I don't particularly want to sin...

[rational experiences]

In the his story when Rome knew they lied as a scientist. They agreed life was in fact of evidence SEEN attacked sacrificed due to the science practice.

So applied principle teachings only were read by the teacher interpreter. Which was by their owned understanding

Spiritual men.
Spiritual men had become rich at others life sacrificed and were known taught hypocrites.

They knew they were but vowed a virtuous life.

Pretty basic advice.

Rich spiritual men then had to argue against rich spiritual men. As spiritual men conscious invented science the satanic practice.

Then became possessed by causes seen observed notated.

Derisive orders emerged.

So the rich man stated they were not of his order. The healers. Healing serving was the churches first practice. Life's victims.

The healers introduced a human law society for human justice. By purpose community equality. Where a rich man owned no control.

Which does not necessitate the fact today.

The law of sin was taught babies inherited life mind body of adult bad choice. Fallout science.

Bore the sin of adult choice. Were evilly minded yet born an innocent.

So the church stated tell your crime. Pay the pennance. Then change your behaviour and serve the community.

Today it is just an old ritual. Where most don't do any true pennance.

Being service to the community was part of being forgiven..service.

Being humbled was a true teaching.

Should a babies life hence pay the price for sciences sin against God known as science causes?

The claim I know everything. A human says their heavens began in the infinite of nothing.

They only know water as human conscious advice inside and not outside our heavens.

How can you identify water as water if it's not within the state you consciously abide within as the thinker.

You would be involved to coerce by lying using words to convince belief.

Human to human.

If advice about earths coldest stone crystalline mass was taken asunder and pulled apart on earth in its heavenly memory. It is where all records visions are witnessed first. Then the thesis I was told happened to earth.

What scientists as human theists discuss is relative how to destroy earths advice.

Bands was the scientists knowledge what he believed an atom was in a star. As if he had pulled it apart to study it.

Not in the heavens as earths heavens is neither a circuit or a circle.

Space pressure O says a theist infinite form is first. Then you discussed how it filled up with gases and water.

As space he said is a hole.

 

[rational experiences]

In the his story when Rome knew they lied as a scientist. They agreed life was in fact of evidence SEEN attacked sacrificed due to the science practice.

So applied principle teachings only were read by the teacher interpreter. Which was by their owned understanding

Spiritual men.
Spiritual men had become rich at others life sacrificed and were known taught hypocrites.

They knew they were but vowed a virtuous life.

Pretty basic advice.

Rich spiritual men then had to argue against rich spiritual men. As spiritual men conscious invented science the satanic practice.

Then became possessed by causes seen observed notated.

Derisive orders emerged.

So the rich man stated they were not of his order. The healers. Healing serving was the churches first practice. Life's victims.

The healers introduced a human law society for human justice. By purpose community equality. Where a rich man owned no control.

Which does not necessitate the fact today.

The law of sin was taught babies inherited life mind body of adult bad choice. Fallout science.

Bore the sin of adult choice. Were evilly minded yet born an innocent.

So the church stated tell your crime. Pay the pennance. Then change your behaviour and serve the community.

Today it is just an old ritual. Where most don't do any true pennance.

Being service to the community was part of being forgiven..service.

Being humbled was a true teaching.

Should a babies life hence pay the price for sciences sin against God known as science causes?

The claim I know everything. A human says their heavens began in the infinite of nothing.

They only know water as human conscious advice inside and not outside our heavens.

How can you identify water as water if it's not within the state you consciously abide within as the thinker.

You would be involved to coerce by lying using words to convince belief.

Human to human.

If advice about earths coldest stone crystalline mass was taken asunder and pulled apart on earth in its heavenly memory. It is where all records visions are witnessed first. Then the thesis I was told happened to earth.

What scientists as human theists discuss is relative how to destroy earths advice.

Bands was the scientists knowledge what he believed an atom was in a star. As if he had pulled it apart to study it.

Not in the heavens as earths heavens is neither a circuit or a circle.

Space pressure O says a theist infinite form is first. Then you discussed how it filled up with gases and water.

As space he said is a hole.

Hence from infinite hole to the heavens to water he says man's life is first. Is not any big bang thesis.

 

[ppp]

I believe the Holy Books/ Prophets teach love and unity. The clergy though often do teach toxic forms of love.

Very few holy books teach any type of mature approach to love. Love in a non-toxic and non domineering fashion. One of the most toxic aspects of sacred texts and religion is that they purport to be perfect.

 

[ppp]

What are the religions you have studied so much to make such a positive claim?

Is this worth my time? Suppose I have studied all the major religions and several of the minor ones. Then what?

 

[ppp]

Nah. A cut and paste of a list does not screw up anything.

And yet there you are spending so many words to tell me how unimportant I am.
This remind me of Glorificus. Or more but like, Quinton Travers.

 

[firedragon]

And yet there you are spending so many words to tell me how unimportant I am.
This remind me of Glorificus. Or more but like, Quinton Travers.

Nice. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

Is this worth my time? Suppose I have studied all the major religions and several of the minor ones. Then what?

You have studied all the major religions right?

So could you tell me who the Qur'an is written for? Who is it addressing?

This is like fundamental. Basic. Since you have studied all the major religions and several of the minor ones, this would be nothing for you.

Thanks.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Very few holy books teach any type of mature approach to love. Love in a non-toxic and non domineering fashion. One of the most toxic aspects of sacred texts and religion is that they purport to be perfect.

I can’t agree on that. For example Christ says to love one’s neighbour as thyself, to even love one’s enemies and to forgive those who do wrong towards you. Other Holy Books such as the Bhagavad-Gita, Dhamapadda, Quran and Baha’i Writings teach similar.

Maybe priests try and dominate and teach conditional love but the Prophets taught unconditional universal love.

 

[Secret Chief]

That's rude. And who are you to tell other members what they can and can't post?

Do you think you have a right to set guidelines for how other members respond to your posts?

You mean you didn't get that memo either?

 

[Secret Chief]

I also said to not make the remote and isolated exceptions the rule. Nor to draw conclusions from ambiguous and undetermined evidence.

Your knowledge and understanding of animals (maybe apart from humans) seems scanty at best.

 

[ppp]

I can’t agree on that. For example Christ says to love one’s neighbour as thyself, to even love one’s enemies and to forgive those who do wrong towards you.

He also advocated for an institution of slavery, social inequity for women, punished people for not loving him and then blamed them for his actions. Told all of his followers that it's my way or the highway and then somehow expected that to result in peace. Use a book as a communication method.
I think you're looking at him with one eye closed.

 

[Sheldon]

Heck, dogs mourn each other.

Dogs have even been known to demonstrate emotional loss, at the death of their owners. It was another of DNB's sweeping unevidenced claims, but the claim is also at odds with scientific research and evidence.

"A growing body of evidence points to how animals are aware of death and will sometimes mourn for or ritualize their dead"

"For many weeks, news of a mother orca carrying her dead infant through the icy waters of the Salish Sea captured the attention of many around the world. Keeping the infant afloat as best she could, the orca, named Tahlequah, also known as J35 by scientists, persisted for 17 days, before finally dropping the dead calf.

This has been one of the most protracted displays of marine mammal grieving."
-------------------------------------------------------------
The truth about animal grief

"in 1972 Jane Goodall witnessed a young male chimp named Flint die just a month after the death of his mother Flo – the male was so despondent following her death that he stopped eating or socializing to the point that he simply didn’t survive.

Whether or not it is possible to “die of a broken” heart, one thing is without question:

“We humans don’t own love or grief – these emotions are widespread in other animals,” says Dr Barbara J King, Emerita Professor of Anthropology at the College of William and Mary, and author of How Animals Grieve"

Obviously there is a much larger body of research, but this is sufficient to demonstrate DNB's unevidenced sweeping assertion is errant nonsense.

 

[GardenLady]

I am a believer myself, but I know many people who are not, and who are kind, altruistic, honest, and helpful people. Let's take a social/functional view rather than a religious one. The dictum of "do under others as you would have done to you" and it's corresponding dictum "that which you would NOT want done to you, don't do to others," make for a happier, more peaceful, less conflict-ridden, and more functional life.

 

[Sheldon]

How does a fallible human, like yourself, know when some idea is moral or not? And if their subjective interpretation of the bible is morally reliable? Give us the objective test in reality that you use.

Human morality is subjective, you are implying that you have access to moral absolutes through your religious beliefs and that isn't the case. Religious morals may be treated as absolutes by believers, but this doesn't make them such, in fact it is why we still see some adherents cling doggedly to outdated and pernicious ideas from archaic laws, that are now very much at odds with contemporary morality, which has moved on.

 

[Sheldon]

There are dozens of other references I can give to uphold what was stated as fact not just "subjective unevidenced assertions."

No offence but I'm not scouring your religions websites for evidence, if you claim there is objective evidence in any of that, then please do post it, and I will read it, and please brevity is for the best.

The fact that all of this is happening exactly the way the living God in the Bible foretold thousands of years ago is proof of his Godship. No false god could form or bring about such a thing.

I don't believe anything is happening exactly as described in any religious texts, unless the claims were so vague or predictable they were bound to get a few hits. However even were a prediction made that was extremely unlikely, and then later demonstrated to have happened exactly as described, I fail to see how this is objective for any deity, since all you would have is an extremely unlikely event you couldn't explain?

 

[Sheldon]

SkepticThinker said: ↑
The Bible is filled with claims, not evidence.
It's circular reasoning to attempt to prove the Bible by quoting the Bible.

That's a redundant statement, especially after seeing the evidence I just provided you.

No it's not redundant, on the contrary is precisely the point, as many religious apologists seem not to understand that a claim has no more credence because it is in the bible, than if it were in any other book. You also didn't demonstrate any evidence, just posted links to religious sites, if there is any objective evidence for any extant deity on those sites, then just post the best you think there is. In my experience the reason theists never open with the best piece of objective evidence they think they have, is because they have learned it is nothing of the sort, and their spiel has nowhere to go after that.

However I will keep an open mind, if you would care to post even one piece of objective evidence for any deity.

 

[GardenLady]

unless the claims were so vague or predictable they were bound to get a few hits

Agreed. The biblical predictions that there will be wars, and rumors of wars, and earthquakes, and apostasy, could apply to nearly any decade of human history. [ETA: Says this mainstream Christian]

 

[Sheldon]

It is a fact that the God's word foretold Jehovah would have witnesses. It is a fact that Jesus foretold that before the end comes the good news would be preached in all the inhabited earth (Matthew 24:14). And it is a fact these prophecies are in fulfillment today.

Those are claim, preceding each claim with "the claim" this is a fact, doesn't make it a fact.

The Bible is replete with verifiable and accurate prophecies such as these. I could give you dozens of other examples.

Another unevidenced claim.

One such example:

Jehovah through his prophet Isaiah foretold that Babylon, then the world power would be swept with the "broom of annihilation" and through Jeremiah he foretold Babylon would never be inhabited again. (Isaiah 13:19; 14:22, 23).

All you have done is quote a claim from the bible, and even were it true, so what, how many civilisations have been annihilated in human history, it is not objective evidence the claim or its fulfilment remotely represent objective evidence for any deity.

"Therefore, the desert creatures will dwell with the howling animals, And in her the ostriches will dwell. She will never again be inhabited, Nor will she be a place of residence throughout all generations.”-Jeremiah 50:39.

Another biblical claim you have quoted?

Isaiah describes in exact detail how Babylon would fall, and even names the person who would do it 200 years before he was born:

(Isaiah 44:27-45:1) . . .The One saying to the deep waters, ‘Be evaporated, And I will dry up all your rivers’; 28 The One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, And he will completely carry out all my will’; The One saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ And of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid.’” 45 This is what Jehovah says to his anointed one, to Cyrus, Whose right hand I have taken hold of To subdue nations before him, To disarm kings, To open before him the double doors, So that the gates will not be shut.

Oh dear, what objective evidence have you to support this claim from the bible? Assuming you could do this, how does it represent objective evidence for any deity?

The prophecy goes into such exact detail (which was confirmed in Herodotus' Histories) that critrics even to this day cannot believe the prophecy was written hundreds of years before it happened. Jehovah God named Cyrus by name 200 years before he was born. The fact that Isaiah was written long long ago is provided in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Isaiah Scroll was carbon dated to 300 B. C. E. So it had long been considered as canon by that time.

Still Babylon did not become uninhabited until centuries after Jesus died.

So someone is named in the bible as making a claim that a city will become uninhabited, and someone else claims it happened in exactly that way, and you think this is objective evidence for a deity? The Harry Potter novels give some pretty detailed accounts of wizardry, are they objective evidence for wizardry? We also know as an objective fact who wrote the Harry Potter novels, that's more than we can say for the bible.

Isaiah 13:20 states about Babylon:

"“She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation. And there the Arab will not pitch his tent, and no shepherds will let their flocks lie down there.”

Jehovah had the prophet Jeremiah prophecy about Babylon:

"And Babylon will become piles of stones, A lair of jackals, An object of horror and something to whistle at, Without an inhabitant."-Jeremiah 51:37.

In the first century C.E., there was a settlement of Jews in Babylon, and the Bible writer Peter visited there. (1 Peter 5:13) By that time, the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah had been in existence for the better part of two centuries. So, as of the first century C.E., Babylon still was not completely desolate, yet Isaiah’s book had been finished long before then.

According to the Hebrew scholar Jerome (fourth century C.E.), by his day Babylon was a hunting ground in which “beasts of every type” roamed. Babylon remains desolate to this day.

Isaiah never lived to see Babylon become uninhabited. But the ruins of that once powerful city, about 50 miles south of Baghdad, in modern Iraq, bear silent testimony to the fulfillment of his words: “She will never be inhabited.” Babylon’s “progeny and posterity” are gone forever.—Isaiah 13:20; 14:22, 23.

I don't think you're understanding the issue here, but quoting claims is not objective evidence for those claims, and were it fact that an extremely unlikely event was accurately predicted before it happened, would still just be an inexplicable event, it is not objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural.

We could go on and on and on with accurate reliable provable verifiable evidence that Bible prophecy is not just "unevidenced assertions" assumptions and claims that cannot be verified.

No doubt, but I don't think you fully grasp that biblical claims are not evidence for those claims. You also have not explained why you think an accurate prediction of a future event, even an extraordinary unlikely event, which this one was not, is in fact objective evidence for any deity. The fact is theists from all religions make such claims, and draw such conclusions, often citing the same "claim" as evidence for their own deity.

 

[Sheldon]

Animals do not grieve the loss of their family,

The evidence suggest they actually do.

"A growing body of evidence points to how animals are aware of death and will sometimes mourn for or ritualize their dead"

The truth about animal grief

 

[ppp]

“We humans don’t own love or grief – these emotions are widespread in other animals,” says Dr Barbara J King, Emerita Professor of Anthropology at the College of William and Mary, and author of How Animals Grieve"

Another book to add to the stack. I don't mind so many books. But I hate that there is so little time!