does not like what He sees.
John 3:16-21 says it better:
тАЬFor God so loved the world, that He gave His fnonly begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18 тАЬHe who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 тАЬThis is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20 тАЬFor everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21 тАЬBut he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.тАЭ
There are differences that would be expected in eyewitness accounts--that actually support their authenticity. What are the historic and logical inconsistencies that trouble you?
Would you actually prefer one manтАЩs account that he developed to ease his own lack of faith in an all powerful Creator God who made him feel ashamed of his own pet sin issues?
LOL Have you any idea what the "Thomas Jefferson Bible" is? I'll be happy to list two or three inconsistencies in the Gospels if you can document what "pet sin issues" Thomas Jefferson suffered from.
First of all, the "virgin birth" is not mentioned in every Gospel account. Jefferson, like millions of others, rejected the Egyptian myth of a virgin birth. Secondly, there are the so-called accounts of Jesus' last words on the cross. John 10:6 is the verse that gives me the most trouble. I find it obnoxiously narcissistic of Jesus to claim that "no one comes to the Father except through me". It seems totally out of character for a man who has been preaching as a rabbi for three years to condemn 99% of his fellow Jews to eternal hellfire for not believing in him. And, of course, there is that nonsense about Good Friday and Easter. If Jesus was put in a tomb on Friday and rose on Sunday, how does that fulfill his claim that he would be in the ground for three days and three nights.
I am comfortable believing that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist. After all, he never performed any miracles before his baptism. And I am convinced that he was crucified by Rome because, as heir to the throne of Jerusalem's king, he was a threat to Rome.
Have you studied the Old Testament prophecies that foretold the virgin birth of Jesus and MANY other detailed things that would make sure that people would be able to recognize the Messiah when He would come?
You can believe what you want--and you will, but your laughter and confidence in writing off the Bible on the basis of your personal incredulity shows that you are not seriously trying to decide whether the Bible is true or not.
The Bible is a consistent revelation of God and Man and the purpose for life from Genesis to Revelation. But you wouldnтАЩt be able to see that unless you read it through with the mind that you would obey it if it proved to be true.
The teachings of the Old Testament promise the coming of Jesus and give the whys and wherefores of what He did and said.
Jefferson discounted miracles. And apparently that fits your concept of god or your world view. That is your prerogative.
I would rather discover truth and live according to it rather than decide what I want it to be true and end up deceived.
I stopped believing in miracles when my mother died of cancer at the age of 59. I don't know how many times the disease went into remission and we all praised the LORD for her healing. I am 73 years old and have never seen a miracle. I'm not saying that I never will; but the odds are decreasing every year.
I've read the entire bible three times and I own several translations. I've had interlinear versions and I currently favor the NRSV. That being said, I believe there was a Great Flood and I believe Adam and Eve are archetypal inventions.
Thank you for your civility. I remain unconvinced that three days can be turned to two by edict or that the Sabbath could be changed to the Venerable Day of the Sun.
There were many preachers in my family, the first one reached the New World in 1706 and the history of my family shows that, traditionally, the men were Mennonite preachers. I prefer Spinoza to John Calvin. I don't believe my "loving" heavenly father will condemn me to an eternity of suffering in a burning Hell.
I am very comfortable with my beliefs and I can see that you are as well.
Jesus told his followers that he would give just one proof that he was actually the Son of God. His promise was that he would lie in the grave for three days and three nights before rising from the dead.
Ironically, the churches' Good Friday - Easter fantasy does not meet this criteria. But it's close, right?
Nice catch. Call it "Weekend Syndrome." The ancient texts must be made to fit current social constructs. Easter Monday just wouldn't fly. Any idea when the "fantasy" was instituted?
According to the now-defunct Worldwide Church of God, Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday (immediately preceding the Passover Sabbath) and was raised from the grave on the Saturday Sabbath, three days later.
In 325 AD, the Council of Nicea followed the new church'es #1 rule: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Sunday became the Sabbath and the Romans stopped worshipping Cybelle and her lover/son & switched to Jesus. It was an easy swap - Easter replaced Passover and Jews were sidelined in favor of the new cult.
Seeing their empire crumbling, the Romans substituted Jesus for Jupiter. The USA abandoned Jesus in favor of the God of Climate Change. The BRICS will soon claim their rightful place as rulers of the planet. Won't they be disappointed to see the mess we've left them?!
Faith is the ability to believe in and trust in love and intangible proof. What you define as proof is more appropriate for the epsteins and brandons of the world, materialistic ai singularity bank.
LOL, he's batting 1000 on his statement that all shall die in their appointed time. Is dying one of your highest aspirations? Why would anyone create a god that tells them they have to die? Much less spend eternity in a place where God has chosen to withdraw his presence, aka "hell" if they chose to reject him...
You donтАЩt have to тАЬbelieveтАЭ in hell ( or God), to go to hell. If you turn away from God, youтАЩre choosing your path. Read C.S. Lewis, тАЬ Mere ChristianityтАЭ. He was an atheist & writes beautifully about God. ItтАЩs not preachy, itтАЩs thought based brilliance. He writes like heтАЩs talking to a friend, patient & clear.
Dying is not an aspiration, it is an inevitability!! And it's a great motivation for people to create a god that in many cases offers a respite, especially an eternal one, from it. Not to mention a threat of 'hell' if they don't conduct themselves in a socially acceptable fashion.
LOL, I'll take the bait. Lets go back in prehistoric times and imagine BEFORE religion was invented in your "its all made up" scenario. Who would bother to invent it? Not the alphas, they just kill whoever gets in their way and death doesn't scare them. The betas perhaps? Sure, they'd try it because maybe it gives some leverage over the alphas. So beta tells alpha the reason the volcano just went off is because alpha did something against "god" that is actually just something that makes beta mad. Alpha thinks "yeah, it sure did! I better stop!" Then beta tells alpha "If you also don't stop doing this other thing, its going to go off again and "god" will kill you for it this time!" Time passes and alpha does this other thing. The volcano is silent. Alpha immediately goes and kills beta for being a liar who played him. And that's the end of the new made up out of thin air religion.... From the perspective of evolution, its impossible. The benefit is quite temporal and making it up results in being selected out of the gene pool.
Hell is only for people that donтАЩt accept Jesus into their hearts . ItтАЩs that simple. Jesus died on the cross so we didnтАЩt HAVE to тАЬ conduct in socially acceptable fashionтАЭ. ItтАЩs not
тАЬgood deedтАЭ related at all. Jesus was perfect, we are not, but we can try. And thatтАЩs where Grace comes in. ThatтАЩs the beautiful thing about my GOD. ЁЯШЗЁЯТХ
Didn't say anything about 'good deeds', but since you mentioned it, all deeds have unintended consequences. While this is not a reason to forgo good intentions, will 'your GOD' judge you by intentions or results? But it doesn't matter because the church has invented the magic of eternal life through His Gracious forgiveness. Seems like a pretty sketchy motivation for 'we can try.'
If there is no life after this one, why does it matter? In fact why would anyone in their right mind spend one second of the limited time you have here talking about things that don't exist with those who think they do? Talk about insane.
It matters precisely because there is no life (as we know it) after this one; and I wish a continuation of this evolving life for as long as possible through our children and our children's children. Your faith in an afterlife in human form (if I understand correctly) miraculously rendered "divine" leads logically to a desire for "end times" ASAP, a horror show we have been on the verge of staging since 1945, the fragile continued avoidance of which is our greatest accomplishment and gives me hope, so far.
For the priesthood to (deliberately) put Revelations at the end of the New Testament is to take Christianity back to the horrors of the vengeful god of the Old Testament, replacing Christlike aspirations for humanity with the unChristlike coercive specter of terror. I see the prophesies as either metaphorical (i.e., not literal) or, if literal, the ravings of mad men who are already in a personal hell and wish for others to join them there.
There is much in the Bible and in all religions that is vitally important to human culture, and there is much that is factually false, but metaphorically true. Many of the larger historical facts are provable to a degree by scientific means and many are not amenable to proof, particularly at the individual level, like Plato's authorship as mentioned in another thread here. Religious faith requires Truth, a Platonic ideal, while science is simply a method of relentless inquiry (that will not allow Final Answers short of disproving its own usefulness) which true Faith does not allow. The best science is always inconclusive but ironically the technology derived from it is nevertheless the source of our "God-given" dominion over the earth.
Insanity is a subjective qualium and flinging it carelessly about in accusation can have a boomerang effect.
LOL, if this is what qualifies as knowledge, logic and pragmatism in your mind, all I can do is chuckle. The afterlife is not in human form according to the Bible you claim to know so well. And most people do not long for the "end times" which in the context of the portions of Revelations you are referring to, are actually *not* the end times at all, but rather a seven year period of unprecedented transition and upheaval. As for science and "true Faith" being somehow being mutually exclusive, how can that logically be when according to you, it is a merely a method of inquiry? Faith actually requires inquiry and study, which if you knew the Bible as well as you claim, you would already know. Its a very, very basic principle. Look I'm not trying to convert you or brow beat you, but you really should at least know what you're talking about when you claim to know what you're talking about...
Not necessarily useless. And that would be a small percentage of тАЬ believers.тАЭ I think his main point is the separation of how we view ourselves in daily situations, and how we contribute to the whole of civilization. ThatтАЩs it. Keeping it simple, it makes SO much sense. Also, people tend to be lazy when it comes to thinking in general, so for most to come up with their own тАЬ original GodтАЭ isnтАЩt probable.
I love this! All of it. I get it & think this guy is Tech worldтАЩs worst fear. It makes a lot more sense to go in this тАЬGodтАЭ direction, if still possible, than working toward an uprising after slavery from Tech world begins. We canтАЩt even communicate effectively now, concerning virus , warnings, etc. It would take a secretly executed ( national) communication, that would have to be encrypted or old school. ( but, free travel most likely will be limited) God is how we fight this. My God has never lost a battle. ThatтАЩs why church wasnтАЩt declared an тАЬ essentialтАЭ service. The current elite establishment is scared of that kind of power.
I'm not sure he's talking about the God of the Bible. It may be a god of our own making, which is useless.
Based on an interview at the url I shared elsewhere, he shares Scripture (John 1:1) and discusses a proof for the existence of God. If anything, the "god of our own making" is the result of the Technical Singularity he describes.
Presumably you are referring to "the God of the Bible." Like all others, made by us in the image of our own highest aspirations.
Mockers abound. You have your time. How one approaches the Scripture makes a difference on what is gleaned from it. Some strike out because God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. I challenge you to check your attitude at the door, and read the book of Matthew in one sitting from beginning to end with an open heart, even a prayerful one.
That is B.S. We could never possibly create the God of the Bible, who spoke the world into existence (John 1) He is far beyond our comprehension. Show some humility. He is coming back as the righteous Judge.
Yep! ThatтАЩs truth. We could never тАЬ createтАЭ a GOD better than the one true God.
What proof do you have that the God of the Bible is a god made by us in the image of our highest aspirations?
The Bible is written by those of us who claim by faith, i.e., without proof, that they were inspired or guided by 'God.' Why do you require proof of me if faith is your guiding light (O ye of little faith ;-)? Where true faith and belief are concerned proof is not required or even logically possible, and in the case of religion it is frowned upon as requiring it can amount to blasphemy. The awesome power of faith is indisputable, but it can be faith in anything, including mRNA vaccines or even Dr Malone.
So basically you can state an opinion as fact without even doing the work that paleographies do in establishing the authenticity of ancient texts who find staggeringly more confirmation that the four Gospels of the New Testament are authentic historical accounts than they can provide to prove that Plato wrote Republic.
People chose to put their faith in a lot of different things based on a lot of different criteria. What they want or donтАЩt want; what they know experientially; what they know through scientific inquiry. It is not wise to put our faith in things that are not based on truth. So we all have to examine how we are determining what is truth.
Maybe you should read the entire Bible and consider how you determine truth before you write it off as fiction.
There are several versions of the Gospel. The Council of Nicea in 325 AD shit-canned several of them. Of the four that remain, there are many inconsistencies and contradictions. Thomas Jefferson's THE LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH is Jefferson's cut/paste of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that contains no stories of magic and which appear in all four books.
Not only are their historic and logical inconsistencies in the Bible, there are some things inserted, words allegedly spoken by Jesus (John 14:6) that seem incompatible with Jesus the Jewish rabbi.
And the answer to you questioning JesusтАЩ words as being inconsistent with Jesus the Jewish Rabbi in John 14:6 are in 14:7:
тАЬJesus said to him, тАЬI am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
Oneness with the Father
7 тАЬIf you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.тАЭ
Jesus is more than just a Jewish Rabbi. He is God who became man in order to offer Himself as the Perfect Sacrificial Lamb to pay the debt we cannot pay ourselves.
People complain that God does not intervene in human affairs enough when situations bother them. But when He does prove His existence and His nature sinful man does not like what He sees.
John 3:16-21 says it better:
тАЬFor God so loved the world, that He gave His fnonly begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18 тАЬHe who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 тАЬThis is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20 тАЬFor everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21 тАЬBut he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.тАЭ
There are differences that would be expected in eyewitness accounts--that actually support their authenticity. What are the historic and logical inconsistencies that trouble you?
Would you actually prefer one manтАЩs account that he developed to ease his own lack of faith in an all powerful Creator God who made him feel ashamed of his own pet sin issues?
LOL Have you any idea what the "Thomas Jefferson Bible" is? I'll be happy to list two or three inconsistencies in the Gospels if you can document what "pet sin issues" Thomas Jefferson suffered from.
First of all, the "virgin birth" is not mentioned in every Gospel account. Jefferson, like millions of others, rejected the Egyptian myth of a virgin birth. Secondly, there are the so-called accounts of Jesus' last words on the cross. John 10:6 is the verse that gives me the most trouble. I find it obnoxiously narcissistic of Jesus to claim that "no one comes to the Father except through me". It seems totally out of character for a man who has been preaching as a rabbi for three years to condemn 99% of his fellow Jews to eternal hellfire for not believing in him. And, of course, there is that nonsense about Good Friday and Easter. If Jesus was put in a tomb on Friday and rose on Sunday, how does that fulfill his claim that he would be in the ground for three days and three nights.
I am comfortable believing that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist. After all, he never performed any miracles before his baptism. And I am convinced that he was crucified by Rome because, as heir to the throne of Jerusalem's king, he was a threat to Rome.
Have you studied the Old Testament prophecies that foretold the virgin birth of Jesus and MANY other detailed things that would make sure that people would be able to recognize the Messiah when He would come?
You can believe what you want--and you will, but your laughter and confidence in writing off the Bible on the basis of your personal incredulity shows that you are not seriously trying to decide whether the Bible is true or not.
The Bible is a consistent revelation of God and Man and the purpose for life from Genesis to Revelation. But you wouldnтАЩt be able to see that unless you read it through with the mind that you would obey it if it proved to be true.
The teachings of the Old Testament promise the coming of Jesus and give the whys and wherefores of what He did and said.
Jefferson discounted miracles. And apparently that fits your concept of god or your world view. That is your prerogative.
I would rather discover truth and live according to it rather than decide what I want it to be true and end up deceived.
I stopped believing in miracles when my mother died of cancer at the age of 59. I don't know how many times the disease went into remission and we all praised the LORD for her healing. I am 73 years old and have never seen a miracle. I'm not saying that I never will; but the odds are decreasing every year.
I've read the entire bible three times and I own several translations. I've had interlinear versions and I currently favor the NRSV. That being said, I believe there was a Great Flood and I believe Adam and Eve are archetypal inventions.
Thank you for your civility. I remain unconvinced that three days can be turned to two by edict or that the Sabbath could be changed to the Venerable Day of the Sun.
There were many preachers in my family, the first one reached the New World in 1706 and the history of my family shows that, traditionally, the men were Mennonite preachers. I prefer Spinoza to John Calvin. I don't believe my "loving" heavenly father will condemn me to an eternity of suffering in a burning Hell.
I am very comfortable with my beliefs and I can see that you are as well.
Jesus told his followers that he would give just one proof that he was actually the Son of God. His promise was that he would lie in the grave for three days and three nights before rising from the dead.
Ironically, the churches' Good Friday - Easter fantasy does not meet this criteria. But it's close, right?
Nice catch. Call it "Weekend Syndrome." The ancient texts must be made to fit current social constructs. Easter Monday just wouldn't fly. Any idea when the "fantasy" was instituted?
According to the now-defunct Worldwide Church of God, Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday (immediately preceding the Passover Sabbath) and was raised from the grave on the Saturday Sabbath, three days later.
In 325 AD, the Council of Nicea followed the new church'es #1 rule: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Sunday became the Sabbath and the Romans stopped worshipping Cybelle and her lover/son & switched to Jesus. It was an easy swap - Easter replaced Passover and Jews were sidelined in favor of the new cult.
https://comeoutofher.org/emperor-constantine-created-easter-to-replace-passover/
Great stuff, sir. Just goes to show, where there's a (common)weal, there is a way.
Poor Cybelle, violating all the rules, both moral and evolutionary. Guess the Romans must have been, too, in their long decline. As for us...???
Seeing their empire crumbling, the Romans substituted Jesus for Jupiter. The USA abandoned Jesus in favor of the God of Climate Change. The BRICS will soon claim their rightful place as rulers of the planet. Won't they be disappointed to see the mess we've left them?!
Faith is the ability to believe in and trust in love and intangible proof. What you define as proof is more appropriate for the epsteins and brandons of the world, materialistic ai singularity bank.
LOL, he's batting 1000 on his statement that all shall die in their appointed time. Is dying one of your highest aspirations? Why would anyone create a god that tells them they have to die? Much less spend eternity in a place where God has chosen to withdraw his presence, aka "hell" if they chose to reject him...
You donтАЩt have to тАЬbelieveтАЭ in hell ( or God), to go to hell. If you turn away from God, youтАЩre choosing your path. Read C.S. Lewis, тАЬ Mere ChristianityтАЭ. He was an atheist & writes beautifully about God. ItтАЩs not preachy, itтАЩs thought based brilliance. He writes like heтАЩs talking to a friend, patient & clear.
Dying is not an aspiration, it is an inevitability!! And it's a great motivation for people to create a god that in many cases offers a respite, especially an eternal one, from it. Not to mention a threat of 'hell' if they don't conduct themselves in a socially acceptable fashion.
LOL, I'll take the bait. Lets go back in prehistoric times and imagine BEFORE religion was invented in your "its all made up" scenario. Who would bother to invent it? Not the alphas, they just kill whoever gets in their way and death doesn't scare them. The betas perhaps? Sure, they'd try it because maybe it gives some leverage over the alphas. So beta tells alpha the reason the volcano just went off is because alpha did something against "god" that is actually just something that makes beta mad. Alpha thinks "yeah, it sure did! I better stop!" Then beta tells alpha "If you also don't stop doing this other thing, its going to go off again and "god" will kill you for it this time!" Time passes and alpha does this other thing. The volcano is silent. Alpha immediately goes and kills beta for being a liar who played him. And that's the end of the new made up out of thin air religion.... From the perspective of evolution, its impossible. The benefit is quite temporal and making it up results in being selected out of the gene pool.
Hell is only for people that donтАЩt accept Jesus into their hearts . ItтАЩs that simple. Jesus died on the cross so we didnтАЩt HAVE to тАЬ conduct in socially acceptable fashionтАЭ. ItтАЩs not
тАЬgood deedтАЭ related at all. Jesus was perfect, we are not, but we can try. And thatтАЩs where Grace comes in. ThatтАЩs the beautiful thing about my GOD. ЁЯШЗЁЯТХ
Didn't say anything about 'good deeds', but since you mentioned it, all deeds have unintended consequences. While this is not a reason to forgo good intentions, will 'your GOD' judge you by intentions or results? But it doesn't matter because the church has invented the magic of eternal life through His Gracious forgiveness. Seems like a pretty sketchy motivation for 'we can try.'
If there is no life after this one, why does it matter? In fact why would anyone in their right mind spend one second of the limited time you have here talking about things that don't exist with those who think they do? Talk about insane.
It matters precisely because there is no life (as we know it) after this one; and I wish a continuation of this evolving life for as long as possible through our children and our children's children. Your faith in an afterlife in human form (if I understand correctly) miraculously rendered "divine" leads logically to a desire for "end times" ASAP, a horror show we have been on the verge of staging since 1945, the fragile continued avoidance of which is our greatest accomplishment and gives me hope, so far.
For the priesthood to (deliberately) put Revelations at the end of the New Testament is to take Christianity back to the horrors of the vengeful god of the Old Testament, replacing Christlike aspirations for humanity with the unChristlike coercive specter of terror. I see the prophesies as either metaphorical (i.e., not literal) or, if literal, the ravings of mad men who are already in a personal hell and wish for others to join them there.
There is much in the Bible and in all religions that is vitally important to human culture, and there is much that is factually false, but metaphorically true. Many of the larger historical facts are provable to a degree by scientific means and many are not amenable to proof, particularly at the individual level, like Plato's authorship as mentioned in another thread here. Religious faith requires Truth, a Platonic ideal, while science is simply a method of relentless inquiry (that will not allow Final Answers short of disproving its own usefulness) which true Faith does not allow. The best science is always inconclusive but ironically the technology derived from it is nevertheless the source of our "God-given" dominion over the earth.
Insanity is a subjective qualium and flinging it carelessly about in accusation can have a boomerang effect.
LOL, if this is what qualifies as knowledge, logic and pragmatism in your mind, all I can do is chuckle. The afterlife is not in human form according to the Bible you claim to know so well. And most people do not long for the "end times" which in the context of the portions of Revelations you are referring to, are actually *not* the end times at all, but rather a seven year period of unprecedented transition and upheaval. As for science and "true Faith" being somehow being mutually exclusive, how can that logically be when according to you, it is a merely a method of inquiry? Faith actually requires inquiry and study, which if you knew the Bible as well as you claim, you would already know. Its a very, very basic principle. Look I'm not trying to convert you or brow beat you, but you really should at least know what you're talking about when you claim to know what you're talking about...
Spot on.
Not necessarily useless. And that would be a small percentage of тАЬ believers.тАЭ I think his main point is the separation of how we view ourselves in daily situations, and how we contribute to the whole of civilization. ThatтАЩs it. Keeping it simple, it makes SO much sense. Also, people tend to be lazy when it comes to thinking in general, so for most to come up with their own тАЬ original GodтАЭ isnтАЩt probable.
I love this! All of it. I get it & think this guy is Tech worldтАЩs worst fear. It makes a lot more sense to go in this тАЬGodтАЭ direction, if still possible, than working toward an uprising after slavery from Tech world begins. We canтАЩt even communicate effectively now, concerning virus , warnings, etc. It would take a secretly executed ( national) communication, that would have to be encrypted or old school. ( but, free travel most likely will be limited) God is how we fight this. My God has never lost a battle. ThatтАЩs why church wasnтАЩt declared an тАЬ essentialтАЭ service. The current elite establishment is scared of that kind of power.
He is talking about God in the generic sense, as Creator God in the Bible, before the fall if man.
You mean тАЬgod in a boxтАЭ?
The new age refers to god not as king but as source of creation. Like the source of power or electricity.
The "new age" god seems oddly identical to the one worshipped for centuries by Taoists and Daoists.
If u understand worship as what westerners do with science and gravity yes. They have a priori claims and truths.
Exactly, sometimes human intelligence gets in the way of this truth
I think he is talking about God in the generic sense as in Genesis (Bible) before the fall of Man.