Did Jesus say he was God???

[metis]

A Sicilian Catholic? Your in trouble.

LOL! Ya, 47 years of "trouble" as of March 9th. Hey, she's been a saint, but she understood what I was doing and why, and never questioned my sanity. However, I did at times question my own sanity.

Why would a physics text scare you? They scared me on testing day but no other time.

I just had a feeling about the book that's very difficult to explain. It was not based on anything specific, nor was I necessarily expecting anything new as I've been a subscriber to "Scientific American" for over 40 years now.

This feeling I had indeed got borne out over several years until I started to ask myself the right question: "Why do I believe?". It took me a long time to come to grips dealing with this objectively, but it eventually boiled down to two answers: I believed because I was brought up to believe, and I believed because I wanted to believe.

When I used a more scientific approach to deal with this, it also reinforced that there simply is no objective evidence to conclude there's a "God", and even if there is one, what characteristics and teachings would this "God" have? How do we know there's only one "God"? There simply is no way of knowing, but one obviously may still believe.

It is not your uncertainty about the right faith that alarmed me. It was your uncertainty that God exists.

My questioning was not a constant as I would go from being assured there's a "God" but then later doubting that. I think any serious scientist, especially if they're an anthropologist or cosmologist, would have problems with blind faith, and my experiences with anthropologists along with the surveys of those in other fields, especially cosmology, indicate just that. According to a survey put forth by research cosmologist Leonard Susskind, over 90% of cosmologists are either atheists or agnostics (by far, more the latter), and he says that even the theists that he knows are hardly orthodox in their beliefs.

I notice something very important missing here. There is no moment when God entered your heart and settled at least the most fundamental questions here.

Actually there were times that I feel "God" did.

Whether you agree with me or not. Do you not see the point of reference that justifies my making the claims I have?

Remember, I was brought up to believe where you're coming from, so I quite well understand this, and maybe 20 or so years ago I probably would have responded similarly to what you have, even with some of my doubts. I've been very active for almost 40 straight years now, so I don't take any of this lightly.

I am not your moral better nor more intelligent. I just happen to have arrived at the correct road map and stumbled across the treasure because I had the right map.

I still feel it's important to cloak that in terms of "belief". Yes, you may firmly believe as such, but so do billions of people throughout the world who have their own beliefs, undoubtedly with a great many being just as firmly convinced as you are that they're correct.

BTW, if you want to get into details on your journey, feel free to do so as this typically interests me. Also, I didn't comment on most of what you posted simply because it would simply be rehash of more rehash.

Shalom

 

[1robin]

LOL! Ya, 47 years of "trouble" as of March 9th. Hey, she's been a saint, but she understood what I was doing and why, and never questioned my sanity. However, I did at times question my own sanity.

47 years is proof of the miraculous it's self these days.

I just had a feeling about the book that's very difficult to explain. It was not based on anything specific, nor was I necessarily expecting anything new as I've been a subscriber to "Scientific American" for over 40 years now.

This feeling I had indeed got borne out over several years until I started to ask myself the right question: "Why do I believe?". It took me a long time to come to grips dealing with this objectively, but it eventually boiled down to two answers: I believed because I was brought up to believe, and I believed because I wanted to believe.

When I used a more scientific approach to deal with this, it also reinforced that there simply is no objective evidence to conclude there's a "God", and even if there is one, what characteristics and teachings would this "God" have? How do we know there's only one "God"? There simply is no way of knowing, but one obviously may still believe.

I still do not understand this. Are any of these accurate.

1. You feel the Holy Spirit might have been telling you not to let science affect your faith like what was said to Timothy about "knowledge falsely so called".
2. You feel that you though science might ruin your faith and dreaded it.
3. You simply felt apprehensive and do not understand why.

I really have no idea what you mean by this. I have never felt any fear about a book ever. Even the Koran or the book of Mormon. I didn't believe them and found them reprehensible but not frightening. I have felt a bizarre fear about a few places I can't explain though. A Hindu temple I visited, the bird cage theater in tombstone AZ, and watching Muslims circling the Kabba.

My questioning was not a constant as I would go from being assured there's a "God" but then later doubting that. I think any serious scientist, especially if they're an anthropologist or cosmologist, would have problems with blind faith, and my experiences with anthropologists along with the surveys of those in other fields, especially cosmology, indicate just that. According to a survey put forth by research cosmologist Leonard Susskind, over 90% of cosmologists are either atheists or agnostics (by far, more the latter), and he says that even the theists that he knows are hardly orthodox in their beliefs.

This is exactly what I would expect concerning a faith founded upon intellectual consent to theological or historical propositions. This is exactly why the born again experience was necessary. It is a faith grounded directly in God and is far more resilient than one grounded in concepts or us alone. This is why Christians more than any other (though Jews are not too far behind) have wiling given their lives without having to do so in the effort to kill others as the Muslims have done. Only that kind of faith can sustain a person in the Congo witnessing to the bushmen or actually grow in oppression from the greatest empires in history.

Actually there were times that I feel "God" did.

This is still not what I mean. I have many experiences that I credit to God without certain knowledge that he actually did anything but a few that I know God showed up and I was in his presence. The former justifies a hesitant faith that blows with the wind. The latter grounds faith securely regardless of the wind. There are others but the born again experience was purposed to end the question about God's existence and unite a fallen sinner with his maker in an unmistakable way. You do not go from being a child of Satan and God's wrath to being an accepted and sanctified child of God without knowing it.

Remember, I was brought up to believe where you're coming from, so I quite well understand this, and maybe 20 or so years ago I probably would have responded similarly to what you have, even with some of my doubts. I've been very active for almost 40 straight years now, so I don't take any of this lightly.

Being brought up to believe in being born again is not the same as actually having the experience by light years. I have no doubt your are a moral person and hold fast to intellectual faith. Do not think you must convince me of that nor confuse that with what I am talking about.

I still feel it's important to cloak that in terms of "belief". Yes, you may firmly believe as such, but so do billions of people throughout the world who have their own beliefs, undoubtedly with a great many being just as firmly convinced as you are that they're correct.

That is my point. Most claims of faith in other religions are to intellectual agreement to propositions. Christianity alone in the numbers that matter claims to have another type of faith gained by experiencing God.

BTW, if you want to get into details on your journey, feel free to do so as this typically interests me. Also, I didn't comment on most of what you posted simply because it would simply be rehash of more rehash.

That is fine. My story is to long for my laziness to allow in full. If appropriate I will include pieces of it along the way. However the main point I making concerns the details I gave about that night I was saved. IN them and the many details I left out rests my entire point.

 

[Katzpur]

I really have no idea what you mean by this. I have never felt any fear about a book ever. Even the Koran or the book of Mormon. I didn't believe them and found them reprehensible but not frightening.

I am so interesting as to what it is about the Book of Mormon that you find "reprehensible." Would you mind quoting a few reprehensible passages from it? Or is it just that you find its existence to be reprehensible?

 

[metis]

I still do not understand this. Are any of these accurate.

1. You feel the Holy Spirit might have been telling you not to let science affect your faith like what was said to Timothy about "knowledge falsely so called".
2. You feel that you though science might ruin your faith and dreaded it.
3. You simply felt apprehensive and do not understand why.

First of all, if any religion conflicts with science, then those in that religion needs to take stock in what else might they be misled on, imo. Much like in one of your previous posts you said that you believe that evolution stopped before the evolution of new "kinds", this to me makes not one iota of sense. I was brought up in that belief, but the research overwhelmingly indicated I was on the wrong path, so I changed. As an anthropologist, I spent 1/3 of my introductory course going through human evolution, and the evidence of such is totally overwhelming.

If any religion is to be Truth, then that religion must be compatible with science. If not, then it's just a bogus religion, imo.

Since there's numerous threads dealing with evolution v creationism, I'll not allow this to derail this particular thread. If you wish to pursue this on another thread, just rattle my cage.

I really have no idea what you mean by this. I have never felt any fear about a book ever...

You've never gone through a paradigm shift and how traumatic that can be, especially when you were brought up to believe in something?

This is exactly what I would expect concerning a faith founded upon intellectual consent to theological or historical propositions. This is exactly why the born again experience was necessary. It is a faith grounded directly in God and is far more resilient than one grounded in concepts or us alone.

To me, "born again" is just a cliche that stands for commitment, and probably many hundreds of millions throughout the world have done just that. You apparently see this as some sort of magic, but I don't.

This is why Christians more than any other (though Jews are not too far behind) have wiling given their lives without having to do so in the effort to kill others as the Muslims have done.

So, you're against self-defense?

You do not go from being a child of Satan and God's wrath to being an accepted and sanctified child of God without knowing it.

I don't believe any child is a "child of Satan", and any "God" that would destroy an innocent child's life is evil incarnate, imo.

That is my point. Most claims of faith in other religions are to intellectual agreement to propositions.

So, you prefer a more ignorant approach?

Christianity alone in the numbers that matter claims to have another type of faith gained by experiencing God.

Numbers mean literally nothing, as faith is a very personal thing, and there are people in so many faiths that have a deep faith.

 

[1robin]

I am so interesting as to what it is about the Book of Mormon that you find "reprehensible." Would you mind quoting a few reprehensible passages from it? Or is it just that you find its existence to be reprehensible?

Ok.

I find that theological claims are the greatest possible acts if true and the worst possible evil act if wrong.

1. It has the worst and most dubious pedigree as a text that I can think for an accepted theological manuscript.
2. It is known that at least some of what was translated was from the Egyptian book of the dead and was incorrectly translated anyway.
3. It takes on the burden of claiming it is consistent with Christianity then betrays that claim by contradicting many of Christianity's basic truths.
4. If you have your own text that is fine by me, but do not tarnish my faith by associating your book with it as so many have done in history. Everyone wants to gain credibility Christianity has earned by mere association.
5. It teaches intercession for the dead, it teaches we may become God's ourselves, etc.. All are abominations to Christianity and men's souls.
6. The practices of the ministerial hierarchy are cult like abominations that offend even common sense.


I will let those suffice for now. I do however regard it's average petitioner as having many admirable moral qualities. They will never get anyone to heaven in my view but are good none the less.

 

[1robin]

First of all, if any religion conflicts with science, then those in that religion needs to take stock in what else might they be misled on, imo. Much like in one of your previous posts you said that you believe that evolution stopped before the evolution of new "kinds", this to me makes not one iota of sense. I was brought up in that belief, but the research overwhelmingly indicated I was on the wrong path, so I changed. As an anthropologist, I spent 1/3 of my introductory course going through human evolution, and the evidence of such is totally overwhelming.

I agree with that as far as reliable science goes. The only science commonly used to counter Christianity does not lie in the reliable spectrum. They lies in the extremely speculative theoretical realm of science fiction. Faith requires the absence of defeaters. Mine have none.

I do not remember making that evolutionary claim but it is consistent with every observation. No new kinds have even been forced to arise by scientific intervention and no life of any kind was created using the same methods or any other. Evolution seems to have if no other, fertility barriers, and many insurmountable impediments to explaining genetic reality on it's own. The bible even confirms microevolution and is silent on the illusory macro evolution issue.

If any religion is to be Truth, then that religion must be compatible with science. If not, then it's just a bogus religion, imo.

Agreed.

Since there's numerous threads dealing with evolution v creationism, I'll not allow this to derail this particular thread. If you wish to pursue this on another thread, just rattle my cage.

There are many threads that deal with the reliable parts of evolution and the assumed parts used to counter very specific interpretations of creationism, but that is it.

You've never gone through a paradigm shift and how traumatic that can be, especially when you were brought up to believe in something?

I went through three at least but wound up back where I started only with certainty.

To me, "born again" is just a cliche that stands for commitment, and probably many hundreds of millions throughout the world have done just that. You apparently see this as some sort of magic, but I don't.

So is being in love to someone who has never been. If I ask a person if they have ever been in love. First there is a desire to claim they have been even if they have not. Second they have no point of reference to allow a meaningful answer. Third they usually claim they have without even knowing what it means or assume it is meaningless, neither of which are true.

Not to mention your claim assumes not only that I ma lying, but that hundreds of millions are or are drastically mistaken about an experience they had and you did not, and assuming Christ was wrong. Now I am too lazy to be offended but the claim is abjectly absurd on it's own.

So, you're against self-defense?

What? I served 9 years in the Navy. I am for any justified defense or offense. I did not say I would lie down, or anyone should do so unless commanded by God to do so. I suggested that the ability to do this by Christians predominantly indicates they have a spiritual power others do not.

I don't believe any child is a "child of Satan", and any "God" that would destroy an innocent child's life is evil incarnate, imo.

I did not even mention killing a child for any reason. What are you talking about? I said you do not go from being alienated from God to being united to him without it having a noticeable and drastic affect.

So, you prefer a more ignorant approach?

I give up. You seem to drawing the most inaccurate and unflattering conclusions to my arguments to create a desired effect. This is liberal tactics 101 and not worth contending with.

Numbers mean literally nothing, as faith is a very personal thing, and there are people in so many faiths that have a deep faith.

Tell that to insurance companies, armies, legal systems and governments who use numbers as indications of truth and live or die by them. This is simply erroneous. Entire industries are based on the fact numbers indicate things very consistently and everyone I have ever met assumes this to be true, and I am quite certain you do, as long as it is not inconvenient.

 

[metis]

I agree with that as far as reliable science goes. The only science commonly used to counter Christianity does not lie in the reliable spectrum. They lies in the extremely speculative theoretical realm of science fiction. Faith requires the absence of defeaters. Mine have none.

...Evolution seems to have if no other, fertility barriers, and many insurmountable impediments to explaining genetic reality on it's own. The bible even confirms microevolution and is silent on the illusory macro evolution issue.

Since you believe in magic, and that true faith somehow is contingent on numbers, along with refusing to recognize even one of the most basic findings that's the basis of biological science, I guess we have nothing to build on.

I give up. You seem to drawing the most inaccurate and unflattering conclusions to my arguments to create a desired effect. This is liberal tactics 101 and not worth contending with.

Oh yes, I'm such a "liberal". LOL! Nice stereotype, but if you only knew.

You can have your beliefs and I'll stick to my science. Enjoy.

 

[1robin]

Since you believe in magic, and that true faith somehow is contingent on numbers, along with refusing to recognize even one of the most basic findings that's the basis of biological science, I guess we have nothing to build on.

Well, I had been enjoying debating you more than most but lately you have started up the same practices that made my other debates less enjoyable than they should have been. Here for instance you completely mangle my claims into something that attempts to place me on one side of a failed position, regardless of whether my arguments come from that side or not. This is liberal tactic 101 (whether you are a liberal or not does not change that). If we want to save money then we hate grandmother, if we want a strong defense then we are a war mongers, if we want to stop killing children in the womb then we are against women's rights. It is a disgusting tactic. Lets see what you specifically did here.

1. You said I am for magic. I note the word magic used for effect alone because it does not have anything to do with my claims. I believe in God 9as I thought you did), he being a supernatural being necessitates the belief in the supernatural. No claims about magic anywhere in there.
2. I not only recognized evolution but also insisted a religion should be consistent with reliable scientific data. I have no idea what well known principle you claim I denied but it is not true. I even said the bible said micro evolution was true 3000 years before science ever heard of it. I did say that evolution alone does not explain biological reality as a whole which is without a doubt true. It also cannot be shown false even if it was at this time because we do not have enough information about evolution to over turn it. So I have no idea what it is you think I denied, but I deny your claim is true. I have a degree in math and work in science every day. There is no one hiding from science on my side.

Two claims and two atrocious failures. I do not mind anyone being wrong. Making mistakes are very understandable. I however do not go along with intentional mischaracterizations, made for effect.

Oh yes, I'm such a "liberal". LOL! Nice stereotype, but if you only knew.

I have no idea if your a liberal or not and it does not matter. The mastery of disinformation for effect is a liberal tactic that has never been raised to a higher level (or lower depending on POV). You may be a Reagan fan but your tactics of late have been liberal.

You can have your beliefs and I'll stick to my science. Enjoy.

Neither claim is true. You have no scientific knowledge that conflicts with the bible's claims and I have no faith claims that contest reliable science. However lets pretend for a minute there was a conflict between science and faith. Unless overwhelming data existed for the scientific claim, I would tend to go along with this verse:

1 Timothy 6:19-21

King James Version (KJV)


19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1 Timothy 6:19-21 KJV - Laying up in store for themselves a - Bible Gateway


The reason I would be willing to give the Bible credit until overwhelming scientific data (which so far does not exist in any amount) showed it wrong is because the trash heap of history is full of scientific and scholarly claims that the bible has buried. There are museums full of artifacts from cultures the bible said existed and archeologists and historians said did not. As men said 4000 years ago the universe in spite of (cracked eggs, oscillating models, steady state models, and al manner of science fictions) appears to be exactly hat they said it was after all. Modern cosmology and the bible agree perfectly. The universe and everything in it began to exist a finite time ago and do not contain the explanation for their own existence. While I am sure evolution occurs, to be a stand alone explanation they must produce or find life that arose from non-life. Again just as the bible says they cannot, have not, and probably will never produce any such thing. You can take the opposite tact as Timothy if you want but if born again you would be far less inclined to do so without serious investigation. In this lies the entire difference in experience based faith given by God, and intellectual based faith.


Now if you want to debate me please curtail misrepresenting my claims.

 

[metis]

In anthropology, we use the word "magic" to stand for beliefs in miracles of various types, and the word does not have any negative connotation with us. I probably would have been better off using a more lay-acceptable term such as "miracles".

 

[1robin]

In anthropology, we use the word "magic" to stand for beliefs in miracles of various types, and the word does not have any negative connotation with us. I probably would have been better off using a more lay-acceptable term such as "miracles".

Tell you what I will take you at your word, because I have no access to your motivations and can honestly do no other. The fact it was included with so many other mischaracterizations of my statements make that position precarious but I look for ways to agree and will maintain it until prevented. I however have seen that term used by people all the time that have no connection to anthropology and used for pure effect. What does an anthropologist do for work everyday anyway? I integrate that latest defense instruments into an F-15 diagnostic system and know first hand how fallible even application science is. So far we have had 12 out of 12 failures for drop in instruments required to emulate existing products. If we cannot design a multiplexer that will function correctly given billions to develop it, or predict the weather right more than a few days in advance, I have little reasons to grant claims about what occurred a billion years ago much reliability, though I never denied evolution.

 

[metis]

What does an anthropologist do for work everyday anyway?...

I have little reasons to grant claims about what occurred a billion years ago much reliability, though I never denied evolution.

I taught it for 30 years, plus worked on a dig in Israel at the edge of the highland area just n.w. of Jerusalem back in 1998. As far as the BB is concerned, there's not much doubt left about the generality of it being correct, but the specifics are always suspect.

As far as evolution is concerned, here's what you wrote, which is quite contrary to what the geneticists have come up with: "I do not remember making that evolutionary claim but it is consistent with every observation. No new kinds have even been forced to arise by scientific intervention and no life of any kind was created using the same methods or any other. Evolution seems to have if no other, fertility barriers, and many insurmountable impediments to explaining genetic reality on it's own. The bible even confirms microevolution and is silent on the illusory macro evolution issue."

From a geneticist's perspective, by and large, there's no such thing as "micro-evolution"-- evolution is evolution. Once in a great while I'll read whereas a geneticist may use that term, but in doing so they're referring to evolution within a species before speciation occurring, so the term is used in a very specific way. "Macro-evolution", if were to use that term to depict the emerging of new species, is again a term rarely used, but it in no way is "illusory" as far as what has been determined.

Therefore, with the exceptions cited above dealing with "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", these terms that are not scientific as used by creationists, nor are they compatible with what has been found to be true. These are essentially terms used by creationists to try and put forth the idea that evolution somehow just stops at a point, and if that were to be true, then geneticists should be standing in line behind them-- but they ain't-- not even close.

Therefore, I prefer science over creationist fabrications. Again, this is discussed on many other threads, so you might consider going over there and participating in one or more. Once in a while you'll see me over there, but I only rarely do so.

 

[look3467]

Interesting debate of differing views.

There is only one answer to me that binds all religious and none religious views into one category.......and that is that our creation and our salvation is a work of God alone.

It comes down to this: being created as gods, meaning having intelligence to know the difference between good and evil, has separated us from God.

That separation is human universal condition which effected the long term condition of the human soul.

The condition (separation) resulted in the death of the soul spiritually.

Now, regardless of who we are, what we think, what we believe or not believe, we are all under the same condemnation or the same condition....separation.

If so, then God Himself would have to do something to rescue His creation from said state.

Wouldn't you agree?

Creation....does that mean all creation? All believers as well as non-believers?

I would say Yes!

Your views, my views are merely a means to satisfy our spiritual needs.

The native American Indians had no Jesus, no God of Israel, no other religious beliefs that we are knowledgeable about, no sciences and yet, they knew of a higher intelligence they respected, having limited knowledge.

Christian knowledge of a loving God towards all creation is the only and best conclusion possible, given the circumstances we are are all in.

The key and most important factor in all of creation is, the saving of the soul.

The Christian faith belief in a God Son, Savior of the world is the best answer given to mankind by which its soul can be saved via a work of God.

One does not have to believe in Jesus to be saved because, it is not our work.

But, we can find rest from our trying to work in Jesus.

Can you find rest in any other? If so, say so.

Blessings, AJ

 

[1robin]

I taught it for 30 years, plus worked on a dig in Israel at the edge of the highland area just n.w. of Jerusalem back in 1998. As far as the BB is concerned, there's not much doubt left about the generality of it being correct, but the specifics are always suspect.

I agree with the BB and BGV. It confirms Genesis in remarkable detail. My point was why give any credibility to multiverse claims or oscillating universes. The former is reliable science the latter is among the most unreliable claims ever made.

As far as evolution is concerned, here's what you wrote, which is quite contrary to what the geneticists have come up with: "I do not remember making that evolutionary claim but it is consistent with every observation. No new kinds have even been forced to arise by scientific intervention and no life of any kind was created using the same methods or any other. Evolution seems to have if no other, fertility barriers, and many insurmountable impediments to explaining genetic reality on it's own. The bible even confirms microevolution and is silent on the illusory macro evolution issue."

I grant that change within a kind has occurred and that is what has been observed. No new kinds have ever been observed to have evolved. I do not deny they could have occurred just that believing they have is based on faith. That is a perfectly accurate statement of fact. I also known that life has never been observed to arise from non-life. So my conclusion that evolution is not currently capable of explaining all genetic reality is by far the most rational.

From a geneticist's perspective, by and large, there's no such thing as "micro-evolution"-- evolution is evolution. Once in a great while I'll read whereas a geneticist may use that term, but in doing so they're referring to evolution within a species before speciation occurring, so the term is used in a very specific way. "Macro-evolution", if were to use that term to depict the emerging of new species, is again a term rarely used, but it in no way is "illusory" as far as what has been determined.

Actually that term is a biology term. Christian apologists do not even like it but are forced to use it. No known example of macro evolution has ever been observed. I even doubt if it could be. It will probably always remain a matter of faith. I do not deny it, I just do not grant it.

Therefore, with the exceptions cited above dealing with "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", these terms that are not scientific as used by creationists, nor are they compatible with what has been found to be true. These are essentially terms used by creationists to try and put forth the idea that evolution somehow just stops at a point, and if that were to be true, then geneticists should be standing in line behind them-- but they ain't-- not even close.

Creationists do not like the term but have adopted it from scientists. They do not like it for example because the famous insect example of spraying a field results in only insect resistant to the chemical being called micro-evolution when no new genetic information evolved at all. Many insect have genes that resist chemicals. The others are all killed off and only those that were resistant can breed. This is not evolution it is selection. So again Christians do not like the term and did not invent it. They reluctantly use it. So far you have not presented a scientific fact I denied.

Therefore, I prefer science over creationist fabrications. Again, this is discussed on many other threads, so you might consider going over there and participating in one or more. Once in a while you'll see me over there, but I only rarely do so.

You still have not shown any conflict that forces the choice. I have debated these issues in detail and it is the subject I began debating exclusively. I know almost al the arguments as they exist today. I find no conflict.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I grant that change within a kind has occurred and that is what has been observed. No new kinds have ever been observed to have evolved. I do not deny they could have occurred just that believing they have is based on faith.

I've challenged Bible-believers in their thousands to offer a simple, clear definition of 'kind', but none has ever been able to do so.

Can you define 'kind' for me?

 

[metis]

No new kinds have ever been observed to have evolved. I do not deny they could have occurred just that believing they have is based on faith.

Not true. Not only does the fossil record clearly indicate otherwise, so does the current genome testing project. Also, you might want to check out this, and possibly connect with the links: Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simply put, the basic evolutionary process that has indeed produced new "kinds" has been well established in science beyond any shadow of doubt, but "creationism" is a religious belief and has not been established as scientifically accurate in any way. Sorry, but that's simply the case and not an opinion. Trouble is, the creationists don't see it that way because they don't want to see it that way.

BTW, to see the absurdity in the creationist account, you might check out the Dover, Pa., account of that modern "monkey trial". I read much from the court transcripts, and it just amazed me how such a supposedly religious-oriented group (the "Discovery Institute") lied through their teeth in the name of "God", and the Christian judge, who was appointed by Bush, just clobbered them verbally with his verdict. If you're not familiar with the case, you can start here, but then you can get the court transcript on-line: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[metis]

BTW, we are getting far from the OP, so I'll stop at this point dealing with evolution.

 

[Muffled]

To the ignorant or unenlightened, it does sound like Jesus was saying he was God, but to the Awakened one it is seen as Jesus was talking about his divine Self, or the Christ, he himself as Jesus could do nothing without the Source or God, this also applies to us.

I believe, no doubt it does but it is more likely with us that our spirit or mind will sometimes push God out of the way but in Jesus the Spirit of God rules the body and there is no human spirit present as there is with us. So for Jesus the Spirit of God more clearly identifies Him than it would for us.

I believe there is a great deal of truth to that since God is not a physical body but Jesus is identified more by the Spirit of God that is in Him than by the body. (And He didn't leave His body behind for anyone to make that mistake but He did leave the Paraclete which is the Spirit of God in us).

 

[Muffled]

But when it comes to a belief in God, who can really say which is the "false information"? I can mischaracterize the teachings of a particular religion or denomination, but trying to provide any explanation of "God" is pretty hard sledding, even here in Michigan. And there are so many denominations with so many different teachings, there's very little to much of nothing that we could likely come up with that would be agreed on by all.



You'll have to explain more on exactly what you're looking for here.

God. He is in me as the Paraclete.

That only means that the people involved do not have the paraclete.

What you have given of your background helps but as I have said before looking for the wrong thing doesn't mean that a person is looking for God. A person looking for a tree to be God is looking for the wrong thing. So in your serach have you ever encountered God personally?

 

[metis]

God. He is in me as the Paraclete.

That only means that the people involved do not have the paraclete.

I used to have a parakeet years ago, but it ended up flying out the window when I opened it.

 

[1robin]

I used to have a parakeet years ago, but it ended up flying out the window when I opened it.

I had a pair-of-cleats that I through out the window once. Actually that word is very indicative of what I was talking about concerning being born again. The Holy Spirit after Christ assumes a role he did not have in the old testament. He comes to live PERMANANTLY in our hearts. He is called the Latin paraclete, meaning the ones who comes along side. In the OT he came to accomplish a goal and then left. In the NT he came to dwell in the heart of the believer forever.