You can enter the Kingdom of God right now.

[_jo1952]

Or we as a race could abandon all the religious bull s*** that divides us, and heal that way.

That would only give us partial healing. And good luck trying to get the religious to give up the traditions they have been taught.

That is the problem with the traditions of our fathers. By looking to others to help us determine how we should be reacting to anything, instead of allowing our minds to freely experience our experiences as a little child does (without the influence of others), we unavoidably begin to give power and authority to others. Those others are then allowed to lead us. They become power addicted. Soon their own greed and weaknesses of the flesh cause them to reign unrighteously. Their followers, also act unrighteously by supporting their leaders and then mocking those who don't agree with their beliefs or with the choices of whom they allow to lead them. Even peer-review boards have different laws they follow. It is not unusual for US peer-review boards to not agree with foreign peer-review boards. Science gets tangled up inside of itself. This is not unlike the various denominations of Christianity.

In order for the world to truly heal...and not just use some medication or limited dressings to allow for only partial healing, the entire world needs to come together. As has already been observed throughout the history of mankind, we haven't been able to do it. Though we DO still cling to the things which divide us...and those divisions have caused us untold misery. I can't help but notice that we haven't given the teachings of Christ a chance; "do unto others as you would have others do unto you". We do everything BUT treat others the way we want them to treat to us.

As long as people on the earth aren't being treated with equality, we are going to have problems. We don't even make sure that all humans have their basic needs met....and I'm talking needs....not desires. This becomes the breeding ground for the young lions who are already rising up among us; and who are fighting back because they don't have enough food to eat, clothes to wear, medical care, a decent place to live, or a way to take care of their loved ones. If we could take care of that, we could start working on treating each other with respect; regardless of differences of opinion, beliefs, cultures, sexual orientation, political standing, education, governments, etc. The "solutions" (and I use that word loosely) we have devised have failed us. Ignoring those problems and determining that they are the responsibility of others, isn't getting rid of them either.

While these economic problems are not the fault of science, we have become accustomed to being divided. We think there is nothing evil about division. If we even treated each other equally in our minds, then the different concepts of beliefs, religions, science, education, culture, sexual orientation, etc., would no longer impede free will pursuits.

Sadly, the science types on this board treat the religious horribly. It is not a breeding ground for peace. The religious can be just as guilty of putting down the ideas of science; though most of the religious don't bother to participate here at all. It is not a nice place for the religious to play. Even those who have abandoned religion get mocked and treated poorly. I don't see how having religion abandon their so-called bs, is going to heal this board. And this board is just a speck on the earth.

[_ludwigm]

Your lower estates are blocked? Have you tried fiber?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/10304

We're sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed within the United States.
For more information on Hulu's international availability, click here.

That is. We are talking about an American sect denomination Try again! church OK in an American environment.
At least You are in that environment...

[_I have a question]

So, I Have A Question, what do you think about the possibility that we are the Father?

Firstly, I'm thinking you're smacked off your face on too much sugar...
...or spend way too much time reading, and place way too much importance on, a bunch of Iron Age blogs containing second or third or fourth hand accounts about events that may not of ever happened, written by people who were driving their own agendas and wanted to use their writings as a means of getting themselves heard. Think of the Bible as a collection of printed out Mormon Discussions OP's and you'll get what I mean.

Secondly, I've reached the conclusion that any person attracted to religion or faith or spiritualism or any other supernaturalism that you care to mention, always, ALWAYS, creates a 'God' in the image that suits them best. Regardless of any other external factors, it's always, ALWAYS, an internally generated depiction. As demonstrated by everything you've written.

[_jo1952]

Firstly, I'm thinking you're smacked off your face on too much sugar...

I do eat way too much sugar....sigh....

...or spend way too much time reading, and place way too much importance on, a bunch of Iron Age blogs containing second or third or fourth hand accounts about events that may not of ever happened, written by people who were driving their own agendas and wanted to use their writings as a means of getting themselves heard. Think of the Bible as a collection of printed out Mormon Discussions OP's and you'll get what I mean.

Secondly, I've reached the conclusion that any person attracted to religion or faith or spiritualism or any other supernaturalism that you care to mention, always, ALWAYS, creates a 'God' in the image that suits them best. Regardless of any other external factors, it's always, ALWAYS, an internally generated depiction. As demonstrated by everything you've written.

I wasn't able to control what I was taught since childhood...which, of course, is a big part of the discussion on this thread. We are ALL taught according to what our parents, teachers, friends, media, school, culture, want to teach us. We can't change what they taught....but we sure can question it if that is our desire.

There are questions we ask ourselves....what the heck am I doing here. Where did I come from. Where do I go when I die; or is it all over. Is there a purpose for existence. I think religion was created in the minds of men; not only to try to answer those questions, but also to not have to take responsibility for their own actions. Thus, the concepts of good and evil had to have a source from outside of us. "God" and "Satan" were born from our imaginations. They are vain because they place fault outside of ourselves.

It's interesting to me that when "prophets" (albeit they are discussed in religious canon) would come along, the people stuck inside of religion would also relate that the prophets got killed...and by religious people. If they really came along...which, even though we read about them inside of religious canon it immediately makes the story of their existence questionable, it still is curious that they kept appearing in canon at all...and that the prophets who were supposedly revered by the religious, somehow still managed to get themselves killed. Another interesting thing is that the prophets seemed to be telling the same message; and it was the message that caused their demise.

I wasn't looking to find a "god" in my own image; that was just part of the tradition I was taught. I was also very afraid of "god"; even though the prophet, Isaiah, taught that the fear of god came from the precepts of man. In other words, if there really was a god, then he/she/it shouldn't be feared. Yet, I was terrified to think outside of the box of what religion had taught me. After all, by doing so, I was in danger of burning in hell for forever. There is great control over our minds taught by the precepts of religion. It took me a long time to realize that what I was being taught by religion just didn't match what the prophets were teaching----especially, especially, especially, about the "Christ"---religion's greatest prophet of all.

So, what other options was the world offering? It was what science offered. But what science has offered actually seems even more unbelievable than what I now believe. Science hasn't been able to prove any of the theories which have to do with where we came from, why we are here, where we are going. They are still only theories. I can't help but take note of how many of the other theories of science have either been later discarded by science; or have had to be altered over and over again. It didn't give me much confidence in what science had to say about the questions concerning human reality.

It is due to the advancements made in technology that I can now see that my new belief (that WE are the Father) is more easily believed than the answers science has provided about our reality. Our "game" technology alone gives much more credence to the possibilities than, for instance, the Big Bang. What we can do with virtual games, and the advancements made with robotics are incredible. Technology is advancing at such an amazing rate, I have no choice but to believe that we have only scratched the surface of what is possible. I can imagine that we will be able to create the things we dream up and put into movies like A.I. Artificial Intelligence, or Avatar, in which we can, while in a dream state where we are still living, enter another body and control it from our dream state, etc. There are so many movies that I think are touching what is possible..I happen to love Caprica for that reason. What we can now imagine as possible has changed from what we used to think was possible. As such, I can now imagine that at some point, our mortal technology can advance to where we can begin to create new worlds. That seems much more plausible to me than the idea...to bring it to a very basic understanding of the Big Bang...that the world was created by happenstance, and without purpose.

Inasmuch as we create virtual games out of curiosity, for entertainment to prevent boredom...and that we make advancements in technology to improve our circumstances...I can see that we create with a purpose in mind. It is an easy step for me to then see that my question, "what is the purpose for my existence", to be of sound reasoning. In other words, there IS a purpose for our existence. The mere ability for the human being to experience the emotions of hope, love, hate, joy, sorrow...which are much more advanced than any other species on the earth, is something I cannot believe grew out of the happenstance of the Big Bang theory.

To me, the belief that WE are the creators...the Father, is much more easy for me to accept than what science teaches. With our technological advancements, it is much easier for me to believe that our real selves are remotely viewing what is going on here in mortality. To compare this with what I was already beginning to see in my study of what prophets taught..especially Christ....and by discarding everything else written in religious canon as bs, it is easy for me to believe that there is a connection between what they were trying to teach and what I now believe. If our technology can advance to where we are able to create worlds as mortals, than surely more advanced beings could also exist..and they can be monitoring their own creations just as we see being done in today's sci-fi movies (which movies were created even though we are still in the infant stage of where technology will take us). The idea that we may be the only world that was ever created out of happenstance since the odds would be immeasurable seems just as vain as the ideas of "god" and "satan". Additionally, both theories place the source of our world outside of ourselves; and that we had no choice in the matter, since it was either happenstance, or God who placed us here.

Hey, thanks for participating in this thread!

[_spotlight]

Jo,

The truth of science exists on shifting sand.

A flat earth and blood letting were never a part of science. No wonder you are so confused. Even if your statements about science were remotely true, the criticisms you bring up in your post apply even more to your approach to truth which is much worse than what you imagine to be true about science. Science doesn't know everything, but unfounded belief or unevidenced belief knows nothing at all.

In your next post you seem to think everyone becoming equal and sitting down to sing Kumbaya is somehow a solution. Why is that useful and to who? If there are more people than can be supported by the biosphere, overpopulation, making everyone equal ensures everyone's death and the end of the species. While that may be fair that is not a solution.

[_spotlight]

Frank,

The idea that man has a spirit has been around for some time. Many men choose to believe that man has a spirit. It is a belief system. It contains elements outside the realm of scientific study because it deals with things which can not be observed. You have stated that your belief system is in the scientific realm of observed matter and forces. So the very thing in which you choose not to study somehow you are an expert on that topic. I am sorry but you are the least qualified to make comments about things you exclude from your studies.

Things that cannot be observed, are things that cannot be studied, are things in which no one can become an "expert" through study, because they cannot be observed. Hope that helps.

Your own worldview will not let you examine evidence outside of what is considered evidence by your own definition.

If it cannot be observed then there is no evidence to work with. There must be something that can be observed from which some inference can be made otherwise you are just making stuff up.

It is you that fails to see or comprehend what surrounds you.

You mean the unobserved fantasy of your imagination?

In your worldview you force all that you see into a clearly defined little box.

In my worldview I accept that which is observable and all the constraints which follow as a consequence from those observations. As a single example, ERVs in DNA are observable. There is no explanation for their existence other than common ancestry. Sorry but that is the fact of the matter. If we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees then that limits or constrains models of reality to those which are harmonious with this fact.

I see around me a world filled by people who wish to know why they are here. I see people seek for an answer outside of the observed world. What you see are people who refuse to accept your limited view of the observed world. You think they are stupid and confused. You place yourself above all the people in the world who seek answers from the unseen.

I will point out your hypocrisy here in that you just stated that I am the caveman by which it is obvious that you think yourself above me as you claim I think myself above you. But all I have done is point to flaws in the way you think. You have not managed to find a flaw in my thinking. You just don't like it. Again if people seek for answers from beyond what is observable then they must by the very definition of that word be making the answers up.

Your failure in ignoring that which is observable is you ignore the implications of that which is observable. You end up denying reality as a result. Again if dividing the corpus callosum of an individual leaves that individual with two separate and independent minds then the mind cannot be an eternal unified entity.

In my world view I see all of us as the same.

No you don't. You just said I am a caveman by comparison with you.

To them you are a pest who is ignorant of a much greater reality. One in which you refuse to see.

No, remember, it is because it is unobservable. Hence there is no evidence of its existence. Hence it is made up.

Then you quote from the text that states the earth was created before the sun, moon and stars. In other words a flat earth text.

Here is your truth Frank. The great truths that you think you have discovered exist in your mind alone and will pass out of existence when you die.

[_jo1952]

How can evolution explain, through the theory of the survival of the fittest, that humans have dominion over the rest of the earth? They certainly are not the physically strongest, they can't see, hear, or smell as well as animals. So, how did "man" manage to survive the things that were more fit than they are; how did they surpass all others, obtain the upper hand and gain control? How is that man lost (rather than increase) the degree of strength, eye sight, hearing, and the degree of smell of the species they are supposed to have evolved from? In fact, since they are weaker in those attributes, how did they survive at all? How is it that other species, though far weaker than other species, also still survive? Why didn't they continue to evolve into something stronger and fitter? Why have they remained the same, even though they have been around for millions and billions of years? OTOH, why didn't they die off by virtue of the theory that evolution promotes? Are these questions answered by the same unseen excuse that it is by more and more happenstances? The basic premise of survival of the fittest is negated by the theory that it must have been happenstance. Science's own theories have holes which they keep needing to justify by more and more unseen occurrences in order to explain the anomalies; which occurrences also negate the concept that a theory must be able to be seen and made repeatable by science in order to be believed. How is it that missing links exist within many scientifically identified evolutionary leaps---using the excuse that they just haven't yet been found? Is it possible that the theory that there must be a link be a faulty theory? Meanwhile, it seems to me that the symbiotic relationship between species helps the various species to survive. Happenstance? Or done purposely this way? I'm voting for the second option. To cling to the first requires an even bigger leap of faith than the religious who believe in an unseen "God".

Also, how can evolution explain that, even within the same family (which shares the same DNA), end up with different members of the same family having completely different tendencies which can be described as personality/humanity types? This, even though the theory is that DNA is the factor which determines the attributes of members of the same family. This still does not have the ability to identify or explain differences in personality which family members are born with. For instance, some like to serve others, some like to be left alone to take care of themselves, and others want to be served by others...they are born that way. How are these tendencies controlled by DNA, environmental circumstances, size, strength, etc.; In other words, how does evolution explain this? There are too many unanswered questions within the theories of science which are taught to be true. If a person doesn't answer test questions with the same answers provided by science, then they can't pass the science test---even though science hasn't proven its own answers. Sadly, there are also many unanswered questions within religion. Neither camp has supplied satisfactory answers...because the answers lead to more questions which can't yet be answered. As such, they don't really know that what they believe is the truth. But they will certainly try to convince you to believe what they believe; and will mock you if you don't. There's something going on that has not yet been identified. The answers, since the questions still exist in both camps, are beyond the scope of what either now believe.

[_jo1952]

Jo,

A flat earth and blood letting were never a part of science. No wonder you are so confused. Even if your statements about science were remotely true, the criticisms you bring up in your post apply even more to your approach to truth which is much worse than what you imagine to be true about science. Science doesn't know everything, but unfounded belief or unevidenced belief knows nothing at all.

Yet science bases some of its beliefs on unevidenced beliefs. It actually depends upon unseen and unevidenced links because it doesn't want to admit that their theories that missing links must exist...even though not yet discovered..might be faulty.

Meanwhile, my comments about flat earth and blood letting were directed to this comment:

I judge all unevidenced beliefs equally - equally worthless.

Then, I continued with a discussion on science. Thanks for taking my comments out of context in order to promote your own agenda to discredit me in order to place a shadow over my message.

I don't think it is necessary to discredit and mock believers---and I try not to (though I fail from time to time); I try to stick to addressing their beliefs. I think that believers will resort to discrediting and mocking those who don't believe as they do because the mockers think they are superior. Discussing perceived holes in the belief itself is different from trying to discredit the believer. We somehow think that if we can discredit the messenger, then the message will also be discredited. The message of a different belief should be given the opportunity to see if there is any chance of viability, regardless of who gives it. Otherwise, we could be in danger of throwing out a baby in the bath water. We should be able to look at beliefs from various perspectives; not just from the perspective of our own belief...or what we have been taught by others. In this way, we can figure out exactly what the belief is which is being presented, find out where it came from (and why), and not dismiss it simply because it is not something we currently believe. If we choose to dismiss it, others still have the right to believe it...just like we still have the right to believe what we want to believe.

In your next post you seem to think everyone becoming equal and sitting down to sing Kumbaya is somehow a solution. Why is that useful and to who? If there are more people than can be supported by the biosphere, overpopulation, making everyone equal ensures everyone's death and the end of the species. While that may be fair that is not a solution.

Who said anything about sitting down to sing Kumbaya? We can supply the basic needs of every human on the earth within a matter of months...if not sooner. However, as long as there are those who don't want to do unto others as they would have others do unto them, it's not going to happen.

It should be a matter of concern for everyone. If we keep going the way we are going, there isn't going to be an earth. That means no matter what you believe in...be it religion, science, politics, education, etc., we're not going to be around to be able to believe it.

[_Franktalk]

Frank,

Things that cannot be observed, are things that cannot be studied, are things in which no one can become an "expert" through study, because they cannot be observed. Hope that helps.

When Einstein did his thought experiment he was dealing with the unseen. In a similar way thought experiments can be done about the presence of a greater reality. I am sorry you can't see the value of thoughts. I happen to value thoughts much higher than anything seen in this world. I guess we are just very different.

[_Res Ipsa]

How can evolution explain, through the theory of the survival of the fittest, that humans have dominion over the rest of the earth? They certainly are not the physically strongest, they can't see, hear, or smell as well as animals. So, how did "man" manage to survive the things that were more fit than they are; how did they surpass all others, obtain the upper hand and gain control? How is that man lost (rather than increase) the degree of strength, eye sight, hearing, and the degree of smell of the species they are supposed to have evolved from? In fact, since they are weaker in those attributes, how did they survive at all? How is it that other species, though far weaker than other species, also still survive? Why didn't they continue to evolve into something stronger and fitter? Why have they remained the same, even though they have been around for millions and billions of years? OTOH, why didn't they die off by virtue of the theory that evolution promotes? Are these questions answered by the same unseen excuse that it is by more and more happenstances? The basic premise of survival of the fittest is negated by the theory that it must have been happenstance. Science's own theories have holes which they keep needing to justify by more and more unseen occurrences in order to explain the anomalies; which occurrences also negate the concept that a theory must be able to be seen and made repeatable by science in order to be believed. How is it that missing links exist within many scientifically identified evolutionary leaps---using the excuse that they just haven't yet been found? Is it possible that the theory that there must be a link be a faulty theory? Meanwhile, it seems to me that the symbiotic relationship between species helps the various species to survive. Happenstance? Or done purposely this way? I'm voting for the second option. To cling to the first requires an even bigger leap of faith than the religious who believe in an unseen "God".

Also, how can evolution explain that, even within the same family (which shares the same DNA), end up with different members of the same family having completely different tendencies which can be described as personality/humanity types? This, even though the theory is that DNA is the factor which determines the attributes of members of the same family. This still does not have the ability to identify or explain differences in personality which family members are born with. For instance, some like to serve others, some like to be left alone to take care of themselves, and others want to be served by others...they are born that way. How are these tendencies controlled by DNA, environmental circumstances, size, strength, etc.; In other words, how does evolution explain this? There are too many unanswered questions within the theories of science which are taught to be true. If a person doesn't answer test questions with the same answers provided by science, then they can't pass the science test---even though science hasn't proven its own answers. Sadly, there are also many unanswered questions within religion. Neither camp has supplied satisfactory answers...because the answers lead to more questions which can't yet be answered. As such, they don't really know that what they believe is the truth. But they will certainly try to convince you to believe what they believe; and will mock you if you don't. There's something going on that has not yet been identified. The answers, since the questions still exist in both camps, are beyond the scope of what either now believe.

Jo, you need to do some reading about what evolutionary theory actually says. All you are showing is that you don't understand it at all.