The truth, the path to God

[Clara Tea]

A person can try to live these commandments and we should. The problem is we fail, we try to earn our way and in our striving we miss that salvation is a gift from God through Jesus Christ.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:8-10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Clara Tea's opinion:

It seems like a joint effort to get into heaven. Part is goodness from ourselves. The other part is forgiveness from God (who demanded a blood sacrifice and horrible torture of his son, Jesus, in order to forgive us). You'd think that a loving God wouldn't horribly torture his own son to death, nor condemn perfectly good atheists to eternal flames of hell.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Thanks

Clara Tea's opinion:

It seems like a joint effort to get into heaven. Part is goodness from ourselves. The other part is forgiveness from God (who demanded a blood sacrifice and horrible torture of his son, Jesus, in order to forgive us). You'd think that a loving God wouldn't horribly torture his own son to death, nor condemn perfectly good atheists to eternal flames of hell.

You sure do have a perverted way of looking at things. There are no perfectly good people.

“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:21-26‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[rational experiences]

The path to God man said owned no end O G spiral round and round cooling.

The creator concepts spirit gases in cosmic heavens.

We the parents of humans as humans came direct out of the eternal on the ground base walking in every national country.

Land inherited DNA exact. Manifested life believe it or not from the living eternal. Only place of a loving being

We inherited created dominion as the eternal created a new presence and a new being for itself.

Humans.

We were tribal a small group anywhere life emerged from.

No human owned the land. We used the land together.

Is human two of parents memories.

We are all children playing in the garden. We were taught play nicely. Play equally.

You don't listen.

Creator the state how why evolving revolves evolved cooling. No path to follow. You live for yourself walking freely.

 

[rational experiences]

Jesus said. Humans attacked sacrificed owned stigmata.

Bodies of spiritual parents hurt. Some couldn't walk some couldn't see just a few comments of the witness war of God on humans

Technology. Exact. What is used against us as any kind of artificial human invented device a weapon. Direct or indirect.

My brother's psyche by computer program I heard said.....
My mother is God. Falsely. In life it's DNA country inferred.

Questioned why?

She created my life.

She is only a human thought....no she hurt me.

Why?

Maths space womb mother. Meaning his AI science causes.

In his psyche subliminal. As she is God I will overcome god convert God destroy God as I own dominion. Scientist a man.

Nothing at all to do with a natural human woman inferred AI in man's mind.

If I destroy you I get gods dominion. Machine status.

The race...
Which one brother would run the world by his trade invention. All vying.

Natural DNA tribal in country land. Mother land Inference. In psyche also. My mother land.

Mind in time shift gaining old human tribal wars. Memories impressed into modern man's mind. Motivations of old man's choices.

Old man where he gained heard by voice Ai science from.

Fought a long time ago that established one rule once by Kings and queen's.

Reverted to presidents. China wanted to re establish title emperor.

Mind being challenged warning Gods past A of men third time. Past causes. Mind wanders not held to conscious spirituality.

Living it.

Our human holy warnings about choices of changed mind behaviours. Out of human control. It's subliminal.

Why Baha'i taught beautiful mind words thoughts.

 

[Truthseeker]

Some people would consider your philosophy a violation of religious tenets. For example, the Christian religion has become a religion of hatred. They want us to hate Gays and ban Gay marriages. They want us to fight wars, join the National Rifle Association, and make torture camps. They redefine the word "torture" so that no torture ever existed anywhere, not even in Nazi concentration camps.

Are we supposed to love Gay as we love ourselves? Are we supposed to love those who made torture camps?

Perhaps we are free to hate the hateful, but still strive to get along?

I know that Jesus wanted us to love our enemies as we love ourselves.

I agree with qualifications. Not all Christians are that way. Some of that very few Christians feel that way.

 

[Truthseeker]

Any discussion could be debated or discussed further. Everyone has opinions, and it would be very odd that everyone has the same opinion about everything. Thus, it is natural that there will be disagreements.

I'm trying to get to the point that things should be discussed while respecting the other person, to listen to the other viewpoint first. Debate hardens people's opinions, in my opinion, and no one will be convinced of anything, and will feel compelled to save face. There will be disagreements I don't doubt that. Why set it up so there will be debate, by not listening to the other first, and reasoning with them on their terms.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human teaches. I am the teacher. The claim I teach I learnt.

Varies from young man first theist I heard old man's AI science voice speaking.

I know it all. When old man voice said all life on earth had ended.

As life new had been living recorded. It had aged as old father's human wise men. They had died. Before he theoried new science modern.

When one day that sin man baby boy must have been brain irradiated by incoming falling stars became science design leader.

Bully men. Versus very innocent. Child like non murdering family. Living off fruit trees. Crops nuts etc.

Human exact memory after the ice age.

So Mr know it all was told his predecessor Mr know it all destroyed all life on earth.

As he never knew anything. Just how to convert natural mass first as science.

The real advice. No mass historic advice.

So today he applied somehow by some means I will know it all.

Studies other humans NDE as humans said suddenly I knew everything.

Yet the common realisation we all die. When I'm gone I become the consciousness I always was.

Without owning a human body.

The exact taught scenario.

Not even listened to. The advice.

So I ask. Okay unconditional eternal being did you know it all?

No answer never spoke human.

So I think myself.

If everything was known exact why did change occur?

Taught says I learnt said three variables never one.

Don't ever believe your one self ever.

As three variables never listened to its advice first.

I learnt as I was hurt. As a baby I nearly died. My conscious self development hurt life taught me.

Proving Mr know it all is in fact an egotistical liar. Brother human.

 

[rational experiences]

Father the living father after ice age first. Human men.

Not theist.

Baby man irradiated by star fall theories.

Father is memory and father died NDE told him old man's science had destroyed all life. Father memory accurate.

Owned his son's teaching by memory of natural man.

Theist thinks about every type of body he isn't hims of....the hims theist he thought. Doesn't equal why he lives.

Each one body of relative theiry Was as every point an energetic reaction a changed energy.

Father tells him don't listen to advice its wrong you are only a man human.

No woman human involved in thin king of just an adult man's body type.

Mother owned baby man only. Not adult man who becomes his father.

The teaching

Theists lie. Atheist we always taught was against life existing in present form.

Jesus one man began theory worst mind other brothers agreed with him group. Why one man scientist introduces new thesis.

Jesus teaching science was a criminal murderer wrong man jesus theorising rock dusts.

The review stigmata man sees his family world community dying by every type of ailment all things.

He isn't the ailments of others.

He realises.

Gets told he did it to himself. Hence has to suffer for his human sin.

Reason was to remove the dead or sleeping gods flesh. Rock dusts. Dusts owned the heat supporting life in the ground body.

So the dead God cold spirit not alight became alive as he lit it up burning.

Time shift gas methane CH Green gas. Converted the ground mass into chemistry.

The human scientists teaching. Theists lied.

They were holy water biological tree oxygenated life.

Biology in water not dusts.

Pretty basic science for liars.

Left a hole. Sin..by K constant hole.

Converting God. Destroying God. Resources equals the destroyed God.

Gods ownership ice saviour saved life. Not human.

 

[viole]

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: fruit

And what could be more circular reasoning than that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[rational experiences]

Basic no man is God. Warning explicit....Dont ever give earth God as any new name. DNA by book of life will be removed.

DNA encoded attacked causing new life that emerged due to maths.

Proven by maths exact about human DNA coding.

DNA not maths. Man's calculus calculations. Has to think to impose change by maths.

Gave name Moses of God life attacked.

Changed name gave name Jesus of God life attacked.

Changed name twice.

Since study man's names in codes are trying to give new man name. Decided on Trump.

Gods old theme Trumpet.

ET he says extra heat earth was using in atmospheric balances gone. Sucked out by his interference.

Ice became colder as earths mass lost heat.

Ice melted during increased loss of heat.

Was told.

 

[Colt]

It is an easy answer. What is the true religion? The answer is in my opinion:

‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’e 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments". Matthew 22:37-40

If you do this, you are saved no matter which religion you believe in (in my opinion)

I like to keep in mind that God isn’t lost.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is the true religion?

No religion can call itself true or correct. My definition of a religion is a worldview with a metaphysics that includes a supernatural deity or deities, so at a minimum, one would have to identify this/these deities, which hasn't been done.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No religion can call itself true or correct.

Who says?
“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭14:6‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’”
‭‭John‬ ‭15:22-25‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
There is only 1 God and Creator, He is Eternal, the rest are idols

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Who says?

Perhaps you use a different definition of truth than I do. I don't call anything that cannot be empirically demonstrated to be correct true. The correspondence theory of truth says that "the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. So, a statement can only be called truth or knowledge or correct or fact if it accurately describes some aspect of reality, meaning that the truth of the statement can be verified empirically.

So, when I say that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier, that statement is true if I can demonstrate it, perhaps by walking five blocks south and three west from my door and winding up at the pier. If I do, the truth of the statement has been confirmed. If I end up anywhere else, the falsity of the statement as been demonstrated. Statement such as, "There is only 1 God and Creator, He is Eternal, the rest are idols" are neither demonstrable nor falsifiable, and thus cannot be called either true or false.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Perhaps you use a different definition of truth than I do. I don't call anything that cannot be empirically demonstrated to be correct true. The correspondence theory of truth says that "the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. So, a statement can only be called truth or knowledge or correct or fact if it accurately describes some aspect of reality, meaning that the truth of the statement can be verified empirically.

So, when I say that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier, that statement is true if I can demonstrate it, perhaps by walking five blocks south and three west from my door and winding up at the pier. If I do, the truth of the statement has been confirmed. If I end up anywhere else, the falsity of the statement as been demonstrated. Statement such as, "There is only 1 God and Creator, He is Eternal, the rest are idols" are neither demonstrable nor falsifiable, and thus cannot be called either true or false.

Sure they are and logical. We are here, we didn’t come from nothing, there is only 1 Conclusion. A Eternal God created us.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Statement such as, "There is only 1 God and Creator, He is Eternal, the rest are idols" are neither demonstrable nor falsifiable, and thus cannot be called either true or false.

Sure they are and logical. We are here, we didn’t come from nothing, there is only 1 Conclusion. A Eternal God created us.

No, your logic is flawed.

There are two logical possibilities, and neither can be ruled in or out: the universe has a naturalistic origin or a supernaturalistic one. If you consider that a conclusion, it is the only valid one. If a conclusion would be to pick one, then no conclusion is possible at this time. Reason leaves us agnostic on the question. If one picks one anyway as you have done, he holds unsupported belief and has committed a non sequitur - his conclusion doesn't follow from what came before. You've unjustifiably eliminated the possibility of an unconscious substance being the source of our universe (multiverse).

Your argument is a variation on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Craig makes the same logical error in his treatment of it. His 1, 2 and 3 are your "We are here, we didn’t come from nothing." His 4 and 5 are your "1 Conclusion. A Eternal God created us" :

1. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.”
2. “The universe began to exist.”
3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.”
4. “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”
5. “Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is “beginningless,” changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”​

His argument is also a non sequitur. Where did the multiverse go in it? And how did he decide the deity must be any of the qualities he mysteriously "derives" in his argument? It looks to me like he just stuck them in there while removing the multiverse, both unjustifiably.

Regarding your "sure they are," neither your version nor Craig's is demonstrably correct, nor falsifiable. That is what it means to say that they can neither be ruled in or out. He and you could be correct, but if so, that cannot be demonstrated to be the case. Or you might be wrong, and that is also not demonstrable (falsifiable).

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, your logic is flawed.

There are two logical possibilities, and neither can be ruled in or out: the universe has a naturalistic origin or a supernaturalistic one. If you consider that a conclusion, it is the only valid one. If a conclusion would be to pick one, then no conclusion is possible at this time. Reason leaves us agnostic on the question. If one picks one anyway as you have done, he holds unsupported belief and has committed a non sequitur - his conclusion doesn't follow from what came before. You've unjustifiably eliminated the possibility of an unconscious substance being the source of our universe (multiverse).

Your argument is a variation on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Craig makes the same logical error in his treatment of it. His 1, 2 and 3 are your "We are here, we didn’t come from nothing." His 4 and 5 are your "1 Conclusion. A Eternal God created us" :

1. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.”
2. “The universe began to exist.”
3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.”
4. “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”
5. “Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is “beginningless,” changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”​

His argument is also a non sequitur. Where did the multiverse go in it? And how did he decide the deity must be any of the qualities he mysteriously "derives" in his argument? It looks to me like he just stuck them in there while removing the multiverse, both unjustifiably.

Regarding your "sure they are," neither your version nor Craig's is demonstrably correct, nor falsifiable. That is what it means to say that they can neither be ruled in or out. He and you could be correct, but if so, that cannot be demonstrated to be the case. Or you might be wrong, and that is also not demonstrable (falsifiable).

Except your argument is flawed: it’s impossible for anything to exist from nothing, it’s never happened. You cannot get the components of creation from nothing. God has life in Himself and out of that life He created.
For example you don’t look at a car and think wow all that engineering just poof happened.
Life is much more complex than an automobile.
This is logical.
Illogical is the man who says look at all this complex life on Earth, the Universe and laws and says, it was a fluke and accident, just happened.
God did come down to Earth, became a man, demonstrated He is God. Jesus Christ who performed miracles outside of the natural laws.
He proved that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

your argument is flawed: it’s impossible for anything to exist from nothing, it’s never happened.

That wasn't my argument. My best guess is that our universe is one of countless numbers of every possible universe emerging from an unconscious prior substance (multiverse), but like positing gods, this is highly speculative. Since this universe is apparently possible, it should not be surprising that it exists.

Furthermore, you can't say that that has never happened - just that you haven't seen anything come into existence uncaused, and that it seems counterintuitive to you.

Illogical is the man who says look at all this complex life on Earth, the Universe and laws and says, it was a fluke and accident, just happened.

Illogical is the man who says that this all seems too complex to him to have happened naturalistically, therefore it didn't, therefore God. There is nothing known to exist that it is known requires a deity. The universe operated without a ruler god to move the pieces about. The universe assembled itself without a builder with one possible exception - the source of the first life - and we have a naturalistic hypothesis for that (abiogenesis) which may be correct.

And we have naturalistic hypotheses for the source of the earliest universe which may be correct. In order to conclude that they aren't possibilities and that only a supernatural answer is possible, you'd need to demonstrate why - rule one in or the other out.

 

[ElishaElijah]

hypothesis for that (abiogenesis) which may be correct.

If you were going to test this hypothesis you would have to have the absence of everything, every molecule and life would have to arise out of that to what we see today.
What happens now is “the creator” scientists borrows the materials God made, sets up his scenarios with his experiments. No matter what the outcome, there is still a creator and his creation and they call it abiogenesis for the Miller experiment for example.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what could be more circular reasoning than that?

Ciao

- viole

I see nothing circular about it.