Evidence of the Non-Physical

[Sheldon]

Science establishes the laws of physics, they are descriptive not prescriptive.

Hey Mr. Pedantic, just answer the question.

Science establishes the laws of physics, they are descriptive not prescriptive.

Science establishes the laws of physics, they are descriptive not prescriptive.

Science establishes the laws of physics, they are descriptive not prescriptive.

Not sure why you're still struggling to see my answer? It was in the post you responded to, anyway it's there again in triplicate for you.

 

[rational experiences]

Science is human men thinking first about any subject.

Make the choice.

First you notice topic of choice is not linked.

As if no planet existed no scientist would either.

So a geologist tells a theist cosmic thesis is fake. But you ignore his type of science expressed.

Then thinkers say humans are held inside machines as dimensional beings. In the recordings a state.

How a human hurt by increased transmitting X mass communications that re record said a human was taken into the machine. An alien state.

As alien the word is used as a varied expressed advice.

Just advice.

The alien image cooled as it emerges in our designer human atmosphere as not anything like a human. Seen when life is changed.

How science claimed dimension by state mass and transmitters are fake. As science said everything science observed including phenomena.

It is a human designed cause and it hurt us.

Pretty basic advice for anyone who studied spirit. Human life is natural body. Spirituality. Changed minds behaviours and healing like I did. A study healer.

I made it a forty year study by experience of testing by actually meditating and trying group healing and psychic games.

Learnt like any human being ever has through self presence and self application.

So I can say to family you were never an alien. I knew you weren't. I knew it was an evil cause effect.

Basic fact.

If an atmosphere that owns two states that support a bio life as 1.water and 2. oxygenated water then we should only all be the same.

Change is not natural it is caused.

We won't ever not belong with water as our life body is mainly water.

The truth no man is God the science of planet earths mass body.

 

[DNB]

Great, glad to see that you read the post. I was hoping that you weren't going to miss it - but then you do seem to be rather ubiquitous on this forum.
Unfortunately, it was probably wasted on someone like yourself - it's a shame that you're not more enlightened and decently minded instead of promoting such filth, ...especially under the guise of love and compassion.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human says homosexuality is wrong.

Then as a human what advice do you use?

Human advice only.

As you observe the human behaviour. Which is logic only.

Logic says behaviour observed has changed.

Now if you scientist man designer of machine builds a machine at your side instead of living a partnership man equal to woman.

Then react a zero O space womb maths reaction. Then you observed physical human behaviour change.

So basic compassionate advice not science owned caused lived as god O maths earth dust nuclear stated then lied.

Told us I caused human image to be inter related with gods earth radiating heavenly causes the state.

I chose it. I never however chose to get human body mind behaviour changed.

So whose fault is it,?

God the changed earth....or satanic science maths man theist?

I think you already agreed with yourself it was maths science caused by imaged feedback.

Where men began to emotionally chemically become effeminate. Role play human recorded natural sexual behaviours.

You were told taught the advice yourselves.

Now if you want to blame anyone. Blame the human scientist. Not the human natural spiritual life.

In society sexual promiscuity was always frowned upon as children not yet able to contend with sexual behaviour are mis taught.

So we agreed that keep your sexual behaviour private and just continue being the natural human family member you always were. First.

As a spiritual being mind owns unconditional love. Never owned irrational separation behaviour before it was introduced.

We are first and foremost born by the sin of sex stated as a human law. Sex owned the sin not the baby.

The Baby innocent of the life mind body it inherits is foremost human first.

If you say let me list every single wrong human Inherited life mind body change. The answer is why human conscious behaviour changed.

I will summarise my compassionate study myself. Name it ABBA father's mantle or earth cloak.

AB omen...as women life changed life creator get ovary ovah sacrificed by my fake mother maths space womb.

In every nation.

Compassion. To live as a human applying no condition to love all equally

All of gods little baby children hurt.

Compassion. Real. Never is it a sneer at another human. It is to reason compassionately as you were given reason to own reason to reason.

The term homosexuality is a chosen label. So you can sneer. Shows no compassion whatsoever.

Human first. Changed human life by man's choice maths science the answer. Don't blame innocent life in correct terms a teaching only.

 

[ratiocinator]

where does religion come from?

In all probability: Agent detection. I wonder if you actually got some sort of coherent argument. It would save a lot of time with these inane questions and one-liners, if you actually set it out in full.

 

[joelr]

Again, whatever injustices are rendered in this world, God will rectify the situation in due time.

I answered you about slaves - the Biblical notion of slave, had a different connotation than what we understand of it today. I gave you the entirety of the pericope in Exodus 21 - there was love and privileges between the slave and his master.

Yes, atheists are immoral by definition - they do not believe in the author of love, of which the word is meaningless without knowledge and acceptance of His existence. Don't take for granted the fact that just because you understand the concept of love, that that makes you a good person, or that that notion doesn't necessitate a source that is innately love.

Non-Hebrew slaves did not have to be treated "less severely", were slaves for life as were their children? Yahweh endorsed the slave trade by telling Israelites they could aquire slaves from the heathen around them.

Atheists are people who understand there is no good evidence to believe in any of the stories about any God or Gods. Why would a universal God make it look like he came from a copy of Mesopotamian myths and later borrowed Persian and Greek myths?

Also God of love? Yahweh ordered every living thing killed in 6 entire cities when going to war. In all others if a peace offer of forced labor is refused kill all the men and women and children are taken as "plunder".
Love? Yahweh wasn't even a God of love he was a warrior deity?


Exodus 15:3:

Yahweh is a man of war;

Yahweh is his name.

Isaiah 42:13:

Yahweh goes forth like a mighty man;

like a man of war(s) he stirs up his fury.

Zephaniah 3:17: Yahweh, your God, is in your midst,

a warrior who gives victory.

Psalm 24:8:

Who is the King of Glory?

Yahweh, strong and mighty;

Yahweh, mighty in battle.

In these passages Yahweh is explicitly called a warrior or directly compared to a warrior. If one

moves out from simple designations to actual functioning, the metaphor or image is even more

extensively present. Yahweh is the subject of many verbs that belong to the sphere of warfare.




Slaves Slavery in the Bible - RationalWiki

Non-Hebrews, on the other hand, could (according to Leviticus 25:44) be subjected to slavery in exactly the way that it is usually understood by slavery-advocates. The slaves could be bought, sold and (when their owner died) inherited. This, by any standard, is race- or ethnicity-based, and Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly allows slaves to be bought from foreign nations or foreigners living in Israel. It does say that simply kidnapping Hebrews to enslave them is a crime punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7), but no such prohibition exists regarding foreigners. War captives could be made slaves, assuming they had refused to make peace (this applied to women and children — men were simply killed), along with the seizure of all their property (Deuteronomy 20:10-15).

Hereditary slaves were born into slavery and there is no apparent way by which they could obtain their freedom.

Non-Hebrew slaves[edit]
Leviticus 25:44-46 (NASB) suggests how Israelites can utilize the full human resources of slaves:

44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

There is clearly no way out for these slaves: they were truly slaves for life. And not just for the life of their owner. They were "property" and would be inherited along with the rest of their deceased owner's possessions.

Hereditary Slaves[edit]
The children of slaves were born into slavery. Exodus 21:4d (NASB):

If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

 

[Sheldon]

Great, glad to see that you read the post. I was hoping that you weren't going to miss it - but then you do seem to be rather ubiquitous on this forum.
Unfortunately, it was probably wasted on someone like yourself - it's a shame that you're not more enlightened and decently minded instead of promoting such filth, ...especially under the guise of love and compassion.

Who are you talking to?

What are you talking about?

 

[Sheldon]

Homosexuality is an abomination, and those who endorse its practice is as equally vile.
God was just for what He did to David's child.
Slaves were treated well under the auspices of the Mosaic Law. That is self-evident when the Law allows the slave to stay with his master by his own volition, due to the love that each have for each other. You need to learn how to read context.

I already offered the context, is it ever moral for one human being to buy or own another, your morals seem ok with it, so at least we know. So much for your bilge about god being love, if you can espouse hateful homophobic bigotry, while defending vile evils like slavery, and torturing a new-born baby to death. I think that speaks for itself...

FYI, next time a theist asks why I as an atheist bother to challenge theistic beliefs, this right here is why. The dangers of ripping your morality subjectively from archaic superstition, is on display right there, for any objective reader to see.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I already offered the context, is it ever moral for one human being to buy or own another, your morals seem ok with it, so at least we know. So much for your bilge about god being love, if you can espouse hateful homophobic bigotry, while defending vile evils like slavery, and torturing a new-born baby to death. I think that speaks for itself...

FYI, next time a theist asks why I as an atheist bother to challenge theistic beliefs, this right here is why. The dangers of ripping your morality subjectively from archaic superstition, is on display right there, for any objective reader to see.

So based on some theists, you conclude that this is the case for all theists. Have you ever heard of the induction problem?

 

[Sheldon]

So based on some theists, you conclude that this is the case for all theists.

One more straw man, just one more, and you're on ignore. I've been remarkably patient with you over this, but enough is enough, and I'm sick of you relentlessly misrepresenting what I say.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One more straw man, just one more, and you're on ignore. I've been remarkably patient with you over this, but enough is enough, and I'm sick of you relentlessly misrepresenting what I say.

So your example is not relevant for all theists. Sorry for not getting that.

 

[rational experiences]

O earth a planet.

Humans standing on the planet inside non physical.

First comparing.

Earth is physical.

Gases not physical.

I am a bio human. I just use holy water oxygen kind of present physically not either. Comparing details.

Said I don't use nor own gods heavens gases. Non physical.

However wanted artificial maths science to be caused.

Physical mass substance the creator in change to first form. Physical.

Lied as a theist. Just a human.

Those heavenly gases supported water being held by pressure to the ground.

Said I only saw gas as it burnt. Clear gas in highest state is not seen.

Highest state said so you can't see gods spirit.

So how does he perform conscious science if you can't see the spirit?

Straight away science the liar says I must then use what I see and convert it.

The gases in the heaven are everywhere. In mass where he converts it's just mass.

He never thought about why God is everywhere as a gas. Yet in thesis he should have. As sealed earth is everywhere also.

How he unsealed earth in other places other than where he was performing his reaction.

Father said family is equal life first. Never was there a slave... a poor man nor a rich man.

Humans equal is first.

Slavery is a human science invention a teaching. As brothers the group first cult bullied innocent spiritual family by threats.

As we were first very innocent. It was easy to threaten family with death and murder if we did not slave for our brothers greed and egotism. Building civilization.

Invent is scientist as high priest to king status sciences was first. Build his empire then his science buildings was his choice.

And it equals his fake maths science history as the scientists mind memory psyche. I want. I want to be the most powerful human by God acts.

So he reads the bible and tries to make slavery a science thesis of gods maths.

O God was the richest body first before man invented fake meaning to life. God was not a slave to man science.

Why his theism is going to get us destroyed as all thoughts return direct to his person a human first why his coercion his fakery. All stories man's greedy reasonings.

Earth natural.
Life was natural.

The status gods life support of humanity is first. O God earth owned all riches first.

That first teaching is relevant to what he chooses today as life's historic liar.

 

[DNB]

In all probability: Agent detection. I wonder if you actually got some sort of coherent argument. It would save a lot of time with these inane questions and one-liners, if you actually set it out in full.

Point is: it's axiomatic.

 

[DNB]

Non-Hebrew slaves did not have to be treated "less severely", were slaves for life as were their children? Yahweh endorsed the slave trade by telling Israelites they could aquire slaves from the heathen around them.

Atheists are people who understand there is no good evidence to believe in any of the stories about any God or Gods. Why would a universal God make it look like he came from a copy of Mesopotamian myths and later borrowed Persian and Greek myths?

Also God of love? Yahweh ordered every living thing killed in 6 entire cities when going to war. In all others if a peace offer of forced labor is refused kill all the men and women and children are taken as "plunder".
Love? Yahweh wasn't even a God of love he was a warrior deity?


Exodus 15:3:

Yahweh is a man of war;

Yahweh is his name.

Isaiah 42:13:

Yahweh goes forth like a mighty man;

like a man of war(s) he stirs up his fury.

Zephaniah 3:17: Yahweh, your God, is in your midst,

a warrior who gives victory.

Psalm 24:8:

Who is the King of Glory?

Yahweh, strong and mighty;

Yahweh, mighty in battle.

In these passages Yahweh is explicitly called a warrior or directly compared to a warrior. If one

moves out from simple designations to actual functioning, the metaphor or image is even more

extensively present. Yahweh is the subject of many verbs that belong to the sphere of warfare.




Slaves Slavery in the Bible - RationalWiki

Non-Hebrews, on the other hand, could (according to Leviticus 25:44) be subjected to slavery in exactly the way that it is usually understood by slavery-advocates. The slaves could be bought, sold and (when their owner died) inherited. This, by any standard, is race- or ethnicity-based, and Leviticus 25:44-46 explicitly allows slaves to be bought from foreign nations or foreigners living in Israel. It does say that simply kidnapping Hebrews to enslave them is a crime punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7), but no such prohibition exists regarding foreigners. War captives could be made slaves, assuming they had refused to make peace (this applied to women and children — men were simply killed), along with the seizure of all their property (Deuteronomy 20:10-15).

Hereditary slaves were born into slavery and there is no apparent way by which they could obtain their freedom.

Non-Hebrew slaves[edit]
Leviticus 25:44-46 (NASB) suggests how Israelites can utilize the full human resources of slaves:

44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

There is clearly no way out for these slaves: they were truly slaves for life. And not just for the life of their owner. They were "property" and would be inherited along with the rest of their deceased owner's possessions.

Hereditary Slaves[edit]
The children of slaves were born into slavery. Exodus 21:4d (NASB):

If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

You didn't once bring up the myriad, and prevalent amount of verses that speak of His love, patience and mercy. Nor, how many times man defied God to His face and showed nothing but contempt for Him,. You either have absolutely no perception into the deeper meaning of certain situations or contexts, or you chose to be in denial.

 

[DNB]

Who are you talking to?

What are you talking about?

What did you mean by that?

 

[DNB]

I already offered the context, is it ever moral for one human being to buy or own another, your morals seem ok with it, so at least we know. So much for your bilge about god being love, if you can espouse hateful homophobic bigotry, while defending vile evils like slavery, and torturing a new-born baby to death. I think that speaks for itself...

FYI, next time a theist asks why I as an atheist bother to challenge theistic beliefs, this right here is why. The dangers of ripping your morality subjectively from archaic superstition, is on display right there, for any objective reader to see.

Did you duplicate this post? How dare you waste such valuable time, thought and retail space on redundant repetition? Who does that, what kind of person are you, selfish and self-absorbed? Did you really believe that your little ploy to try and badger a response out of someone, was going to go unnoticed? Don't think that I'm not onto you Sheldon, I know your type very well, you think that you're the first duplicate poster that I've met? Don't even try, I've met countless ones like you who violate forum etiquette. Maybe to you this is just a benign infraction, but I assure you that others will not feel the same way, and you will soon feel the indignation from those who recognize your defiance and contempt for practical posting.
The jig is up Sheldon.

 

[ratiocinator]

Point is: it's axiomatic.

Another inane, time wasting one-liner.

What is, and according to who exactly?

 

[Sheldon]

ratiocinator said: ↑
In all probability: Agent detection. I wonder if you actually got some sort of coherent argument.

Point is: it's axiomatic.

So that's a no then.

 

[Sheldon]

Great, glad to see that you read the post. I was hoping that you weren't going to miss it - but then you do seem to be rather ubiquitous on this forum.
Unfortunately, it was probably wasted on someone like yourself - it's a shame that you're not more enlightened and decently minded instead of promoting such filth, ...especially under the guise of love and compassion.

Who are you talking to?

What are you talking about?

What did you mean by that?

Precisely what I said? Who was that post meant to be talking to, and What is the point being made?

 

[Sheldon]

Did you duplicate this post?

No I repeated my question since you ignored it?

Is there any context in which it is morally acceptable for one human to buy or own another human?

Did you really believe that your little ploy to try and badger a response out of someone, was going to go unnoticed?

Repeating the question would be pretty bizarre if that were the case, though I have little expectation of any kind of candid response from you.