LongeCityAdvocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
Prayer does not help heart patients
Started by
Live Forever
, Apr 04 2006 12:18 AM
106 replies to this topic
#62
-
- Guest
- 145 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 13 July 2006 - 11:08 AM
Don's contribution to this futile conversation:
Don, do I detect a change in philosophy here to something a little more practical and useful? I know this Immortality Institute and our quest for longer life spans would be better served by a new and better understanding of the Bible applied correctly to achieving our goals.
That statue don't look nothing like the real Jesus. Trust me, it ain't Him.
#63
-
- Guest
- 270 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 13 July 2006 - 12:19 PM
william, again and again you make a fool out of yourself.
Why?
you keep on insisting on some "miracle change" in here while, at the same time, no one here takes you seriously.
You think you can convert us to your blind ignorance? -think again. Psychologically, i know how good it feels for a man to feel he has influence on others; how re-assuring it is, when it comes to your religion, to know that there are many who believe in the same thing as you do. You got the wrong forum though.
You seem haughty enough to insist your religion is the "true" religion and your god is the true "god"... why, you still haven't answered - what DIFFERENTIATES your religion (christianity) and "holy book" (new testament) from the rest of earthly religions and so-called sacred texts? -can't you see how pathetic you limn yourself? -
What makes your religion and belief right? -the power of concensus? - the fact that there are roughly 2.4 billion christians? -but there is almost 2.4 billion muslims who deny the christian depiction of jesus; what would you say to that? - their religion is false, yours is right? -have some sense, your underlying assumptions are but a sheer disgrace to the rational mind.
you want to apply the bible (new or old testament?) to better achieve our goals? -why your bible? -why not the Kur'an or the book of Mormom or any other so-called holy book?
Most of us here do not believe in your god, jehovah/whatever and his idol, jesus, Muhamad or any other "chosen one".
Know that the pursuit for indefinite lifespans stems from the core belief of most of us here - that what you call the human "soul" or "spirit", which is priceless in essence, does not survive death, as it perishes with the destruction of the brain.
Enough clowning, william. Do you have anything valuable to contribute to our mostly scientifc and technological quest?
Such contributions would be greatly appreciated, not preaching us for christianity.
Why?
you keep on insisting on some "miracle change" in here while, at the same time, no one here takes you seriously.
You think you can convert us to your blind ignorance? -think again. Psychologically, i know how good it feels for a man to feel he has influence on others; how re-assuring it is, when it comes to your religion, to know that there are many who believe in the same thing as you do. You got the wrong forum though.
You seem haughty enough to insist your religion is the "true" religion and your god is the true "god"... why, you still haven't answered - what DIFFERENTIATES your religion (christianity) and "holy book" (new testament) from the rest of earthly religions and so-called sacred texts? -can't you see how pathetic you limn yourself? -
What makes your religion and belief right? -the power of concensus? - the fact that there are roughly 2.4 billion christians? -but there is almost 2.4 billion muslims who deny the christian depiction of jesus; what would you say to that? - their religion is false, yours is right? -have some sense, your underlying assumptions are but a sheer disgrace to the rational mind.
you want to apply the bible (new or old testament?) to better achieve our goals? -why your bible? -why not the Kur'an or the book of Mormom or any other so-called holy book?
Most of us here do not believe in your god, jehovah/whatever and his idol, jesus, Muhamad or any other "chosen one".
Know that the pursuit for indefinite lifespans stems from the core belief of most of us here - that what you call the human "soul" or "spirit", which is priceless in essence, does not survive death, as it perishes with the destruction of the brain.
Enough clowning, william. Do you have anything valuable to contribute to our mostly scientifc and technological quest?
Such contributions would be greatly appreciated, not preaching us for christianity.
Edited by inarchunite, 13 July 2006 - 12:47 PM.
#64
-
- Guest
- 270 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 13 July 2006 - 12:26 PM
This is something I wrote a couple of years ago, you might find it to your liking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an objective point of view, the true nature of post-death existence is, without a doubt, unknown. No one, thus far, has ever come back from the dead to satisfy our eager and most-curious minds by supplying the answers that truly matter. No one, so far, has ever demonstrated a valid, identifiable transition from an alleged existence-plane of the spiritual sort to the physical one we are all a part of.
While numerous mystics would have surely begged to differ, they nonetheless lack sufficient evidence to support any of their spectacular claims. Furthermore, the worldwide numerousity of religious and mystical creeds and their evident diversity significantly diminish their credibility and accordingly strengthen their fallibly. This point is highly important; suppose one particular creed is correct, retaining a true miraculous or divine element - how could one tell it apart from the rest? –All creeds purport to retain such element while revoking their contenders' claims. Due to the lack of impartial proof, or more precisely – the lack of physical means to attain such proof, it is quite impossible to tell creeds apart; most if not all seem to rely on subjective interpretation while basing their dogma on so-called "ancient wisdom". It has not been said in vain that everyone is going to hell and/or will be extinct in other people's religion; nothing could be closer to the truth.
So how can a believer guarantee his survival and permanence? –Surely he cannot simultaneously appease the entirety of demands presented by the various different faiths all around the world. The ancient Egyptian sages, for instance, believed that in order to reap the fruits of the afterlife, one's deceased body has to be properly mummified according to strict guidelines lest the "Ba" (component of the human soul) will be damned to roam around for all eternity. In addition, many rituals were designed to ensure a favorable judgment by Osiris (god of the underworld) and were written in the papyrus or linen called "Book of the Dead." Who can possibly refute or verify such claims? –And yet generations of Egyptian kings literally devoted their lives to their faiths, putting tremendous efforts by following the strict dogma of their fascinating religion; all had been carried out for one cause: to ensure the prospect of post-death survival of the spiritual sort. Can one show us that the Pharaohs who built the finest tombs, collected the most elaborate funerary equipment, and were mummified in the most expensive way – are not currently residing in the fields of Aaru for a blissful eternity?
The bottom line of our present discussion is that the variety of the known "paths to salvation" is simply too vast. This gives rise to an interesting question: do the faithful value their lives enough to have them placed on a bet? –Or is it simply because they have no choice; death is sure, and for that - choosing a certain path is vital. But such choice does come with a heavy price: the need for convincing oneself in the uncompromising genuineness and reliability of one's own belief: my path is the right path, despite other believers' inconsistent claims and beliefs, despite the lack of conclusive evidence to prove the trustworthiness of my own chosen path and to distinguish it from its equals. In terms of ambiguity all survival creeds stand equal; surely it is impossible to indicate an objective advantage to a particular doctrine. Can one demonstrate that the probability of reaching the Christian heaven is greater than that of being devoured by the Egyptian demon Ammit?
There is nothing on earth that could possibly prove the existence of heaven, hell, or any other sort of desirable or undesirable post-death world; the same applies to the reincarnation creeds*. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence confirming that people will eventually die; that our physical life here on this beautiful place, our definite form of existence as we know it - is bound to expire at a certain time. No more is known for certain, and no less. And yet generations upon generations of men have zealously argued for the unquestionable authenticity of post-death existence throughout the years. The habit seems to have persisted up to this present day. Why is that so?
*I am well aware of the arguments from parapsychology and past-life memories; this concern will be regarded in time.
In brief, I would like to refresh your memory on my original answer. By perceiving the unavoidability of death and its rather obvious tendency to ultimately annihilate every form of human life, by seeing that human endeavors were never capable of offering a valid prospect for lasting survival of the physical sort - people have relinquished the lacking offer of defiance (i.e. pursuing physical-immortality) and yielded themselves unto the welcoming arms of faith, which have, on the other hand - never left many room for doubts. The unrestricted powers of blind belief have graciously filled up the gaps within the intimidating enigma of death, shifting the utter uncertain to the relative or even complete certain. Same as carbon atoms fill in the gaps within molten iron in order to create an exquisitely robust steel alloy.
Throughout history, what reason could have supplied has been reduced to a set of three meager answers: (I) we do not know; (II) we do not know yet and even (III) we cannot know in some occasions. The answers hold much sincerity;
and yet people had to know, their very lives were at stake. Looking at it this way, the call of faith certainly appears more favorable; assuming man indeed is predisposed toward survival at any, or almost any, given price. Many motives, as we shall come to understand later ahead in this chapter, suggest such price to be no other than a sophisticated form of self-deception.
Indeed this is what we have always yearned for – a comprehensive sense of security, confidence and certainty when it comes to the prospect of our physical survival specifically, and the permanence of our "essence" in general. Where reason has thus far failed, when a reliable solution of the physical sort has persisted to maintain its absence - it was but natural when mystical dimensions have erupted into being. If physical non-survival is by all means inevitable, let us in the least indulge on the image of our ethereal, indestructible essence transcending this fleshy-casing of a body and finding new fantastical worlds to dwell in or come back to this mundane place for new exciting adventures in a new body. Evoking such mental imagery is, as all will most likely agree, rather easy; so how can the average man restrain himself from embracing such mental products in light of his native narcissism pressing vigorously?
There is no place for reason when it comes to the conflict of mortality on the one hand and man's basic nature and instincts on the other; you live, gradually weaken, fail to survive and lose your life in the end. So far there have been no known deviations from the formula. Therefore it is certain that not without a reason have faith and spiritual or religious practicing taken the reins; a strong survival-oriented force dominates their foundation. As I have earlier posited, a solution to the "problem of mortality", to all the agony and grief it casts upon man - is available by either (I) physically abolishing its prospect or through (II) embracing a specific creed ensuring post-death survival of the spiritual sort. As a rule, such creeds manage to satisfy man's basic yearning for permanence and thus relieving, at least subjectively, the harshest of conflicts.
The dynamics of this concern are plain; merely we have asked for freedom from the concerns of our looming material eradication, our ultimate non-survival and possible extinction (non-permanence); from the concerns of the destruction of the only life, the "form of existence" we truly know and cherish. Eventually, we attained exactly what we have requested. Or have we not?
This specific mechanism of operation, the production of post-death survival creeds, fantastical and thus highly ambiguous in nature - is undeniably common to every sort of human civilization over the face of this planet; naturally because all live under the great menacing shadow of death. One may justifiably posit that the development process of such creeds has been somewhat arbitrary throughout the course of time – a direct product of fecund human imagination and creativity, although without a doubt was too influenced by local and common cultural norms, values and conceptions up to a great extent.
In any case – the entirety of such creeds, no matter how creative and unique at first glance, and while often appearing inconsistent in comparison to one another in various aspects - hold on to a strong identical foundation. Such foundation is the principal if not the sole cause for the remarkable popularity and success of these creeds; such foundation is the concept of continuity (spiritual survival) and bound perpetuation (spiritual immortality), the confident promise that there is hope in the end of the tunnel; there is no need to fear or to be worried. The shared ground is permanence of the spiritual sort - death is not a state of unconditioned finality, by no means the dire end - extinction. Lastingness is assured, for better or for worse.
Be that as it may, as for all steel alloys, a great increment of carbon content – despite its contribution to strength, renders the metal significantly more brittle in comparison to iron. And as we shall later find out in coming segments, such metaphor applies quite perfectly unto the general structure of the spiritual claim and to the various depictions of our warranted post-death fate. All seem to shatter and collapse under persistent, rational scrutiny.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an objective point of view, the true nature of post-death existence is, without a doubt, unknown. No one, thus far, has ever come back from the dead to satisfy our eager and most-curious minds by supplying the answers that truly matter. No one, so far, has ever demonstrated a valid, identifiable transition from an alleged existence-plane of the spiritual sort to the physical one we are all a part of.
While numerous mystics would have surely begged to differ, they nonetheless lack sufficient evidence to support any of their spectacular claims. Furthermore, the worldwide numerousity of religious and mystical creeds and their evident diversity significantly diminish their credibility and accordingly strengthen their fallibly. This point is highly important; suppose one particular creed is correct, retaining a true miraculous or divine element - how could one tell it apart from the rest? –All creeds purport to retain such element while revoking their contenders' claims. Due to the lack of impartial proof, or more precisely – the lack of physical means to attain such proof, it is quite impossible to tell creeds apart; most if not all seem to rely on subjective interpretation while basing their dogma on so-called "ancient wisdom". It has not been said in vain that everyone is going to hell and/or will be extinct in other people's religion; nothing could be closer to the truth.
So how can a believer guarantee his survival and permanence? –Surely he cannot simultaneously appease the entirety of demands presented by the various different faiths all around the world. The ancient Egyptian sages, for instance, believed that in order to reap the fruits of the afterlife, one's deceased body has to be properly mummified according to strict guidelines lest the "Ba" (component of the human soul) will be damned to roam around for all eternity. In addition, many rituals were designed to ensure a favorable judgment by Osiris (god of the underworld) and were written in the papyrus or linen called "Book of the Dead." Who can possibly refute or verify such claims? –And yet generations of Egyptian kings literally devoted their lives to their faiths, putting tremendous efforts by following the strict dogma of their fascinating religion; all had been carried out for one cause: to ensure the prospect of post-death survival of the spiritual sort. Can one show us that the Pharaohs who built the finest tombs, collected the most elaborate funerary equipment, and were mummified in the most expensive way – are not currently residing in the fields of Aaru for a blissful eternity?
The bottom line of our present discussion is that the variety of the known "paths to salvation" is simply too vast. This gives rise to an interesting question: do the faithful value their lives enough to have them placed on a bet? –Or is it simply because they have no choice; death is sure, and for that - choosing a certain path is vital. But such choice does come with a heavy price: the need for convincing oneself in the uncompromising genuineness and reliability of one's own belief: my path is the right path, despite other believers' inconsistent claims and beliefs, despite the lack of conclusive evidence to prove the trustworthiness of my own chosen path and to distinguish it from its equals. In terms of ambiguity all survival creeds stand equal; surely it is impossible to indicate an objective advantage to a particular doctrine. Can one demonstrate that the probability of reaching the Christian heaven is greater than that of being devoured by the Egyptian demon Ammit?
There is nothing on earth that could possibly prove the existence of heaven, hell, or any other sort of desirable or undesirable post-death world; the same applies to the reincarnation creeds*. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence confirming that people will eventually die; that our physical life here on this beautiful place, our definite form of existence as we know it - is bound to expire at a certain time. No more is known for certain, and no less. And yet generations upon generations of men have zealously argued for the unquestionable authenticity of post-death existence throughout the years. The habit seems to have persisted up to this present day. Why is that so?
*I am well aware of the arguments from parapsychology and past-life memories; this concern will be regarded in time.
In brief, I would like to refresh your memory on my original answer. By perceiving the unavoidability of death and its rather obvious tendency to ultimately annihilate every form of human life, by seeing that human endeavors were never capable of offering a valid prospect for lasting survival of the physical sort - people have relinquished the lacking offer of defiance (i.e. pursuing physical-immortality) and yielded themselves unto the welcoming arms of faith, which have, on the other hand - never left many room for doubts. The unrestricted powers of blind belief have graciously filled up the gaps within the intimidating enigma of death, shifting the utter uncertain to the relative or even complete certain. Same as carbon atoms fill in the gaps within molten iron in order to create an exquisitely robust steel alloy.
Throughout history, what reason could have supplied has been reduced to a set of three meager answers: (I) we do not know; (II) we do not know yet and even (III) we cannot know in some occasions. The answers hold much sincerity;
and yet people had to know, their very lives were at stake. Looking at it this way, the call of faith certainly appears more favorable; assuming man indeed is predisposed toward survival at any, or almost any, given price. Many motives, as we shall come to understand later ahead in this chapter, suggest such price to be no other than a sophisticated form of self-deception.
Indeed this is what we have always yearned for – a comprehensive sense of security, confidence and certainty when it comes to the prospect of our physical survival specifically, and the permanence of our "essence" in general. Where reason has thus far failed, when a reliable solution of the physical sort has persisted to maintain its absence - it was but natural when mystical dimensions have erupted into being. If physical non-survival is by all means inevitable, let us in the least indulge on the image of our ethereal, indestructible essence transcending this fleshy-casing of a body and finding new fantastical worlds to dwell in or come back to this mundane place for new exciting adventures in a new body. Evoking such mental imagery is, as all will most likely agree, rather easy; so how can the average man restrain himself from embracing such mental products in light of his native narcissism pressing vigorously?
There is no place for reason when it comes to the conflict of mortality on the one hand and man's basic nature and instincts on the other; you live, gradually weaken, fail to survive and lose your life in the end. So far there have been no known deviations from the formula. Therefore it is certain that not without a reason have faith and spiritual or religious practicing taken the reins; a strong survival-oriented force dominates their foundation. As I have earlier posited, a solution to the "problem of mortality", to all the agony and grief it casts upon man - is available by either (I) physically abolishing its prospect or through (II) embracing a specific creed ensuring post-death survival of the spiritual sort. As a rule, such creeds manage to satisfy man's basic yearning for permanence and thus relieving, at least subjectively, the harshest of conflicts.
The dynamics of this concern are plain; merely we have asked for freedom from the concerns of our looming material eradication, our ultimate non-survival and possible extinction (non-permanence); from the concerns of the destruction of the only life, the "form of existence" we truly know and cherish. Eventually, we attained exactly what we have requested. Or have we not?
This specific mechanism of operation, the production of post-death survival creeds, fantastical and thus highly ambiguous in nature - is undeniably common to every sort of human civilization over the face of this planet; naturally because all live under the great menacing shadow of death. One may justifiably posit that the development process of such creeds has been somewhat arbitrary throughout the course of time – a direct product of fecund human imagination and creativity, although without a doubt was too influenced by local and common cultural norms, values and conceptions up to a great extent.
In any case – the entirety of such creeds, no matter how creative and unique at first glance, and while often appearing inconsistent in comparison to one another in various aspects - hold on to a strong identical foundation. Such foundation is the principal if not the sole cause for the remarkable popularity and success of these creeds; such foundation is the concept of continuity (spiritual survival) and bound perpetuation (spiritual immortality), the confident promise that there is hope in the end of the tunnel; there is no need to fear or to be worried. The shared ground is permanence of the spiritual sort - death is not a state of unconditioned finality, by no means the dire end - extinction. Lastingness is assured, for better or for worse.
Be that as it may, as for all steel alloys, a great increment of carbon content – despite its contribution to strength, renders the metal significantly more brittle in comparison to iron. And as we shall later find out in coming segments, such metaphor applies quite perfectly unto the general structure of the spiritual claim and to the various depictions of our warranted post-death fate. All seem to shatter and collapse under persistent, rational scrutiny.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S.
#65
-
- Guest
- 332 posts
- 0 ₮
- Location:Lansing, MI, USA
Posted 13 July 2006 - 12:27 PM
That statue don't look nothing like the real Jesus. Trust me, it ain't Him.
In many ways, that's the message from its design. In the movie Dogma, the "buddy Christ" was a centerpiece for a movement to popularise Catholicism. Basically a movement to push PR and mass appeal forward while pushing the scriptures and Jesus backwards. Becoming so obsessed with spreading the message, that one loses sight of the message itself as a result. The movie had a lot of thought provoking themes running around in the midst of the jokes.
/And a feces-monster. Ew.
//And hockey. Extra eww.
#66
-
- Guest
- 145 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 13 July 2006 - 01:14 PM
That statue don't look nothing like the real Jesus. Trust me, it ain't Him.
In many ways, that's the message from its design. In the movie Dogma, the "buddy Christ" was a centerpiece for a movement to popularise Catholicism. Basically a movement to push PR and mass appeal forward while pushing the scriptures and Jesus backwards. Becoming so obsessed with spreading the message, that one loses sight of the message itself as a result. The movie had a lot of thought provoking themes running around in the midst of the jokes.
/And a feces-monster. Ew.
//And hockey. Extra eww.
You got it right emerson! That's what catholicism does to the true teachings of the Scriptures and just about anything else that's progressive. I watch so little tv I never heard of the movie and it was never discussed in the Newsweek magazines I use to get that I can remember.
#67
-
- Guest
- 145 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 13 July 2006 - 02:00 PM
Er, yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Yes to Christmas, though we don't celebrate it as the anniversary of Christ's birth, but because it's a generally recognized Christian holiday, so why avoid it. Santa Claus is not officially sponsored as a religious doctrine, nor are Christmas trees. We just focus on the birth of Christ, as told in Luke 2 mainly.
Easter is honoring the Resurrection of Christ. Easter Bunny optional. Eggs optional. Remembering the Resurrection mandatory, so to speak.
As for Sunday, I don't know all the ancient details, other than that Christ arose on Sunday, so with the fulfillment of the Law of Moses (of which the original Sabbath was a part!), a new day was to be honored in its place. Or something like that.
As for Joseph Smith, yes, the Mormons still follow his teachings, in addition to the Old and New Testaments. I point this out because some people don't realize that Mormons believe in and follow the Bible. Mormons don't "worship" Joseph Smith, any more than Baptists worship Matthew or Paul. Mormons, like all good Christians, worship Jesus Christ.
Religious kooks?
Maybe you and your wife could take a look at the free literature at http://www.gnmagazin...itreq/index.htm. They're an excellent place to start a serious Bible study for people who want to strengthen their religious beliefs and practices by giving up the false pagan beliefs and practices incorporated by the roman catholic church and then passed on, during history, to the protestant and other churches. They also have an excellent understanding of the Old and New Testament prophecies in regards to the Middle East and Europe. They, however, do not believe in vegetarianism and communal living, and, as a result, have no understanding as to how we will actually live in the Kingdom of God on earth they teach will soon be here to replace the human governments of the world that are making a mess of things.
#68
-
- Guest
- 145 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 13 July 2006 - 02:20 PM
inarchunite, you ask why "[I] want to apply the bible (new or old testament?) to better achieve our goals? -why your bible? -why not the Kur'an or the book of Mormom or any other so-called holy book?" One good reason - although not the most important one - is because the Kur'an is not as widely spread in the world as the Bible is. Notice http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/BT/ where it says:
"The nonprofit American Bible Society has, in more than 180 years of its existence, distributed approximately as many Bibles as there are people in the world—some five billion. Millions of Bibles, reflecting numerous translations, are sold every year. Translations exist in more than 2,000 languages and dialects."
I also believe the jahidi muslims are about to bring about a substantial reduction in Kur'ans available in the world the hard way. You know what I mean?
"The nonprofit American Bible Society has, in more than 180 years of its existence, distributed approximately as many Bibles as there are people in the world—some five billion. Millions of Bibles, reflecting numerous translations, are sold every year. Translations exist in more than 2,000 languages and dialects."
I also believe the jahidi muslims are about to bring about a substantial reduction in Kur'ans available in the world the hard way. You know what I mean?
#69
-
- Guest
- 270 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 13 July 2006 - 02:30 PM
inarchunite] want to apply the bible (new or old testament?) to better achieve our goals? -why your bible? -why not the Kur'an or the book of Mormom or any other so-called holy book?" One good reason - although not the most important one - is because the Kur'an is not as widely spread in the world as the Bible is. Notice http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/BT/ where it says:
"The nonprofit American Bible Society has, in more than 180 years of its existence, distributed approximately as many Bibles as there are people in the world—some five billion. Millions of Bibles, reflecting numerous translations, are sold every year. Translations exist in more than 2,000 languages and dialects."
I also believe the jahidi muslims are about to bring about a substantial reduction in Kur'ans available in the world the hard way. You know what I mean?
[lol] your message made me laugh witout cease for whole 10 minutes [lol]
let me get this straight...
you say that the christian bible has more "divinity" and reliability than the Ku'ran, on account of the fact that it has a greater market share?
do us all a favor and retreat with the last traces of dignity you currently retain.
or perhaps... someone is pulling our leg here ... [sfty] if that is so, nice one! [airquote] almost [/airquote] got me ;-)
#70
-
- Guest
- 3,443 posts
- 166 ₮
- Location:Manchester, CT USA
Posted 13 July 2006 - 03:07 PM
Try to get your point across without being insulting. While I don't agree with William's views on religion, if there is something we can learn from him, its the ability to debate without hostility. I notice that despite the severe verbal abuse he is enduring here, he does not lower himself and return fire. It's an admirable quality that I'm trying to develop myself.
That's a very well-written piece about the nature and purpose of religion. I agree fully, although I feel religion can still be very valuable for teaching people how to develop human qualities, despite their unfounded conclusions about the after-life.
That's a very well-written piece about the nature and purpose of religion. I agree fully, although I feel religion can still be very valuable for teaching people how to develop human qualities, despite their unfounded conclusions about the after-life.
#72
-
- Guest
- 3,322 posts
- 11 ₮
- Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)
Posted 13 July 2006 - 05:18 PM
My my Daniel,
I'll have to go through your book before you publish it,
Lesson:
If you DID, I WOULD
or
If you Do, I WILL
You can't use a WOULD after "if" same way you can't use a WILL after it.. ^^
But you were right; a student of a good teacher becomes better than him
And now a comment on the content, well, Allah's and Jehovah's rules can be opposed (like wine drinking, in Muslim illegal while the Jews keep finding reasons to drink), it cannot be the same God, now can it.
-Infernity
And if you'd say:.....................I'll reply:
I'll have to go through your book before you publish it,
Lesson:
If you DID, I WOULD
or
If you Do, I WILL
You can't use a WOULD after "if" same way you can't use a WILL after it.. ^^
But you were right; a student of a good teacher becomes better than him
And now a comment on the content, well, Allah's and Jehovah's rules can be opposed (like wine drinking, in Muslim illegal while the Jews keep finding reasons to drink), it cannot be the same God, now can it.
-Infernity
#73
-
- Guest
- 5,798 posts
- 11 ₮
- Location:Taipei
- NO
Posted 13 July 2006 - 06:50 PM
william
Oh, certainly. I think the whole problem with the catholic church is that it is just too damn austere. It needs to brighten things up a bit. No one wants to see a guy with holes in his hands. Let's put a smile on his face. Jesus is suppose to be our personal savior, right? So every time I have a bad day, I want to know that Jesus is right there, and that he's got my back, ya know what I'm saying?
No, you da man.
Don, do I detect a change in philosophy here to something a little more practical and useful?
Oh, certainly. I think the whole problem with the catholic church is that it is just too damn austere. It needs to brighten things up a bit. No one wants to see a guy with holes in his hands. Let's put a smile on his face. Jesus is suppose to be our personal savior, right? So every time I have a bad day, I want to know that Jesus is right there, and that he's got my back, ya know what I'm saying?
No, you da man.
#74
-
- Guest
- 270 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 13 July 2006 - 06:53 PM
FunkOdyssey:
you are 100% correct.
William: I sincerely apologize if any of my words hurt you, it was my mistake. Sorry.
Infernity:
Tsk tsk........ you too are 100% correct ;-)
I often make such mistakes upon writing with haste (excuses, excuses... [wis] )
"But you were right; a student of a good teacher becomes better than him "
That is true.
And now a comment on the content, well, Allah's and Jehovah's rules can be opposed (like wine drinking, in Muslim illegal while the Jews keep finding reasons to drink), it cannot be the same God, now can it.
That is not true. Actually, muslims believe in the "past-sanctity" of the old & new testament.. only they consider them obsolete, at present. Muslims believe our Torah is a an old part of the "book of heaven", which the Kuran completes. They believe in the same god as we do (actually througout history there were many collaborations between the people of the book, the monotheists - jews, muslims and sometimes even christians - against pagans).
Muslims believe the same god has given Moses the torah, and sent Jesus as a prophet for Islam (not the messiah like christians believe), only this god now want people to follow the Kuran, and the teachings of the LAST prophet - Muhamad.
Funny god; wouldn't you agree?
you are 100% correct.
William: I sincerely apologize if any of my words hurt you, it was my mistake. Sorry.
Infernity:
Tsk tsk........ you too are 100% correct ;-)
I often make such mistakes upon writing with haste (excuses, excuses... [wis] )
"But you were right; a student of a good teacher becomes better than him "
That is true.
And now a comment on the content, well, Allah's and Jehovah's rules can be opposed (like wine drinking, in Muslim illegal while the Jews keep finding reasons to drink), it cannot be the same God, now can it.
That is not true. Actually, muslims believe in the "past-sanctity" of the old & new testament.. only they consider them obsolete, at present. Muslims believe our Torah is a an old part of the "book of heaven", which the Kuran completes. They believe in the same god as we do (actually througout history there were many collaborations between the people of the book, the monotheists - jews, muslims and sometimes even christians - against pagans).
Muslims believe the same god has given Moses the torah, and sent Jesus as a prophet for Islam (not the messiah like christians believe), only this god now want people to follow the Kuran, and the teachings of the LAST prophet - Muhamad.
Funny god; wouldn't you agree?
#75
-
- Guest
- 270 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 13 July 2006 - 06:55 PM
william
Don, do I detect a change in philosophy here to something a little more practical and useful?
Oh, certainly. I think the whole problem with the catholic church is that it is just too damn austere. It needs to brighten things up a bit. No one wants to see a guy with holes in his hands. Let's put a smile on his face. Jesus is suppose to be our personal savior, right? So every time I have a bad day, I want to know that Jesus is right there, and that he's got my back, ya know what I'm saying?
No, you da man.
hehe man you tear me aprt [lol] [lol]
#76
-
- Guest, Guardian
- 6,471 posts
- 155 ₮
- Location:Silicon Valley, CA
Posted 13 July 2006 - 06:56 PM
Oh, certainly. I think the whole problem with the catholic church is that it is just too damn austere. It needs to brighten things up a bit. No one wants to see a guy with holes in his hands. Let's put a smile on his face. Jesus is suppose to be our personal savior, right? So every time I have a bad day, I want to know that Jesus is right there, and that he's got my back, ya know what I'm saying?
[lol]
thanks Don, that just cheered up my whole day.
#77
-
- Guest
- 145 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 13 July 2006 - 07:20 PM
Try to get your point across without being insulting. While I don't agree with William's views on religion, if there is something we can learn from him, its the ability to debate without hostility. I notice that despite the severe verbal abuse he is enduring here, he does not lower himself and return fire. It's an admirable quality that I'm trying to develop myself.
That's a very well-written piece about the nature and purpose of religion. I agree fully, although I feel religion can still be very valuable for teaching people how to develop human qualities, despite their unfounded conclusions about the after-life.
Thanks FunkOdyssey! I appreciate that. Maybe inarchunite could checkout the article entitled "Our Amazing Spaceship Earth" in the latest edition of The Good News magazine, at http://www.gnmagazin.../gn65/earth.htm, then tell me if he still believes that the universe and life on earth arose by blind chance and that there is no God who created the heavens, the earth, and everthing in them. Notice the part where the author quotes Sir Fred Hoyle, "the renowned British astrophysicist and mathematician" as saying:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as the chemistry and biology [of the universe], and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" ("The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Engineering and Science, November 1981).
I hope Live Forever and the others who don't believe in a creator God will read this article and the other articles in this recent edition of The Good News magazine. The authors are excellent religious philosophers who do a thorough research of the issues they write on.
#79
-
- Guest
- 332 posts
- 0 ₮
- Location:Lansing, MI, USA
Posted 13 July 2006 - 07:29 PM
Try to get your point across without being insulting. While I don't agree with William's views on religion, if there is something we can learn from him, its the ability to debate without hostility. I notice that despite the severe verbal abuse he is enduring here, he does not lower himself and return fire. It's an admirable quality that I'm trying to develop myself.
Seconded. As much as I'm hesitant to reply and move even further off-topic, I had to chime in there. I've been pretty impressed by that as well. Especially given that the subject matter is one which he has a strong personal attachment to.
#80
- Topic Starter
-
- Guest Recorder
- 7,475 posts
- 9 ₮
- Location:Atlanta, GA USA
Posted 13 July 2006 - 08:41 PM
I am agnostic, I don't necessarily believe in god(s), but I don't discount the possibility either. (I just don't think the "Christian" god is the most likely, if there is a god) I don't have time at the moment to read the article, but I will take a look in a little bit.I hope Live Forever and the others who don't believe in a creator God will read this article and the other articles in this recent edition of The Good News magazine.
#82
-
- Guest
- 270 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 13 July 2006 - 10:43 PM
william,
let us, just for a moment - suppose you are correct that " the universe and life on earth [did not] arose by blind chance and that there is a God who created the heavens, the earth, and everthing in them".
and yet......... a great mystery persists.
what gives you, sir, the impression that your particular depiction of a god and your particular method of worshipping him (christianity) is "truer" than any other earthly faith/religious doctrine?
As yet you managed to elude this question. (I did not buy the "because my bible is more prosperous" reply, and I'd wager most members here agree with me).
let us, just for a moment - suppose you are correct that " the universe and life on earth [did not] arose by blind chance and that there is a God who created the heavens, the earth, and everthing in them".
and yet......... a great mystery persists.
what gives you, sir, the impression that your particular depiction of a god and your particular method of worshipping him (christianity) is "truer" than any other earthly faith/religious doctrine?
As yet you managed to elude this question. (I did not buy the "because my bible is more prosperous" reply, and I'd wager most members here agree with me).
#83
-
- Guest
- 4,724 posts
- 55 ₮
- Location:Melbourne, Australia
Posted 13 July 2006 - 10:50 PM
I know that this conversation has gone off topic a few times. I've gone off topic a few times as well. We should however do our best to maintain the conversation on topic and stick to discussing that prayer does not heart heart patients.
Inarchunite, you question is valid but I can see this conversation going way of course if it continues in such a manner
Inarchunite, you question is valid but I can see this conversation going way of course if it continues in such a manner
#84
-
- Guest
- 270 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 13 July 2006 - 11:00 PM
I know that this conversation has gone off topic a few times. I've gone off topic a few times as well. We should however do our best to maintain the conversation on topic and stick to discussing that prayer does not heart heart patients.
Inarchunite, you question is valid but I can see this conversation going way of course if it continues in such a manner
zoolander, you are correct! -actually, i did not even notice the name of the thread.
I don't know how much I can contribute to the relevant discussion; I believe my view on prayer is clear.
But there is this placebo effect, and the well-researched phenomenon of auto-suggestion. Prayer, in that case - might serve as an efficient agent to realize the phenomenon. Supernatural powers? -at present, we cannot prove nor disprove such claim; therefore, it should be regarded as a "we don't know" case, not a "we know for sure it has to be divine intervention" one! (like william had suggested). Critical thinking people.
#86
-
- Guest
- 145 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 14 July 2006 - 12:25 AM
Seconded. As much as I'm hesitant to reply and move even further off-topic, I had to chime in there. I've been pretty impressed by that as well. Especially given that the subject matter is one which he has a strong personal attachment to.
Thanks for the support emerson! Never worry about me being insulted though. I enjoy these debates too much to be bothered by it.
I can't see how we're too much off topic here. We're discussing the research on the healing effects of prayer on heart patients and whether it should be continued. Some are saying it has a placebo effect with no real God power being involved. And, others are saying there's no beneficial effect at all and the research should be stopped and funding spent elsewhere where it will do more good.
I'm trying to get across that there is a real God who hears prayer and does heal in response to the sincere prayers of the righteous. The Bible supports what I say and there are religious organizations that teach this. Scientific researchers should want to know more about this real God and how to obtain healing from Him on a regular basis.
I've also seen two Directors and an Administrator on this thread and they're not saying anything. I can't see where the harm is.
#87
-
- Guest
- 145 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 14 July 2006 - 01:13 AM
william,
let us, just for a moment - suppose you are correct that " the universe and life on earth [did not] arose by blind chance and that there is a God who created the heavens, the earth, and everthing in them".
and yet......... a great mystery persists.
what gives you, sir, the impression that your particular depiction of a god and your particular method of worshipping him (christianity) is "truer" than any other earthly faith/religious doctrine?
As yet you managed to elude this question. (I did not buy the "because my bible is more prosperous" reply, and I'd wager most members here agree with me).
That's exactly what I've been trying to do ever since I've been making posts here in these forums. I believe my God and His Bible have the best program for achieving the goal of greater life spans - including immortality - and no other god or religious text offers a better program. I've yet to see a better one and beg you show me one.
I've been explaining in posts that it's going to take communal living - according to Biblical standards - practicing calorie restriction, strict vegetarianism, periodic fasting, along with any of those anti-aging therapies those bio-engineers develop, to obtain significantly increased life spans. It's going to take a whole new way of life with a new and better understanding of the Scriptures applied correctly to accomplish this goal. I've devoted a great deal of thought to the matter and can't see how it can be done anyother way.
Checkout my posts at http://www.imminst.o...79&t=8624&st=20 and at http://www.imminst.o...f=3&t=7052&st=0 to get a better idea where I'm coming from. I'm near the bottom of the page on both of the threads.
#88
-
- Guest
- 270 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 14 July 2006 - 08:21 AM
william,
let us, just for a moment - suppose you are correct that " the universe and life on earth [did not] arose by blind chance and that there is a God who created the heavens, the earth, and everthing in them".
and yet......... a great mystery persists.
what gives you, sir, the impression that your particular depiction of a god and your particular method of worshipping him (christianity) is "truer" than any other earthly faith/religious doctrine?
As yet you managed to elude this question. (I did not buy the "because my bible is more prosperous" reply, and I'd wager most members here agree with me).
That's exactly what I've been trying to do ever since I've been making posts here in these forums. I believe my God and His Bible have the best program for achieving the goal of greater life spans - including immortality - and no other god or religious text offers a better program. I've yet to see a better one and beg you show me one.
I've been explaining in posts that it's going to take communal living - according to Biblical standards - practicing calorie restriction, strict vegetarianism, periodic fasting, along with any of those anti-aging therapies those bio-engineers develop, to obtain significantly increased life spans. It's going to take a whole new way of life with a new and better understanding of the Scriptures applied correctly to accomplish this goal. I've devoted a great deal of thought to the matter and can't see how it can be done anyother way.
Checkout my posts at http://www.imminst.o...79&t=8624&st=20 and at http://www.imminst.o...f=3&t=7052&st=0 to get a better idea where I'm coming from. I'm near the bottom of the page on both of the threads.
"my God and His Bible have..."
So now you admit there are more gods ? (did I get this right?)
True, there are many man-made depictions of a god and "his" bible. It gives so much satisfaction and pleasure knowing "some force" up there watches over you, william, I know how you feel; you relish on the warmth. But please, open your mind - just for a moment. Consider, what are you doing that is principally different from the rest of the billions of other-religions followers? -answer: nothing. Every follower of a particular religion and god feel as if "he has it right!" , that his religion (method of worshipping his particular god) and deity are bound to be correct (the religionist says in his mind: "if my religion can't be true, how come I'm enjoying this immense inner warmth and feeling of genuinety? -this must be right!). William, every religionist/spiritualist feels and thinks like this - practicing religion is but a method used to implement auto-suggestion, and to exploit its soothing effect.
Again, your reply will not do.
You try to convince us that your god is the "right" god because he has "the best program for achieving the goal of greater life spans - including immortality - and no other god or religious text offers a better program." ??
If I misunderstood, than please correct me - - why is your god the one? -what differentiates christianity from the rest of earthly religions and increases its liklihood to be "correct" while limning all other faiths/religions errorneous ?
If you can answer that, while suppling substantial evidence - you'll be seeing me in church next Sunday [lol]
"I've been explaining in posts that it's going to take communal living - according to Biblical standards - practicing calorie restriction, strict vegetarianism, periodic fasting, along with any of those anti-aging therapies those bio-engineers develop, to obtain significantly increased life spans."
There are many plans of communal living; what makes you think a one based on the scripture will work? -and don't quote me from the bible, just answer: what differentiates the "plan" written in the bible from any other plan for communal living written in any other book? - Don't you say: "because it was written by god!" for I will not buy it.
Incidentally, there are many such seperate communities here in Israel of religious-radicals (called Hasidim); as far as I can tell, living their lives is a true pity (especially if you're a woman). The same applies for the Muslim communities living according to the sacred doctrines of the Kuran and some Hadiths (the "Sharia" doctrine); in my opininon, life in such communites is based on fear - it is primitive and disgusting.
So how come your suggestion is better?
As far as I know, the christian churche's efforts to make us "live according to god's will" concluded to a bloody and merciless deal throughout history.
#89
-
- Guest
- 270 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 14 July 2006 - 08:32 AM
again william, the emphasis of your god's plan to immortal life - is a spiritual one. "every man will experience death", says the scripture - and then to eternal life only if you've embraced jesus christ.
I don't buy that.
I bet Jesus as well, as an orthodox Jew, wouldn't have bought it as well.
There are no scientific studies showing a human "soul" or "spirit" can exist without a bodily vessel. Care to prove otherwise?
Regarding any post-death spiritual-survival hypothesis, I believe that the burden of proof falls on the believer. That's because during our every-day lives we perceive the existence of the psyche/mind solely in association with a physical, living human body. And as the saying goes: "spectacular claims require spectacular evidence".
Incidentally, when you say "my god and bible has the best plan... " , you merely express your subjective opinion. This does not necessarily make it best.
I don't buy that.
I bet Jesus as well, as an orthodox Jew, wouldn't have bought it as well.
There are no scientific studies showing a human "soul" or "spirit" can exist without a bodily vessel. Care to prove otherwise?
Regarding any post-death spiritual-survival hypothesis, I believe that the burden of proof falls on the believer. That's because during our every-day lives we perceive the existence of the psyche/mind solely in association with a physical, living human body. And as the saying goes: "spectacular claims require spectacular evidence".
Incidentally, when you say "my god and bible has the best plan... " , you merely express your subjective opinion. This does not necessarily make it best.
#90
-
- Guest
- 145 posts
- 0 ₮
Posted 14 July 2006 - 12:08 PM
inarchunite, yes, I admit there are many false gods in the world and people worship them. That's a matter of history that can't be reasonably denied. But I say there is only one real God and He's the one who produced the Bible both Old and New Testaments. I also say if we take that Bible and interpret it and apply it correctly it provides the best possible program for obtaining increased life spans and eventual immortality.
I guess I'm going to have to write a book that better explains my position in greater detail. The only problem is I have undiagnosed Attention Deficit Disorder and writing doesn't come easy to me like it does others. Being in these Immortality Institute forums debating like this and picking up information and ideas from others, is a big help and step towards producing such a book.
Checkout those links I've been providing to The Good News magazine and their literature. If you like philosophy and religion as I'm sure you do, you should study their thought provoking literature for greater insight - even if you disagree.
I guess I'm going to have to write a book that better explains my position in greater detail. The only problem is I have undiagnosed Attention Deficit Disorder and writing doesn't come easy to me like it does others. Being in these Immortality Institute forums debating like this and picking up information and ideas from others, is a big help and step towards producing such a book.
Checkout those links I've been providing to The Good News magazine and their literature. If you like philosophy and religion as I'm sure you do, you should study their thought provoking literature for greater insight - even if you disagree.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
