Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2.56565666


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#51 old_nick

old_nick

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • 569 posts
  • Ordination Date:01/17/2001

Posted 24 October 2011 - 03:31 PM

All my data and studying up to that point reinforced my belief that the Bible was the perfect word of God. I had encountered no data, teachings or experiences up to that point in my life otherwise.

So how did I reinterpret the whole book in seconds contrary to all the data I had amassed over my lifetime. The information would have to had entered my mind non-locally. There is no other way for that information to have been encountered.


You did not, however, gain any new information. You merely saw the information from a different point of view. That is not a spiritual or inexplicable thing. That is your brain firing differently in assessing an issue. You did not, for example, suddenly go, "You know, Bart Ehrman has a point!". You didn't gain new knowledge, just a different take on old knowledge. Which can be induced by monkeying around with the brain.


I don't think we can be that scientific or analytical of such things without considering the possibility of an essence of spirit that is in desperation and crying to be heard.


There is no indication of "essence of spirit". What all current data indicates is strictly neurological phenomena.


Thank you.

Nedankinde.


Now that is an understatement of which I completely agree!!..Boobs to you! :bouncy:


Mmmmm. The transhumanist in me longs for the day when society and technology allow people to more accurately express their sexuality. Hell, more accurately express their personality in general.

#52 Fawzo

Fawzo

    Fawzo

  • Facebook Admin
  • 9,886 posts
  • Location:Somewhere over the rainbow
  • Ordination Date:9-20-2007

Posted 24 October 2011 - 03:40 PM


You did not, however, gain any new information. You merely saw the information from a different point of view. That is not a spiritual or inexplicable thing. That is your brain firing differently in assessing an issue. You did not, for example, suddenly go, "You know, Bart Ehrman has a point!". You didn't gain new knowledge, just a different take on old knowledge. Which can be induced by monkeying around with the brain.

Yes my point of view was changed not because of any contradictory wording from within my mind or the pages of the Bible or because I stood on my head upside down and read the Bible in a mirror, but rather because of my firsthand experience with what I perceived to be the Spirit of God. He wasn't the vain, jealous, vengeful angry God that all my data had stated as fact, He was instead complete and total unconditional love which I had no concept of and something that must be experienced firsthand to be understood utterly and completely.

It was the introduction of this "Agape Experience" which was alien to me that changed my perspective.

#53 old_nick

old_nick

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • 569 posts
  • Ordination Date:01/17/2001

Posted 24 October 2011 - 03:48 PM

Yes my point of view was changed not because of any contradictory wording from within my mind or the pages of the Bible or because I stood on my head upside down and read the Bible in a mirror, but rather because of my firsthand experience with what I perceived to be the Spirit of God. He wasn't the vain, jealous, vengeful angry God that all my data had stated as fact, He was instead complete and total unconditional love which I had no concept of and something that must be experienced firsthand to be understood utterly and completely.

It was the introduction of this "Agape Experience" which was alien to me that changed my perspective.


Because of what you think yourself to have experienced. It does not nor any veracity to the claim of experience nor does it change the fact no new information was gained, only a shift in analysis of previously held information.

#54 nestingwave

nestingwave

    appreciator

  • Members
  • 2,799 posts
  • Ordination Date:10/07/2006

Posted 27 October 2011 - 08:17 AM

Because of what you think yourself to have experienced.


That's called "human consciousness."

It does not nor any veracity to the claim of experience nor does it change the fact no new information was gained,


In my view, you are 100% wrong on both counts. All of us, you too, claim experiences----yes you do----and there is no such thing as your imaginary "static" state of life where "no new information is gained."

That is entirely your assumption and supposition.

"New Information" is continually gained because there is a prime Universal Information Field of infinite energy (and intelligence)----and all the energy in the entire Universe is one living interconnected web---it is the very life process.

only a shift in analysis of previously held information.


And those natural shifts of analysis of perviously held information occur continaully (in greater or lesser degrees) in every single human being on earth.

namaste

#55 ATD

ATD

    Freemason / Heretic

  • Members
  • 254 posts
  • Location:The Computer Bunker
  • Ordination Date:08/24/2006

Posted 28 October 2011 - 03:34 PM

What if we look at this another way. The "Observer Effect" in Quantum Physics hints at the possibility that we create (at least at the sub-atomic level), affect our own reality. This would mean that the being that knew this secret, would in effect, be their own "God".

Could "Lucifer",(or Light-bringer) know, and know how to put this knowledge to work to his advantage?

Sorry, just following a train of thought down it's bizarre side track ;)


ATD

#56 nestingwave

nestingwave

    appreciator

  • Members
  • 2,799 posts
  • Ordination Date:10/07/2006

Posted 28 October 2011 - 09:47 PM

What if we look at this another way. The "Observer Effect" in Quantum Physics hints at the possibility that we create (at least at the sub-atomic level), affect our own reality. This would mean that the being that knew this secret, would in effect, be their own "God".


The 'secret' of HOW we create our own reality is in no way separate nor divided from the revelation of WHY we create our own reality in the first place----and WHAT elements we are personally inspired to practically include in that creation.

And when one finally finds out that all the elements of creation are (at the subquantum level,) energetically driven by the very same Universal Intention and Plan----to uplift and improve all Life that it may best express its full potential----and when we finally discover beyond any personal doubt WHAT that plan is---- we become motivated by the joyous happiness factor----and the smoothness of the interface----to allign our personal creative intentions with the central Universal Intention (Plan). And we will then joyfully give thanks to that primary intention which has continually healed us and supplied meaning for our life when it seemed to have none.

This is not arrogantly "becoming your own God." This is not pounding your chest like a gorilla and announcing, "I AM ALMIGHTY GOD!" It is just the opposite. It is your sense of 'self' fully and willingly relinquished having been overshadowed with ultimate and complete humility and awesome wonder----while you experience the unfolding and eye--opening recognition (Revelation) that the----One First Source of All--That--Is---- already exists in total oneness----has always existed in total onness and will always exist in total oneness----in the here and now----and not only that but also far beyond our own tiny personal creative expression----which is the very limited, selective and subjective mirrored reflection of our own personal bias from the vantage point and viewing angle (our one-of-a-kind point of view) of the endemic built--in infinite potential----dancing a beautiful Universal Tango of quantum entangled oneness---which is really far beyond our mind's present capability to fully comprehend.

Could "Lucifer",(or Light-bringer) know, and know how to put this knowledge to work to his advantage?



Do you mean with a selfish agenda in mind?

Are you talking from the traditional Orthodox point--of--view about "Fallen Lucifer" as being identical with "Satan" the adversary----or----are you taking the gnostic Heterodox point-of-view which looks upon Lucifer as being identical with Jesus Christ who is twice referred to as "the bright and morning star" in the Revelation? This phrase "bright and morning star" which refers to the planet Venus also called "Lucifer." It seems, according to this second point--of--view that Lucifer and Jesus both dance in the same circle and are, very likely, one and the same being.

Sorry, just following a train of thought down it's bizarre side track ;)


And from here, the journey becomes even more bizaare. :crazyeyes: :dirol:


ATD


namaste

#57 ATD

ATD

    Freemason / Heretic

  • Members
  • 254 posts
  • Location:The Computer Bunker
  • Ordination Date:08/24/2006

Posted 29 October 2011 - 08:00 AM

[quote] name='nestingwave'
[quote]The 'secret' of HOW we create our own reality is in no way separate nor divided from the revelation of WHY we create our own reality in the first place----and WHAT elements we are personally inspired to practically include in that creation.

And when one finally finds out that all the elements of creation are (at the sub quantum level,) energetically driven by the very same Universal Intention and Plan----to uplift and improve all Life that it may best express its full potential----and when we finally discover beyond any personal doubt WHAT that plan is---- we become motivated by the joyous happiness factor----and the smoothness of the interface----to allign our personal creative intentions with the central Universal Intention (Plan). And we will then joyfully give thanks to that primary intention which has continually healed us and supplied meaning for our life when it seemed to have none.

This is not arrogantly "becoming your own God." This is not pounding your chest like a gorilla and announcing, "I AM ALMIGHTY GOD!" It is just the opposite. It is your sense of 'self' fully and willingly relinquished having been overshadowed with ultimate and complete humility and awesome wonder----while you experience the unfolding and eye--opening recognition (Revelation) that the----One First Source of All--That--Is---- already exists in total oneness----has always existed in total onness and will always exist in total oneness----in the here and now----and not only that but also far beyond our own tiny personal creative expression----which is the very limited, selective and subjective mirrored reflection of our own personal bias from the vantage point and viewing angle (our one-of-a-kind point of view) of the endemic built--in infinite potential----dancing a beautiful Universal Tango of quantum entangled oneness---which is really far beyond our mind's present capability to fully comprehend.[/quote]



But we can still ask the questions, even if we have no idea where the question will lead





[quote]Do you mean with a selfish agenda in mind?[/quote]

Aren't both after the same result, even for different reasons? Now we're into the question of good, and evil. That's a can of worms to be opened in another thread.

[quote]Are you talking from the traditional Orthodox point--of--view about "Fallen Lucifer" as being identical with "Satan" the adversary----or----are you taking the gnostic Heterodox point-of-view which looks upon Lucifer as being identical with Jesus Christ who is twice referred to as "the bright and morning star" in the Revelation? This phrase "bright and morning star" which refers to the planet Venus also called "Lucifer." It seems, according to this second point--of--view that Lucifer and Jesus both dance in the same circle and are, very likely, one and the same being.[/quote]

Perhaps we have both of these two "entities( or predisposition) in our "souls". This could be the basis of the saying "Good people doing bad things", and why there is so much wealth, and so much poverty. Fair? Here's the news. The world will only be fair if human nature changes, and that is a tough and long road.



[quote]And from here, the journey becomes even more bizarre. :crazyeyes:[/quote]

Amen

Thank you for responding so politely

Nice to meet you ;)






ATD

#58 old_nick

old_nick

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • 569 posts
  • Ordination Date:01/17/2001

Posted 29 October 2011 - 08:29 AM

What if we look at this another way. The "Observer Effect" in Quantum Physics hints at the possibility that we create (at least at the sub-atomic level), affect our own reality. This would mean that the being that knew this secret, would in effect, be their own "God".

Could "Lucifer",(or Light-bringer) know, and know how to put this knowledge to work to his advantage?

Sorry, just following a train of thought down it's bizarre side track ;)


ATD


The observer effects actually relate to the tools performing the measuring interacting with the observed(a human observer is not required). And the observer effects work to different degrees at different levels of physics. Within quantum mechanics it relates to mechanistic collapse. It seems you're alluding to, on some level, Penrose's quantum mind argument. Ultimately, though, it holds no water as it neglects that neuronal firing operates in a binary state and is either on or off, leaving superposition out as a nonissue.

#59 nestingwave

nestingwave

    appreciator

  • Members
  • 2,799 posts
  • Ordination Date:10/07/2006

Posted 29 October 2011 - 08:42 AM

Aren't both after the same result, even for different reasons? Now we're into the question of good, and evil. That's a can of worms to be opened in another thread.

Perhaps we have both of these two "entities( or predisposition) in our "souls". This could be the basis of the saying "Good people doing bad things", and why there is so much wealth, and so much poverty. Fair? Here's the news. The world will only be fair if human nature changes, and that is a tough and long road.
Amen

Thank you for responding so politely

Nice to meet you ;)

ATD


A very thoughful response. Thank you. Nice to meet you also.

namaste

#60 ATD

ATD

    Freemason / Heretic

  • Members
  • 254 posts
  • Location:The Computer Bunker
  • Ordination Date:08/24/2006

Posted 29 October 2011 - 09:15 AM

The observer effects actually relate to the tools performing the measuring interacting with the observed(a human observer is not required). And the observer effects work to different degrees at different levels of physics. Within quantum mechanics it relates to mechanistic collapse. It seems you're alluding to, on some level, Penrose's quantum mind argument. Ultimately, though, it holds no water as it neglects that neuronal firing operates in a binary state and is either on or off, leaving superposition out as a nonissue.


Here's a good article on the subject:http://www.scienceda...80227055013.htm
Let me know your thoughts please




ATD

Edited by ATD, 29 October 2011 - 09:16 AM.


#61 old_nick

old_nick

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • 569 posts
  • Ordination Date:01/17/2001

Posted 29 October 2011 - 09:28 AM

Here's a good article on the subject:http://www.scienceda...80227055013.htm
Let me know your thoughts please




ATD



Notice how it puts watching and observer in quotes, this is because the observer doesn't have to be a person. Any instrument measuring them will cause the effect. A robot or a specially designed sensor would also not the occurance of the effect. Let's use the interference as an example, if a sensor were placed to observe the openings and the image were recorded while no human was in the building, interference would still not occur. The sensor itself is the observer.

While in terms of state collapse over superpositioned mechanics we cannot fully explain why it occurs, it does present useful and exploitable effects. The factoring of extremely large primes, for example, when one selectively collapses the superposition of a particle.

Is it conceivable an interface could be developed to allow a mind to affect these states, yes. But as it stands now, our brain simply isn't equipped for it. And really, even then the effects one can produce are limited to p problems over np solvability. I think it's effects over quantum wells doped silicon(quantum dots) will present the best avenue in the long-term. Even if it comes to presenting some sort of neural interfact to selectively induce observer effect it'd best work in the sandbox of quantum dots.(a great read that is very layman friendly is Wil McCarthy's Hacking Matter, a free digital version is here: http://www.wilmccarthy.com/hm.htm)

#62 ATD

ATD

    Freemason / Heretic

  • Members
  • 254 posts
  • Location:The Computer Bunker
  • Ordination Date:08/24/2006

Posted 29 October 2011 - 12:11 PM

Notice how it puts watching and observer in quotes, this is because the observer doesn't have to be a person.


However, this could include a human observer with a desired outcome in mind

Any instrument measuring them will cause the effect. A robot or a specially designed sensor would also not the occurrence of the effect. Let's use the interference as an example, if a sensor were placed to observe the openings and the image were recorded while no human was in the building, interference would still not occur. The sensor itself is the observer

.

I misunderstood the following quote from the Article:
"When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. This can be true for electrons at the submicron level, i.e., at distances measuring less than one micron, or one thousandth of a millimeter. When behaving as waves, they can simultaneously pass through several openings in a barrier and then meet again at the other side of the barrier. This "meeting" is known as interference.
Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings, the picture changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another. In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings."
I read it again, and see what you're saying



While in terms of state collapse over superpositioned mechanics we cannot fully explain why it occurs, it does present useful and exploitable effects. The factoring of extremely large primes, for example, when one selectively collapses the superposition of a particle.

Is it conceivable an interface could be developed to allow a mind to affect these states, yes. But as it stands now, our brain simply isn't equipped for it. And really, even then the effects one can produce are limited to p problems over np solvability. I think it's effects over quantum wells doped silicon(quantum dots) will present the best avenue in the long-term. Even if it comes to presenting some sort of neural interfact to selectively induce observer effect it'd best work in the sandbox of quantum dots.(a great read that is very layman friendly is Wil McCarthy's Hacking Matter, a free digital version is here: http://www.wilmccarthy.com/hm.htm)


Probably going to lose internet(Damn Autumn snowstorm), I downloaded the book, and seems to be good reading for my experiments, as long as I've got power.(no pun intended) ;)

Thank you

ATD

#63 old_nick

old_nick

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • 569 posts
  • Ordination Date:01/17/2001

Posted 31 October 2011 - 05:35 AM

However, this could include a human observer with a desired outcome in mind


Which is moot ultimately for a couple of reasons. The biggest being all you're doing through the observer effect on a quantum particle is eliminating super positions. It holds the mechanic of whatever position you "look" at. So really, you're just making it behave in a relativistic manner over its native quantum manner. This is useful, even very useful, but it's not going to give you some seemingly mystical control over reality, it's just going to allow you to better solve computationally complex problems(even then it is just using super position to increase what appears to be computational speed to the observer). So unless you have an underlying toolset embedded, you're observation will achieve nothing practical for you. The same is true even of quantum dots. You need the equipment to observe and the equipment to make use of the collapsed state of the observed. It's not really the magic that some in the woo community try to peddle it as. A lot of amazing things can and will be achieved through it, but you're not going to be walking around willing lead into gold any time soon. (though with quantum dots you could easily change emulated lead into emulated gold).

I read it again, and see what you're saying


No worries. I have firsthand experience in quantum computing and it still makes my head want to explode.

Probably going to lose internet(Damn Autumn snowstorm), I downloaded the book, and seems to be good reading for my experiments, as long as I've got power.(no pun intended)


I love snow, but I also love power and internet connectivity. Sometimes it is a bit like having two friends you dearly love but can never hang out with them both at the same time because they hate one another.

And it is a good read. If you enjoy it, I can offer some more technical fare on the matter.

Thank you


You're very welcome.

#64 ATD

ATD

    Freemason / Heretic

  • Members
  • 254 posts
  • Location:The Computer Bunker
  • Ordination Date:08/24/2006

Posted 31 October 2011 - 11:09 AM

Which is moot ultimately for a couple of reasons. The biggest being all you're doing through the observer effect on a quantum particle is eliminating super positions. It holds the mechanic of whatever position you "look" at. So really, you're just making it behave in a relativistic manner over its native quantum manner. This is useful, even very useful, but it's not going to give you some seemingly mystical control over reality, it's just going to allow you to better solve computationally complex problems(even then it is just using super position to increase what appears to be computational speed to the observer). So unless you have an underlying toolset embedded, you're observation will achieve nothing practical for you. The same is true even of quantum dots. You need the equipment to observe and the equipment to make use of the collapsed state of the observed.



My thought is that the equipment might be somewhere in our brain,just exactly what or where I can't say, but our brains have evolved beyond what is needed for conscious thought, so I've been using different types of devices to induce different brainwaves, and signals targeting certain parts of the brain. This is where my true interest lies, Quantum mechanics where it seems to dovetail.

Ultimately, the goal is Science, and Religion playing nicely together, without all the dogma getting in the way

Oh well.........Nice thought anyway ;)




ATD

Edited by ATD, 31 October 2011 - 11:12 AM.


#65 old_nick

old_nick

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • 569 posts
  • Ordination Date:01/17/2001

Posted 31 October 2011 - 11:23 AM

My thought is that the equipment might be somewhere in our brain,just exactly what or where I can't say, but our brains have evolved beyond what is needed for conscious thought, so I've been using different types of devices to induce different brainwaves, and signals targeting certain parts of the brain. This is where my true interest lies, Quantum mechanics where it seems to dovetail.


Our brains haven't evolved with any goal, least of all conscious thought which by all appearances is merely a side-effect of processes that have been of evolutionary benefit. What you're saying seems to border on Penrose's now debunked arguments on the origin of consciousness actually being an effect of quantum mechanics on the chemical soup in our heads. It's a nice thought, but it neglects modern knowledge of neurology. If his hypothesis had panned out, it would not be inconceivable then that through exploiting consciousness we could make use of quantum effects and to some small minute degree affect the world around us. It was a novel idea and one I'd have absolutely loved to see pan out, but reality as it so often does disappoints.

If mucking around in the brain is your interest, though feel free to send me a private message. My specialization is in a field that I think would greatly tickle your fancy.

Ultimately, the goal is Science, and Religion playing nicely together, without all the dogma getting in the way


I have to disagree as far as theistic religion or any form of superstition is concerned.

#66 ATD

ATD

    Freemason / Heretic

  • Members
  • 254 posts
  • Location:The Computer Bunker
  • Ordination Date:08/24/2006

Posted 31 October 2011 - 03:24 PM

I have to disagree as far as theistic religion or any form of superstition is concerned.

(Bold mine)DJP

Without a scientific explanation for a "Higher Consciousness", and verified instances of miraculous effects, we are only left with the above

I believe I'll keep looking (even if I'm on a side track that goes nowhere) rather than accept that


Respectfully

ATD

Edited by ATD, 31 October 2011 - 03:32 PM.


#67 old_nick

old_nick

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • 569 posts
  • Ordination Date:01/17/2001

Posted 01 November 2011 - 04:52 AM

Without a scientific explanation for a "Higher Consciousness", and verified instances of miraculous effects, we are only left with the above


You've nothing to show this "higher consciousness" thing exists. Only consciousness, for which we have sufficient evidence indicating a solely biological cause. Dualism has been out as a model for consciousness for well over one hundred years now. Update your software man! :P

And there is nothing to show for "miraculous effects" either and your argument with it really borders on begging the question.

I believe I'll keep looking (even if I'm on a side track that goes nowhere) rather than accept that


But think about the amazing things you miss in pursuit of woo. When we look at the brain as it is, non-dualistically, we're able to effect and alter the brain to make actual and useful changes. The whole field of BCI is built upon this. Theodore Berger's hippocampus work is an excellent example. He is building a prosthetic hippocampus(it's already gone to mouse trials) that is thus far rather successful(moreso than I'd personally hoped for). The result being that we'll have a possible treatment, maybe even cure, for diseases such as Alzheimer's that plague us and rob people most cruely of the dearest thing to us we possess. At some point such technology will even be able to improve upon the memory of healthy brains as well. Imagine being given the choice to have an exponentially increased memory! And that is just the tip of the iceberg. I am a particular fan of immersion networks(though I have an admittedly vested personal bias there) which allow us to perceptually immerse ourselves into virtual worlds and conceivably someday even give us an afterlife where none now exists.

My worry is that some people get so caught up in what they would wish to be that they neglect how very awesome the the things that are is. But look at how amazing the things already around us are, and how increasingly amazing things become as science gains data. Think of just the past few years, we've created life, transferred coherent data faster than light, restored vision to the blinded, restored hearing to the deaf, found what is likely the cause and are thus working on a cure for breast cancer, developed a means to prevent multiple forms of cervical cancer from ever having to happen, even found ways to read specific thoughts(though still limited in scope, admittedly). When has superstition ever given us anything this cool, useful, or promising?

If my religion, for want of a better term, can be boiled down to a simple sentence, it is this: superstition has made many failed promises, but that is okay because science provides the data to form the technologies to fulfill those promises.

Sorry for rambling about it, this is a subject I feel extremely passionate about(my dissertation involved BCI).

#68 ATD

ATD

    Freemason / Heretic

  • Members
  • 254 posts
  • Location:The Computer Bunker
  • Ordination Date:08/24/2006

Posted 01 November 2011 - 02:00 PM

My worry is that some people get so caught up in what they would wish to be that they neglect how very awesome the the things that are is. But look at how amazing the things already around us are, and how increasingly amazing things become as science gains data. Think of just the past few years, we've created life, transferred coherent data faster than light, restored vision to the blinded, restored hearing to the deaf, found what is likely the cause and are thus working on a cure for breast cancer, developed a means to prevent multiple forms of cervical cancer from ever having to happen, even found ways to read specific thoughts(though still limited in scope, admittedly). When has superstition ever given us anything this cool, useful, or promising?

My point exactly, except that I'm looking back a step (or 10) to where someone said," What if.........?"




If my religion, for want of a better term, can be boiled down to a simple sentence, it is this: superstition has made many failed promises, but that is okay because science provides the data to form the technologies to fulfill those promises.


I do not believe in any dogmatic religion that tries to put a person or book between me, and my concept of "God"( and trust me, you don't want my personal opinion on that!)

I have been given a mind and see each situation on it's merits, and make a decision based on that, and not on a book that gives me a codified set of rules that are supposed to apply to every situation (according to a man claiming to speak for "God"). I prefer the personal relationship with my concept of "God"


Sorry for rambling about it, this is a subject I feel extremely passionate about(my dissertation involved BCI).


Ditto. Thanks for your discussions.You've sent my thoughts to some interesting places ;)


ATD

#69 Qryos

Qryos

    ~ The Dancing Muse ~

  • Moderators
  • 11,192 posts
  • Location:Nevada, USA
  • Ordination Date:12/26/2001

Posted 02 November 2011 - 10:34 PM

~ What a lovely discussion! Thank you both :friends:
If contemplating & extrapolating upon the concept of a 'universal' force that connects all & "so on earth as in heaven" leads to thoughts that scientifically make it so...
Ahhh :dirol:
Humans are so very creative & crafting imagination into fact is a specific speciality :D

#70 ATD

ATD

    Freemason / Heretic

  • Members
  • 254 posts
  • Location:The Computer Bunker
  • Ordination Date:08/24/2006

Posted 03 November 2011 - 06:05 PM

Hypothetical:

Two men, one a Christian, the other a Satanist, each put their belief to the test. They each buy a lotto ticket. The Christian is poor, unemployed and is at-risk of his home being foreclosed on and not being able to feed his family. He bets God will answer his prayer and make him the winner. The Satanist, doesn't need the money, but bets that if he gives his soul to Satan, Satan will make him the Winner.....

The Satanist wins ! Is it fair ?


I apologize, I led us so far off topic.

For myself, I find myself in the position of feeling a little bit arrogant to even try to pass judgement on the omniscient mind of God



ATD ;)

#71 Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Jonathan H. B. Lobl

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 3,100 posts
  • Location:New York City (Jackson Hts. in Queens)
  • Ordination Date:08/28/1978

Posted 04 November 2011 - 07:28 AM

your logic gives me chills - considering who Santa is, in the millions of households in the US...


Thank you. I can not take credit for this chain of logic. It predates my birth.

God gets lip service. Wealth gets true worship.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users