If God existed would there be proof?

[Sheldon]

Tosh! is very much relevant.

Judging from your posts you seem to think so, see anyone can edit a post in a duplicitous fashion.

It's perfectly clear then that your claims about eradicating usury, like your claim about religion and not science, solving climate change were in fact nonsense, that you can offer no justification for, quelle surprise.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
greed and usury are irrelevant

Tosh! How people behave is very much relevant.

Just to illustrate how dishonest that is here is what I actually said:

your one answer makes no sense, since greed and usury are irrelevant, to the inevitable consequences of an exponentially increasing population of a planet with finite resources.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's perfectly clear then that your claims about eradicating usury, like your claim about religion and not science, solving climate change were in fact nonsense, that you can offer no justification for, quelle surprise.

Your claim is that climate-change is solely due to the increasing population, and has nothing to do with our behaviour.

You know what .. I'm going to ignore you. It is clearly nonsense.
"greed and usury" is behaviour that drives climate-change.
You've said yourself that if nations ceased usury, the financial system would collapse. Fossil fuels consumption would decrease in turn.

That just goes to show you. You can deny it. I would expect you to deny it .. just like you do the existence of G-d.

 

[setarcos]

Did you forget to add your own text?

?? Well that was strange. I'll repost as soon as I remember what I said.

 

[ppp]

?? Well that was strange. I'll repost as soon as I remember what I said.

One of the quote tags probably misaligned. Happened to me on Saturday.

 

[setarcos]

Sorry about the delay...don't know why it didn't post. To refresh your memory if needed this concerns your post 717.
I'll split my answers between posts since they are long.

Check. Global thinking cap is on and engaged.

Is this your attempt at sarcasm or are you simply ignorant of the purpose of my explanation? Geeze, why do people always have to slip into the discussion some sort of dismissive insult as if that somehow diminishes the intelligibility of what's been said?
Since we're discussing Jesus's actions as the founder of a religion I wanted to make sure that you understood the difference between the man talking to those present at the time and the literary depiction of the man talking to everyone without regard to the grammatical tense.

All this says is that things are going to end for humanity at some point in time. Maybe as individuals, maybe as small groups. Maybe as a whole. But it is going to happen. The thing is that this is true whether there is a god or not. It is a trivial statement.

Learn to read the room. Yes it’s going to end eventually for us as individuals and/or collectively. Whether your religious, secular, or don't give a never you mind. We will end sometime, somehow.
That wasn't the point of Christ's discourse. The point is be prepared. And his emphasis was to be taken in a religious aspect.
Let me put it in a non-religious way for you...don't be complacent about what's happening around you. Take action now, not when it’s too late. Is it raining? Do you live in a flood plain? Are you going to wait until the water is neck deep before you make a plan of action in case it floods? Or simply assume it won't flood?
The preparation Christ was warning about was spiritual. Are you religiously prepared? Have you done all that you can that your religion asks of you? You may die tomorrow. Plan for it by practicing your religion today. Before you see the rain.
[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]Being prepared is not a trivial endeavor, religiously or secularly and the end of the world or merely the end of yourself is not a trivial thing in the Christian religion. In your view perhaps it is.
[/FONT]

And there will be those who act according to their faith driven intuition who deserve criticism. And sometimes prosecution. Including those whom you might consider to be "real Christians."

Because there are wolves among the sheep would you slaughter the whole flock?
The point was that the mention of the signs given was to prompt action. Those religious that look will see signs from a religious aspect and be criticized for it. That doesn't diminish the import of the signs nor does it eliminate what is seen as a sign simply because non-religious persons look and see only natural cyclic patterns of existence. Nor is there any assurance against the fact that sometimes in both groups signs will be seen and interpreted where none exist or are interpreted incorrectly. Christian scripture warns against this.

There are thousands of such prediction from Christians alone. At least 100 from my lifetime.

Again...you've either missed the point or have stereotyped the entirety of Christian faith in the future by those who are ignorant of their own scriptures.
We know the end will come eventually. Whether it will be a religious end or a natural one is a matter of conjecture. The signs were not given to predict the exact time of the end. Scripture makes that clear. It’s also clear that the signs of the nearing of the end of the earth as we know it now will be global, recognized as a global event, and taken collectively such that the world has not witnessed before globally.

Heck, even Jesus claimed that the it was going to happen before all of the people he was talking to had died. Nada.

If you’re going to quote statements from the Christian Bible at least do the courtesy of dipping into some systematic or biblical theology and scriptural analysis. As I've mentioned...the bible is not simply to be read as a chronology of stories. When Jesus spoke he often both spoke to those present and without regard to tense. As a matter of fact, because of that even the Apostles misunderstood what he meant at times as attested to by the scriptures. A biblical analysis of the terms used "this generation" holds more connotations than a mere shallow literal reading of the text indicates. You must consider these things if you wish to critique the Scriptures.
Consider this, the New Testament gospel writers lived after the events they wrote about. The writers were Christian. If the writers were writing about events that were supposed to have taken place only in the time of the depiction of the people they were writing about in the past but it didn't happen then why continue to be a Christian after the fact? The entirety of Christian faith is built upon the premise that Jesus IS truth. If it could be shown that Jesus was wrong the whole Christian faith would collapse. It would hardly make sense to write into scripture what you know didn’t happen, showing Jesus to be wrong while using the same scripture to promote Jesus as being the truth. Its this kind of ignorance about scripture that leads so many to misunderstandings about Christianity. There’s a reason you have to study the books not just read them and think you got it all figured out.

If you keep predicting the end of the world, then you are going to inevitably be correct...one day. Again, trivial.

And again…you are condemning the majority of Christian understanding by focusing on the few cherry picked individuals who were ignorant of their own scriptures. Or worse used scripture for their own profit. The end of the world is not so much a prediction as an inevitability, that's true. The prediction isn’t that the world will end its how the world will end; religiously or secularly. That question is only trivial to those who are self-assured in their own ignorance.

Nah. The original writings just meant everywhere they knew about that people live. That is all that you mean too.

I feel like I'm stuck on repeat here but...the "original" writings as you put it were about the totality of history. Not simply the writers present. And...Yes. Everywhere that people live. Known and unknown. The moon, Mars, Alpha Centauri, it doesn't matter. The Christian perspective is...the end of times will happen to everyone everywhere at the same time.
Out of time today...I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow.

 

[ppp]

Is this your attempt at sarcasm or are you simply ignorant of the purpose of my explanation? Geeze, why do people always have to slip into the discussion some sort of dismissive insult as if that somehow diminishes the intelligibility of what's been said?

I was being glib, but I wasn't being insincere. .my intent was to express camaraderie. I apologize for being unclear.

Since we're discussing Jesus's actions as the founder of a religion I wanted to make sure that you understood the difference between the man talking to those present at the time and the literary depiction of the man talking to everyone without regard to the grammatical tense.

I am not sure we are clear, but okay.

Learn to read the room. Yes it’s going to end eventually for us as individuals and/or collectively. Whether your religious, secular, or don't give a never you mind. We will end sometime, somehow.
That wasn't the point of Christ's discourse. The point is be prepared. And his emphasis was to be taken in a religious aspect.
Let me put it in a non-religious way for you...don't be complacent about what's happening around you. Take action now, not when it’s too late. Is it raining? Do you live in a flood plain? Are you going to wait until the water is neck deep before you make a plan of action in case it floods? Or simply assume it won't flood?
The preparation Christ was warning about was spiritual. Are you religiously prepared? Have you done all that you can that your religion asks of you? You may die tomorrow. Plan for it by practicing your religion today. Before you see the rain.

Sure. That is fine. But I am sorry, but I do not know what your point is.

A biblical analysis of the terms used "this generation" holds more connotations than a mere shallow literal reading of the text indicates. You must consider these things if you wish to critique the Scriptures.

I do not believe you. I do not think you are lying. I just don't believe you.

nd again…you are condemning the majority of Christian understanding by focusing on the few cherry picked individuals who were ignorant of their own scriptures.

These are not Cherry picked individuals. I am not ignoring the people who were correct about when the world would end. Because there are not any. Not a one. These are all Christians who all predicted that the world would end on X date. You may claim that they were ignorance, but you have no more credibility than they do. Not because you are a Christion, but because you cannot demonstrate that you know what you claim to know. You are all just one more believer interpreting text and claiming that you are correct about what it means.

 

[Sand Dancer]

My premise is that if God existed God would have to provide the proof because there is no way we could ever get to where God exists and get the proof ourselves.

If God existed would there be proof?

I am not asking if there could be proof or if there should be proof, I am asking if there would be proof.

• If God existed would God provide proof of His existence?
• Does the fact that there is no proof of God's existence mean that God does not exist?
• In other words, could God exist and not provide proof of His existence?

Thanks, Trailblazer

In the Bible there was, but since then, not so much.

 

[ppp]

In the Bible there was, but since then, not so much.

The Bible is not the proof. It is the claim.

 

[setarcos]

I am not sure we are clear, but okay.

When Jesus spoke in scripture it often not only was in direct response to or comment on questions or events taking place contemporaneously with those asking the questions or the events happening in scripture but it was without regard to temporality. In other words he was speaking to his contemporaries like the Apostles but also to those future generations that came after the Apostles like us. Each message being interpreted from the temporal perspective of the receiver. In some cases Jesus was speaking of future events that the Apostles mistakenly thought were contemporaneous with themselves causing some confusion in their understanding.

Sure. That is fine. But I am sorry, but I do not know what your point is.

The point was that you're so concerned about pointing out how trivial or meaningless the signs are while missing the important points and meaning of Jesus's discourse.

I do not believe you. I do not think you are lying. I just don't believe you.

Concerning the analysis of the verse in question I would think you would have a reason for thinking I am wrong here. What is it? Simply..."I don't believe you."? That seems rational. I gave you some good reasons by showing that the gospel writer of the verse in question himself being a Christian after the fact wouldn't have considered the verse to show Jesus was in error. The point of his epistle was to show that Jesus spoke the truth and add converts to Christianity not the reverse.

These are not Cherry picked individuals.

They are...the majority of Christian understanding is that the timing of the end of the world cannot be predicted by man. Anyone who predicts the timing of the end is in error and is not conforming to popular Christian interpretation. These individuals are few in Christianity as a whole, including the billion or so Catholics whose tenets specifically avoid picking a date of the end. I know of no major Christian denomination that predicts the timing of the end of this world and Christs return.

I am not ignoring the people who were correct about when the world would end. Because there are not any. Not a one.

Correct. But you are ignoring the tenets of all the major Christian denominations and their adherents, which say that the end cannot be predicted, by emphasizing only those individuals who have claimed to predict its end and then seemingly using them to represent how wrong Christianity has been over and over again.

You may claim that they were ignorance, but you have no more credibility than they do. Not because you are a Christion, but because you cannot demonstrate that you know what you claim to know.

I think your incorrect here. Like I said, every major Christian denomination agrees. You cannot predict the timing of the end of the world and the return of Christ. Its patently demonstrable from scripture.
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mark 13:32 ; Mathew 24:34 ;
"Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." Mathew 25:13
Jesus replied, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority." Acts 1:7
So...anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of scripture, ignoring scripture, or attempting to utilize scripture for their own gain. From the former to the latter cases, increasingly contemptible.

You are all just one more believer interpreting text and claiming that you are correct about what it means.

The text in question is actually fairly straight forward. My "interpretation" is tempered by the acknowledged popular understanding of biblical scholars, Christian theologians, and religious leadership. I'm not a lone wolf here interpreting the bible the way I see fit to do.

 

[Sheldon]

Your claim is that climate-change is solely due to the increasing population, and has nothing to do with our behaviour.

No it isn't. I have made no such claim.

You know what .. I'm going to ignore you.

Ok, like a small child hiding its face in an attempt not to be seen you mean?

It is clearly nonsense. "greed and usury" is behaviour that drives climate-change.

Well yes, that is nonsense, what drives climate change are the emission of greenhouse gases. Usury, and even greed, need not cause climate at all, and greed could be eradicated tomorrow in one your idealistic fantasies, without checking exponential population increase, it won't matter.

You've said yourself that if nations ceased usury, the financial system would collapse. Fossil fuels consumption would decrease in turn.

Not necessarily as you have failed to offer any alternative to capitalism, but it's pretty telling you want to cause a global genocide by destroying industrialised farming, and world trade, by eradicating usury and with it capitalism, and all without the pretence of any alternative. So that's your religious plan for solving climate change, cause a mass genocide, and drive the few survivors back into small groups of hunter gatherers, simple but effective, kudos. Have you ever heard the expression throwing the baby out with the bath water?

That just goes to show you.

Ok.

You can deny it. I would expect you to deny it .. just like you do the existence of G-d.

I don't need to deny a claim, when no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for it. I simply disbelieve it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No it isn't. I have made no such claim.
...
Usury, and even greed, need not cause climate at all, and greed could be eradicated tomorrow in one your idealistic fantasies, without checking exponential population increase, it won't matter.

The only thing that seems to matter to you, is keeping the capitalist system as it is, because you can't imagine any system not based on usury.
You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. You can have the fruits of your deeds now, while I hope for mine after death.

A usurious system that makes rich people richer just because they hold wealth, will end up in tears. Enjoy.

 

[ppp]

When Jesus spoke in scripture it often not only was in direct response to or comment on questions or events taking place contemporaneously with those asking the questions or the events happening in scripture but it was without regard to temporality. In other words he was speaking to his contemporaries like the Apostles but also to those future generations that came after the Apostles like us. Each message being interpreted from the temporal perspective of the receiver. In some cases Jesus was speaking of future events that the Apostles mistakenly thought were contemporaneous with themselves causing some confusion in their understanding.

I understand that you interpret it that way. I do not know what else to say there.

The point was that you're so concerned about pointing out how trivial or meaningless the signs are while missing the important points and meaning of Jesus's discourse.

No, I address what people say. And when they tell me that the signs and prophecies are of great import and that they demonstrate the truth of the Bible, I respond to that. And that is what the majority of people advocating for the Bible tell me.

I gave you some good reasons by showing that the gospel writer of the verse in question himself being a Christian after the fact wouldn't have considered the verse to show Jesus was in error.

I thought I addressed this, but maybe it was someone else who raised a similar point. The Bible is slam full of incorrect things that the authors ignored. Here are a few:

• Jesus cannot have had a genealogy to David through Joseph
• Believers who drink deadly poisons die.(yes, I know. Later addition. Which only supports my point.)
• Jesus said anger is a sin. Jesus got angry. There fore Jesus sinned.
• The authors of Matthew and Luke knew that their Easter stories did not line up with Mark's, even though they cribbed from Mark.

This reminds me of one of my very first threads of doubt about the Bible. It was in Sunday School when I was 5.
I thought this passage was ridiculous, and got into a lot of trouble for questioning it:

22 Jacob went close to his father Isaac, who touched him and said, “The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau.” 23 He did not recognize him, for his hands were hairy like those of his brother Esau; so he proceeded to bless him. 24 “Are you really my son Esau?” he asked. “I am,” he replied.25 Then he said, “My son, bring me some of your game to eat, so that I may give you my blessing.”​

I could not understand how someone who grew up around goats could ever mistake goat hair for human hair. It is just not possible.

Correct. But you are ignoring the tenets of all the major Christian denominations and their adherents, which say that the end cannot be predicted, by emphasizing only those individuals who have claimed to predict its end and then seemingly using them to represent how wrong Christianity has been over and over again.

Like I said. Bible. Full of contradictions. You are merely citing one of them.

I think your incorrect here. Like I said, every major Christian denomination agrees. You cannot predict the timing of the end of the world and the return of Christ. Its patently demonstrable from scripture.

And yet the hundreds of Christian prognosticators from the past 2000 years are hailed and followed by their fellow Christians. Often more than once. Harold Camping, Pat Robertson. Cotton Mather. Jerry Falwell, Pope Innocent III (the old goat), and Marten Luther fer gossakes!

Holy Freakin' Irenaeus!

Every major Christian denomination may agree, but they have their fingers crossed behind their backs.

 

[ppp]

So that's your religious plan for solving climate change, cause a mass genocide, and drive the few survivors back into small groups of hunter gatherers, simple but effective, kudos.

Well! He has quite the genius plan. It sounds like it would work. But there seems to be some tiny flaw that I can't quite put my finger on...

No no don't tell me. I'll figure it out...

 

[Sheldon]

The only thing that seems to matter to you, is keeping the capitalist system as it is, because you can't imagine any system not based on usury.

Rubbish, that is pure sophistry. I am no more responsible for capitalism than you are, but your claim we should just abandon usury, was facile nonsense, as your inability to even understand the consequences have amply demonstrated.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. You can have the fruits of your deeds now, while I hope for mine after death.

Well at least you're unlikely to ever be disappointed.

A usurious system that makes rich people richer just because they hold wealth, will end up in tears. Enjoy.

Back to stating the obvious again, eradicating usury would destroy the global economy, it would result in genocide, but you seem to think we'd magically enter some golden age of prosperity that would magically eradicate want.

Wanting a fairer economic system might be laudable, but wanting to destroy one with no thought of an alternative, is absurdly idiotic. Naïve idealism is no better than avarice, and just as likely to create misery and suffering.

 

[Sheldon]

Well! He has quite the genius plan. It sounds like it would work. But there seems to be some tiny flaw that I can't quite put my finger on...

No no don't tell me. I'll figure it out...

TBH I thought it was a wind up at first.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Back to stating the obvious again, eradicating usury would destroy the global economy, it would result in genocide, but you seem to think we'd magically enter some golden age of prosperity that would magically eradicate want.

Genocide? How so?

What do you think "the global economy" actually is?
You can't eat money. You can't burn it to generate power.
Food and natural resources don't disappear just because money isn't being printed and manipulated.

The losers are the wealthy[nations]. That is why you don't like the idea. Don't get me wrong. I don't like the idea of financial collapse and being impoverished.

But then, despite your claims, I'm not suggesting that the financial system should cease overnight. I'm suggesting that people should not hoard money, and support governments which promote usury.

You ask what should replace it .. the answer is nothing. Money is not a commodity that should be manipulated by financial institutions. It is only worth what politicians make it worth.
..and usurious money can only end in tears eventually.

 

[Sheldon]

Genocide? How so?

What do you imagine would happen to the global industrial farming that feeds everyone, after you destroy trade at a single stroke? Money would be worthless at a stroke, credit would not exist, the ramifications are pretty obvious, well at least they should be.

What do you think "the global economy" actually is?
You can't eat money. You can't burn it to generate power.

Or use it buy anything if you destroy usury, and the economy with it.

Food and natural resources don't disappear just because money isn't being printed and manipulated.

Who is going to grow and farm food on a global industrial scale, once you destroy usury and trade?

The losers are the wealthy[nations]. That is why you don't like the idea. Don't get me wrong. I don't like the idea of financial collapse and being impoverished.

Really? You think poor nations that rely on borrowing from richer nations, will be better offer when you destroy credit?

But then, despite your claims, I'm not suggesting that the financial system should cease overnight. I'm suggesting that people should not hoard money, and support governments which promote usury.

Ah, the inevitable goalpost shifting. What are you replacing capitalism with? Wishful thinking?

You ask what should replace it .. the answer is nothing.

Money is not a commodity that should be manipulated by financial institutions. It is only worth what politicians make it worth.

Your grasp of economics is infantile sorry.

..and usurious money can only end in tears eventually.

I'm sure we will be much happier starving to death, in the rioting anarchic dystopia you want to inflict.

 

[ppp]

You ask what should replace it .. the answer is nothing. Money is not a commodity that should be manipulated by financial institutions. It is only worth what politicians make it worth.

Economics is just trade for groups larger than a tribe.

 

[rational experiences]

Just a human first. No matter how big your machine or theism is as an egotists life a human.

The same human in the equal environment.

Asked how did a whole bodied ape being morph into an owner human.

When he is just a baby only born by two small cells ovary sperm himself.

Ends bio life as bacterias microbes eaten decomposed nature.

Says his thesis Saint human blood body not decomposing still alive human. Lying. Eternal life living dead human thesis.

As a theist in life today. Human is dead just not decomposed.

Reasoning cold as his idea chemicals. As bio cryogenetics.

So in other words a human wants death to be studied and not happening. I want life given back.

So you ask his satanic cloud angel water mass huge human non living life what it means.

I want first death unnatural life sacrificed stopped removed.

As space law disintegration gives us natural bio death.

I don't want my life sacrificed anymore by scientists early age from baby life unnatural death.

What I was taught.

Okay you want your real life given back as origin. Stop using nuclear transmitting machine status.

By haarp studies by satellite by spraying heavens chemically yourselves.

You killed off bacteria microbes in Jesus water body that allowed natural life it's decomposition. That also naturally by water mass and not microbe life biology to live.

As pressure in water kept bacterias where it belonged...in water but not in or on our bodies.

DNA is not the ape parent biological body you said morphed into a human.

You lied.

If water by mass pressure changed the bio cell then it did. Nothing to do with little forms moving in it.

Water re developed its ground presence once the Christ gases bodily remassed by O earths star gain gas travels. In space.

Pushed water back to ground heavens.

Evolution said science of earths own heavenly body. Sex of the species maintains any species.

Water gets re oxygenated at the ground nature. Healthy new cells.

So if apes gave birth to humans who developed bodily by water inheritance then changed by water losses science would state space travel is why any change to biology as the earth owned heavenly body changed.

Yet it isn't space nor radiation in space that caused it. Non presence of gas mass.

Earths heavens had caused change.

By water gain at ground. Water oxygenated by nature itself. Only.

Holy waters baptism said the science teacher was why life changed.

Not space.
Not radiation.
Not bacterias.
Not microbes.

Water. Oxygenated generated.

Lying as a human. Science is a human chosen topic only. It never existed until it was chosen. To thesis.