Key

Member
  • Content Count

    1,208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Key

  • Rank
    Spiritual Pilgrim
  • Birthday 11/15/1964

Helpful Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Here, not There

Recent Profile Visitors

2,664 profile views
  1. Just remember, even Thomas needed further proof when Christ first rose from the dead. So why, after being away for thousands of years, would He not expect many with the same inquisitive mind as Thomas?
  2. Seems to me, this is what they have been telling you many times already.
  3. You missed the point. I'm bowing out here. Not enough energy right now. (Working long hours currently.)
  4. Lordy, it getting to become something of a guilty pleasure or obsession, whatever, regarding these threads you and Dan keep rehashing arguments in. I can see why it's hard to not respond, at least for me. Sorry, friend.

  5. Playing Devil's advocate here again, Dan, just to offer another perspective of what you're saying. A bit lengthy, so bear with me, please. 1) Prior to Disney buying the Star Wars franchise and rights, every Star Wars book, comic, or even movie had to be inline with the others so as not to contradict timelines and events for various recurring characters. This process is called "canon". After the change in ownership, Disney was no longer following previous established canon (except loosely the films of the original trilogy and prequels). With this in mind, what if the regions from which the Bible books came from, also established a sort of canon in order for them to be more believable or relatable and easier for memory? And forgers were rampant as well, so they would have followed many similarities and styles of the originals. Then something happened, a council was convened to establish a new canon from the books, to remove many that were popular in different areas and sects. Some books no longer were seen as part of the canon, while others remained. In effect, a new ownership was established. Of course, the older books may not contradict, in many faithful minds, but that may be greatly in part of how they were intently written, as part of a mental canon. 2) Scientologist absolutely believe their books on Dianetics to be thoroughly true, and even cite various entries from it as proof, and those entries do not contradict each other, whatsoever. Would you then think to yourself, "well, they are quoting from a book they believe in, with only their faith as real evidence, so they must be the true religion?"
  6. For one, there is a report post link in the box of postings. Two, there is the ability to DM a person of your choosing to communicate with. 3, the negative views you talk about have gone both ways, as I have seen. As this is an interfaith church, meaning open to all faiths, one may expect to receive differing points of to any posts that may be put up here, agreeable or not. That's part of dialogue and learning with each other. If you wish to place a sermon to which no one may comment one way or the other, the Open Pulpit thread is the one place on this forum to do so. As you said, this website is about diversity. Nothing demonstrates that better than different views. The terms of use are just fine, as long as they are being observed by the participants of the forum. Just saying. Respectfully.
  7. That may be true. But some of us do have translation options on our pc. Still, you made a valid point.
  8. Actually, Dan, it does. Why else would it say that it isn't God's wish that anyone should perish? If the spirit is immortal, then no one would really perish, right? Then God would have no need to present such a claim.
  9. Curious. Can anyone prove that consciousness isn't possibly energy, itself? Just a thought, that hadn't occurred to me before.
  10. Ah, but there are people who believe God has many names, and/or can be every god to everyone. As He is a God, and supposedly all things are possible with Him, how can we say He truly isn't? You could quote Scripture all you want, but that isn't proof to everyone. The Bible may be true to only Christians, just as the Koran is to Muslims, and the Torah is for Jews. How is that for confusion overload?
  11. Sound might be good to try. Smell? Not so much. Cat may have gotten quite dirty in that box. Might have relieved itself, being cooped up in a box with no where else to go, let alone being jostled around by the delivery guy.
  12. Schrodinger's cat. Cat is put in a box with food and poison. The box is delivered to an address. Now until the box is opened, we don't know if the cat is alive, or dead because it ate one of the two items. So, until it is opened, it can be assumed to be both alive and dead. The key is evidence to support one or the other, when the box is opened to reveal it. Simply stated by Jonathan, he is an Atheist, as there is no evidence of a deity, so he doesn't believe. He's an Agnostic, as he assumes there is the possibility, but doesn't know, because there is no evidence to support a belief or not. Therefore, Jonathan is Schrodinger's cat.
  13. It may be splitting hairs, but you brought up liberal and Democrat with a sweeping generalization that I felt needed have exceptions exposed. I have only dwelled on it due to you're not understanding that. Btw, I said she speaks more eloquently than Trump. That's as far as I'll go on this tact. I also find it head scratching that you haven't been able to grasp what Jonathan has been repeatedly explaining as to his stance on God or gods. I am not so refined in my knowledge of religion, yet I understood it.
  14. "...I was implying that the liberal agenda is wrong, and they would also be correct." But you never said their "agenda", and no one stated an agenda. So, in that case you are wrong, except in your own opinion. Whether you state liberal or Democrat, you lump everyone together in a broad generalization that is virtually guaranteed to not always be true, just as someone might say the same of conservative or Republican. Additionally, it's a shame that a religious philosophy discussion had even become a political one to begin with. However, since you stated differences in thinking in regards to voting Trump or AOC, I'm inclined to present the opinion that there was no thorough thinking in voting for Trump as opposed to AOC. (She speaks far more eloquently than he does, despite conservative arguments, as well. Yes, that is saying a lot, but she is also improving, while he isn't.)