# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  The Conscious Universe

## Ronin Truth

> *The Conscious Universe*
> 
> *Understanding the universe as a living entity, manifesting through holographic crystallization*
> 
> Rolf Jackson, M.Sc.E.
> Copyright Ó Gaia Consciousness Institute 2002
> 
> For decades the holy grail of modern physics has been to unify the theory of
> relativity and quantum mechanics into a common theory. It is suggested that
> ...


http://www.gaia.dk/international/art...s-universe.pdf

----------


## willwash

In before the Bible thumpers!

----------


## Sola_Fide

This is the fallacy of reification.  It is giving personality to the impersonal.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> This is the fallacy of reification. It is giving personality to the impersonal.


Au contraire, it is merely recognizing the universal consciousness of that which was previously erroneously presumed to be unconscious.

The universe cares not a whit about Earthling logic.

----------


## willwash

> This is the fallacy of reification.  It is giving personality to the impersonal.


A 'person' is a conscious entity by the interaction of the billion trillion neurons and synapses in his brain.  Nothing else in the universe has even approximated this level of complexity yet.  But after 500,000 years of space colonization and expansion, and the post-human population reaches 100 billion trillion all interacting with each other in a manner much more complex than the interaction amongst the neurons of a single human, divine superconsciousness will emerge into being.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *A 'person' is a conscious entity by the interaction of the billion trillion neurons and synapses in his brain.*  Nothing else in the universe has even approximated this level of complexity yet.  But after 500,000 years of space colonization and expansion, and the post-human population reaches 100 billion trillion all interacting with each other in a manner much more complex than the interaction amongst the neurons of a single human, divine superconsciousness will emerge into being.


No it isn't.   This is another way in which materialistic atheism cannot account for personality.   Chemical impulses cannot make "Person".

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> In before the Bible thumpers!


 You know what we're gonna say!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Au contraire, it is merely recognizing the universal consciousness of that which was previously erroneously presumed to be unconscious.
> 
> The universe cares not a whit about Earthling logic.


Might this conscious entity also have the ability to think and reason?

----------


## Natural Citizen

This should have been introduced in the Science & Tech section. Why these things get introduced from within a context of Religion baffles me.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> This should have been introduced in the Science & Tech section. Why these things get introduced from within a context of Religion baffles me.


Of course it does. 

Thanks for the thread bump.

----------


## Ender

> This should have been introduced in the Science & Tech section. Why these things get introduced from within a context of Religion baffles me.


I think it is reasonable in this forum. 

Many Quantum Physicists have become believers in God because of their discoveries in the quantum world.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Might this conscious entity also have the ability to think and reason?



Can an amoeba comprehend a galaxy? 

What, if anything, does the pdf say about thinking and reason?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This should have been introduced in the Science & Tech section. Why these things get introduced from within a context of Religion baffles me.


This "baffles" you?  When atheists try to deify and personalize the impersonal matter of the material universe, it "baffles" you when the discussion goes to religion?

You neg repped me and told me that I didn't know what I was talking about, but I don't think you know what you're talking about.  There is no way to get "person" from materialism.  "Mind" and "person" is something that materialism cannot account for.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Summary Amit Goswami, PhD has proposed a theory of consciousness, rather than atoms, as the fundamental reality o the material world. Based in the philosophy of monistic idealism, he claims to obtain a consistent paradox-free interpretation of the new physics. He suggests a quantum mechanical, as well as classical nature for mind, which accounts for nonlocal psychic phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MONISTIC IDEALISM*
> 
> In searching for the fundamental basis of physical reality and the nature of the mind, *Goswami* (1993) has defined consciousness as,"the agency that affects quantum objects to make their behavior sensible." 
> In choosing this criterion he hopes to show how mind can effect matter non-energetically because they share the same essence.
> ...




http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...a_psycho08.htm

----------


## Sola_Fide

> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...a_psycho08.htm


Yeah, that's just a bunch of eastern mysticism...which ironically Carl Sagan used a lot of for his religion.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Sounds like Pantheism

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sounds like Pantheism


Pretty much.

----------


## wizardwatson

> This "baffles" you?  When atheists try to deify and personalize the impersonal matter of the material universe, it "baffles" you when the discussion goes to religion?
> 
> You neg repped me and told me that I didn't know what I was talking about, but I don't think you know what you're talking about.  There is no way to get "person" from materialism.  "Mind" and "person" is something that materialism cannot account for.


I'm going to + rep you today.  

Don't go telling everyone, you might ruin my reputation.

----------


## wizardwatson

> A 'person' is a conscious entity by the interaction of the billion trillion neurons and synapses in his brain.  Nothing else in the universe has even approximated this level of complexity yet.  But after 500,000 years of space colonization and expansion, and the post-human population reaches 100 billion trillion all interacting with each other in a manner much more complex than the interaction amongst the neurons of a single human, divine superconsciousness will emerge into being.


Life is condensation of the supreme divine consciousness.  The supreme divine consciousness is not formed from innate matter.  Innate matter is formed from the consciousness.  The lesser comes from the greater, not the other way around.

You assume time is necessary for the creation of the divine.  But time is also a creation.  The divine uses time to create things other than itself, and to reveal itself but it doesn't require or depend on time.

You can arrive at truths about this through eastern thought and other roundabout ways but it's a lot easier just to read the bible bro-seph.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yeah, that's just a bunch of eastern mysticism...which ironically Carl Sagan used a lot of for his religion.


What a pagan.   Next thing ya know he would be talking about Greek pagan developed logic. 

*"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This should have been introduced in the Science & Tech section. Why these things get introduced from within a context of Religion baffles me.


Because science can't explain it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Can an amoeba comprehend a galaxy? 
> 
> What, if anything, does the pdf say about thinking and reason?


That wasn't what I asked.  Is it reasonable to think that this conscious entity might also have the ability to reason?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What a pagan.   Next thing ya know he would be talking about Greek pagan developed logic. 
> 
> *"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan*




Here is a blistering critique of Carl Sagan's irrational view of the mind:




> *Behaviorism*
> 
> 
> One of Dr. Sagan’s certainties concerns the nature of thought. He does not believe that he has a mind, and some times this writer is inclined to agree. He maintains that “mind” is the term we use to describe the workings of the brain. He is a behaviorist. To define the term, I quote Ernest Nagel’s Presidential Address to the American Philosophical Association in 1954: 
> 
> 
> _The occurrence of events, qualities, and processes, and the characteristic behavior of various individuals, are contingent on the organization of spatio-temporally located bodies, whose internal and external relations determine and limit the appearance and disappearance of everything that happens. That this is so, is one of the best-tested conclusions of experience.... There is no place for the operation of disembodied forces, no place for an immaterial spirit directing the course of events, no place for the survival of personality after the corruption of the body which exhibits it._  
> 
> This notion, that mind is merely the behavior of matter, has been advocated by many leading philosophers and scientists, among them John Dewey, John Watson, and B.F. Skinner. Skinner is justly famous for his attack on political freedom and human dignity and his advocacy of a totalitarian society controlled by scientists. Watson was an experimental psychologist of the early twentieth century who exerted enormous influence in both psychology and philosophy. Dewey, of course, is notorious for his influence on American government schools. He is the prime reason why Johnny can’t think, for Dewey did not believe in thinking: according to Dewey, one learns by doing. Dewey wrote: “Habits formed in the process of exercising biological aptitudes are the sole agents of observation, recollection, fore sight and judgment: a mind or consciousness or soul in general which performs these operations is a myth.... Knowledge lives in the muscles, not in consciousness.” 
> ...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What a pagan.   Next thing ya know he would be talking about Greek pagan developed logic. 
> 
> *"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan*


But that's not actually true.  Why do extraordinary claims require something greater than normal evidence?  Is evidence not evidence?

It all depends on what would be "extraordinary" to you because it's subjective to your view of what's ordinary in the first place.  Evidence is evidence.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But that's not actually true.  Why do extraordinary claims require something greater than normal evidence?  Is evidence not evidence?


No, "evidence" is accepted or rejected based on what you presuppose beforehand. _ What you think evidence even is_ is a product of what you presuppose beforehand.  Read my article.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, "evidence" is accepted or rejected based on what you presuppose beforehand. _ What you think evidence even is_ is a product of what you presuppose beforehand.  Read my article.


I don't know what you thought I meant, but I agree with you completely.  My edit should clear things up.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> But that's not actually true. Why do extraordinary claims require something greater than normal evidence? Is evidence not evidence?
> 
> It all depends on what would be "extraordinary" to you because it's subjective to your view of what's ordinary in the first place. Evidence is evidence.



Sure it's true.  If you claim that the moon is made of green cheese.  Standard green cheese evidence just won't suffice as proof.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*"The universe is not only stranger than we think, it is stranger than we CAN think." -- Arthur C. Clarke*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sure it's true.  If you claim that the moon is made of green cheese.  Standard green cheese evidence just won't suffice as proof.


You don't know what the universe is made out of and you will never know. _You_ are the one making claims to knowledge that you can never back up.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *"The universe is not only stranger than we think, it is stranger than we CAN think." -- Arthur C. Clarke*


You're good for putting quotes up you find on the internet, but you are not good for rational discussion.  Read my article about Carl Sagan's behaviorism and attempt to interact with it.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> You don't know what the universe is made out of and you will never know. _You_ are the one making claims to knowledge that you can never back up.


The Universe seems to be made out of Nothing.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This "baffles" you?  When atheists try to deify and personalize the impersonal matter of the material universe, it "baffles" you when the discussion goes to religion?
> 
> You neg repped me and told me that I didn't know what I was talking about, but I don't think you know what you're talking about.  There is no way to get "person" from materialism.  "Mind" and "person" is something that materialism cannot account for.


Please stick to preaching on the Internet and leave the nature of the Cosmos to those whose function it is to study it. Thank You.

Mind and _matter_, btw. Learn, dummy...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sure it's true.  If you claim that the moon is made of green cheese.  Standard green cheese evidence just won't suffice as proof.


Uh... why not?  What do you consider "standard" green cheese evidence?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You're good for putting quotes up you find on the internet, but you are not good for rational discussion. Read my article about Carl Sagan's behaviorism and attempt to interact with it.


I have no interest in Carl Sagan's behaviorism.  Carl is dead.

Neither are you.  For an instance, which 3 of pathological liar Paul's different Biblical descriptions of the road to Damascus epiphany episode are the wrong ones?  I've repeatedly asked you that question about 5 different times now.  But you just keep on running away.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Please stick to preaching on the Internet and leave the nature of the Cosmos to those whose function it is to study it. Thank You.
> 
> Mind and _matter_, btw. Learn, dummy...


You don't know the nature of the cosmos and no one does.  There is another claim to knowledge you have no foundation for.

And again, I'll post some simple logical problems of materialistic atheism's problem with "mind":



> Let’s assume that Dr. Sagan’s beliefs about mind and thought are true. Thoughts are, he thinks, “hundreds of electrochemical impulses” in the brain. What follows from this? First, error is impossible. One electrochemical impulse is as good as another. The chemistry in the brain of someone who thinks that behaviorism is false is as perfect as the chemistry in the brain of someone who thinks that behavior ism is true. If thoughts are electrochemical, then one thought, one chemical reaction, is as good as another. Why Sagan insists that his chemical reactions are right and mine are wrong is a complete mystery. “Wrong” has no meaning on behaviorist premises. 
> 
>  It follows from the meaninglessness of error that behaviorists, in this case Dr. Sagan, cannot claim their assertions are true. Behaviorism makes truth equally meaningless. Truth is not a quality of electrochemical impulses. My rejection of behaviorism, that is, in Dr. Sagan’s terms, the electrochemical impulses in my brain, are chemically as good as his. Chemicals never err. Both his reactions and mine are solid chemistry. Both obey the inviolable laws of chemistry, which, Dr. Sagan has told us, are the same every where in the universe. Now if anyone, no matter how highly respected and decorated, proposes a theory that precludes the truth of the theory he proposes, he is involved in a hopeless contradiction and needs no further refutation. If he persists in asserting what cannot be true, he needs close and compassionate attention, rather than disputation. 
> 
>  The situation is, however, somewhat worse than this initial consideration indicates. Not only does behaviorism eliminate truth, it eliminates memory and communication as well. If thoughts are electrochemical impulses, then they are specific datable events in the brain. They cannot be repeated. They occur and then they stop. Memory is impossible. A behaviorist might reply that we can have a similar thought later, that is, a similar electrochemical impulse can occur. But the behaviorist forgets (and hopes that we will forget as well) that according to behaviorism the thought of similarity is still another and still later electrochemical impulse, another dated event separated by time (and perhaps by space) from the first two chemical reactions. How can still a third electrochemical reaction connect the first two, which have already occurred and ended? How can a behaviorist tell whether two ideas are similar, if ideas are electrochemical impulses? Behaviorism makes comparison and memory impossible. 
> 
>  It also makes communication impossible. Carl Sagan’s mind is a bundle of electrochemical impulses and reactions; and so is mine, according to Carl Sagan. Dr. Sagan has a thought, that is, his intracranial chemicals react in a certain way. But his brain’s electrochemical impulses cannot be my brain’s electrochemical impulses, any more than his toothache can be mine or my toothache his. Therefore, I can never know his thought. It is therefore impossible to tell what Dr. Sagan means by any of the thousands of propositions that he has written in his books and articles. And since behaviorism also destroys memory, Dr. Sagan himself has no idea what he wrote either. Perhaps his books mean nothing at all. Perhaps they are simply the debris left by a powerful and sudden electrochemical brainstorm. 
> 
>  Behaviorism has been around for centuries, but the modern revival of some forms of Greek paganism has made it into one of the major superstitions of the twentieth century. Ernest Nagel, in his presidential address that I quoted above, said that it is one of the best-tested conclusions of experience. Gordon Clark has suggested that behaviorism be subjected to the same sort of test that other theories claiming to be scientific undergo. Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicted several events, such as the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and the deflection of starlight in the presence of large masses. Scientists could observe whether those events occurred as implied by Einstein’s theory. Let Dr. Sagan specify which electrochemical impulses in the brain are the thought “the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.” Let him tell us what the specific chemistry of astronomy, as distinguished from astrology, is. Let him specify how the surge of electrochemical impulses meaning “The opening chapters of the book of Genesis are mythological” differs from the spurt of electrochemical impulses meaning “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the word of God written and therefore inerrant in the autographs.” Let us see what empirical basis there is for the claim that thoughts are electrochemical impulses. I certainly hope Dr. Sagan’s brain is up to the task.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> *"The universe is not only stranger than we think, it is stranger than we CAN think." -- Arthur C. Clarke*


How does Arthur C. Clarke know that?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Please stick to preaching on the Internet and leave the nature of the Cosmos to those whose function it is to study it. Thank You.
> 
> Mind and _matter_, btw. Learn, dummy...


It's always been a function of philosophers and theologians to study the nature of the cosmos.  Is that study strictly relegated only to secular people?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I have no interest in Carl Sagan's behaviorism.  Carl is dead.
> 
> Neither are you.  For an instance, which 3 of pathological liar Paul's different Biblical descriptions of the road to Damascus epiphany episode are the wrong ones?  I've repeatedly asked you that question about 5 different times now.  But you just keep on running away.


There is no contradiction at all in Acts 9 and Acts 22.  If you would actually study...just a little bit...of the meaning of Greek words, you would know this.  But you've already said you are not a student of the Bible.  So you don't even care.  You just want to sit back an ignorantly say the Bible contradicts itself.  It doesn't:




> _The Greek word for “hear” in both Acts 9:7 and 22:9 is akouo. It is the usual word meaning “to hear” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985).
> 
> And the same word is used for “voice” in both verses, phone. The same resource defines it as “a sound” and explains it can be used of the voice of God, Christ, angels, humans and even things like the wind.
> 
> Therefore, researching the original language doesn’t always immediately resolve the seeming Bible contradiction. Did Paul’s associates hear the voice from heaven? Did they understand the words Jesus spoke to Paul?
> 
> Vine’s does note, however, that in “Acts 9:7, ‘hearing the voice,’ the noun ‘voice’ is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas 22:9, ‘they heard not the voice,’ the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a ‘hearing’ of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear)” (“Hear, Hearing”)._


In the Greek language, saying the men "did not hear" the voice, and saying the men "did not understand" the voice, uses the same word.  "Hear", or _akuoo_ is the same word that can have different meanings.  The two accounts have two different uses of the word.  One account says the men did not HEAR the voice, the other account says the men didn't UNDERSTAND the voice.

What's your next "contradiction", genius?

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## Natural Citizen

> It's always been a function of philosophers and theologians to study the nature of the cosmos.


Theologians have guided men to separate mind from matter for thousands of years. Even today, the Church guides men to continue following the misguided works of men like Aristotle and Plato. This lack of understanding of the connection to mind and matter is the benchmark for why man has accepted that he must define nimself solely upon his personality. Or moral perception of himself. Of course, this leads to a world view where order is limited to his want and need for centrailty. Order is manufactured in a way that is convenient to his moral perception. He never learns what order means in the truest sense of the word.  He lacks identity in the most relevant of ways. 

That's likely all I'll have to add here. As I said, this isn't something that I believe will be discussed correctly if religion and sacred truths dictate the terms of controversy. Those _aren't_ the terms of controversy with regard to the true nature of order. Even if our faiths demand that we attempt to make them so in a feel good and warm, fuzzy, self justifying way, they just aren't. Not in the real world.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Theologians have guided men to separate mind from matter for thousands of years. Even today, the Church guides men to continue following the misguided works of men like Aristotle and Plato. This lack of understanding of the connection to mind and matter is the benchmark for why man has accepted that he must define nimself solely upon his personality. Or moral perception of himself. Of course, this leads to a world view where order is limited to his want and need for centrailty. Order is manufactured in a way that is convenient to his moral perception. He never learns what order means in the truest sense of the word.  He lacks identity in the most relevant of ways. 
> 
> That's likely all I'll have to add here. As I said, this isn't something that I believe will be discussed correctly if religion and sacred truths dictate the terms of controversy. Those _aren't_ the terms of controversy with regard to the true nature of order. Even if our faiths demand that we attempt to make them so in a feel good and warm, fuzzy, self justifying way, they just aren't. Not in the real world.


Your faith is irrational.  Why not deal with the logical problems of your view that I posted?  THAT would really get everyone engaged in this conversation. It's the bolded parts in the article.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Theologians have guided men to separate mind from matter for thousands of years. Even today, the Church guides men to continue following the misguided works of men like Aristotle and Plato. This lack of understanding of the connection to mind and matter is the benchmark for why man has accepted that he must define nimself solely upon his personality. Or moral perception of himself. Of course, this leads to a world view where order is limited to his want and need for centrailty. Order is manufactured in a way that is convenient to his moral perception. He never learns what order means in the truest sense of the word.  He lacks identity in the most relevant of ways. 
> 
> That's likely all I'll have to add here. As I said, this isn't something that I believe will be discussed correctly if religion and sacred truths dictate the terms of controversy.* Those aren't the terms of controversy with regard to the true nature of order. Even if our faiths demand that we attempt to make them so in a feel good and warm, fuzzy, self justifying way, they just aren't. Not in the real world.*


How do you know that?

You come in here and tell us these discussions are only relevant in the context of science.  Again, how do you know that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Universe seems to be made out of Nothing.


...



> "All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now, but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never."
> 
> -Einstein

----------


## Ronin Truth

> There is no contradiction at all in Acts 9 and Acts 22. If you would actually study...just a little bit...of the meaning of Greek words, you would know this. But you've already said you are not a student of the Bible. So you don't even care. You just want to sit back an ignorantly say the Bible contradicts itself. It doesn't:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Greek language, saying the men "did not hear" the voice, and saying the men "did not understand" the voice, uses the same word. "Hear", or _akuoo_ is the same word that can have different meanings. The two accounts have two different uses of the word. One account says the men did not HEAR the voice, the other account says the men didn't UNDERSTAND the voice.
> 
> What's your next "contradiction", genius?


*For an instance, which 3 of pathological liar Paul's different Biblical descriptions of the road to Damascus epiphany episode are the wrong ones? I've repeatedly asked you that question about 6 different times now. But you just keep on running away.* 

Can you read it now?

----------


## VIDEODROME

If the Universe is conscious, it's looking at the planet and doing a Cosmic Facepalm.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *For an instance, which 3 of pathological liar Paul's different Biblical descriptions of the road to Damascus epiphany episode are the wrong ones? I've repeatedly asked you that question about 6 different times now. But you just keep on running away.* 
> 
> Can you read it now?


No sir, YOU can't read.  There is no contradiction when you understand the Greek language.  I'll post this again in the hopes that you read it this time:




> There is no contradiction at all in Acts 9 and Acts 22.  If you would actually study...just a little bit...of the meaning of Greek words, you would know this.  But you've already said you are not a student of the Bible.  So you don't even care.  You just want to sit back and ignorantly say the Bible contradicts itself.  It doesn't:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Greek word for “hear” in both Acts 9:7 and 22:9 is akouo. It is the usual word meaning “to hear” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985).
> 
> And the same word is used for “voice” in both verses, phone. The same resource defines it as “a sound” and explains it can be used of the voice of God, Christ, angels, humans and even things like the wind.
> ...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No sir, YOU can't read. There is no contradiction when you understand the Greek language. I'll post this again in the hopes that you read it this time:


Screw your Greek. It is totally irrelevant. My Bibles are in *English*. Are you calling all of my English Bibles crap? 

And you've STILL just evaded answering the question. Your *TWO (2)* examples are NOT the answer.

*For an instance, which 3 of pathological liar Paul's different Biblical descriptions of the road to Damascus epiphany episode are the wrong ones? I've repeatedly asked you that question about 7 different times now. But you just keep on running away.* 

Can you read it now?  Try reading for comprehension this time.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Screw your Greek. It is totally irrelevant. My Bibles are in *English*. Are you calling all of my English Bibles crap? 
> 
> And you've STILL just evaded answering the question. Your *TWO (2)* examples are NOT the answer.
> 
> *For an instance, which 3 of pathological liar Paul's different Biblical descriptions of the road to Damascus epiphany episode are the wrong ones? I've repeatedly asked you that question about 7 different times now. But you just keep on running away.* 
> 
> Can you read it now?  Try reading for comprehension this time.


Uh, the Greek is important whether you like it or not.  If the contradiction can be resolved in Greek, then there's no contradiction because that is the original language.

Am I saying everyone needs Greek awareness to read the Bible properly?  *Yes.  Yes, I am.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Screw your Greek. It is totally irrelevant. My Bibles are in *English*. Are you calling all of my English Bibles crap? 
> 
> And you've STILL just evaded answering the question. Your *TWO (2)* examples are NOT the answer.
> 
> *For an instance, which 3 of pathological liar Paul's different Biblical descriptions of the road to Damascus epiphany episode are the wrong ones? I've repeatedly asked you that question about 7 different times now. But you just keep on running away.* 
> 
> Can you read it now?  Try reading for comprehension this time.



Sir, you have no business saying that anything in the Bible is contradictory if you don't understand what the simple word _akouo_ means in Greek.

Once you understand this, there is no contradiction.  You can go ahead all you want and ignore what _akouo_ means, but you are just making a fool out of yourself.  And you are making a fool out of yourself in big letters, which is even worse.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Uh, the Greek is important whether you like it or not. If the contradiction can be resolved in Greek, then there's no contradiction because that is the original language.
> 
> Am I saying everyone needs Greek awareness to read the Bible properly? *Yes. Yes, I am.*


Are all of the English Bibles broken and worthless? If not, then just forget the Greek unless you are Greek.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are all of the English Bibles broken and worthless? If not, then just forget the Greek unless you are Greek.


Sir, the Bible was not written in English, it was written in Hebrew and Greek (and a little Aramaic).  In post 46, the Greek words resolve your "contradiction".  Read it and weep.

----------


## HVACTech

> http://www.gaia.dk/international/art...s-universe.pdf


pissant,
do you sir, know what the difference is...

between a "theory" and a "Law"?  

clearly not. if you want to discuss someones "theory" make that evident in your cut and paste efforts at...

obfuscation.  

*IF*, you decide to discuss something that is NOT a theory. I will be the first on your list.   

have a nice day!    ~hugz~

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Are all of the English Bibles broken and worthless? If not, then just forget the Greek unless you are Greek.


No, they're not worthless.  You can understand them, but sometimes you need to be aware that it is not the original language.  This is one of those times.

I don't understand your reasoning: You say, if they're not broken and worthless, then "just forget the Greek unless you are Greek."  Why?

----------


## HVACTech

> Are all of the English Bibles broken and worthless? If not, then just forget the Greek unless you are Greek.


you sir, are here to sow obfuscation and fruitless discourse. 

I am a Deist. go ahead. $#@! with me.  

there is NOTHING that pisses me off MORE than an Atheist that likes to $#@! with the Theists. 

being from Arkansas, do I need to use smaller words?

----------


## wizardwatson

> you sir, are here to sow obfuscation and fruitless discourse. 
> 
> I am a Deist. go ahead. $#@! with me.  
> 
> there is NOTHING that pisses me off MORE than an Atheist that likes to $#@! with the Theists. 
> 
> being from Arkansas, do I need to use smaller words?


Ronin is an atheist?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ronin is an atheist?


He's an internetheist.  Those are the most confused and misinformed people in the world.

----------


## wizardwatson

> He's an internetheist.  Those are the most confused and misinformed people in the world.


Well, I've never heard the term but looking at the root words and your description I have a feeling I might be one too.

Do you mean "confused and misinformed" in a good way?  Because I feel like that's a valid category.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, I've never heard the term but looking at the root words and your description I have a feeling I might be one too.
> 
> Do you mean "confused and misinformed" in a good way?  Because I feel like that's a valid category.


I think I just coined a new term.  An internetheist's knowledge of theology is what he gets from Google searches.  That's how they can perpetuate ridiculous notions like Paul's accounts of his conversion contradicting themselves.  They have no knowledge of the original languages and they have atheistic presuppositions which prevent them from seeing the harmonization of the Bible.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I think I just coined a new term.  An internetheist's knowledge of theology is what he gets from Google searches.  That's how they can perpetuate ridiculous notions like Paul's accounts of his conversion contradicting themselves.  They have no knowledge of the original languages and they have atheistic presuppositions which prevent them from seeing the harmonization of the Bible.


On a serious note I was going to actually agree that consulting the original Greeks was useful for finding reasons for contradictions.  

Tolstoy had a problem with Jesus outlawing divorce, even though Moses allowed it, but then putting that "except for the cause of fornication" clause in Matthew 5:32.  Why say "no exceptions", then write in a new exception, when you're right in the middle of rescinding Moses' exceptions?  Doesn't make sense.  

Well, when Tolstoy poured over latin/greek versions he found that the closer meaning was "If you divorce, you're not only committing adultery but fornication as well" to paraphrase.  Anyway, tid bit.

----------


## HVACTech

> Well, I've never heard the term but looking at the root words and your description I have a feeling I might be one too.
> 
> Do you mean "confused and misinformed" in a good way?  Because I feel like that's a valid category.


Ronin is 


> "confused and misinformed"


?

do you know what we call that in my business?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> On a serious note I was going to actually agree that consulting the original Greeks was useful for finding reasons for contradictions.  
> 
> Tolstoy had a problem with Jesus outlawing divorce, even though Moses allowed it, but then putting that "except for the cause of fornication" clause in Matthew 5:32.  Why say "no exceptions", then write in a new exception, when you're right in the middle of rescinding Moses' exceptions?  Doesn't make sense.  
> 
> Well, when Tolstoy poured over latin/greek versions he found that the closer meaning was "If you divorce, you're not only committing adultery but fornication as well" to paraphrase.  Anyway, tid bit.


That part is confusing for a lot of people.  There's  a little confusion over the Greek word for "putting away" (kicking your spouse out of your household) and "divorce" which is a legal term.  I don't believe Jesus ever outlawed divorce proper, but there were some precautions and procedures that one had to follow, such as giving their wives divorce papers, lest they find another husband when they're kicked out and the divorce can't be verified.

----------


## wizardwatson

> That part is confusing for a lot of people.  There's  a little confusion over the Greek word for "putting away" (kicking your spouse out of your household) and "divorce" which is a legal term.  I don't believe Jesus ever outlawed divorce proper, but there were some precautions and procedures that one had to follow, such as giving their wives divorce papers, lest they find another husband when they're kicked out and the divorce can't be verified.


Well, I think it's pretty clear you shouldn't divorce.  Which puts me in hot water since I'm in the middle of one.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, I think it's pretty clear you shouldn't divorce.  Which puts me in hot water since I'm in the middle of one.


I think you're fine.

----------


## HVACTech

> Well, I think it's pretty clear you shouldn't divorce.  Which puts me in hot water since I'm in the middle of one.


so. you are David, you are bipolar and in Kansas. 

click your heels three times, spin around and...

call Watson!

----------


## wizardwatson

> so. you are David, you are bipolar and in Kansas. 
> 
> click your heels three times, spin around and...
> 
> call Watson!


Are you stalking me?

----------


## HVACTech

> Are you stalking me?


stoking is not stalking. 

have you never been south of the red river?

----------


## wizardwatson

> stoking is not stalking. 
> 
> have you never been south of the red river?


Stoking?  

What red river?

I'm running out of fuel tonight.  Not feeling all that playful.

----------


## HVACTech

> Stoking?  
> 
> What red river?
> 
> I'm running out of fuel tonight.  Not feeling all that playful.


Welcome to Texas, drive friendly.

https://youtu.be/dHV8Wzldlck

----------


## wizardwatson

> Welcome to Texas, drive friendly.
> 
> https://youtu.be/dHV8Wzldlck


Ok, that made me smile.  I vaguely remember hearing that song a long time ago.

Well played. 

Has been a long day.

----------


## Working Poor

> Am I saying everyone needs Greek awareness to read the Bible properly? Yes. Yes, I am.


I feel that reading the Greek to English translation of the bible greatly increased my hearing and understanding. I wish I had studied Greek rather than Chinese and Latin.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Sir, the Bible was not written in English, it was written in Hebrew and Greek (and a little Aramaic). In post 46, the Greek words resolve your "contradiction". Read it and weep.


I don't give a crap what language it *WAS* written in, as I said above that *IS* totally irrelevant.  All of my Bibles are written in *ENGLISH*.

It is either the SACRED HOLY WORD *OF* GOD (in ENGLISH), or it is not.  More than quite obviously, it is not.  Therefore who gives a damn?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I feel that reading the Greek to English translation of the bible greatly increased my hearing and understanding. I wish I had studied Greek rather than Chinese and Latin.


 Good for you.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Uh... why not? What do you consider "standard" green cheese evidence?


Having a piece of green cheese and claiming it came from the moon. (Which would be yet another extraordinary claim further requiring extraordinary evidence.)

----------


## Ronin Truth

> How does Arthur C. Clarke know that?


  Look him up.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If the Universe is conscious, it's looking at the planet and doing a Cosmic Facepalm.


I gotta doubt that Earth is the worst one.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> pissant,
> do you sir, know what the difference is...
> 
> between a "theory" and a "Law"? 
> 
> clearly not. if you want to discuss someones "theory" make that evident in your cut and paste efforts at...
> 
> obfuscation. 
> 
> ...


Not really worth any time or effort, with you.  Go and fix your compressors.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No, they're not worthless. You can understand them, but sometimes you need to be aware that it is not the original language. This is one of those times.
> 
> I don't understand your reasoning: You say, if they're not broken and worthless, then "just forget the Greek unless you are Greek." Why?


Because if they are NOT broken and worthless, then they are just as good and valid "WORDS OF GOD" as the Greek versions.

Should I really be writing this in crayon for you?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> you sir, are here to sow obfuscation and fruitless discourse. 
> 
> I am a Deist. go ahead. $#@! with me. 
> 
> there is NOTHING that pisses me off MORE than an Atheist that likes to $#@! with the Theists. 
> 
> being from Arkansas, do I need to use smaller words?


  Then go find yourself an atheist to be pissed off more with.

Being from Arkansas you are already more than $#@!ed.  You really do need to get a life.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Sir, you have no business saying that anything in the Bible is contradictory if you don't understand what the simple word _akouo_ means in Greek.
> 
> *It's not a business, it's a hobby.  You can take your Greek litmus test requirement and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
> 
> *Once you understand this, there is no contradiction. You can go ahead all you want and ignore what _akouo_ means, but you are just making a fool out of yourself. And you are making a fool out of yourself in big letters, which is even worse.
> 
> *Another reason for the list of "Why I Get to Spend Eternity in Hell".  I never learned Greek. 
> 
> I'll probably be in a whole lot of company better than on this thread.*


//

----------


## otherone

> Because if they are NOT broken and worthless, then they are just as good and valid "WORDS OF GOD" as the Greek versions.
> 
> Should I really be writing this in crayon for you?


It is frustrating.  How many versions of the bible exist?  How often are we told that the words don't mean plainly what they say?   That one must study Greek or Hebrew to understand?
Why don't those who study Greek or Hebrew write a "fixed" bible?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ronin is an atheist?


Nah, don't let the Goobers confuse you.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It is frustrating. How many versions of the bible exist? How often are we told that the words don't mean plainly what they say? That one must study Greek or Hebrew to understand?
> Why don't those who study Greek or Hebrew write a "fixed" bible?


*EXACTLY!!!*

+Rep

----------


## Ronin Truth

> He's an internetheist. Those are the most confused and misinformed people in the world.


That view has been officially updated, the Paulinists are now both #1 and #2.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ronin is ?
> 
> do you know what we call that in my business?


Living in Arkansas?

----------


## Ronin Truth

But I digress..... Sorry.




> *Sunday, July 31, 2011*
> 
> *Dr. Amit Goswami: Quantum Physics & Consciousness*
> 
> 
> There is a *revolution going on in science*. A genuine paradigm shift. While mainstream science remains materialist, a substantial number of scientists are supporting and developing a paradigm *based on the primacy of consciousness*.
> *
> Dr. Amit Goswami, Quantum Physics and Consciousness
> **
> ...


http://www.social-consciousness.com/...cumentary.html

----------


## libertygrl

INFORMATION THAT WAS TAKEN FROM OUR BIBLE





What if we didn't get the full version of the Bible?  What if the original information was so powerful that the powers
that be, removed them because they didn't want the people to know about this knowledege?  What if they distorted
Christ's true message to humanity, and instead created man made dogma in order to keep the people under control? 
Keep them from knowing their true potential?  Keep them ignorant about who they really are?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> INFORMATION THAT WAS TAKEN FROM OUR BIBLE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if we didn't get the full version of the Bible? What if the original information was so powerful that the powers
> that be, removed them because they didn't want the people to know about this knowledege? What if they distorted
> Christ's true message to humanity, and instead created man made dogma in order to keep the people under control? 
> Keep them from knowing their true potential? Keep them ignorant about who they really are?



From what little I know of him, I like Gregg.

Thanks!

----------


## libertygrl

> From what little I know of him, I like Gregg.
> 
> Thanks!


Sure.  I like how he communicates information - especially when it comes to Quantum Physics.  Instead of it going way over my head,
I comprehend it so much better now.  Sort of like the way Judge Napolitano presents constitutional law.  They are both great
communicators in their fields of expertise.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Sure. I like how he communicates information - especially when it comes to Quantum Physics. Instead of it going way over my head,
> I comprehend it so much better now. Sort of like the way Judge Napolitano presents constitutional law. They are both great
> communicators in their fields of expertise.


 You might like Brian Greene too.   Give him a shot.

http://www.amazon.com/Brian-Greene/e...0428831&sr=8-1

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't give a crap what language it *WAS* written in, as I said above that *IS* totally irrelevant.  All of my Bibles are written in *ENGLISH*.
> 
> It is either the SACRED HOLY WORD *OF* GOD (in ENGLISH), or it is not.  More than quite obviously, it is not.  Therefore who gives a damn?


Who made you the authority on what is and is not relevant?  The Greek matters whether you like it or not.  If you don't want to understand the Bible by comparing it with the original Greek text, then DON'T, but don't tell me whether or not I should care about the Greek.  We Christians care about the Greek because no Christian I know ever claimed that English was the best language in which to understand the Bible.  Obviously that would be the actual language it was written in, so that's what we're going to use to compare any discrepancy found in our English versions.  

If you don't like that, *tough.*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Having a piece of green cheese and claiming it came from the moon. (Which would be yet another extraordinary claim further requiring extraordinary evidence.)


And when has that kind of evidence sufficed for _anything?_  Why do you consider a an unsupported claim to be "standard" evidence for anything?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Look him up.


I don't have to.  He doesn't know that.  That's the correct answer to my question.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't have to. He doesn't know that. That's the correct answer to my question.


Correct, you don't.  Right again, he's dead. Glad you figured it out.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Because if they are NOT broken and worthless, then they are just as good and valid "WORDS OF GOD" as the Greek versions.
> 
> Should I really be writing this in crayon for you?


It does not follow that, because they are not completely worthless, that they are *just as good* as the original texts. 

It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.  I feel like I'm the one explaining this to a child.  Obviously the best language for understanding any text is the original language.  I  don't get why it's so hard for you to understand that.  This is just plain ol' common sense.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> And when has that kind of evidence sufficed for _anything?_ Why do you consider a an unsupported claim to be "standard" evidence for anything?


https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...71.6Pw8d8sygSU

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> //


Take your hobby and follow your own advice.  Nobody cares what you think if you're not even willing to attempt to understand the actual writings of the Bible.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It is frustrating.  How many versions of the bible exist?  How often are we told that the words don't mean plainly what they say?   That one must study Greek or Hebrew to understand?
> Why don't those who study Greek or Hebrew write a "fixed" bible?


They do.  You don't need to know the Greek language in order to study the Bible in Greek.  You just need to have a simple awareness of the actual meanings of the words in Greek are if there is any dispute over what it says.  That's obviously the best way to settle any dispute over what ANY ancient manuscript says: by looking at what it says in the original language.  

Then again, I guess it was totally predictable that you would use such a simple concept and twist it into some kind of problem for Bible believers.  There's nothing wrong with having different versions of an original text, because *at least* we still have the original to compare it to.  I don't see why this is a problem at all.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Take your hobby and follow your own advice. Nobody cares what you think if you're not even willing to attempt to understand the actual writings of the Bible.


 I've got a whole bunch of rep scores that say you're wrong.

Thanks for the thread bump.

Have a good day!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> *EXACTLY!!!*
> 
> +Rep


Lol you guys are obviously grasping at straws for some kind of problem, but you're not going to find it if you insist on not trying to understand the original text, as anybody would do with LITERALLY ANY OTHER FREAKING TEXT!

----------


## libertygrl

Brief but an extremely fascinating retelling of a discussion between Einstein and Tagor, 
who was a Indian poet, mystic and philosopher. The discussion focuses on GOD and
consciousness.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But I digress..... Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.social-consciousness.com/...cumentary.html


It's so funny how people who trust in Almighty Science will come up with things like universal consciousness and the immaterial soul and still somehow dismiss the idea that the conscious universe could be part of a transcendent, thinking, reasoning mind.

----------


## libertygrl

> You might like Brian Greene too.   Give him a shot.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Brian-Greene/e...0428831&sr=8-1


Oh yes!  I have seen Brian Greene on PBS. Excellent as well.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Correct, you don't.  Right again, he's dead. Glad you figured it out.


He never knew that.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...71.6Pw8d8sygSU


Screw a bunch of Google searches.  What am I supposed to glean from links that just repeat the quote in dispute?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I've got a whole bunch of rep scores that say you're wrong.
> 
> Thanks for the thread bump.
> 
> Have a good day!


Right.  Avoid the issue.  You and your buddies can pat each other on the back all you want.  You're still wrong.

I've had lots of questions go unanswered in this thread.  Why would I expect this to be any different?  You don't care about the truth.

----------


## libertygrl

> It's so funny how people who trust in Almighty Science will come up with things like universal consciousness and the immaterial soul and still somehow dismiss the idea that the conscious universe could be part of a transcendent, thinking, reasoning mind.


Personally, I believe it's all one and the same.  We view everything as being separate from each other. But it's all connected.

----------


## otherone

> Then again, I guess it was totally predictable that you would use such a simple concept and twist it into some kind of problem for Bible believers.  There's nothing wrong with having different versions of an original text, because *at least* we still have the original to compare it to.  I don't see why this is a problem at all.


This is no problem for bible believers.  Believe what you want.  The problem exists for those who read the bible as a document, not "guided by the Holy Spirit", as Terry says.   As an example, if "All" does not mean "All", then change it to what is actually meant in the Greek texts.   I can think of no other document that needs so much annotation to be understood.  I could be wrong, however.   Do you have an example?

----------


## otherone

> You just need to have a simple awareness of the actual meanings of the words in Greek are if there is any dispute over what it says.  That's obviously the best way to settle any dispute over what ANY ancient manuscript says: by looking at what it says in the original language.


If it were translated correctly, there would be no disputes...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If it were translated correctly, there would be no disputes...


I don't think I could go quite that far. LOL!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If it were translated correctly, there would be no disputes...


Yeah, and some of them aren't translated exactly correctly.  We still have the original to compare it to, so what's the problem?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is no problem for bible believers.  Believe what you want.  The problem exists for those who read the bible as a document, not "guided by the Holy Spirit", as Terry says.   As an example, if "All" does not mean "All", then change it to what is actually meant in the Greek texts.   I can think of no other document that needs so much annotation to be understood.  I could be wrong, however.   Do you have an example?


You most certainly are wrong.  The Bible is the most authentic ancient manuscript in the history of the world.  Even the writings of Josephus, a very trusted ancient writer, needs way more annotation than the Bible does.  

While this authenticity carries over into English translations to some degree, it is always better if we look at disputes in the original language, just as it would be with any other ancient document.  You are the one holding the Bible to a completely different standard and looking at it as something that every single person must agree on in order for it to be valid.  That's just not how the study of historical texts works.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yeah, and some of them aren't translated exactly correctly. We still have the original to compare it to, so what's the problem?


 Well, for one just off the top of my head, trusting the Paulinists that have learned Greek and Hebrew to tell the truth.




> You most certainly are wrong. The Bible is the most authentic ancient manuscript in the history of the world. Even the writings of Josephus, a very trusted ancient writer, needs way more annotation than the Bible does. 
> 
> While this authenticity carries over into English translations to some degree, it is always better if we look at disputes in the original language, just as it would be with any other ancient document. You are the one holding the Bible to a completely different standard and looking at it as something that every single person must agree on in order for it to be valid. That's just not how the study of historical texts works.


See what I mean?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Personally, I believe it's all one and the same.  We view everything as being separate from each other. But it's all connected.


We agree.  I am not suggesting that they are separate, but atheists are.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, for one just off the top of my head, trusting the Paulinists that have learned Greek and Hebrew to tell the truth.


Then don't listen to the Paulinists.  Listen to the secular people who study Greek.  They can tell you what Greek words mean, too.  There's no conspiracy to keep the meaning of Greek words hidden.  It's a widely-studied field of linguistics.

Come on, man.  I would expect someone with your intelligence quotient to anticipate these objections in advance.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Then don't listen to the Paulinists. Listen to the secular people who study Greek. They can tell you what Greek words mean, too. There's no conspiracy to keep the meaning of Greek words hidden. It's a widely-studied field of linguistics.
> 
> Come on, man. I would expect someone with your intelligence quotient to anticipate these objections in advance.


The best and simplest solution is to* FIX THE BOOK!

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."  -- Albert Einstein

"The best design is the simplest one that works." -- Albert Einstein

*

----------


## HVACTech

> Right.  Avoid the issue.  You and your buddies can pat each other on the back all you want.  You're still wrong.
> 
> I've had lots of questions go unanswered in this thread.  Why would I expect this to be any different?  You don't care about the truth.


exactly, they don't really care and are not here to learn,
 they are hard core anarchists who do NOT support our constitution, (they consider it a statist document)
 the mission statement, Ron Paul, or Rand Paul.

they get off on engaging people in circular arguments to rep each other and wear people out.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, for one just off the top of my head, trusting the Paulinists that have learned Greek and Hebrew to tell the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean?


Nope.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The best and simplest solution is to* FIX THE BOOK!
> 
> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."  -- Albert Einstein
> 
> "The best design is the simplest one that works." -- Albert Einstein
> 
> *


If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  We get different English versions because people are trying to fix something that isn't broke.

But that is superfluous as long as we have the original Greek and Hebrew.  The fact that there are differences between English versions matters not a whit because we don't have to rely on those to know what it says.  Simple as that.

----------


## otherone

> While this authenticity carries over into English translations to some degree, it is always better if we look at disputes in the original language, just as it would be with any other ancient document.


Have the "disputes" been resolved by looking in he original language?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Have the "disputes" been resolved by looking in he original language?


Yes.  S_F resolved one in post #38, but RT apparently wouldn't accept that as an answer.  His problem.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Some people talk about having originals, but I've never heard of an original text for any book of the bible.  They've been copied over and over, and even Samuel talked about the lying pen of the scribe.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Some people talk about having originals, but I've never heard of an original text for any book of the bible.  They've been copied over and over, and even Samuel talked about the lying pen of the scribe.


We've got the originals.  




A great debate between James White and Bart Ehrman:

----------


## HVACTech

the OP is clearly here to yank chains. 

I am a Deist and I will now address the OP's thread...

----------


## HVACTech

> Understanding the universe as a living entity, manifesting through holographic crystallization
> 
> Rolf Jackson, M.Sc.E.
> Copyright Ó Gaia Consciousness Institute 2002
> 
> For decades the holy grail of modern physics has been to unify the theory of
> relativity and quantum mechanics into a common theory.


I already addressed that BS.

so, the larger question is... what denotes "consciousness" does a bug have it? does a dog have it? 
the OP is yanking your chain.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I already addressed that BS.
> 
> so, the larger question is... what denotes "consciousness" does a bug have it? does a dog have it? 
> the OP is yanking your chain.


The question of "consciousness" comes up in an altogether different thread.  Why don't you just go ahead and start it?  Make it a good one.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> We've got the originals. 
> 
> A great debate between James White and Bart Ehrman:


What makes them accurate, reliable or true?  Or are they only just the best SWAG we've got?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> the OP is clearly here to yank chains. 
> 
> I am a Deist and I will now address the OP's thread...


I have no axe to grind with the Deists (unless they are actually closet Paulinists). 

However, I'm totally underwhelmed by your bogus motive and mind reading skills.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What makes them accurate, reliable or true?  Or are they only just the best SWAG we've got?


You can study them and see just how accurate and reliable they are.  Of course, if you come to this with the presupposition that they are not actually *true,* then of course you'll come to a completely different conclusion, as I've shown.  The problem is, you are claiming your approach is the right one and we have to defend the integrity of the Bible against your attacks.  In reality, it's the other way around.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> We've got the originals.


Where did Job come from?  Who wrote it?

No, you don't have 3000+ year old originals, or even first or 2nd copies.

_edit: The religion of the Hebrews may have even been invented by the Persians.  Remember when Cyrus sent them to the region and lo and behold, look we found books that say this is what we are supposed to be doing?_

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Where did Job come from?  Who wrote it?
> 
> No, you don't have 3000+ year old originals, or even first or 2nd copies.


But we know what was in them.  Watch my videos.  The texts are authentic.  More authentic than any other ancient manuscript.

----------


## otherone

> Where did Job come from?  Who wrote it?
> 
> No, you don't have 3000+ year old originals, or even first or 2nd copies.
> 
> _edit: The religion of the Hebrews may have even been invented by the Persians.  Remember when Cyrus sent them to the region and lo and behold, look we found books that say this is what we are supposed to be doing?_


A nice synopsis:

The main difficulty involved in answering this question is the idea of the Bible as a "document".  It isn't.  As the secondary question mentions, it's actually a "collection of documents".  In fact, it's a small library of many texts, from a variety of genres, written in several languages over a period of centuries.  The only reason people think of it as "a document" or "a book" is that we tend to find this collection published in a single volume, and even that has only been common since the invention of the printing press made this practical - prior to that single volume Bibles existed but were rare because they were (i) huge and (ii) consequently hugely expensive.

So this makes it hard to summarise how "reliable" or how much "credibility" the Bible has historically, since we are talking about a collection of works which range from poetry, genealogy, myth, aetiology, apocalyptic vision, letters, prophecy and lots more beside.

If we just focus on the texts within the Bible that make or seem to make historical claims, things still remain tricky.  Some of them are apparently talking about remote periods of history for which we have very little external documentary evidence with which to check or assess what is being claimed.  The events detailed in Exodus, Judges or Kings in the Old Testament are difficult to even pin down as to when they are supposed to have happened.  Of the documentary evidence we do have - mainly inscriptions - nothing supports very much of what these Biblical texts claim, though this is partly because very few of these sources have anything to do with the region in which the Biblical events are supposed to have taken place.

Take the whole story of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt, Moses leading them into the desert, their wanderings in the wilderness for forty years and their conquest of Canaan.  There is no mention of any of this in any Egyptian material, no evidence of any wholesale enslavement of Jews or any mention of Jews at all, no evidence that Moses existed, no archaeological evidence of any sojourn in the wilderness and no evidence of some invasion and conquest of Canaan.

Current scholarship regards the idea that there really was a Moses and that the events of Exodus actually happened as remote and consider these stories to be a coalescing of many traditions written down in the Seventh to Eighth Centuries BC to give the Israelite kingdom/s of that time a united history.  They appear to look back to the period known as the Bronze Age collapse, about 500 years earlier, and reflect (fairly dimly) the decline of Egyptian hegemony and influence over what was to become Jewish territory.  This means relying on, say, Exodus for historical information is a bit like trying to use Geoffrey of Monmouth's legends of King Arthur to try to work out what was happening at the end of Roman Britain 600 years earlier - any history that may be in there is obscured by layers of story, folklore, legend and myth.
more....

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You can study them and see just how accurate and reliable they are. Of course, if you come to this with the presupposition that they are not actually *true,* then of course you'll come to a completely different conclusion, as I've shown. The problem is, you are claiming your approach is the right one and we have to defend the integrity of the Bible against your attacks. In reality, it's the other way around.


Having two that happen to match does not signify that the oldest one is either accurate or reliable. Only that they match.  

Too bad your Bible studies did not teach critical thinking.  Of course if they did, then they really wouldn't be Bible studies.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Having two that happen to match does not signify that the oldest one is either accurate or reliable. Only that they match.  
> 
> Too bad your Bible studies did not teach critical thinking.  Of course if they did, then they really wouldn't be Bible studies.


Thanks for the ad hominems.  That'll win the argument for sure.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Thanks for the ad hominems. That'll win the argument for sure.


It got me some more Rep points.

There you go with that *pagan* Greek logic again. Does the word 'logic' appear anywhere in the Bible?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It got me some more Rep points.
> 
> There you go with that *pagan* Greek logic again. Does the word 'logic' appear anywhere in the Bible?


I don't care how many people pat you on the back.  The use of ad hominems is quite telling.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't care how many people pat you on the back. The use of ad hominems is quite telling.


Does the word 'logic' appear anywhere in the Greek Bible?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't care how many people pat you on the back. The use of ad hominems is quite telling.


As are your lame avoidance and evasions in not answering the the questions, Sola.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does the word 'logic' appear anywhere in the Greek Bible?


Yes it does.  The most notable being in John chapter 1 where Jesus is described as the Logos (logic) of God.

And beyond that, Jesus and the apostles used formal logic when reasoning with their opponents.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yes it does. The most notable being in John chapter 1 where Jesus is described as the Logos (logic) of God.
> 
> And beyond that, Jesus and the apostles used formal logic when reasoning with their opponents.


*Disputed:* http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Log...+and+religion)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Disputed:* http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Log...y+and+religion)


What's disputed?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Disputed:* http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Log...y+and+religion)


Your link doesn't dispute anything.  And Sola's claim is factually correct.  If you had read Jesus, you'd know this.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Your link doesn't dispute anything. And Sola's claim is factually correct. If you had read Jesus, you'd know this.


 Link corrected. I did, it didn't.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> As are your lame avoidance and evasions in not answering the the questions, Sola.


LOL, now you're accusing me of being someone I'm not.  If you've seen the arguments I've had with SF, you wouldn't be saying this.  

Tell me, what have I avoided?  And are you sure the burden of proof wasn't on you instead?  

You accuse me of not thinking critically, but you fail to demonstrate the supposed reasons that a more critically thinking person would come to agree with you.  You're just making claims left and right and I don't see any evidence so I don't bother to engage you.  I've said multiple times that I will gladly do so if you offer evidence for your claims.  How is that avoidance?  I'm offering you the chance to state your case but you just want me to speak so you can craft your witty little jabs without ever discussing anything of substance.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> LOL, now you're accusing me of being someone I'm not. If you've seen the arguments I've had with SF, you wouldn't be saying this. 
> 
> Tell me, what have I avoided? And are you sure the burden of proof wasn't on you instead? 
> 
> You accuse me of not thinking critically, but you fail to demonstrate the supposed reasons that a more critically thinking person would come to agree with you. You're just making claims left and right and I don't see any evidence so I don't bother to engage you. I've said multiple times that I will gladly do so if you offer evidence for your claims. How is that avoidance? I'm offering you the chance to state your case but you just want me to speak so you can craft your witty little jabs without ever discussing anything of substance.


I called you Sola because you don't answer the questions either. When and if anything sensible manages to leak out of your keyboard we may have something worthwhile to talk about. Until that time, you are in NO position to be making up any conditions and passing any out orders. You are just merely comical. Keep looking for someone to take you seriously, because it's not me. 

Bye-bye.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I called you Sola because you don't answer the questions either. When and if anything sensible manages to leak out of your keyboard we may have something worthwhile to talk about. Until that time, you are in NO position to be making up any conditions and passing any out orders. You are just merely comical. Keep looking for someone to take you seriously, because it's not me. 
> 
> Bye-bye.


You mean "Does the word logic appear anywhere in the Greek Bible?"

My answer is, who cares?  Jesus certainly used logic whether he referred to it in the same sense that we do or not.

Now how about you answer some of my questions instead of dodging around playing word footsie.

I don't know how you expect anyone to take you seriously with two of your threads already closed because you're such a troll.

----------


## otherone

> I don't know how you expect anyone to take you seriously with two of your threads already closed because you're such a troll.


Why do you engage him?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why do you engage him?


I don't know.  It's hard to ignore such a talented troll.

----------

