Do you believe in God and why

[Social Media]

 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

One thing about which the IPCC is confident, is that warming will increase rainfall, globally. This should make sense to most people who have only a basic understanding of science. A warmer climate causes more evaporation of the oceans and lakes. The evaporated water does not leave the atmosphere to outer space. It comes back as rain. However, whilst some areas might get wetter, other areas might get drier. Changes in climate are not uniform over the entire planet. 

 

Fortunately, we have the technology to distribute the water from where the rain falls in excess, to where it doesn't fall, by building dams and long-distance water pipes. Increased rain and increased atmospheric CO2, plus a warmer climate, are all excellent for increased plant growth.

 

On the issue of over-population, a friend who was an architect made the comment, a few years ago, that the entire world population, then around 7 billion, could be accommodated on an area of land the size of Tasmania.

 

I thought at the time that was rather fanciful, so I did some calculations. The area of Tasmania is 68,403 square Km. One square Km is one million square metres, so 68.4 thousand square km translates to 68.4 billion square metres.

 

Using a figure of 8 billion for the current population would mean that each person on the planet, (man, woman and child) would be allocated a space of 8.55 square metres at ground level. That's the size of a very small bedroom. A reasonable living area would be, say, 6x that area, which is around 50 square metres. That means a family of four would have more than 200 sqare metres of living area, which is equivalent to a large house.

 

To achieve that allocation would require 6 storey buildings covering the entire area of Tasmania, but that excludes walls and roads, and many other requirements. To create space for these other requirements, one would have to increase the number of storeys. To create room for all the walls, corridors and lifts within each building, the height would be raised to, say, 7 storeys.

 

But of course, one needs a lot of areas for roads, and also parks and recreational areas, otherwise living there would be awful. Thankfully, as a result of modern science and technology we can build 100 storey buildings. If we multiply the 7 storeys by 8, we get 56 storeys. In other words, the total area covered by buildings is just 1/8th of the area of Tasmania if all the buildings are 56 storeys. That leaves plenty of room for roads and parks.

 

However, we still need to create room for shops, supermarkets, warehouses, maintenance areas, manufacturing areas, offices, and so on, so let's add another 10 storeys. We now have 65 storey buildings covering 1/8th of the area of Tasmania, all connected with roads which occupy, say, another 1/8th of the total area of Tasmania. That leaves 3/4ths of the total area for parks and forests.

 

I'd say that any city which allocates 3/4ths of its area to parks and nature is acceptable. I should also add that I'm talking about the application of modern technology. All these skyscrapers would be located in different areas which are interconnected with sophisticaed railway networks. Wherever you live, you could travel quickly to any destination by taking the lift, and/or escalator, to the nearest railway station. Personal cars and electric vehicles would be obsolete in this situation.

 

Also, in this situation where 8 billion people live in an area the size of Tasmania, there would probably be another 8 billion people, or more, living in the rest of the world, who are producing most of the food and various other products. The energy supplies for this vision of the future would have to come from nuclear power. Solar power and wind would not pass muster. ????

The planet could accommodate an unlimited number of humans living in floating cities and eating insects, seaweed and farmed fish. Solar would provide drinking water and power. But would you want to live like that?

The problem is most want to live on the land and we are polluting our environment to death.

 

 

However, whilst some areas might get wetter, other areas might get drier. Changes in climate are not uniform over the entire planet. 

but the areas where most people live are the ones likely to suffer drought, IMO.

 

 

Fortunately, we have the technology to distribute the water from where the rain falls in excess, to where it doesn't fall, by building dams and long-distance water pipes.

We can't even afford to do that now, and I can't see the west paying to build such in poor areas of the planet.

 

IMO a major problem in the future will be increased migration from poor areas that can't support their overpopulation to wealthy areas that don't want them. It's already causing major problems and it hasn't even begun to reach crisis numbers.

The best solution, IMO, is to incentivize the areas at risk to lower their birth rate drastically, but I know that ain't going to happen.

 

Regardless, if Gaia wants us gone we are going. Can't win against nature.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

When Edwin Hubble, using more powerful telescopes, discovered there were other galaxies in the universe and observed, due to the doppler effect (redshift), that the farther apart galaxies are from each other, the faster they move away from each other, it became apparet that the universe is expanding. 

Which would go to supporting the theory that the universe started from a central point which for simplicity is called "the big bang", though it may not have been any sort of explosion. If that is accepted, then the force which created the universe is still affecting everything by making it expand outwards, and that force is what I refer to as God.

IMO it's possible that once all the sun's fuel runs out, the universe will contract back into the central "start" point, where it will all start again with a new universe.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Elad said:

In evolution there are no sudden jumps from one species to another, its a gradual process of small incremental steps over thousands and millions of years. There never was a first of any species, just like there never was a first human. There was never a moment where a Homo erectus mother gave birth to a Homo sapien child, it doesn't work like that. It's analogous to how a human grows old from a baby to child, adult to middle aged or middle aged to an old man, There's never a moment, you don't go to bed a middle aged man then wake up in the morning an old man, but if you wait a sufficient number of years you become old. That's how evolution works but now we are talking about thousands and millions of years and it's very hard to grasp those time scales. 

No disagreement from me, but none of that excludes the existence of God, the creator of all.

[Tippaporn]

12 hours ago, Hummin said:

Well, stubborn? Me? ????

 

How do you look at yourself? I'm more curious about how you did find your way in to this theology or theological theory. Where you where in life, and why you where  converted? 

 

I did listen to Osho when I needed some answers, but did not really fall in to it, as many others.

 

I feel more connected to science theories to be true.

 

Right now following two channels of different level of feeds.

 

https://bigthink.com/

 

https://www.veritasium.com/

 

 

And trust me, I really did give Seth a try, and did look in to it as much I could. Little bit I knew from before, and did see if there where possible to look at it in new light.

 

I doesn't say science is the answer for everything, but I believe we need science in our daily life's,and for the moment alot more interesting than anything else

Your opening sentence drew a smile from me.  At least there was something I've said that sparked some recognition within you. 

 

Since I was a young kid, despite all of the troubles I faced in youth, I always held the thought that I would never want to be anyone other than me.  That thought was as natural as the world around me and held such supreme conviction to the extent that any other option would be ridiculous to entertain.

 

Now the knowledge which I've pursued my entire life is not theological.  Theology is the study of the nature of God and religious belief.  I've stated more times than I care to remember that I am not religious by any definition of the term.  In fact, I make it a point to avoid religion.  I doubt this will be the last time I have to repeat myself.

Perhaps one could accuse me of studying the nature of God since I do believe in a source, which I label All That Is.  But this would not be true either.  I do not search for All That Is or the meaning of All That Is.  I do not seek to become "one" with All That Is.  Anything I learn about All That Is is a byproduct of what I am intent on discovering.  That intention is to pull back the curtain of illusion, so to speak, and understand the true nature of myself and this world.  Much like Toto pulled back the curtain in The Wizard Of Oz.  I want to see what lies behind this camouflage system of reality.

 

And it literally is a camouflage existence.  Every object, every living form, every event, is a symbolic representation of a greater reality.  If I may be so bold to say, this is what you feel as you walk outdoors and find yourself amidst your beloved nature.  You feel an indescribable connection to that which you find difficult to verbalise.  Yet your sense of that connection carries such weight that no one could possibly convince you to deny it's existence.  What you feel when you go out into the wild of the world is the same thing I feel.  To put it simply, I want to know what it is in a much more direct fashion.  I want to understand what that connection is all about.

That connection is felt within.  And there the journey must begin.  That journey can only take place by exploring our subjective reality.  That subjective reality is our consciousness.  Our consciousness is what we are.  And it is not a thing.  Taking that journey is to discover ourselves.  Don Juan has said that there is no more worthy endeavour that a man can undertake than to know himself.

 

The true answers to any question lie within consciousness.  Any answer which man has ever attained comes from within.  The objective world is a literal projection of our inner realty, produced by our consciousness in full.  A projection of a greater reality into a three dimensional physical medium.

It's a shocking revelation, I know.  It goes against most everything everyone has been taught in this life.  Everything that everyone has been conditioned to believe beginning at the moment they were born.  I must admit that it takes a great deal of courage to embark upon such a journey because it does counter so much of what one has been taught to be true throughout life.  The real truth so often lies directly in polar opposition to the manufactured truth we've all come to accept.  And that indeed creates a highly confounding situation in which your intellect feels assaulted and scandalised when confronted with the real truth.  Most turn back.

The scene from the movie The Matrix in which Morpheus offers Neo a choice comes closest, in my humble opinion, to describing the choice I made.  Other than the part where Morpheus informs Neo of what the truth is.  I would say that what that truth is is something entirely different though it's not so easily explained.  I made the decision to take the red pill and discover the reality which lies behind the illusion.  The reality which creates the illusion.  The reality which transforms itself into a symbolic representation expressed in the medium which is physical reality.

 

Our subjective reality is what is to be explored.  More so than objective reality.  The answers which would explain our precious familiar world lie there.  And because this is true then that explains why everyone is capable of ascertaining the truth of our world, of ourselves, and so much more.  For each of us resides in that subjective reality.  Each of us is capable of making the choice to explore that inner reality.  And therefore each of us is fully capable of knowing the truth for ourselves.

 

Seth is not necessary.  Yet he does have great value.  Seth is, rather, someone like you and me who resides now fully in that inner reality and no longer walks within our physical one.  Seth therefore has a much greater view and understanding of the nature of our world.  His reality includes ours yet includes much more reality.  His reality is more expansive than ours.  Not better, not higher, but simply more expansive.  He expresses that view, that understanding, that reality as well as ours to anyone who would willingly pay attention.  I eagerly consume the knowledge he conveys because I want to know more with greater intensity than most.

Now I have often been accused of believing myself to possess some higher intellect, that I look down upon others, that I'm at some other level, or other such nonsensical conclusions.  As Seth offers knowledge to anyone willing to take it I in turn do the same here.  Attaining knowledge does not make anyone more superior than anyone else.  It does not make them more special.  It does not make them more worthy.  It does not make them more important.   It simply makes them more knowledgeable.  No different than anyone who acquires specialised knowledge in any given subject matter or field.  My field of specialised knowledge is in the nature of us and our reality.

 

Again I will quote don Juan's definition of true humbleness which he gave to Carlos Castenada.  "No one is more important than you and you are no more important than anyone else."  I have faithfully lived that definition in my life because I understand the truth of it as fully as I understand the truth of, for example, gravity and that jumping off a tall building will result in unwanted consequences.  All interpretations of what I appear to represent to others are distortions based on individual belief.
 

Now you ask me why I was converted.  You may as well ask my why I was converted to engineering, which sounds absurd.  Even more absurd, you might ask me why I was converted to knowing.  There was no conversion to anything.  Of course I understand your question in the context given, that you believe I'm involved in some sort of theology.  Again, your impression is distorted and is generated by your personal beliefs.  Your beliefs cause you to come to such conclusions.  And I say that in this regard your beliefs are faulty.  I do not assign fault to your beliefs in order to diminish you or invalidate your beliefs.  I say it so that you might examine the beliefs you hold which led you to ask those questions which in turn reveal your beliefs to me.  Reveal those beliefs to yourself.  Examine them and pick up their thread.  Follow them to their origin.  In doing so you will discover a part of yourself and the part of you which creates your reality.

I shy away from science programming.  I choose my terminology purposely here and hopefully it doesn't go over your head.  Why do I choose to avoid science programming?  Because in a nut shell there are two theories.  One, which is science's, believes that natural processes determine not only our lives but has in fact created us.  The second is a theory that is in direct contradiction with the first.  And that is that life, which is what we are, determines our lived experience and in fact creates the process in the first place.  All I can say is that everyone places there bets.

 

You place your general bet on science.  Though you admit that when you find yourself fully amidst the natural world you feel something which is wholly unscientific.  How you bridge that gap, that contradiction, is something I can't explain.  Now I place my bet, the entire pile, on the second theory.  Now both theories cannot be correct.  Which one is the correct one and which is the false one?  Go ahead and call me a liar if you like but I know.

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

@Hummin

 

Here's a good example of Seth explaining the greater reality which exists and which he is aware of in the form of a conversation.  I offer it to the end that it might spark some new understanding on your part of the nature of reality.

 

Jane Roberts held classes for a number of years.  Seth would come through now and again.  This conversation took place during one of those classes.  It's related in Jane's own book, Adventures In Consciousness:  An Introduction To Aspect Psychology.

When Ron asked his question, Seth "took him on" with the kind of humor that instantly cleared the air.  There's nothing like a good laugh to return us solidly to the world that we know and plank us back onto the firm framework of our own emotions.

Ron's actual question was voiced like this:  "Do you see, in other words, when Jane is speaking  . . . can you see the room?  Or do you only see the room . . . ?   Ron pursed and wet his lips then said, "Do you see what I'm getting at?"

Seth said, "When I am speaking, I cause myself to concentrate on this minute portion of time and space that you think of as this room.  Otherwise, I can look at you, seeing your reincarnational existences, for example, and I am not limited to perceiving only the one self you imagine yourself to be."

 

"Would you be aware of, say, the pot on the table?" Ron asked.

"Only if I were interested in the pot on the table."  As Seth, I smiled broadly.
 

"But how would it appear to you?" Ron persisted.

 

"As a pot on the table," Seth said sardonically.

 

Ron frowned.  "The same way it would appear . . . ?"

 

Seth said, "When I use perceptions in your reality, then I automatically translate inner data into physical terms.  Otherwise, I am not limited to that kind of perception."  Smiling, speaking very slowly for effect, he added, "I need not perceive that object as a pot, but I can perceive it as a pot.  You must perceive it as a pot.  And now I am saying good evening."

 

"But you didn't answer my question," Ron said, stubbornly.

"I did indeed.  You did not listen to the answer.  Your questions obsess you, and you do not listen."

Ron came out with another garbled version of what he was trying to say.  He was growing red-faced, but even more determined.

Seth said, with a note of finality, "The reality of the pot on the table - as you know it - is a portion of my entire perception of it."

 

Very soberly Ron said, "You answered the question.  I understand."

 

"Thank you," Seth said, so dryly that the students all broke out laughing.  Even Ron started grinning.  He didn't feel put down either, but vindicated because he felt that he'd held his own just the same.

 

With that exchange Seth hints at the camouflage nature of the pot as we perceive only it's camouflage, and must perceive it as such while physically oriented.  The pot, though, as a symbolic representation of inner reality, has a greater reality in which other aspects of it can be perceived.  To perceive those other aspects implies the use of senses other than those which we use to perceive physical reality.

 

That exchange also hints at the greater, or more expansive reality in which Seth resides.  It is also a reality that we, too, reside in simultaneous to our existence in this world.  Granted, we are abjectly unaware of this fact.  But we can become aware of it.  The red pill is available to all of us.

 

When people talk of God, ourselves, and this world we naturally assume one God, one self, and one world, or one reality.  The reflection you see in the mirror is but a portion of yourself.  There is more to you.  Much more.  That is what is felt and recognised, for instance, whenever anyone identifies strongly with nature.  The world you find yourself in is but on world.  There are many others.  The God that people believe in is but one God.  There are many more.  And this reality which we claim to be the only one is but one of an infinite number of realities.

 

Realising the above is akin to waking up in a dream and realising that you are dreaming.  It is waking up to the dream that is our currently created reality and then understanding the true nature of existence.

Well, folks can say much about me, true or false.  But one thing folks can say about me with truthful certainty is that I am not boring. 

[Tippaporn]

19 hours ago, Hummin said:

I do not see my ideas controversial because we live in the middle  of it, we can see it, we can touch it and we can feel it. There is no hidden ghosts, just purity, beautiful, evil and dangerous. It have all ingredients of reality. I prove it to myself every day I walk out the door no matter where I am, we are here and now!

True, your ideas are very conventional and therefore not too controversial.  I absolutely agree with you on that point.  Your awareness, however, and I think you'll agree, is not by any stretch of the imagination universal.  There is much that exists which you do not perceive.  In fact, I will say that there is more that you do not perceive than there is of what you do perceive.  Yet despite knowing this as fact people still like to believe that they do perceive everything that can be perceived.  And that anything which exists beyond their perceptions is not real.  Isn't that laughably and bizarredly contradictory when you think about it?     See.  I'm laughing.

 

Whether ghosts or otherwise, there is much hidden from view.  That's not to say that it can't be unhidden.

 

19 hours ago, Hummin said:

What you constantly challenging us, is not possible to answer, neither you if asked the same questions on the same terms. You fail as much as we do on those complicated questions, even you as Asia at hearth continue to give quotes and d texts from your trustworthy sources. Those sourches mean nothing to other than you, him and those who want to follow same sourches. To us, fiction and fairytales. 

But, as I explained profusely in one of the above posts, the answers to even the most complex questions are indeed possible for us to have.  Now you may believe that that is impossible.  Fine.  I can easily live with that.  I don't have to live your life.  Do understand, though, that it is a belief and it is a belief which you chose to adopt, to hold, of your own free will.  A belief that you take as a condition of reality rather than a belief about reality.  And it's precisely one of those beliefs which prevent people from understanding.  That's one of the culprits.

 

Mind you, there are plenty of other folks who do not share your belief, and therefore understand fully that the actual condition of reality allows us to achieve those answers.  I have.  Or will you deny my reality, after so much complaining with profuse and boisterous indignation that I am refuting yours?  How dare I?  How dare you? 

 

But you haven't yet been exposed to enough information, to enough of the answers to those complicated questions to arrive at any conclusion . . . if you were to be honest about it.  What's been offered thus far are but a few of the pieces to a gargantuan puzzle.  You don't have enough pieces to view the entire picture yet.  You can, if you like, attempt to make a picture of the few puzzle pieces you have thus far.  But wouldn't you agree that with so many missing pieces you could only produce a distorted picture?  And that such a distorted picture can only lead you to conclude erroneously about what that picture represents?  Does that make sense?

 

You either have the patience to wait for more puzzle pieces or you don't.  Quit whinnying.  Rather whining.  Horses whinny.  People whine.  Sorry.  I had you confused for a moment from an earlier post. 

Reality is a trustworthy source, no?  That's my source, Hummin.  Any objections?  Or will you insist that reality as a source means nothing to you and is merely full of fiction and fairy tales? 

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

20 hours ago, Hummin said:

I guess that fits most people who in some way thinking about the big questions, and do have a strong opinion about what is real or not, and what is the real absolute truths in life. 
 

Anyone here believe we have to face consequences for what we did in life when we die? 
 

Myself Im quite sure Im not, but if I had kids, Im quite sure they would carry on my heritage for good and bad. So for your kids it is consequences not only from me, but all the ancestor’s before. 

I'll take up your question of whether or not we face the consequences of our actions in this life in an afterlife.

 

No.  Reflection?  Yes.

 

Now this answer runs strictly in opposition to that of religion.  Per religious teachings we can expect a day (or two or three . . . maybe more depending on how lengthy the scroll is on which all of your sins are recorded )  of judgement.  Given the rules of that game of Christianity it's quite straightforward.  You are either sent to Hell for eternity or you are allowed entry to Heaven by St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.  Reward or punishment.  So repent while you can if this is your belief.

 

Now if you're one who is of a scientific persuasion then no worries.  There is no afterlife.  So obviously no consequences will be faced for any of your actions here on earth since you no longer exist.

 

Your question, Hummin, is a specific question of what will be encountered during the death experience.  If you're interested let me know and I'll provide more extensive information.  It will be unique and not what you may expect.  I will copy and paste a portion which I find extremely humourous.  I think you'll agree.

In many cases, immediately on leaving the body there is, of course, amazement and a recognition of the situation. The body itself may be viewed, for example, and many funerals have a guest of honor amidst the com-pany - and no one gazes into the face of the corpse with as much curiosity and wonder.

The imagine of a shocked, perhaps horrified individual staring in amazement at his own corpse brings tears to my eyes.  Not of sadness but of laughter.  It brings to mind an excellent, and very true quote from our very own Sunmaster.  A very wise individual, btw.

 

On 9/21/2022 at 6:33 AM, Sunmaster said:

One day we'll ALL find out how wrong we were. Some more than others.

All of the folks who believe death to be the end all . . . lights out kinda stuff . . . are going to find themselves very ill prepared to deal with the experience of their demise when their day finally arrives.  And when I imagine the shocked and horrified dearly departed stricken with astonishment and bewilderment as they view their sewn up mouth, their coiffured face and hair, laying in the luxuriousness of a casket, a luxuriousness which perhaps they have never been able to experience in life, I think of one of our wonderful science guys. 

[Tippaporn]

On 9/21/2022 at 7:02 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that they all have the same God, I don't get the joke.

Like I said, I couldn't quite remember the joke.  Enough of it to serve the purpose of my analogy, though.  But yeah, the punchline isn't there, nor is the much of the rest of the joke.  Now I do doubt that a Muslim, Jew and Christian would agree that they have the same God.

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

That connection is felt within.  And there the journey must begin.  That journey can only take place by exploring our subjective reality.  That subjective reality is our consciousness.  Our consciousness is what we are.  And it is not a thing.  Taking that journey is to discover ourselves.  Don Juan has said that there is no more worthy endeavour that a man can undertake than to know himself.

Excellent paragraph and post! 

 

[Tippaporn]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

17 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I've earlier offered an example in which science's methodology fails.  Never seen you comment on it, though.

I can't remember reading it, probably because your posts are so long. I can't think of any example where the 'methodology of science' has failed, but there are numerous examples where the 'methodology of science' has not been applied with sufficient rigour, and numerous examples where erroneous assumptions have been made due to insufficient data and evidence, and/or incorrect interpretation of the data.

  It was actually contained in one of my shorter posts and to be fair about you missing it it was not in reply to one of your posts.  It was a standalone post and not in reply to anyone.  It does reference you and I should have used the @VincentRJwhen referencing you.

But now that you can read it can you agree that science's methodology cannot be applied to any scientific investigation of whether creating one's own reality would be true or false?  And would you also agree that science's methodology would be insufficient on discovering any real truth when subjectivity is involved?  Would you agree that due to the fact that subjectivity cannot be observed, measured or quantified in an objective world to the degree which would satisfy the requirements of the protocols of the scientific method that it's application is neutered?  Would you agree that you cannot import physical instruments into the subjective world where physicality doesn't exist?

Would you then conclude that science, given it's present attitudes and methods, cannot possibly then explain all of the phenomenon which exists in this world?  Telepathy, for instance.  Precognition.  Automatic speech or writing.  OBEs.  Dreams.  How about the Ouija board?  What the heck is that all about?  Or any other subjective experience.  Or does science simply wave off these types of phenomenon and experiences or find some way to explain them away?

It's always a problem when you must provide answers, even when you haven't any. 

  

On 8/27/2022 at 4:13 PM, Tippaporn said:

For my next hat trick I'd like to dispel the notion that the die hard science folks here hold, and claim over and over ad nauseam, that science is capable of proving everything and anything using the scientific method, and thus is the only discipline capable of determining the truth of all things?

 

For this exercise we'll make the assumption that the theory that one creates his or her own reality using thoughts is true.  In order for science to prove this then it would need to know what someone's true thoughts are in order to match the thought to the reality created.  Since thoughts are private no one can know what another's thoughts are.  And how can one produce evidence of a particular thought since it's not physical?

 

Any science die hard here (I think VincentRJ was the last but I haven't seen him of late) who would be willing to take that one on?

Could science even prove that the reverse, which is the only other option, is true . . . that we don't create our reality via thoughts, or otherwise?  Or would they object using the argument that it's not their obligation to prove a negative?

 

How often have I tried to convince them that the scientific method has it's limitations due to the fact that not everything is something physical that one can probe, categorise,  and measure?

By the way, what did you think about the rest of my post?  Is there any possibility in your mind, any at all, that consciousness creates form?  I'm not asking you to confirm or deny.  I'm just asking you if you think the concept has possibility?

  

18 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Here's the crux of your dilemma as I see it, VincentRJ.  You are one who is so thoroughly convinced by the belief that only science can provide valid answers to any question involving reality.  You do not recognise your belief as a belief but rather as a condition of reality.  Therefore it seems inconceivable to you that valid answers can be arrived at by any other means.  And certainly not by anyone not entrenched within the framework of science.  And even more certain that the common man, such as myself, is capable of arriving at valid answers.

 

 

[Hummin]

@Tippaporn
 

You telling me Im stubborn, was amusing ????

 

By science we know we have a different view of the reality than other animals and other lifeforms living among us, both visually and also how we recieve information by different “tools” to continue to stay alive and avoid danger. There is a reason we see the reality how we do, and how do you think we would we would have survived if we saw the truth? Could we live with the truth? 
 

 

 

I have to think about me here and now, and live in this chaotic reality and try to maintain pure happiness, and therefor I like to keep it simple even I understand the complexity involved our lifes, and possibilities there is to maybe gain another consensus, but for what reasons? 
 

Is it just another happy pill to keep life interesting because you want it to be different, and you want to be different? Think about that for awhile before you answer. 
 

I am off for a daytrip while there is still good weathe. Enjoy ☺️ 
 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

Yes.

I believe in God.

 

Because, without God, there could be no such devastating perversity present in our world.

 

Without God, there would only be finches,

Happily singing random songs,

Chirping their little hearts away.

Contentedly,

Before falling off their perches.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

But now that you can read it can you agree that science's methodology cannot be applied to any scientific investigation of whether creating one's own reality would be true or false?  And would you also agree that science's methodology would be insufficient on discovering any real truth when subjectivity is involved?  Would you agree that due to the fact that subjectivity cannot be observed, measured or quantified in an objective world to the degree which would satisfy the requirements of the protocols of the scientific method that it's application is neutered?  Would you agree that you cannot import physical instruments into the subjective world where physicality doesn't exist?

Would you then conclude that science, given it's present attitudes and methods, cannot possibly then explain all of the phenomenon which exists in this world?  Telepathy, for instance.  Precognition.  Automatic speech or writing.  OBEs.  Dreams.  How about the Ouija board?  What the heck is that all about?  Or any other subjective experience.  Or does science simply wave off these types of phenomenon and experiences or find some way to explain them away?

It's always a problem when you must provide answers, even when you haven't any. 

  

It woukld take a long time to respond to every point you make, so I'll just begin with the distinction between objective realty and subjective reality, as I understand it, of course. 

 

Objective reality is a reality that applies to all people of all cultures, regardless of their differences. For example, if anyone were to kick a hard brick wall with his or her bare foot, with the same force that a footballer kicks a ball to score a goal, then the person will damge his foot, no exceptions. The extent of the damage, and how many toes are broken, will depend on many factors, such as the angle of the kick onto the brick wall, the force of the kick, and the physical strength of the person's foot.

 

The subjective reality is the amount of pain and emotional stress that such a person would experience. If the person's leg were injected with a local anaesthetic, prior to the experiment, he/she would probably feel no pain at all. That's also an objective reality. However, in the absence of anaesthetcs or pain killers, the amount of pain suffered would vary subjectively.
Some people would howl and cry and groan, whilst others would take it more calmly. A well-trained Buddhist monk who had succeeded in controling his emotions and thoughts, would probably feel just a basic pain that tells him something is wrong with his foot. Pain is a natural messenger from the body, which tells one that something is wrong and needs fixing.

 

Another obvious example of the difference between subjective and objective reality, is the taste of food. Any plate of food can be successfully examined, through scientific analysis, to document all the various chemicals in the food, which is also objective reality. But that analysis cannot predict whether everyone will enjoy the food, but it can predict that anyone eating the food will die if the food contains a deadly poison. 

 

Enjoyment of the taste of a particular type of food is subjective and depends mostly one one's cultural background. However, modern science has the capability to detect such enjoyment through fMRI scans of the brain. In other words, if a person were to eat a plate of food whilst undergoing an fMRI scan, and for some reason lied that he liked the food, when asked, the fMRI scan would show that the person was lying.

 

Here's an interesting article explaining the reward processes in the brain.
"When exposed to a stimulus which is rewarding, the brain responds by releasing an increased amount of dopamine, the main neurotransmitter associated with rewards and pleasure.
Dopamine is mostly produced in an area of the brain called the ventral tegmental area (VTA), located within the midbrain."
https://www.simplypsychology.org/brain-reward-system.html#:~:text=When exposed to a stimulus,)%2C located within the midbrain
 

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Yes.

I believe in God.

 

Because, without God, there could be no such devastating perversity present in our world.

 

Without God, there would only be finches,

Happily singing random songs,

Chirping their little hearts away.

Contentedly,

Before falling off their perches.

GammaGlobulin, you truly are a most playful and delightful imp.  And thoroughly enjoyable as always. 

[GammaGlobulin]

56 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

GammaGlobulin, you truly are a most playful and delightful imp.  And thoroughly enjoyable as always. 

All good things under Heaven.

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

All good things under Heaven.

And you, GammaGlobulin, are certainly one of them. 

[Tippaporn]

38 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It woukld take a long time to respond to every point you make, so I'll just begin with the distinction between objective realty and subjective reality, as I understand it, of course. 

 

Objective reality is a reality that applies to all people of all cultures, regardless of their differences. For example, if anyone were to kick a hard brick wall with his or her bare foot, with the same force that a footballer kicks a ball to score a goal, then the person will damge his foot, no exceptions. The extent of the damage, and how many toes are broken, will depend on many factors, such as the angle of the kick onto the brick wall, the force of the kick, and the physical strength of the person's foot.

 

The subjective reality is the amount of pain and emotional stress that such a person would experience. If the person's leg were injected with a local anaesthetic, prior to the experiment, he/she would probably feel no pain at all. That's also an objective reality. However, in the absence of anaesthetcs or pain killers, the amount of pain suffered would vary subjectively.
Some people would howl and cry and groan, whilst others would take it more calmly. A well-trained Buddhist monk who had succeeded in controling his emotions and thoughts, would probably feel just a basic pain that tells him something is wrong with his foot. Pain is a natural messenger from the body, which tells one that something is wrong and needs fixing.

 

Another obvious example of the difference between subjective and objective reality, is the taste of food. Any plate of food can be successfully examined, through scientific analysis, to document all the various chemicals in the food, which is also objective reality. But that analysis cannot predict whether everyone will enjoy the food, but it can predict that anyone eating the food will die if the food contains a deadly poison. 

 

Enjoyment of the taste of a particular type of food is subjective and depends mostly one one's cultural background. However, modern science has the capability to detect such enjoyment through fMRI scans of the brain. In other words, if a person were to eat a plate of food whilst undergoing an fMRI scan, and for some reason lied that he liked the food, when asked, the fMRI scan would show that the person was lying.

 

Here's an interesting article explaining the reward processes in the brain.
"When exposed to a stimulus which is rewarding, the brain responds by releasing an increased amount of dopamine, the main neurotransmitter associated with rewards and pleasure.
Dopamine is mostly produced in an area of the brain called the ventral tegmental area (VTA), located within the midbrain."
https://www.simplypsychology.org/brain-reward-system.html#:~:text=When exposed to a stimulus,)%2C located within the midbrain
 

Thanks for the reply, VincentRJ.  I have to say I appreciate your calm engagement here, and your persistence in continuing with well thought out posts in which you attempt to explain the world according to VincentRJ. 
 

Now you do a very good job of accurately describing the process of what happens when someone kicks a brick wall with a great deal of force.  And I agree 100% with your apt description.  But, you've only described part of the overall process.  What about the rest of it?  (I know that question will draw a look of puzzlement on your face.)

 

[Hummin]

What is the benefits of believing? I read a nice piece of text from Bhagavad Gita where someone asked the question. One simply replied with this qoute, and I googled the qoute and got alot more to read.

 

There are no disadvantages of believing in God, only disadvantages

 

What does it mean to you believing or not, and why you choose to believe in something or not?

 

To me it means everything, but first of all it means gratitude and respect for the nature, even I'm part of the problem, which seems the be one of the conflicts humans have no matter what they believe in, there is contrasts and guilt involved! Do non believers feel guilty in the same way as believers? 

 

Just to again describe, I believe in what we see and what surrounds us and what we can touch and feel and what we physically are dependen on to live a physical life on this planet.

 

The Nature which we are part of as everything else around us. 

 

Does non believers feel more freedom?

Edited September 24, 2022 by Hummin

[Tippaporn]

On 9/22/2022 at 1:36 AM, Elad said:

On 9/19/2022 at 7:34 PM, Tippaporn said:

When the original life form made it's first jump what was it to?  And what was it's next jump?  And so on.  If you can't  get that specific then how about a jump from one species to the creation of an entirely new species?  Since there's no fossil records to show this definitive transmutation could you at least illustrate the metamorphosis?

In evolution there are no sudden jumps from one species to another, its a gradual process of small incremental steps over thousands and millions of years. There never was a first of any species, just like there never was a first human. There was never a moment where a Homo erectus mother gave birth to a Homo sapien child, it doesn't work like that. It's analogous to how a human grows old from a baby to child, adult to middle aged or middle aged to an old man, There's never a moment, you don't go to bed a middle aged man then wake up in the morning an old man, but if you wait a sufficient number of years you become old. That's how evolution works but now we are talking about thousands and millions of years and it's very hard to grasp those time scales. 

  Good answer.  Evolution works in a slow and incremental fashion.  And I admit to using the term, jump, which could be interpreted in different contexts, is perhaps not the best.  Change would have been a more accurate term.  So rather than "jump to" then "change to."

 

Putting all other valid questions which could be asked about the process aside then I stand firm on the point that there are no physical records showing the progression of changes.  That is something that science has to date been unable to show, let alone validate.

Take it from there if you care to, Elad.

[Tippaporn]

On 9/23/2022 at 11:24 AM, VincentRJ said:

It woukld take a long time to respond to every point you make, so I'll just begin with the distinction between objective realty and subjective reality, as I understand it, of course. 

 

Objective reality is a reality that applies to all people of all cultures, regardless of their differences. For example, if anyone were to kick a hard brick wall with his or her bare foot, with the same force that a footballer kicks a ball to score a goal, then the person will damge his foot, no exceptions. The extent of the damage, and how many toes are broken, will depend on many factors, such as the angle of the kick onto the brick wall, the force of the kick, and the physical strength of the person's foot.

 

The subjective reality is the amount of pain and emotional stress that such a person would experience. If the person's leg were injected with a local anaesthetic, prior to the experiment, he/she would probably feel no pain at all. That's also an objective reality. However, in the absence of anaesthetcs or pain killers, the amount of pain suffered would vary subjectively.
Some people would howl and cry and groan, whilst others would take it more calmly. A well-trained Buddhist monk who had succeeded in controling his emotions and thoughts, would probably feel just a basic pain that tells him something is wrong with his foot. Pain is a natural messenger from the body, which tells one that something is wrong and needs fixing.

 

Another obvious example of the difference between subjective and objective reality, is the taste of food. Any plate of food can be successfully examined, through scientific analysis, to document all the various chemicals in the food, which is also objective reality. But that analysis cannot predict whether everyone will enjoy the food, but it can predict that anyone eating the food will die if the food contains a deadly poison. 

 

Enjoyment of the taste of a particular type of food is subjective and depends mostly one one's cultural background. However, modern science has the capability to detect such enjoyment through fMRI scans of the brain. In other words, if a person were to eat a plate of food whilst undergoing an fMRI scan, and for some reason lied that he liked the food, when asked, the fMRI scan would show that the person was lying.

 

Here's an interesting article explaining the reward processes in the brain.
"When exposed to a stimulus which is rewarding, the brain responds by releasing an increased amount of dopamine, the main neurotransmitter associated with rewards and pleasure.
Dopamine is mostly produced in an area of the brain called the ventral tegmental area (VTA), located within the midbrain."
https://www.simplypsychology.org/brain-reward-system.html#:~:text=When exposed to a stimulus,)%2C located within the midbrain
 

Since I don't want to overwhelm you with points then I re-ask that you answer this one single point which counters your claim that the 'methodology of science' can be used in uncovering the truth of any worldly phenomenon.  I've provided an example where the 'methodology of science' cannot be used to prove the proposition as neither true or false.  Do you then finally agree that the 'methodology of science' has limitations?

  

On 8/27/2022 at 4:13 PM, Tippaporn said:

For my next hat trick I'd like to dispel the notion that the die hard science folks here hold, and claim over and over ad nauseam, that science is capable of proving everything and anything using the scientific method, and thus is the only discipline capable of determining the truth of all things?

 

For this exercise we'll make the assumption that the theory that one creates his or her own reality using thoughts is true.  In order for science to prove this then it would need to know what someone's true thoughts are in order to match the thought to the reality created.  Since thoughts are private no one can know what another's thoughts are.  And how can one produce evidence of a particular thought since it's not physical?

 

Any science die hard here (I think VincentRJ was the last but I haven't seen him of late) who would be willing to take that one on?

Could science even prove that the reverse, which is the only other option, is true . . . that we don't create our reality via thoughts, or otherwise?  Or would they object using the argument that it's not their obligation to prove a negative?

 

How often have I tried to convince them that the scientific method has it's limitations due to the fact that not everything is something physical that one can probe, categorise,  and measure?

 

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

  Good answer.  Evolution works in a slow and incremental fashion.  And I admit to using the term, jump, which could be interpreted in different contexts, is perhaps not the best.  Change would have been a more accurate term.  So rather than "jump to" then "change to."

 

Putting all other valid questions which could be asked about the process aside then I stand firm on the point that there are no physical records showing the progression of changes.  That is something that science has to date been unable to show, let alone validate.

Take it from there if you care to, Elad.

Industrial Melanism would appear to disprove that evolution works in a slow and incremental fashion.

[Hummin]

22 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Since I don't want to overwhelm you with points then I re-ask that you answer this one single point which counters your claim that the 'methodology of science' can be used in uncovering the truth of any worldly phenomenon.  I've provided an example where the 'methodology of science' cannot be used to prove the proposition as neither true or false.  Do you then finally agree that the 'methodology of science' has limitations?

  

 

My impression is, when people do not understand science and the terms for science, some easily jump to alternative theories that in best case is ideas, and not anything that can be proved. A good mix with fantasy and visions after long term meditating, fasting, intake of different substances or a mix of some of mentioned or all together. 
 

However, I have many times said in this thread, we have our own physical universe inside us, so it is easy to get lost in our own chemical natural experience if you practice long enough, or have special gifts and it comes naturally easy. It is hard to say specific what creates this individual experiences and also sometimes quite remarkable having same experiences often led by some teacher or also psychologists. I had or we as a team had a unison experience with a psychologist who took the whole team on a specific journey all together to the very same place and same experience with nothing else than systematic words put together and created a wonderful experience for all of us. Imagine 9 people on the same experience just by one man leading us. Fantastic right? 
 

 

[AsianAtHeart]

Do you want to know if God exists?  I mean...REALLY want to know?  Or do you actually want there to be NO God because you would feel guilty in His presence, living as you do now?  If you truly want to know Him, the Bible has promised that those who seek Him with all their heart will find.  But if you are doubting and suspicious, wavering, do not expect to receive anything from God.

 

I like the words of a song I learned a long time ago:

 

 

1. I've been waiting, oh a long time,

Such a long time to see my Savior come...

And I know He's, coming for me,

And He's gonna take His children home.

 

King of glory! Coming for me,

With a million angels filling up the sky!

King of glory, Reigning o'er me,

Up to Heaven, we are gonna fly!

 

2. Oh, there's doubters, and there's scoffers,

There's so many who say He'll never come...

Well, I'm sorry, but so will they be,

When they see Him, shining like the sun.

 

King of glory! Coming for me,

With a million angels filling up the sky!

King of glory, Reigning o'er me,

Up to Heaven, we are gonna fly!

 

King of glory! Coming for me,

With ten million angels filling up the sky!

King of glory, Reigning o'er me,

Up to Heaven, we are gonna fly! ...

And it's up to Heaven, we are gonna fly!

 

 

Notice the words to that second verse particularly.  When that day comes, what will those who have rashly denied the truth, in order to persist in their own cherished views, say to those of us who have tried our best to share it?  Will you be able to blame me for not having told you?  Will I be blameworthy for not having shared in some better manner that would have persuaded you?  This is a question I grapple with.

 

I know for sure that God exists.  I know that the Bible is true.  I've experienced it.  I have tasted and seen that the Lord is good, just as Psalm 34:8 invites us to do.

 

I have not seen, however, that people are good.  Far from it.  As the Bible says, "there is none that doeth good, no, not one."  I have, with age and experience, had increasing difficulty with trusting anyone.  Once burned, twice shy, as they say.  But God has never let me down.  Oh, yes, I have often been tempted to blame God for bad things that have happened.  But deep inside I know that it was not God's fault, and that it would unfair to lay it to His account.

 

Soon, everyone will know the truth.  It will be too late then, however, to change sides.  Jesus will come in the clouds of glory, perhaps in just a few years from now--we don't know.  The Bible says we must always be ready, for we do not know the hour when our Lord will come.  Indeed, we could be taken abruptly from the earth at any moment--be it a car accident, a heart attack, an accidental stray bullet fired upward in celebration somewhere nearby, or any other unexpected event.  We just do not know when our probation will be ended.

 

God, in mercy, gives us the opportunity to learn of Him.  Today, the Bible is online in most of the world's languages.  We have the chance to read it for ourselves, rather than accept what others claim about it.  We can know the truth for ourselves.

 

But if you read the Bible with a critical attitude, expecting to find it untrue, you will certainly see things, true or not, that uphold your biased and erroneous views.  The only way to know the truth is to ask God to show it you.  Ask Him with a sincere heart, not for selfish reasons merely, but for the love of your soul and for the truth's sake.  God loves you...immensely.  He is just waiting for the chance to reveal Himself to you...but He waits like a Gentleman, leaving it entirely your choice whether or not you will come to Him.

[Hummin]

4 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Do you want to know if God exists?  I mean...REALLY want to know?  Or do you actually want there to be NO God because you would feel guilty in His presence, living as you do now?  If you truly want to know Him, the Bible has promised that those who seek Him with all their heart will find.  But if you are doubting and suspicious, wavering, do not expect to receive anything from God.

 

I like the words of a song I learned a long time ago:

 

 

1. I've been waiting, oh a long time,

Such a long time to see my Savior come...

And I know He's, coming for me,

And He's gonna take His children home.

 

King of glory! Coming for me,

With a million angels filling up the sky!

King of glory, Reigning o'er me,

Up to Heaven, we are gonna fly!

 

2. Oh, there's doubters, and there's scoffers,

There's so many who say He'll never come...

Well, I'm sorry, but so will they be,

When they see Him, shining like the sun.

 

King of glory! Coming for me,

With a million angels filling up the sky!

King of glory, Reigning o'er me,

Up to Heaven, we are gonna fly!

 

King of glory! Coming for me,

With ten million angels filling up the sky!

King of glory, Reigning o'er me,

Up to Heaven, we are gonna fly! ...

And it's up to Heaven, we are gonna fly!

 

 

Notice the words to that second verse particularly.  When that day comes, what will those who have rashly denied the truth, in order to persist in their own cherished views, say to those of us who have tried our best to share it?  Will you be able to blame me for not having told you?  Will I be blameworthy for not having shared in some better manner that would have persuaded you?  This is a question I grapple with.

 

I know for sure that God exists.  I know that the Bible is true.  I've experienced it.  I have tasted and seen that the Lord is good, just as Psalm 34:8 invites us to do.

 

I have not seen, however, that people are good.  Far from it.  As the Bible says, "there is none that doeth good, no, not one."  I have, with age and experience, had increasing difficulty with trusting anyone.  Once burned, twice shy, as they say.  But God has never let me down.  Oh, yes, I have often been tempted to blame God for bad things that have happened.  But deep inside I know that it was not God's fault, and that it would unfair to lay it to His account.

 

Soon, everyone will know the truth.  It will be too late then, however, to change sides.  Jesus will come in the clouds of glory, perhaps in just a few years from now--we don't know.  The Bible says we must always be ready, for we do not know the hour when our Lord will come.  Indeed, we could be taken abruptly from the earth at any moment--be it a car accident, a heart attack, an accidental stray bullet fired upward in celebration somewhere nearby, or any other unexpected event.  We just do not know when our probation will be ended.

 

God, in mercy, gives us the opportunity to learn of Him.  Today, the Bible is online in most of the world's languages.  We have the chance to read it for ourselves, rather than accept what others claim about it.  We can know the truth for ourselves.

 

But if you read the Bible with a critical attitude, expecting to find it untrue, you will certainly see things, true or not, that uphold your biased and erroneous views.  The only way to know the truth is to ask God to show it you.  Ask Him with a sincere heart, not for selfish reasons merely, but for the love of your soul and for the truth's sake.  God loves you...immensely.  He is just waiting for the chance to reveal Himself to you...but He waits like a Gentleman, leaving it entirely your choice whether or not you will come to Him.

Im happy for you have found your way and your god. 
 

No I do not feel any guilt anymore and have a good relation to myself and my nature, therefor no need of guilt. 
 

My comfort is dust to dust ashes to ashes and is the most true words said or written ever. 

[cleopatra2]

24 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Do you want to know if God exists?  I mean...REALLY want to know?  Or do you actually want there to be NO God because you would feel guilty in His presence, living as you do now?  If you truly want to know Him, the Bible has promised that those who seek Him with all their heart will find.  But if you are doubting and suspicious, wavering, do not expect to receive anything from God.

 

I like the words of a song I learned a long time ago:

 

 

1. I've been waiting, oh a long time,

Such a long time to see my Savior come...

And I know He's, coming for me,

And He's gonna take His children home.

 

King of glory! Coming for me,

With a million angels filling up the sky!

King of glory, Reigning o'er me,

Up to Heaven, we are gonna fly!

 

2. Oh, there's doubters, and there's scoffers,

There's so many who say He'll never come...

Well, I'm sorry, but so will they be,

When they see Him, shining like the sun.

 

King of glory! Coming for me,

With a million angels filling up the sky!

King of glory, Reigning o'er me,

Up to Heaven, we are gonna fly!

 

King of glory! Coming for me,

With ten million angels filling up the sky!

King of glory, Reigning o'er me,

Up to Heaven, we are gonna fly! ...

And it's up to Heaven, we are gonna fly!

 

 

Notice the words to that second verse particularly.  When that day comes, what will those who have rashly denied the truth, in order to persist in their own cherished views, say to those of us who have tried our best to share it?  Will you be able to blame me for not having told you?  Will I be blameworthy for not having shared in some better manner that would have persuaded you?  This is a question I grapple with.

 

I know for sure that God exists.  I know that the Bible is true.  I've experienced it.  I have tasted and seen that the Lord is good, just as Psalm 34:8 invites us to do.

 

I have not seen, however, that people are good.  Far from it.  As the Bible says, "there is none that doeth good, no, not one."  I have, with age and experience, had increasing difficulty with trusting anyone.  Once burned, twice shy, as they say.  But God has never let me down.  Oh, yes, I have often been tempted to blame God for bad things that have happened.  But deep inside I know that it was not God's fault, and that it would unfair to lay it to His account.

 

Soon, everyone will know the truth.  It will be too late then, however, to change sides.  Jesus will come in the clouds of glory, perhaps in just a few years from now--we don't know.  The Bible says we must always be ready, for we do not know the hour when our Lord will come.  Indeed, we could be taken abruptly from the earth at any moment--be it a car accident, a heart attack, an accidental stray bullet fired upward in celebration somewhere nearby, or any other unexpected event.  We just do not know when our probation will be ended.

 

God, in mercy, gives us the opportunity to learn of Him.  Today, the Bible is online in most of the world's languages.  We have the chance to read it for ourselves, rather than accept what others claim about it.  We can know the truth for ourselves.

 

But if you read the Bible with a critical attitude, expecting to find it untrue, you will certainly see things, true or not, that uphold your biased and erroneous views.  The only way to know the truth is to ask God to show it you.  Ask Him with a sincere heart, not for selfish reasons merely, but for the love of your soul and for the truth's sake.  God loves you...immensely.  He is just waiting for the chance to reveal Himself to you...but He waits like a Gentleman, leaving it entirely your choice whether or not you will come to Him.

I was under the impression that Jesus died to give all humankind redemption from their sins. 

God depicted in the Bible is uncompassionate , requiring animal sacrifices prior to Jesus being sacrificed

Condemning the majority of animal life to death , the great flood. Commanding his followers to wage death on people who God disapproved. Leaving the Old Testament saints in Hades before Jesus resurrection.

Edited September 24, 2022 by cleopatra2

[AsianAtHeart]

3 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I was under the impression that Jesus died to give all humankind redemption from their sins. 

God depicted in the Bible is uncompassionate , requiring animal sacrifices prior to Jesus being sacrificed

Condemning the majority of animal life to death , the great flood. Commanding his followers to wage death on people who God disapproved. Leaving the Old Testament saints in Hades before Jesus resurrection.

Have you read the Bible yourself?  You will find a different picture when you do.

 

Yes, God asked His people to sacrifice animals to help them understand how grave sin was.  When you have to kill an animal to atone for your sin, do you still want to sin again?  It was an important lesson, with an even more important message: God would send His Son to die for our sins.

 

We know that human life is of much greater value than that of an animal.  God made the animals for our benefit, and not as our equals.  The animals were placed in subjection to man from even before sin had occurred.  We are God's special focus on this earth.  Yes, God pities the animals, too.  But far better to sacrifice an animal, and save a human life, than the other way around.

 

As for the Flood, God found it necessary, for the sake of the righteous, to remove the wicked from the earth at that time.  If you have a flock of birds, and discover that a few have died from avian flu, you might even kill the entire flock, the innocent ones included, to ensure that the contagion did not spread any further.  But God did not kill any who were innocent.  He did the best thing possible in order to preserve life, for the people had become so wicked that they would soon have destroyed themselves, and the righteous with them.

 

God's people in the Old Testament are left in "Sheol", not "Hades."  They mean the same thing, but "Hades" is from the Greek word, whereas "sheol", meaning the grave, is Hebrew.  And people of both testaments die and go to the grave, whether righteous or unrighteous, until Jesus comes and restores them to life--the righteous to everlasting life, and the wicked to judgment and destruction.

[cleopatra2]

39 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Have you read the Bible yourself?  You will find a different picture when you do.

 

Yes, God asked His people to sacrifice animals to help them understand how grave sin was.  When you have to kill an animal to atone for your sin, do you still want to sin again?  It was an important lesson, with an even more important message: God would send His Son to die for our sins.

 

We know that human life is of much greater value than that of an animal.  God made the animals for our benefit, and not as our equals.  The animals were placed in subjection to man from even before sin had occurred.  We are God's special focus on this earth.  Yes, God pities the animals, too.  But far better to sacrifice an animal, and save a human life, than the other way around.

 

As for the Flood, God found it necessary, for the sake of the righteous, to remove the wicked from the earth at that time.  If you have a flock of birds, and discover that a few have died from avian flu, you might even kill the entire flock, the innocent ones included, to ensure that the contagion did not spread any further.  But God did not kill any who were innocent.  He did the best thing possible in order to preserve life, for the people had become so wicked that they would soon have destroyed themselves, and the righteous with them.

 

God's people in the Old Testament are left in "Sheol", not "Hades."  They mean the same thing, but "Hades" is from the Greek word, whereas "sheol", meaning the grave, is Hebrew.  And people of both testaments die and go to the grave, whether righteous or unrighteous, until Jesus comes and restores them to life--the righteous to everlasting life, and the wicked to judgment and destruction.

So God gave man Free Will but only if they obeyed his commands.

The Old Testament is full of God fighting and waging war. With many scriptures describing God as a soldier or warrior.

1 Samuel 15:3 describes the Genocide of the Amakalites , including babies, children and all animals

 

Why did God command Moses that every time a Isrealite census were carried out , everybody had to give a ransom to God. Which eventually led to a plague from Davids census.

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Have you read the Bible yourself?  You will find a different picture when you do.

 

Yes, God asked His people to sacrifice animals to help them understand how grave sin was.  When you have to kill an animal to atone for your sin, do you still want to sin again?  It was an important lesson, with an even more important message: God would send His Son to die for our sins.

 

We know that human life is of much greater value than that of an animal.  God made the animals for our benefit, and not as our equals.  The animals were placed in subjection to man from even before sin had occurred.  We are God's special focus on this earth.  Yes, God pities the animals, too.  But far better to sacrifice an animal, and save a human life, than the other way around.

 

As for the Flood, God found it necessary, for the sake of the righteous, to remove the wicked from the earth at that time.  If you have a flock of birds, and discover that a few have died from avian flu, you might even kill the entire flock, the innocent ones included, to ensure that the contagion did not spread any further.  But God did not kill any who were innocent.  He did the best thing possible in order to preserve life, for the people had become so wicked that they would soon have destroyed themselves, and the righteous with them.

 

God's people in the Old Testament are left in "Sheol", not "Hades."  They mean the same thing, but "Hades" is from the Greek word, whereas "sheol", meaning the grave, is Hebrew.  And people of both testaments die and go to the grave, whether righteous or unrighteous, until Jesus comes and restores them to life--the righteous to everlasting life, and the wicked to judgment and destruction.

When God commanded that Abraham sacrifice Isaac his son, there had been no sin or disobedience .

A compassionate god would not have made such a request, especially since God had promised Abraham that Isaac would lead a nation of people.

[AsianAtHeart]

28 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

So God gave man Free Will but only if they obeyed his commands.

The Old Testament is full of God fighting and waging war. With many scriptures describing God as a soldier or warrior.

1 Samuel 15:3 describes the Genocide of the Amakalites , including babies, children and all animals

 

Why did God command Moses that every time a Isrealite census were carried out , everybody had to give a ransom to God. Which eventually led to a plague from Davids census.

No, God gave man free will without conditions.  It was never a "love me or else you will lose free will."  God did, of course, ask that we obey Him.  But wasn't that His right?  And had He not earned our respect?  He did create us, and provide beautifully for us--showing His love from the start.  It was not at all unreasonable to ask that we obey Him.

 

But there it is--ask.  God did not program us to obey, so that we would have no choice.  Nor did God ever remove our power of choice, even after sin.  This is why we still have so much evil in the world today.  Had God removed our free will, we could truly blame God for the evil all around us, because, after all, we didn't choose it--God forced it.

 

Yes, the Old Testament portrays God as having a part in waging war on the behalf of His people.  But were the Amalekites innocent?  Did God deal with them unjustly?  Hardly.   On the contrary, God had given them much more time than was warranted.

 

The Amalekites had been the first to make war upon Israel in the wilderness; and for this sin, together with their defiance of God and their debasing idolatry, the Lord, through Moses, had pronounced sentence upon them.  For four hundred years the execution of this sentence had been deferred; but the Amalekites had not turned from their sins. The Lord knew that this wicked people would, if it were possible, blot out His people and His worship from the earth. Now the time had come for the sentence, so long delayed, to be executed. 

The forbearance that God has exercised toward the wicked, emboldens men in transgression; but their punishment will be none the less certain and terrible for being long delayed. While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some He must cut off those who become hardened in sin.  And the very fact of His reluctance to execute justice testifies to the enormity of the sins that call forth His judgments and to the severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor.

But while inflicting judgment, God remembered mercy. The Amalekites were to be destroyed, but the Kenites, who dwelt among them, were spared. This people, though not wholly free from idolatry, were worshipers of God and were friendly to Israel. Of this tribe was the brother-in-law of Moses, Hobab, who had accompanied the Israelites in their travels through the wilderness, and by his knowledge of the country had rendered them valuable assistance.

 

Regarding the census, I think the payment from each person symbolized that they were God's people, and were beholden to Him.  Others may find other ways to interpret that--I'm not sure that the Bible specifies an exact reason.  But there is always a lesson, a symbolic value, to these practices.

 

As for David, the problem was not with the payment of a fee on the part of each citizen counted.  The issue was that David was looking at the strength of his people instead of trusting in the strength of God, who is powerful enough to work with a few (consider Gideon's 300), or two (Jonathan and his armorbearer), or even just one (Samson)--or without people at all (consider Sennacherib's army of 85,000, slain in one night by God's angel because they had dared to defy God, saying even God could not save Israel).

 

23 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

When God commanded that Abraham sacrifice Isaac his son, there had been no sin or disobedience .

A compassionate god would not have made such a request, especially since God had promised Abraham that Isaac would lead a nation of people.

I'm not following you here.  Do you mean that sin had not yet occurred? or that Abraham had never sinned?

 

Either way, this would be incorrect.  Abraham had twice sinned greatly in not trusting God to protect him, and lying about his wife, saying she was his sister (i.e. not his wife).  Once should have been enough, as he was rebuked for it.  But, no, he had failed on this same point again.  Then, when his wife had come with the proposal for him to have a child with Hagar, her Egyptian maid, Abraham had wrongly consented.  The children of Ishmael later became a great source of distress for God's people.  Abraham's great sin, again, was not the matter of lust, or polygamy, as many might see it--it was really a matter of distrust of God, and lacking faith in Him.  Had Abraham trusted God, he would have believed that God's promise of him having a son would be fulfilled in God's time, even though his wife was aging and past the normal time of childbearing.  But Abraham had failed this test.  And now God must test him with something even more important, to see if Abraham had learned to have full confidence in Him.

 

God already knew that Isaac would not perish.  Even if Isaac had been permitted to die, which he wasn't, God could have raised him to life.  Abraham, too, must have known this, or he would not have been able to go through with it.  So how can one truly say that God did not have compassion?