• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Truth is not constant.

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science as a human male group gave O Earth as a cycle/planet the it owns no beginning and no end theme, as a preaching.

For it is a fixed cycle, O and the cycle is constant.

The mass O of God the stone ONE body, that a male in group science said is the presence, mass and I will call that mass stone said mass is not constant for I can prophecise how to have it removed.

He said the Numbers that only belong to GOD O in its cycle is 1010101010101010.

1 he said is a whole number meaning he gave One body O the mass a Number as presence stone NUMBER one. And 0 is the natural empty oblivion body of space.

Which you cannot factor, so he said if you tried to number/measure it, the numbering would go on forever and ever and never stop. That does not give that body 0 space power of the Number, what he lied about actually.

The reason he knew...he abominated space, what he taught was the womb.

For O mass in space is held as God...by time and also non time, 2 statements.

Meaning O the stone was once burning hot dense mass, that was alight, then cooled. Time by his living of AGE is gases alight and burning to produce light. So he taught a theme that once O the planet was alive as an entity of mass, as God, a fallen body into the hot dense state.

That was held by the spatial 0 oblivion deep pit, no measure theme....was evolved.

Then God O one the stone mass was attacked by the blasting other God O the Sun who rebelled. Yet the spatial womb, voided and vacuum, froze that attack, cooled it, so God O was saved by the womb/spirit of space the v and the v conditions as void and vacuum.

Cold radiation held mass in space O God the planet Earth.

When he removed mass from Earth in the past it was named trans mutation.....notating the fact that he in science, male said mutation was involved in the reasoning of stone conversion. Space irradiated, no longer cold mass fused opened. Earth as a cycle then moves/inherits by the cycle irradiated space.

Earth then goes through physical bodily mass contortions.....how natural disasters spatially owned was caused by extra introduced scientific causes.

Why science knows that its own science machine conditions can activate natural disasters which was historically studied, already totally known to his science self. He lies about mass in space being in space as a resource, for the whole time he was talking machine of God the planet Earth and also mass of God the planet Earth.

The one and only place that he resources the source....as the theme God.

When a conscious male scientific self says to his own male history. I name the planet stone, and I name it Earth and I name it God......in that historic moment is where God is named, and it is not named anywhere else.

Today as a scientist who is full of greed and egotism and want of the power of God, he is actually and historically the same greedy and egotistical male in science as he was in the past. Who lies about where he sources power from.

Always was just a liar, and even his own science self told him he was. Science told science that science was a self destructive liar.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
A spiritual teaching will change each time you read it when your wisdom start to grow. You will realize higher for of truth from the same teaching. Example is if a newbie read the text he/she will understand the truth in one way, but if a very cultivated master read the same teaching his/her understanding of the same teaching will hold much deeper understanding. Ergo they do see same teaching but their level of wisdom show the truth at different levels.

Not sure my explanation will give sense?
So maybe you mean spiritual truth is not constant?

I'd never argue against that.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
You are making a serious assumption about how Quintarskits interact. It may well be the case that when two are in a group and two more are added, the resulting reaction leaves 5 of them. Or, it may be that each Quintarskit can, under the correct circumstances, produce two of them.

And, of course, you are also making the assumption that there is a fundamental level on which conservation of objects applies. Given that even today's quantum field theories don't have such a conservation law, it is quite possible a fundamental law would not include such.

So, it may well be that it is impossible to have 4 Quintarskits in a group: that the allowed vibratory modes simply don't allow such: either there are three or there are five. In such a case, it may well be that dding two and two gives three 50% of the time and five 50% of the time.
Let's say they interact exactly as I described... the link up, but the delineations between them are separate and clear. Again... it is the situation, not the specifics of the materials at hand (the inclusion and description of Quintarskits doesn't actually matter) that I am referencing.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Let's say they interact exactly as I described... the link up, but the delineations between them are separate and clear. Again... it is the situation, not the specifics of the materials at hand (the inclusion and description of Quintarskits doesn't actually matter) that I am referencing.

And I am saying that the condition 'the delineations are separate and clear' is one that is precisely equivalent to the conservation of objects property. And when that property applies is a matter of observation and testing. it is a physics question, not a math question. And, in any given situation, and prior to testing, it cannot be determined if you conditions apply or not.

This is doubly true in the quantum realm, where it is *possible* for A to be 'made from' B and C, for B to be 'made from' A and C, and for C to be 'made from' A and B. In other words, circular dependencies are possible.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Truth change according to what level of wisdom a person has achieved.
It means two people do not see the same truth, because no person hold the exact same wisdom level.
Relative truth and conditional truth are two different truths, but they are both true.

Is all truth not constant or is some truth not constant?

Does 2+2=4 sometimes, or always?

Is it always true or sometimes true that truth is not constant?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
And I am saying that the condition 'the delineations are separate and clear' is one that is precisely equivalent to the conservation of objects property. And when that property applies is a matter of observation and testing. it is a physics question, not a math question. And, in any given situation, and prior to testing, it cannot be determined if you conditions apply or not.

This is doubly true in the quantum realm, where it is *possible* for A to be 'made from' B and C, for B to be 'made from' A and C, and for C to be 'made from' A and B. In other words, circular dependencies are possible.
In the reality I am presented with, it becomes entirely necessary to recognize delineations like those I am describing - even if, given the actual state of the underlying substances of the universe, such delineations do not really "exist" as I perceive them. If a creature were capable of "seeing" what we consider an "object" as not being separate from its surroundings, but merely as a collection of energies and forces repelling one another - then good for it, I suppose - and maybe it would never even think to "count" as such. But in the abstract of "counting" and given objects that present themselves to my particular senses as distinct objects, the abstract activity of "counting" is something that can be done, and can be relied upon to produce exactly the same results given another being also "counting" who has much the same perception as myself.

I mean... I can try and caveat every single statement I make in order to try and meet the rigors of maintaining responsibility for what I do and do not refer to as "objective" - but in the end, we don't live our lives this way, and such will never become the "norm" - nor should it. It is only overly pedantic observance of what can be considered "real" that gets us to this point in conversations anyway.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
In the reality I am presented with, it becomes entirely necessary to recognize delineations like those I am describing - even if, given the actual state of the underlying substances of the universe, such delineations do not really "exist" as I perceive them. If a creature were capable of "seeing" what we consider an "object" as not being separate from its surroundings, but merely as a collection of energies and forces repelling one another - then good for it, I suppose - and maybe it would never even think to "count" as such. But in the abstract of "counting" and given objects that present themselves to my particular senses as distinct objects, the abstract activity of "counting" is something that can be done, and can be relied upon to produce exactly the same results given another being also "counting" who has much the same perception as myself.

I mean... I can try and caveat every single statement I make in order to try and meet the rigors of maintaining responsibility for what I do and do not refer to as "objective" - but in the end, we don't live our lives this way, and such will never become the "norm" - nor should it. It is only overly pedantic observance of what can be considered "real" that gets us to this point in conversations anyway.

And I agree. At the human level, when dealing with solid objects, the conservation of object number is usually valid. There are many cases past the human level where this conservation law also applies. But it is very far from being a universal law.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I don't agree with the position that he concept of truth was too broad or too elusive to give attention. Unless all that you mean is it is sometimes difficult to ask the correct question. And it is sometimes difficult (or impossible) to access the required information. But I think that 'broad and elusive' mean more than just that. No?
The Bible contains things that are true, and things that are not true, and things that are false.

Jesus did ' Not ' teach that the concept of truth was too broad or to elusive to give attention. That is a worldly concept. Pilate spoke of truth in general.
Sure, there are times when it is difficult to ask the correct question, but that does Not mean don't ask something anyway.
What one thing do you think is Not true about what is contained in the Bible_________________
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
More like crucified for denying the emperors status, a treasonable offence
And for teaching against roman religions, a treasonable offence.

Yes, treason, sedition and injured majesty were trumped up charges against Jesus.
Jesus taught that his kingdom was Not part of this world ( that includes the Roman world )
So, Jesus was No threat to any Caesar - see Romans 13th chapter.
The only time Christians do Not obey Caesar is when man's law conflict with God's law - Acts of the Apostles 5:29.
In other words, subjection to Caesar is in a relative position to God's absolute position.
For example: if Caesar forbids Christians to speak to others about God or Jesus a Christian could Not comply with that.
So far, in the United States there is: freedom of speech.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Yes, those Iberian navigators were tough guys all right, and their impact on European psychology was significant. Working backwards to the hypothesis that 14th century Basque sailors fishing for cod on the Grand Banks had reached America as Lief had done in the 11th, we get back to Eratosthenes (3rd cent. BCE), who had he been better known might have made the spherical earth a standard European perception.
Two problems with that ─ there are five versions of Jesus in the NT, Paul's and the four gospel writers'; and only Matthew's says not a dot, not a coffee stain, of the Jewish Law would change till all was accomplished. The gnostic-flavored message of the Jesuses of Paul and the author of John , that you could only get to God through an intermediary (Jesus), reminds me of nothing in the Tanakh, and is far more Greek than Hebrew. (The Jesus of Mark, hence of the synoptics, has more the JtB message, Get Ready, the Kingdom is at hand! and endtimes ideas were known in Jewish thought of the day.)
Thin ice, mon brave! The scriptures have changed enormously, the very easy example being God's loss of appetite for slavery. For a tiny further sample, Abraham, Jephthah, David, Jonah and the gospel writers all thought God liked human sacrifice, which at least in my suburb is frowned on these days; I never ask women whether they're menstruating or not before I speak to them; and I cut my hair and shave my beard at will; and as far as I can see witches are suffered to live right up to the highest courts in the land. And so on.

Slavery was what was going on at the time, and the Jews were Not to be cruel to them.
No, God did Not approve of human sacrifice -> Please see Jeremiah 32:35 and 2 Chronicles 28:3
Both Abraham and Isaac were showing their confidence in the Resurrection - Genesis 22:5
God's promise was that the promised seed (aka Messiah) would come through Isaac.
Isaac would have to be alive to produce offspring, so Isaac would have to be brought back to life.
So, Abe and Isaac knew God would resurrect Isaac, but remember God did Not let them go through with the sacrifice.
Plus, the Constitution of the Mosaic Law was temporary and only for the one nation, the nation of ancient Israel.


The four gospel accounts plus Romans ( sometimes referred to as a 5th account ) make up one gospel.
The ' gospel ' (singular) according to Matt, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul as in Romans.

End times have always been a thought of the day, but never before has the good news of God's Kingdom (Daniel 2:44) been declared on such a grand international scale as it is Now done just as Jesus said at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8.
So, we are Now at the ' final phase ' of that preaching work, thus this means we are nearing the ' final signal ' (1st Thess. 5:2-3) when the powers that be will be saying, " Peace and Security.. " which will prove to be the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9 before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, ushers in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
so you believe.....He walked on water is truth
What may seem improvable today with known science does Not have to mean impossible.
Remember we are all born after Adam broke God's Law.
We inherited human imperfection from father Adam.
Not saying Adam walked on water, but that there are things that are unknown to us at this point in time.
During Jesus' 1,000-year governmental reign over Earth then we will learn more about Jesus and his ability to regulate weather and water.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
Truth change according to what level of wisdom a person has achieved.
It means two people do not see the same truth, because no person hold the exact same wisdom level.
Relative truth and conditional truth are two different truths, but they are both true.
Truth is always the same. Only perception changes.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Yes, treason, sedition and injured majesty were trumped up charges against Jesus.
Jesus taught that his kingdom was Not part of this world ( that includes the Roman world )
So, Jesus was No threat to any Caesar - see Romans 13th chapter.
The only time Christians do Not obey Caesar is when man's law conflict with God's law - Acts of the Apostles 5:29.
In other words, subjection to Caesar is in a relative position to God's absolute position.
For example: if Caesar forbids Christians to speak to others about God or Jesus a Christian could Not comply with that.
So far, in the United States there is: freedom of speech.


Only man was the government and if obeying an archaic and seditious more meant breaking the law of the land then they knew the consequences. Just the same as if you break the law today.

At the time there was no united states, there was however Rome and in rome there were gods, to deny those gods was against the law
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Jesus did ' Not ' teach that the concept of truth was too broad or to elusive to give attention. That is a worldly concept. Pilate spoke of truth in general.
Sure, there are times when it is difficult to ask the correct question, but that does Not mean don't ask something anyway.
What one thing do you think is Not true about what is contained in the Bible_________________
I did not mean to confuse you. Allow me to clarify.

I don't agree with the position that you attributed to Pilate - that the concept of truth was too broad or too elusive to give attention. Unless all that you mean is it is sometimes difficult to ask the correct question. And it is sometimes difficult (or impossible) to access the required information. But I think that 'broad and elusive' mean more than just that. No?

I do not buy the position that you attributed to Jesus - that the Bible as truth is unchanging, eternal truth. I do not buy it because the Bible contains things that are true, and things that are not true, and things that are false.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Only man was the government and if obeying an archaic and seditious more meant breaking the law of the land then they knew the consequences. Just the same as if you break the law today.
At the time there was no united states, there was however Rome and in rome there were gods, to deny those gods was against the law

Yes, Christians know the consequences that is why Acts 5:29 says to obey God over man ( only if man's relative law conflicts with God's absolute law )
As the plagues of Egypt humiliated the Egyptian gods, so too are all the other gods of this world.
Seems as if now the techno gods are being humiliated,etc.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Yes, Christians know the consequences that is why Acts 5:29 says to obey God over man ( only if man's relative law conflicts with God's absolute law )
As the plagues of Egypt humiliated the Egyptian gods, so too are all the other gods of this world.
Seems as if now the techno gods are being humiliated,etc.



Does it say 'only if mans law conflicts with the belief of gods law'? It certainly does not say that in acts 5:29. In fact it says the opposite

It seems some of the "plaques of egypt" really did occur, spread over about 1500 years from 3000bc to 1500bc and can be associated with natural disasters, no god required. I understand from my readings that exodus occurred around 1300bc. Why the delay?

ROFLAMA
Techno gods??? Wow, do you realise you said that while worshipping the techno gods of electronic communication, the internet, software engineer and sin of sin, quantum mechanics.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Does it say 'only if mans law conflicts with the belief of gods law'? It certainly does not say that in acts 5:29. In fact it says the opposite
It seems some of the "plaques of egypt" really did occur, spread over about 1500 years from 3000bc to 1500bc and can be associated with natural disasters, no god required. I understand from my readings that exodus occurred around 1300bc. Why the delay?
Techno gods??? Wow, do you realise you said that while worshipping the techno gods of electronic communication, the internet, software engineer and sin of sin, quantum mechanics.

I find at Acts of the Apostles 4:29 the powers that be wanted to stop the preaching about Jesus.
When the powers that be heard the preaching was still happening the followers were put in jail - Acts of the Apostles 5:17-18
Notice the question at Acts of the Apostles 5:27-28_____________
The reply at Acts of the Apostles 5:29 was that they ought to obey God ( keep preaching ) rather then men to stop preaching.
So, man's law did conflict with God's law to preach.

The 400 year period of affliction ran from the year 1913 BC to 1513 BC (BCE)
As far as the Israelites actually living in Egypt it was 215 years (1728-1513)
Each of the plagues humiliated Egyptian gods:
1) blood disgraced Hapi
2) frog disgraced Heqt
3 )turn dust into gnats disgraced the magic-practicing priests, the god Thoth.
4) gadflies did Not affect the Israelites.
5) livestock disgraced cow-goddess Hathor, Apis, and sky goddess Nut
6) boils disgraced Thoth, Isia, and Ptah.
7) hailstorm disgraced Reshpu, Thoth
8) locusts disgraced fertility god Min the protector of crops.
9) darkness disgraced sun gods such as Ra, Horus and Thoth
10) death of first born was to them the death of a god: Sons of Ra or Amon-Ra

Besides some people today looking to Techo-gods ( modern technology ) to solve the problems instead of looking to God's guidance.
So, there is a difference between using technology and worshipping it.
Modern-day technology has made possible rapid Bible translation, Not the worship of technology but using it to help further the spread of God's Word.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I find at Acts of the Apostles 4:29 the powers that be wanted to stop the preaching about Jesus.
When the powers that be heard the preaching was still happening the followers were put in jail - Acts of the Apostles 5:17-18
Notice the question at Acts of the Apostles 5:27-28_____________
The reply at Acts of the Apostles 5:29 was that they ought to obey God ( keep preaching ) rather then men to stop preaching.
So, man's law did conflict with God's law to preach.

The 400 year period of affliction ran from the year 1913 BC to 1513 BC (BCE)
As far as the Israelites actually living in Egypt it was 215 years (1728-1513)
Each of the plagues humiliated Egyptian gods:
1) blood disgraced Hapi
2) frog disgraced Heqt
3 )turn dust into gnats disgraced the magic-practicing priests, the god Thoth.
4) gadflies did Not affect the Israelites.
5) livestock disgraced cow-goddess Hathor, Apis, and sky goddess Nut
6) boils disgraced Thoth, Isia, and Ptah.
7) hailstorm disgraced Reshpu, Thoth
8) locusts disgraced fertility god Min the protector of crops.
9) darkness disgraced sun gods such as Ra, Horus and Thoth
10) death of first born was to them the death of a god: Sons of Ra or Amon-Ra

Besides some people today looking to Techo-gods ( modern technology ) to solve the problems instead of looking to God's guidance.
So, there is a difference between using technology and worshipping it.
Modern-day technology has made possible rapid Bible translation, Not the worship of technology but using it to help further the spread of God's Word.

Yes well, i consider scientific evidence to be more valid than apologetics. The scientific evidence for those plagues of Egypt that can actually be shown to have occured all have natural, ecological reasons.

Who worships technology? I see no churches or temples to technology. I see no technology prayer meetings, i see no wars in the name of technology. I see no technologists dissing various religions

What i do see is...

Modern technology has allowed you to post here, has extended your lifespan from around 25 years to 80 or so years, that is major problems solved. It had cured many diseases (if one believes in a creator god then one must accept that god created those diseases)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Yes well, i consider scientific evidence to be more valid than apologetics. The scientific evidence for those plagues of Egypt that can actually be shown to have occured all have natural, ecological reasons.
Who worships technology? I see no churches or temples to technology. I see no technology prayer meetings, i see no wars in the name of technology. I see no technologists dissing various religions
What i do see is...
Modern technology has allowed you to post here, has extended your lifespan from around 25 years to 80 or so years, that is major problems solved. It had cured many diseases (if one believes in a creator god then one must accept that god created those diseases)
I find there are man-made diseases created in labs.
Modern technology is a two-edged sword, some useful for good and some for no good.
Kind of like Atomic Energy / Atomic Bomb

At age 9 I have a bad reaction to the polio vaccine. Yet who would want polio.
At age 16 we were given all 3 sets of the vaccine again.
Told to have a booster at age 26.
At age 26 there was No mention brought up about whether a booster was needed.
Some have calculated that 'chronic fatigue immune disfunction syndrome' (CFIDS) can be a connection to post-polio.

Modern technology can't bring ' healing ' to earth's nations as described at Revelation 22:2.

If a person puts technology as first place in one's life then that is their ' temple ' (house of worship ).
 
Top