Shila

Yes, it was a lovely day.

And the Earth was at a specific point of it's Solar Orbit, such that viewed from here, the duration between the sun rising and setting was at it's maximum.

And today, hopefully will be very similar but with a marginally shorter duration between sun rise and sun set.

And so on, until December 21st.

And so on.

Until such a time, when the Sun will eventually engulf the Earth.

And we will cease to be memories.

Unless we have escaped this Earthly prison.

You may be wondering why this topic about Evolution is not in the Science Forum, but here in the Religion Forum. Bare with me.

For the longest time, I was apathetic to Evolutionary Theory. It didn't speak to me. I come from a Physics/Mathematics background. So the whole thing didn't look serious to me. From someone who studied things like Quantum Mechanics, Gravitation & Particle Physics, evolutionary ideas looked too mechanical, too naive, too archaic. No maths. The world we commonly encounter in our daily lives is minimally energetic. That's why it looks as if things are mechanical, as if things affect each-other, as if we understand the parts of a problem, then we can understand the problem. In another highly energetic world the things we think of as common sense would become completely uncommon. That is the quantum realm, the femto-world, where things are highly energetic for their sizes, weird shite happens. The world is not a a large reductionist structure, it's a weird mysterious enigma. Evolutionary postulates, however, are reductionist champions. That's why they never made much sense to me. But they always held some romance to them. Maybe I just don't get it yet, maybe I'm not seeing what all these people are seeing. This, until I read Richard Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker. This book completely changed my mind about Evolution. I thought I was in for a scientific adventure. What does the icon of Evolution have to say? To my astonishment, this was no book of Science. This was not terrible Science. The few psychiatry papers I read before were terrible. The alien articles I read were terrible. This was simply not Science at all, rather Literature, of the Myth genre. The entire premise of the book is: 'Evolution is true, therefore let's imagine how it happened'. A genesis story of creation with a materialist mythology. Hence the title, Imagination... I mean... Evolutionation.

For a theory which has been systematically & consistently taught for decades across the globe as a core science curriculum, Evolution fails spectacularly in gaining support. Despite all the promotions, the majority of people outside Europe & East Asia do not believe in mainstream Evolution. In the US, only 20% of Americans believe in the mainstream claims of Evolution, whereas 40% deny it, despite the decades long totalitarian tyranny the evolutionary narrative exerts over the country's education & academic arenas. The evolutionationists believe that it's the fault of the Church. In truth, it's the fault of the theory itself. The Church could not thwart antithetical scientific ideas about the cosmos from spreading when it had absolute power over the people. It is of highest absurdity that the Church would be able to thwart sensible scientific ideas when in a time where it is of ultimate powerlessness in state & academic institutions. Very few people insist on denying things they see with their eyes & realize to be true in favor of their dogmas. Certainly, the idea is simply not that compelling. The evolutionary narrative is a failed narrative. It had all the chances in the world & all the powers of the state to gain support, yet it barely managed to. 

For those of you who subscribe to this mythos. Before you get your panties in a wad, this has nothing to do with Creationism. I'm Muslim, the truth of Evolution does not add to or diminishes from my faith. In fact, the earlier theories of evolution emerged from the Muslim world. Ikhwan Safa taught that life progresses from plants to monkeys to humans. Ideas which have been adopted by many among the Mutazilites after them, eventually making it into Europe in early 19th century. Such is an idea which has been circulating in the Muslim world for over a thousand years, yet barely being able garner any serious support. Disgraceful! Maybe in 500 years we'll have a quantum theory of biology. But for now, this evolutionary story may very well be all that we can muster. That said, if you're a Christian, why do you believe in this evolutionary story while you have a more compelling life story in the Bible? If you're a naturalist, what makes you believe in the truth of this story knowing that it's unscientific?

America's wealthiest pastor Kenneth Copeland is worth $760 million and doesn't pay taxes on his $7 million dollar mansion.

What did Jesus mean when He said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven?

Any halfway intelligent person is well aware that the genuine practicing of witchcraft was not in any way associated with the "Witch Hunts" in history. Men and women who had in some way made enemies with those in political or religious positions were murdered using the term witch to kill them. While some of these people may have engaged in practices that were once done in the community by witches such as midwifing or herbal healing there's no proof they practiced genuine witchcraft. Most were probably Christian practitioners who were honoring and continuing a skill that they were taught by a parent. The term witch is still used as a negative in political and religious speech to target mostly women but also men who are outside or considered an enemy of that political/ religious persuasion. What does this have to do with the modern practicing of witchcraft? That people in general still view that practice as evil or somehow negative. And that the people engaging in it are evil and negative. This holds true in regards to atheism as well even though witchcraft is a series of practices and that it's an atheistic practice and that gods are not necessary to engage in it. It is still considered woo woo by non- spiritual atheist and the target put on a person who calls themselves a witch is done by both political / religious enemies as well as atheism. I'm attaching a video that was done by an archaeologist who is also participates in a variety of pagan practices. It explains how the genuine practice of witchcraft has been demonized and uses a political tool to hurt and kill people who were probably in no way shape or form engaging in what would be considered witchcraft by those actually practicing. 

youtu.be/KQ3iHdbWRaE

Interestingly, there have been modern-day attempts in Christianity to make God gender neutral. For instance, in the early 1980's the National Council of Churches released a new translation of the Bible that eliminated references to God as solely male. As an example, John 3:16 was changed to read ''For God so loved the world that God gave God's only Child, that whoever believes in that Child should not perish, but have eternal life.''

Is God male? If not, why should our translation of God's Word us the masculine pronoun?

My math major has showed me some signs of a higher power like the following:

1) sin(x)=x-(x^3/3!)+(x^5/5!)-(x^7/7!)+(x^9/9!) ...

2) cos(x)=1-(x^2/2!)+(x^4/4!)-(x^6/6!)+(x^8/8!) ... 

3) 4(1-(1/3)+(1/5)-(1/7)+(1/9)-(1/11)+)... = pi.

There's more, but I don't think this could all be by chance.

But when I converted to Christianity, their god initially told me to call him, "God".  I did this and I got my prayers answered.  Then he switched to, "Jehovah"(Jehovah's witnesses believe the exact same thing as standard Christianity except they call their God a different name(Jehovah)).  That worked for a little bit, but then he insisted on changing his name again.

This led me to believe that religion is in my head.

So if I'm not religious nor atheist, there needs to be an alternate source of the universe's existence.

This leads me to be a simulationist.  I think we are living on a planet that's in a universe that's in a computer simulation run by aliens and they sent math as proof of their existence.  They invented all these religions as an experiment to see what would happen if they gave humanity many different religions.  There are probably universes where there is only 1 religion and the aliens are collecting the data they are interested in.  The aliens are curious so they experiment on us by presenting stimuli and seeing how we react to this.  They are not all loving nor all powerful, they are just curious to see what happens when certain stimuli is produced .

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/biola-magazine/2013/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs-for-their-f

Info on the martyrdom of the apostles as historical fact

What do skeptics think of this argument?

"Evil is subjective by nature and therefore unless you agree to a common standard with your interlocutor the conversation will break down at "is x really evil though?""

It may be both.

Do you wish to discuss xs or evil?

Evil is objectively always at the end of the graph for good and evil that denotes what we would not prefer.

Evil xs  or issues then would be subjective, as to degree of evil, but always objectively evil.

If subjective, as you say, then show where evil is ever on the good side of a good and evil graph.

Regards

DL

I highly doubt it would be a " sign of respect " participating in this, The three week spectacular  if you've  a foreskin.

There are many many ways one can pay homage to  god.   But allllllllll of this comes to nil , if as above. ( You've a foreskin ) 

So ummm yeah.  ' kicks dirt ' 

BE AWARE OF THIS FACT before you put yourself out in any way shape or form for god.

Foreskin    =    NO heaven.

I mean.   

You don't go to heaven  if you have a foreskin.

How can you enter heaven if ya dont

'  cue drums '

Stand still laddy!

Scriptural  verses that declared Jesus a demon possessed lunatic.

John 10:20 Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"

Mark 3:21 when his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

Jesus was deluded and believed God spoke through him.

John 12:49 For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.

But when the people listened to the words he spoke they did not understand him, even his disciples struggled to understand him. Jesus had to explain to them in secret what he was saying in his parables. But he explained with more parables which suggests God was also incoherent and inarticulate and failed to communicate through Jesus. But we know God turned Moses who was slow in speech and mind into a leader and messenger. The problem was Jesus not God.

Mark 4:34 He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

Jesus was a notorious liar. Even John the Baptist expressed his doubts to Jesus and asked Jesus if he was really the promised one.

Jesus lied when he said John the Baptist was Elijah. John denied he was Elijah.

Here are the scriptures to back my claims. Jesus said John was Elijah, John denies he is Elijah.

Matthew 11:14

And if you are willing to accept what I say, he is Elijah, the one the prophets said would come.

In John 1:6"8 and John 1:19"28, John the Baptist denies he is Elijah. Yet in Matthew 17:9"13, Jesus implies that he was. Isn't this a contradiction?

John 1:21"They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"

He said, "I am not."

"Are you the Prophet?"

He answered, "No."

John expresses doubts Jesus is the promised one.

Matthew 11:2"When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples 3"to ask him, "Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?"

Jesus expresses his own doubts on the cross.

Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

We know Jesus was crucified for his blasphemous lies.

Jesus did not fulfill any prophesies. By his own account he did not come to change the laws of the prophets. He proved he was subjected to the laws even in his life and thereby validating the Mosaic law given to the Jews by God.

According to the Jewish law:

Deuteronomy 18:20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death."

It is clear Jesus did not fulfill the prophesies. Instead, He was subjected to the law and put to death as demanded of false prophets according to Mosaic law.

Jesus lied that he was to be sacrificed.

Human sacrifice was forbidden by God. So Jesus was not sacrificed.

Many argue Jesus's death was prophesied. But even Jesus's prophesies were not fulfilled.

1. Matthew 10:23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Jesus never fulfilled that promise.

2. Matthew 24:34

Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

2000 years have passed and many generation have gone by yet his promise remains unfulfilled.

Jesus was a liar and a lunatic before and after his death. Unfortunately he could only be crucified once.

So why are Christians turning God into a liar and lunatic or turning a liar and lunatic into a God?

As a Vedantist raised in the Vedantuc tradition and trained in the reading of esoteric scriptures, Christian Theology and Islamic fundamentalist, I am not at liberty to speculate outside of scriptures. And the scriptures are clear that Jesus was tried, convicted and put to death for his blasphemous lies and lunacy.

So why are Christians perpetrating the delusions of a Jewish rabbi who was put to death for his delusional blasphemous lies?

We have to turn to our experts in tbe field of human behaviour. As a student of the behavioural sciences (CBT) I have also explored a diagnostic approach.

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness - Huffington Post

Prag mag god.

Stop being so silly. An empty to tomb is evidence only that a tomb was empty. Absolutely no one witnessed the Christ rise from being physically and biologically dead from the cold slab he was said to have been laid on and walk away from the private burial tomb  in a privately owned garden that belong to yet another of Jesus' rich friends.

Without a 'sacrifice' there could be no talk of a second coming. The return of Jesus would be contigent upon his death. So, again, you've not presented evidence of anyone working to stop a 'second coming' much less any Christians doing so.

Aside the fact that my question was posed to another and you have taken it upon yourself to comment on someone else's behalf. Why do you not answer the question?

What is it that you believe you have been enlightened to, if enlightened at all?

Go dance naked around the camp fire, and enjoy.

The Old Covenant was about to disappear. The two covenants existed side-by-side up until AD 70 (40 years, one generation) until everything was accomplished and fulfilled.

Extremely well put!

No he's not serious he's a racist and a bigot and an atheist.

Nighty night,

Sleep tight.

And if a Lord wishes to watch over me tonight,

Then it's more than welcome.

Why didn't it just knock on the door?

Instead of spying through the windows.

Genesis 9. 10.11.

So who documented this stuff whilst GOODO was amusing itself with Adam and Eves frolicking.

Because GODDO was only any good with a tablet and chisel.

It hadn't yet invented pens or word processing.

Romans may or may not be Christian...Jews are definitely NOT Christian.  

You've dropped multiple points which are damagaing to your argument. What you did address is not making any sense, my friend. 

Pragmatic.

ADJECTIVE:   Dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

One would just hope/expect that if there were an actual creator GOD, it would be omni-sensible.

In my opinion ritualism isn't the remotest bit sensible. It's people doing daft stuff for no real reason.

Any GOD watching would be laughing it's socks off.

Perhaps that's it.

Maybe we are just entertainment.

If Christ was sinless, did he have free will? Could he really have refused to die on the cross? 

You somehow pushed four factual errors into four sentences. That's incredible 1:1 ratio of error to sentence. That's amazing!

When you grow up into an adult, maybe you can study what we adults like to call "history" and you might even learn something. Good luck, I know the pre-teen years are hard, but you'll get there.

If there are Christians working to prevent Jesus from coming back, I've never seen nor heard of them. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pragmatic

pragmatic

 adjective

Save Word

To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In 

prag·mat·ic | \ prag-ˈma-tik  \

variants: or less commonly pragmatical \ prag-ˈma-ti-kəl  \

Definition of pragmatic

1: relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistica pragmatic leadera pragmatic [=practical] approach to health care

2: relating to or being in accordance with philosophical pragmatism

3archaic

a(1): BUSY

(2): OFFICIOUS

b: OPINIONATED

Maybe someday, you'll be right about something. Maybe.

Nope.  Jesus may have started the church. But the Roman Catholic Church did not start for hundreds of years later.

hold up,

so you're serious ?

Why would ritualism be the requirement of a pragmatic GOD?

God wants to give us opportunities to improve ourselves and to show our understanding of our place in the world. Ritual both in its internal parts and its entirety affords that opportunity. 

I'm not sure,  though,  what you mean by a "pragmatic"  God. 

It wasn't my being agreeable. It was my celebrating that you said something in the realm of "correct."

Sadly you then devolved back into gibberish. Have a great day!

Can anyone have a stab at this for me.

Jesus dies and then this happened

52  the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints  who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Matthew 27:52-53

What does this actually mean?

I always thought along those lines,  that it simply means that the people rose up  ..... but not from being physically dead in their graves.

Virgin births are rare today because women take contraceptives to prevent that from happening. And when that fails resort to Abortion. This is why Christian men are against abortions. They believe it stops Jesus from returning as promised, obviously through another virgin birth.

What?! First, birth control isn't what makes parthenogenesis rare. It is exceedingly rare with or without contraceptives. Secondly, an all-powerful, all knowing entity could never lose in a game of 'abortion whack-a-mole' unless that was his intent. Anyone who claims to be against abortion for this reason needs to either evaluate and understand their beliefs a little better or stop being dishonest.

So Jews are still existing in Exile!! Was that from 70AD when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews after the Old Covenant was destroyed.

There is a New Covenant Theology that no longer requires circumcision. 

It is actually from a little after 70, but generally that's accurate. Nice work! Of course, your claim about the covenant being destroyed is wrong, but at least you know that Christianity doesn't require circumcision. You ARE capable of learning. Good work!

It's recorded in Matthew 10:34 that Jesus says:

"Do not suppose I have come to bring peace to the  earth.  I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter in law against her mother in law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."' 

Jesus is quoting from the Micah 7:6.  

What is Micah talking about in that particular chapter and why in the world would Jesus quote Micah in his time? 

After all, isn't Jesus supposed to the prince of peace  ( Isaiah 9:6) Didn't the angels sing  at his birth "glory o God in the highest and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests". Luke 2:14

How can Jesus on one hand bring peace and on the hand tell us that he has not come to bring peace?  Is the simplistic answer to this that here is one of the many contradictions in the Bible or is there something else going on? 

I wonder how many of us have the capacity to think outside of the box.  How is it possible to reconcile such statements? 

Wow...another swing and a miss. Every time I think you have hit intellectual rock bottom, you produce a shovel and start digging.

Sigh

"וְאָמַרְתָּ֖ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּנִ֥י בְכֹרִ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃"

If one understands that then one knows the error in the claim. Seriously poor trolling. Like level 1 stuff. Sad.

1) There is not one instance of the mention of an already destroyed city or temple in any NT writing. This is significant, as John A.T. Robertson has pointed out in his masterful book, Redating the NT. 

"ONE of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the event. But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark.

For the most part, these are Jews writing about the coming of their Messiah and each writing contains warnings of impending judgment, yet none, not one of an already fulfilled prophecies about the most significant event in their Jewish history with God, the destruction of the temple and city as warned by the OT prophets and teachers, as well as all of them." p. 13 

Can anyone have a stab at this for me.

 Jesus dies and then this happened

52  the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints  who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Matthew 27:52-53

 What does this actually mean?

While Biden is shaking hands with the air, we need to be ready for WW3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkPpgqlVxmI

Sigh

"וְאָמַרְתָּ֖ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּנִ֥י בְכֹרִ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃"

If one understands that then one knows the error in the claim. Seriously poor trolling. Like level 1 stuff. Sad.

A compelling watch.

 

With a follow up video addressing the theists responses. 

The sad part is that the quality of trolling is so low. Cut and paste, inaccurately summarize, make basic grammatical and logical mistakes...I guess I expected more from the troll.

That is why menstruating women were deemed unclean in the Bible. Blood had to be spilled to make an atonement. 

So a woman menstruating is deemed unclean but a man shedding blood is a sacrifice? Stop talking complete shite! 

Women menstruate blood to discharge monthly buildup.

FFS!  A women's menstruation is simply discharging an unfertilised and  lining of the uterus.

The whole of the Old Testament, every book, points toward the Great Sacrifice that was to come—that of Jesus’ sacrificial giving of His own life on our behalf.

But he didn't want to die did he? He asked his "father" to be relieved of his burden? And was totally ignored. And it can hardly be a sacrifice if he knew he wasn't going to die, ie that he would be resurrected back to life as a man.

 “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”

A creature being an animal. We are talking a human sacrifice.