Key

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.

Curious. Can anyone prove that consciousness isn't possibly energy, itself? Just a thought, that hadn't occurred to me before.

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?

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.

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.

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.

"...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.)

You didn't get it, still. And, no, I didn't say they contradict, but rather they presented different specifics of bias. And as they exists as separate posts, it isn't always clear that one would be an extension of the other. As much as the ideologies of thinking differ, occasionally, as per individual basis, they may actually agree on some topics, ergo hatred of Trump, or even abortion. Which I was pointing out. Again, in the way you stated this opinion in the first place, was to give an impression that liberals, or specifically Democrats, are wrong and/or immoral. An assumption created by another assumption, yes? I am not offended in the least, but felt compelled to point this out, so as to present you an understanding of how what you said can be, and probably has already, been perceived by others. If you feel this is an attack, then it was misunderstood by you. And on this exchange alone, I can see how others feel you twist context a bit. Sorry, just my view.

"You expressed far left opinions (pro-abortion, hate Trump, etc) so I presumed your a Democrat from you opinions because it just seemed obvious. But sorry if I mischaracterized your political affiliation." Above in red is the quote I referred. It is, itself, quite different from the quote in blue, also provided above, in that not only do you assume someone to be affiliated to one ideology over another, you also pinprick talking points as to why you feel they are, and by doing so in such way, as to form an opinion you think they are wrong and that the other ideology doesn't think the same way. I pointed out that that was untrue, and that there are, indeed, others who think the same way, but aren't left leaning. Still, you didn't seem to understand that, or simply overlooked it based on your own bias. Then, you go and throw in "...but they aren't biblical"? Is there truly such a tremendous distinction of right/wrong, or moral/immoral being "biblical" or not? The only difference I see, is that the Bible calls wrong/immoral choices "sins".

Wow. You do realize I highlighted your quote in question in my response, right? That quote didn't say, "I believe you guys are extremely liberal." As for the atheist comment...that is not how your explanation comes across when often it is accompanied with questions or doubt on a person's ability to have morals because of a lack of belief in a God. Not always, but frequent enough as to be a reminder in the argument of the divine.

Dan, that is very presumptuous of you. I happen to know many Republicans, or right leaning folks who also are pro-abortion and hate Trump. As for the no belief in God or gods? It's been stated many times that he thinks they are possible, but needs conclusive proof to believe He or they exist.

Alas, Dan, by this very passage, God did not do as He said He would. And also presents a contradiction. First, if He truly wished to "destroy men...from the face of the Earth", He would not have spared Noah and his family. The very reason He spared them? They weren't wicked as He proclaimed men were. I also think it matters not if something was wicked for Satan to destroy if it follows his agenda. Just as men say they sacrifice things for the greater good, so may Satan say similarly. Just saying.

Actually, one might question even the OT, as it, too, was written by men. Maybe Christ didn't dispute it, because as a guide or in principle it was better or closer to God's work than many of the other beliefs of the region in His view. Just like Christians do with the NT now. Remember only priests or rabbi had access to the whole Torah, while the laws were often debated for greater understanding among the faithful. Also, how reliable are people's memories 1 to 3 decades after an event? Not everyone view things the same later as they do at the time of something happening. Then, there's the pesky interpretation thing again. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ", may refer to John's view of Christ as a revelation, and did he write those testimonies while they were given by Christ, or later? (Memory reliability again.) Plus, there is no accounting for passages having been added or removed after they were written via church restricted access. Which goes to the question of how much control or power the church wished to maintain over a society. And still more questions abound. Who, as asked earlier by Jonathan, did the authentication? How reliable were they? Were they officials of the church, which might present questions of conflict of interest? In my view, the reason God may no longer interfere with how men run religion is that Christ was the last piece of the puzzle for men to put together. No longer would we need Him to appoint Judges, Kings, or even prophets to be saved. Christ, Himself, said for us to question everything, especially authority. (Which, on a side note, is why I find it completely ridiculous for folks to believe that God propped Trump up to become POTUS.)

Here's the bigger difference: Christ did not dispute the Torah, or Jewish Scripture, but wasn't around for the New Testament, or Christian Scripture, so, of course He hasn't disputed that. Nor could Revelation have been a direct quote from Him. Possible it was written, as I've said before, to avert question and instill obedience by submission. God knows, but men don't. Parts may be inspired by Him, and parts of what others added may have been put in. Another point, men decided which books to include and which were excluded, and even later sought destruction of the latter. What makes an agenda possible, or even a lie believable, for that matter, is that there are bits of truth sprinkled in it.

Too much pun-ishment.

Angels aside for the moment, as it can be argued there was no proof of them and these events happening other than what is written in the Bible. Let me put this in another context to show what you are conveying here. I wrote some lyrics, because I was inspired by the Beatles. So, my work is by the Beatles, becaused the mode of the work and who did the work doesn't matter, as the music is entertaining, recorded, and Beatles inspired. Or how about this? I sent a lyric sheet to Aerosmith, they recorded it, but added some content. Since no one else had seen the original lyric sheet, everyone believes I wrote the whole thing.

Sorry, can't help it, but this explains Trump so much!

A couple of problems with this, Dan, at least. Most glaring is your first sentence. If it must come to pass, then we may never know in our lifetime if a prophecy may have come to pass. People may often proclaim an event as fulfilling a prophecy, when it may not have. Part of that error is due to some prophecies being a bit vague, yes? Another, you're relying upon a book that was written by men to provide substance to a message? A book that may have been questionably altered, or has been often misinterpreted? Then there's that misinterpretation thing. What if the message aligns with an interpretation, but unknowingly, it's the wrong interpretation? (This isn't to say a "prophet" would be giving the meaning, either.) Personally, I'd rather hear from the horse's mouth, or rather from God, Himself. As I do believe, I know that I would.

Further debate, then. How do we know it was truly God that gave them a vision, or even that the one recording was a prophet. Afterall, we'd only have their word for it. There are supposed "prophets" from various religions, and not just different sects of Christianity. Surely, you must acknowledge that there have been various individuals that have claimed a vision from God led them to "transcribe" or lead. That you do not accept them due to they not being "Christian" does not necessarily make them wrong, nor right. (God does choose whoever He wishes. Which can be seemingly odd, at times.) Some are well known, and others not so much. As for conformity, that relies upon the use of preference and preconceptions. It is comparative analysis. Absolutely, one can align what Christ, or anyone, for that matter, taught with what one thinks. That is interpretative comprehension. The very reason there are so many sects, or at least one of the reasons.

Then clearly you must understand that simply from what you just shared, these dreams that you say can inspire may come from below, acting as the divine. Satan can be a crafty fellow, who knows Scripture better than we, surely. Which requires considerable ability for discernment.

Very little, as far as I'm aware, has been absolutely confirmed as to whom wrote which parts of the Bible and even when. Also, it has been copied many times over, with variations recorded, as well. Then, too, for a time, only Church officials or church appointed scribes were allowed to create copies. How does this prevent insertion of policy or passages for control, possibly as sanctioned by someone of power within the organization? (Btw, I hardly think scribes would be considered prophets.) Who could vouch that a person was moved by the Holy Spirit, other than the one being motivated? Speaking of tongues was common until it was required that more than one person able to translate needed to be present to assert it was genuine. Could that be said of those moved? Again, playing devil's advocate, could this passage not have been placed to assert influence and deflect questioning? Remember, not all can hear God speak. So how do we know He DID speak to certain individuals? (This would apply to the Holy Spirit, as well. As part of the Trinity, they are all one.) I do not deny a Holy Spirit. Nor do I deny many unknowns and possibilities, just so you understand.

God inspired, yet not written by Him. The Pharisees were a sect that was God inspired, one could say. Yet, we don't follow their rules in this day and age, yes? As men are fallible, how then can the Bible be reliable. One might argue, that to be familiar with what "men" wrote as the Word of God, might only prove reliable in confirming what "men" wrote. These could be lies, or an edict towards an agenda. As much as one may cry "blasphemy", it is very possible as a means to control the masses. Theocracies only last as long as power is held. You may call it schematics, but the fact that you are still "choosing" what to believe to be true is still aligning your beliefs with your thoughts. You may have made adjustments that changed your thinking, true, but it ultimately was your own thoughts that allowed you to accept the adjustments. Btw, I'm not saying I believe exactly all of this. I am simply presenting a devil's advocate point of view. Exploring possibilities and discovering insights on my journey to learning. I am, after all, what I proclaim beneath my handle here on the forum, a "Spiritual Pilgrim."

Debatable. Writing, medicine, history, and science were all born from necessities of life, and not necessarily from any temple edict. Surely, engineers would have developed the wheel to move things easier, without the help of any religion. And no religion would have been able to prevent it from becoming general knowledge, yes?

As we all should be, no?