Is There Anyway to Stop the Great Deception

[savagewind]

@Scuba Pete

I like grok. Thank you.

It should be a good Scrabble word.

 

[Scuba Pete]

@Scuba Pete

I like grok. Thank you.

It should be a good Scrabble word.

You probably know this, but it's from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. "Thou art God and so am I". It's a great read.

 

[savagewind]

You probably know this, but it's from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. "Thou art God and so am I". It's a great read.

I read that a long, long, long time ago.

Thou art my friend with water. I do not know why.

 

[Aquitaine]

The hard evidence is the text, and fulfillment of its prophecies; yet indeed, any text leads to it being a belief about the correct interpretation.

At this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Aquitaine]

So, you enjoin the ego-centric method of determining if evidence exists. There is a lot of evidence that is dismissed out of hand, only because you interpret it differently. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist but that you believe that your interpretation is the only plausible one. I see the sun is orange and that the sky is blue. Ergo, I can deduce that God is a Gator and definitely not a Dawg. That's not the only conclusion that can be arrived at using this evidence though. One could claim that God is a Broncos fan, which is heresy to me, or that the sun has red and the night is black so that he is in fact a Dawg fan. This last assertion would be considered a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, so hopefully no one is that deluded.

OK, so I used a bit of humor to demonstrate that different conclusions can be drawn from the same evidence. It's OK to believe differently from the next guy. No one has it %100 right and only a deluded individual would think so. There is no superiority in what you believe over anyone else. Just be true to yourself.

I wouldn't call the scientific method "ego-centric". If anything, I'd say the opposite is true: that claiming to know the will of a supercreator is arrogance.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I wouldn't call the scientific method "ego-centric". If anything, I'd say the opposite is true: that claiming to know the will of a supercreator is arrogance.

Don't hide behind the "scientific method" to justify your position. You can't analyze the super natural with the natural any more than you can measure the frequency of light with a potato. Science doesn't deal with the question of God's existence. It never has and it never will. Moreover, evidence is a broader concept than the scientific method. To help cure your ignorance of the subject, I'll give you some light homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence.

Moreover (#2), I don't claim to know the will of God, other than to love you and everyone else on this planet. I would suggest that this is a universal truth, much as we know murder to be morally wrong no matter what our religion or lack thereof.

 

[Aquitaine]

Don't hide behind the "scientific method" to justify your position. You can't analyze the super natural with the natural any more than you can measure the frequency of light with a potato. Science doesn't deal with the question of God's existence. It never has and it never will. Moreover, evidence is a broader concept than the scientific method. To help cure your ignorance of the subject, I'll give you some light homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence.

Moreover (#2), I don't claim to know the will of God, other than to love you and everyone else on this planet. I would suggest that this is a universal truth, much as we know murder to be morally wrong no matter what our religion or lack thereof.

You're coming off as arrogant here. All I'm saying is let us stick to using empiracle evidence and testing falsifiable theories in order to help determine how the universe works, yet here you are claiming (without a shred of credible evidence) that:
a) there is a God, and
b) that you know atleast part of its will.

Don't trust the scientific method? Better stop travelling by airplane and start seeing witch doctors from now on.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You're coming off as arrogant here.

I was thinking the same about you, except it was that you're ignorant and arrogant. You don't understand evidence and I don't think you really understand the scientific method.

All I'm saying is let us stick to using empiracle evidence and testing falsifiable theories in order to help determine how the universe works, yet here you are claiming (without a shred of credible evidence) that:
a) there is a God, and
b) that you know atleast part of its will.

As it has been revealed to me. My son died a couple of years ago. I know that he existed and what he liked and didn't like even though I can't prove that using the scientific method. You must use the right tool for the job. The entire world is a nail if you only own a hammer.

Don't trust the scientific method? Better stop travelling by airplane and start seeing witch doctors from now on.

Now we'll have to work on your reading comprehension. Just where did I say I didn't trust the scientific method? You claim the scientific method as your own and yet it's obvious you really don't understand it's ramifications or it's limitations. It might as well be just modern voodoo as far as you're concerned.

Did you read the Wikipedia article on Evidence? Did you notice how it differentiated between scientific, philosophical and legal evidence? It's a super rudimentary article, but it should help you realize how much you don't know. Don't feel bad. Most people don't and they're too arrogant and lazy to even read wikipedia much less go out and really get a handle on it. Here's another over simplified treatise on evidence: http://www.writingsimplified.com/2009/10/4-types-of-evidence.html If you dare, you might even learn something worthwhile today.

 

[Aquitaine]

I was thinking the same about you, except it was that you're ignorant and arrogant. You don't understand evidence and I don't think you really understand the scientific method.

As it has been revealed to me. My son died a couple of years ago. I know that he existed and what he liked and didn't like even though I can't prove that using the scientific method. You must use the right tool for the job. The entire world is a nail if you only own a hammer.

Now we'll have to work on your reading comprehension. Just where did I say I didn't trust the scientific method? You claim the scientific method as your own and yet it's obvious you really don't understand it's ramifications or it's limitations. It might as well be just modern voodoo as far as you're concerned.

Did you read the Wikipedia article on Evidence? Did you notice how it differentiated between scientific, philosophical and legal evidence? It's a super rudimentary article, but it should help you realize how much you don't know. Don't feel bad. Most people don't and they're too arrogant and lazy to even read wikipedia much less go out and really get a handle on it. Here's another over simplified treatise on evidence: http://www.writingsimplified.com/2009/10/4-types-of-evidence.html If you dare, you might even learn something worthwhile today.

Really? Just compare the kind of words you're using: ignorant, lazy, "try learning something", "work on your reading" etc. It's clear I've hit a nerve with you and brought out some of your anger, it's also clear who is insulting who.
You've reacted in such a way, purely because I had stated the fact that until credible evidence suggests otherwise, we can assume bizarre claims are merely that - claims.

You appear to be very personally offended by this notion, but I do not understand why.

TL: DR - there are countless supernatural and extraordinary claims being made every day, and plenty of religions, but until these claims can stand up to scrutiny they are not to be taken as fact. Deal with it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You appear to be very personally offended by this notion, but I do not understand why.

If anything, I'm offended by blatant ignorance. I'm also offended by illogic that claims to be otherwise. You don't need to look for ulterior motives when I being completely frank about it. It's simply not my fault that you haven't done the basic research into what constitutes evidence and how that relates to conclusions and proof. I guess we could blame the public schools for such a lack of critical thinking, but I went there too. No, you'll have to just take the time and wade through it if you want to actually understand it. If you don't, well then, that's your loss not mine.

 

[Aquitaine]

If anything, I'm offended by blatant ignorance. I'm also offended by illogic that claims to be otherwise. You don't need to look for ulterior motives when I being completely frank about it. It's simply not my fault that you haven't done the basic research into what constitutes evidence and how that relates to conclusions and proof. I guess we could blame the public schools for such a lack of critical thinking, but I went there too. No, you'll have to just take the time and wade through it if you want to actually understand it. If you don't, well then, that's your loss not mine.

Twist it all you want, at the end of the day you are empty-handed when it comes to credible evidence of your Sky Daddy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..until credible evidence suggests otherwise, we can assume bizarre claims are merely that - claims..

Nothing bizarre about the concept of God. There is no need for anybody to emperically prove God exists .. if God wants to show anyone, He can cause them to die and reclaim their souls, for example

 

[Scuba Pete]

Twist it all you want, at the end of the day you are empty-handed when it comes to credible evidence of your Sky Daddy.

Such a closed mind and proud of it too! I exist ergo God is. What part of my evidence can you deny? If you really understood evidence as well as proof and conclusions, you wouldn't be so closed minded.

 

[Aquitaine]

Such a closed mine and proud of it too! I exist ergo God is. What part of my evidence can you deny? If you really understood evidence as well as proof and conclusions, you wouldn't be so closed minded.

You're right, your existence is evidence that Allah exists, I shall now convert to Islam.

 

[Aquitaine]

Nothing bizarre about the concept of God. There is no need for anybody to emperically prove God exists .. if God wants to show anyone, He can cause them to die and reclaim their souls, for example

There most certainly is need to provide credible evidence, when there are people claiming to know the will of some divine being, and trying to use it politically you influence others.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Bravo for you. Whatever you believe, please just be kind.

 

[Aquitaine]

Bravo for you. Whatever you believe, please just be kind.

I find being advised to "please be kind" after being called lazy, ignorant, arrogant, close-minded and incompetant rather odd, I have to admit.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Like saying fluffy love blinkers....

Paul is anti-Christ's teachings, so though he might say some sweet words like candy to flies; it doesn't mean he is teaching the same road to Heaven, yet the opposite, (light into dark, and dark into light).

This is true, and spending thousands of years with them, trying to get them to comprehend what YHVH has set before them, has already been the case; yet the prophesies state there is an end to it, and those who don't have this wisdom will be left out....

Which is where and why, i volunteered to share this information again before judgement day, and you're saying I'm mean, and lack unconditional love for doing so.

It is like you're saying all roads lead to Disneyland, they don't if you study them, you will find some blatantly say leading to Hollywood or other places.

The Bible clearly says it is establishing this snare, to send the demons back into the Pit... Since they've escaped from lower plains of existence, and therefore this is a trap to put them back in.

So because I'm reading the Map instructions, and sharing this is the directions it states it is going in; why is that a wrong thing to do?

Firstly it isn't my view, it is what the Bible states without being educated how to understand it, from a faulty premise to begin with....

So its like saying the person has the map upside down, therefore where they think they're going to Heaven, they're being sent to Hell.

I've not said I'm right; I've presented reams of evidence, and there is a vast amount more that could be added.

I'm just asking people to consider the case that YHVH has presented, personally find it one of the most articulate pieces of prophetic literature I've ever come across.

Plus as a final point, I'm not bothered if anyone makes it to Disneyland, I'm afraid it isn't fairly presented, and takes to much to comprehend it....

Thus at least turning the map around for people is the least i can do....Even if they do reverse it back again.

• Revelations says the synagogue of satan (Pharisees) have corrupted the church,
  
• Yeshua said soon after the deception would come from within, as the wheat and tares are planted in the same field,
  
• Daniel tells us the Abomination of Desolation shall happen because of the Messiah,
  
• Moses prophesied that the people would turn fully away from God so much, that they would defile the law,
• etc...

How do feel about the use of germatria. Why you use it on the old testament not really the new?

 

[wizanda]

How do feel about the use of germatria.

Not really studied it in detail....

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Not really studied it in detail....

okay, neither do, it seems to only apply when I'm researching some things, I.A. is not my curve of thought; but thanks anyways, I'll open a thread.