If God doesn't exist...

[sealybobo]

Did you hear the nut with a gun at the capital believed in God? I think he was a preacher. Yea I should listen to them

 

[emilynghiem]

Since you made it a test, atheists are usually wrong. BTW, if I got 1 out of 4 wrong, then I'm 75% right.

The answers are 1) TRUE 2) TRUE 3) FALSE 4) TRUE. You got 2/4. I'll give you #3 because I meant to say, "Science is mostly wrong before they get it right." The rest is the Ontological argument which you didn't seem to understand. I'll make it extra credit, so zero extra credit.

Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.

That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible. Science says GMO foods are fine. There are pros and cons according to the Bible. (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)

Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth. He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.

Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was a test of their free will. So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet. They were to be good stewards of the earth. Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.

The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world. Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects. By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin. By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.

This was perfect for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.

GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people. This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants. The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction. Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in. These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.

These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.



People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short. As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God. We long to get back to the original state or source. It's inherent in us. As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.

This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.

Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.

Hi forkup before you go any further with this
(A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'

The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'

Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).

Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.

(B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
* retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
* restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace

(C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
(as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)

Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
and that
* unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
* forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively

Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.

Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.

We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.

Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.

 

[emilynghiem]

Did you hear the nut with a gun at the capital believed in God? I think he was a preacher. Yea I should listen to them

So it's better to listen to Jared Loughner, the Arizona shooter who is an atheist?
==========================================================
Jared Loughner




Loughner's friends described him as apolitical, an atheist, and a nihilist. He lived a rather nondescript and low-key childhood, but then dropped out of high school. After this, he began to unravel mentally, started abusing hallucinogens and other sorts of dope.
==========================================================
... and also keep promoting the use of drugs and hallucinogens
since those are less dangerous than alcohol. What else can we learn from this guy?

Note to sealybobo just because this guy was an atheist, and went off the political and mental deep end, doesn't mean I should discredit anything that other atheists say on account of this guy.

Likewise, just because the guy in DC was a theist, and went off with a gun, doesn't mean I should discredit what other theists say on account of that guy.

Is that fair?

the issue I found that makes all the difference is FORGIVENESS:
If you believe in God or don't believe in God but are FORGIVING of problems, conflicts or differences, then you can work out issues without going off on dangerous attacks or extremes.
If you are not forgiving, whether or not you believe in God, this is going to cause problems by projecting past issues onto future relations and repeat patterns from the past.
This will happen with Christians and nonchristians who do not forgive first; theists and nontheists, whatever political or religious affiliation or none at all; it is a part of human nature to be trapped in the past by what we haven't resolved, let go or forgiven, and being able to receive healing transformation when we do ask help to forgive that which we can't let go on our own.

This process of healing by forgiveness is natural and universal for all people. instead of trying to prove or disprove God or not, I believe that healing process can be quantified and demonstrated to apply universally, even though the source of the process and healing energy remains faith based. The most we can do is establish "mutual agreement" on what principles, concepts and process we are talking about (that remain faith based) and that's enough to resolve key conflicts.

 

[ChrisL]

Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.

That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible. Science says GMO foods are fine. There are pros and cons according to the Bible. (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)

Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth. He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.

Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was a test of their free will. So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet. They were to be good stewards of the earth. Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.

The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world. Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects. By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin. By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.

This was perfect for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.

GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people. This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants. The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction. Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in. These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.

These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.



People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short. As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God. We long to get back to the original state or source. It's inherent in us. As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.

This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.

Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.

Hi forkup before you go any further with this
(A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'

The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'

Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).

Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.

(B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
* retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
* restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace

(C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
(as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)

Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
and that
* unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
* forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively

Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.

Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.

We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.

Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.

Sure Emily, but the thread is specifically asking a question about a belief in a God, whether or not such an entity exists or not.

 

[emilynghiem]

A priest on TV today said you should consider me your Goliath. Without him who would Sampson have been?

lol....I think you mean David and goliath.

Samson and Goliath was an animated children's TV show.

Maybe sealybobo proposes to be the "Delilah" to hobelim's "Sampson"?
And be the one to make a man out of him, or a mouse!

 

[emilynghiem]

That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible. Science says GMO foods are fine. There are pros and cons according to the Bible. (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)

Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth. He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.

Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was a test of their free will. So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet. They were to be good stewards of the earth. Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.

The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world. Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects. By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin. By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.

This was perfect for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.

GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people. This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants. The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction. Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in. These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.

These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.



People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short. As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God. We long to get back to the original state or source. It's inherent in us. As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.

This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.

Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.

Hi forkup before you go any further with this
(A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'

The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'

Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).

Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.

(B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
* retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
* restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace

(C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
(as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)

Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
and that
* unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
* forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively

Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.

Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.

We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.

Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.

Sure Emily, but the thread is specifically asking a question about a belief in a God, whether or not such an entity exists or not.

Yes, and the answer is
1. it depends on what CONCEPT you use God to mean
2. and recognize that regardless, God remains faith based
3. the real issue is which terms and systems do we agree to use to stand for
concepts and principles we are trying to relate to (regardless if they exist or are theoretical beliefs)

Since neither the existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven,
all we are REALLY doing is hashing out an AGREEMENT on what we mean
and which terms we agree to use for which concepts.

Again, the comparison to math.
it's not really about proving if the quantities 1, 400, 1000, or infinity "exist" or not.
What we're doing is agreeing how to set up a consistent system of
NOTATION to stand for these quantities (whether or not they exist or are purely theoretical)

That's all we CAN do, is just agree on terms.
So that's why I bring up the factor of Forgiveness as the key to the process.
The more we can FORGIVE our conflicts, issues and differences,
the better we can reconcile our different ways, align along similar or equivalent MEANINGS or Parallels,
and communicate ACROSS our different systems (including theistic and nontheistic, religious or secular).

We are aligning concepts and terms.
And the concept and principles we are representing remain faith based.

 

[zaangalewa]

So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have. The closer to the source the better. That means organic or natural foods. However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole. Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over. Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems. Take a look at how canola oil is made. It's disgusting. Using olive, peanut or coconut is better. Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.



It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption. The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane. These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost. These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more. In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease. Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.

I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.

You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version." Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian? How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?

Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
costs to health
costs to society

if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.

I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."

If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.

You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person. In fact, I would say it is just the opposite. A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.

The Jesus-knights Julius Cesar, Jenghis Khan, Japoleon Bonaparte and J. Stalin for example?

 

[emilynghiem]

So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have. The closer to the source the better. That means organic or natural foods. However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole. Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over. Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems. Take a look at how canola oil is made. It's disgusting. Using olive, peanut or coconut is better. Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.



It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption. The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane. These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost. These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more. In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease. Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.

I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.

You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version." Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian? How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?

Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
costs to health
costs to society

if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.

I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."

If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.

You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person. In fact, I would say it is just the opposite. A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.

The Jesus-knights Julius Cesar, Jenghis Khan, Japoleon Bonaparte and J. Stalin for example?

Again zaangalewa the way to identify the true spirit of Christ Jesus
is by RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. This is the other side of the sword
to RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: People who act out of
fear, ill will, retribution, divide and conquer, unforgiveness, exclusion and coercion
this is ANTICHRIST or the opposite. Retributive justice kills relations and brings death war and destruction.

Restorative Justice bring life and lasting peace, restores the spirit and brings salvation to humanity.

This is the way of Christ Jesus consistent with God's IDEAL will through:
love, not fear
good will toward all (even enemies who persecute), not ill will toward any
forgiveness and redemption, not unforgiveness and retribution
correction restitution and healing, not judgement and punishment
universal inclusion, not exclusion to divide and attack
compassion and charity, not coercion and oppression
rebuilding and restoring neighborly relations and community
not killing, destroying, abusing power to commit genocide etc.

There is no mistaking true Christian leadership with the abusive Antichrist politics,
as the two are as opposite as night and day.

One is charitable towards all people, uplifts transforms heals and unites to serve and benefit all humanity.
The other divides, kills and destroys for political greed for power over others for one's own gain.

One brings life, the other brings death.
That is why the Bible shows both paths in history: the killing and genocide of the Old Testament
from living by the LETTER of the law that gets corrupted by material greed and political control;
versus the rebirth and restoration of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament
from living by the SPIRIT of the law that allows the letter to be restored and fulfilled in full,
and for all wrongs and ills to be righted and make new in Christ Jesus as representing
Restorative Justice bringing salvation healing and peace to all humanity as intended at the start.

 

[Mudda]

There is no God, until proven otherwise. Thread closed.

 

[forkup]

Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.

That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible. Science says GMO foods are fine. There are pros and cons according to the Bible. (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)

Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth. He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.

Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was a test of their free will. So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet. They were to be good stewards of the earth. Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.

The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world. Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects. By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin. By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.

This was perfect for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.

GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people. This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants. The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction. Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in. These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.

These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.



People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short. As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God. We long to get back to the original state or source. It's inherent in us. As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.

This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.

Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.

Hi forkup before you go any further with this
(A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'

The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'

Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).

Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.

(B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
* retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
* restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace

(C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
(as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)

Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
and that
* unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
* forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively

Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.

Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.

We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.

Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.

Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree, that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.

 

[zaangalewa]

So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have. The closer to the source the better. That means organic or natural foods. However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole. Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over. Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems. Take a look at how canola oil is made. It's disgusting. Using olive, peanut or coconut is better. Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.



It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption. The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane. These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost. These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more. In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease. Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.

I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.

You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version." Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian? How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?

Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
costs to health
costs to society

if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.

I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."

If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.

You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person. In fact, I would say it is just the opposite. A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.

The Jesus-knights Julius Cesar, Jenghis Khan, Japoleon Bonaparte and J. Stalin for example?

Again zaangalewa the way to identify the true spirit of Christ Jesus
is by RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. This is the other side of the sword [/quote ]

The other side of the sword? Swords are weaspons for to kill human beings with.

to RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE:

"Retributive Justice" is a contradiction and "restorative justice" seems to be a totally senseless expression. Anyway I never saw a form of human "justice" = "law and order" what produces not injustice too. Anyway I don't trust in laws or other formalisms. And murderers become often rich and live a long happy life while they are well respected from everyone.

People who act out of
fear, ill will, retribution, divide and conquer, unforgiveness, exclusion and coercion
this is ANTICHRIST or the opposite. Retributive justice kills relations and brings death war and destruction.

Hmm

Restorative Justice bring life

Love brings life. "Justice" could help to protect living conditions. But the reality are abortions and a destruction of the biosphere.

and lasting peace, restores the spirit and brings salvation to humanity.

That's your hope. What can I say? Hopefully you are right - but I doubt about.

This is the way of Christ Jesus consistent with God's IDEAL will through:
love, not fear
good will toward all (even enemies who persecute), not ill will toward any
forgiveness and redemption, not unforgiveness and retribution
correction restitution and healing, not judgement and punishment
universal inclusion, not exclusion to divide and attack
compassion and charity, not coercion and oppression
rebuilding and restoring neighborly relations and community
not killing, destroying, abusing power to commit genocide etc.

Your words might find the ears of god.

There is no mistaking true Christian leadership with the abusive Antichrist politics,
as the two are as opposite as night and day.

For me the american Christianity or Humanity is often combined with a very zoroastrian element: positve=Christ=Ahura Mazda, negative=Antichrist=Angra Mainu. Also Atheists and Muslims are using such concepts continously. But did you ever try to think about why god created also this what we call evil?

One is charitable towards all people, uplifts transforms heals and unites to serve and benefit all humanity.
The other divides, kills and destroys for political greed for power over others for one's own gain.

One brings life, the other brings death.

That's true: life is good, death is bad. But every life passes only through this universe and dies here.

That is why the Bible shows both paths in history: the killing and genocide of the Old Testament

Old Testament? Genocide? Makes no sense. Is there any concrete background for you now to think about something special in this context?

from living by the LETTER of the law that gets corrupted by material greed and political control;
versus the rebirth and restoration of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament
from living by the SPIRIT of the law that allows the letter to be restored and fulfilled in full,
and for all wrongs and ills to be righted and make new in Christ Jesus as representing
Restorative Justice bringing salvation healing and peace to all humanity as intended at the start.

Let me try to say with the words of the bible what I think about he justice of human beings, although I lived in the 20th and 21st century:

-----
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
-----

 

[sealybobo]

You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version." Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian? How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?

Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
costs to health
costs to society

if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.

I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."

If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.

You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person. In fact, I would say it is just the opposite. A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.

The Jesus-knights Julius Cesar, Jenghis Khan, Japoleon Bonaparte and J. Stalin for example?

Again zaangalewa the way to identify the true spirit of Christ Jesus
is by RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. This is the other side of the sword [/quote ]

The other side of the sword? Swords are weaspons for to kill human beings with.

to RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE:

"Retributive Justice" is a contradiction and "restorative justice" seems to be a totally senseless expression. Anyway I never saw a form of human "justice" = "law and order" what produces not injustice too. Anyway I don't trust in laws or other formalisms. And murderers become often rich and live a long happy life while they are well respected from everyone.

People who act out of
fear, ill will, retribution, divide and conquer, unforgiveness, exclusion and coercion
this is ANTICHRIST or the opposite. Retributive justice kills relations and brings death war and destruction.

Hmm

Restorative Justice bring life

Love brings life. "Justice" could help to protect living conditions. But the reality are abortions and a destruction of the biosphere.

and lasting peace, restores the spirit and brings salvation to humanity.

That's your hope. What can I say? Hopefully you are right - but I doubt about.

This is the way of Christ Jesus consistent with God's IDEAL will through:
love, not fear
good will toward all (even enemies who persecute), not ill will toward any
forgiveness and redemption, not unforgiveness and retribution
correction restitution and healing, not judgement and punishment
universal inclusion, not exclusion to divide and attack
compassion and charity, not coercion and oppression
rebuilding and restoring neighborly relations and community
not killing, destroying, abusing power to commit genocide etc.

Your words might find the ears of god.

There is no mistaking true Christian leadership with the abusive Antichrist politics,
as the two are as opposite as night and day.

For me the american Christianity or Humanity is often combined with a very zoroastrian element: positve=Christ=Ahura Mazda, negative=Antichrist=Angra Mainu. Also Atheists and Muslims are using such concepts continously. But did you ever try to think about why god created also this what we call evil?

One is charitable towards all people, uplifts transforms heals and unites to serve and benefit all humanity.
The other divides, kills and destroys for political greed for power over others for one's own gain.

One brings life, the other brings death.

That's true: life is good, death is bad. But every life passes only through this universe and dies here.

That is why the Bible shows both paths in history: the killing and genocide of the Old Testament

Old Testament? Genocide? Makes no sense. Is there any concrete background for you now to think about something special in this context?

from living by the LETTER of the law that gets corrupted by material greed and political control;
versus the rebirth and restoration of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament
from living by the SPIRIT of the law that allows the letter to be restored and fulfilled in full,
and for all wrongs and ills to be righted and make new in Christ Jesus as representing
Restorative Justice bringing salvation healing and peace to all humanity as intended at the start.

Let me try to say with the words of the bible what I think about he justice of human beings, although I lived in the 20th and 21st century:

-----
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
-----

As long as you understand that all the atoms that comprise life on earth; the atoms that make up the human body, are traceable to the stars that cooked light elements into heavy elements in their core, under extreme temperatures and pressures. These stars, the high mass ones among them, went unstable in their later years. They collapsed and then exploded, scattering their enriched guts across the galaxy. Guts made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and all the fundamental ingredients of life itself. These ingredients became part of gas clouds, that condense, collapse, form the next generation of solar systems stars with orbiting planets and all of those planets now have ingredients for life itself.

Many people feel small, because they’re small and the universe is big, but I feel big, because my atoms, came from those stars. There is a level of connectivity. That’s really what you want in life, you want to feel connected, you want to feel relevant. You want to feel like your a participant in the goings on of activities and events around you. That’s precisely what we are, just by being alive.

 

[zaangalewa]

Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
costs to health
costs to society

if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.

I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."

If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.

You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person. In fact, I would say it is just the opposite. A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.

The Jesus-knights Julius Cesar, Jenghis Khan, Japoleon Bonaparte and J. Stalin for example?

Again zaangalewa the way to identify the true spirit of Christ Jesus
is by RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. This is the other side of the sword [/quote ]

The other side of the sword? Swords are weaspons for to kill human beings with.

to RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE:

"Retributive Justice" is a contradiction and "restorative justice" seems to be a totally senseless expression. Anyway I never saw a form of human "justice" = "law and order" what produces not injustice too. Anyway I don't trust in laws or other formalisms. And murderers become often rich and live a long happy life while they are well respected from everyone.

People who act out of
fear, ill will, retribution, divide and conquer, unforgiveness, exclusion and coercion
this is ANTICHRIST or the opposite. Retributive justice kills relations and brings death war and destruction.

Hmm

Restorative Justice bring life

Love brings life. "Justice" could help to protect living conditions. But the reality are abortions and a destruction of the biosphere.

and lasting peace, restores the spirit and brings salvation to humanity.

That's your hope. What can I say? Hopefully you are right - but I doubt about.

This is the way of Christ Jesus consistent with God's IDEAL will through:
love, not fear
good will toward all (even enemies who persecute), not ill will toward any
forgiveness and redemption, not unforgiveness and retribution
correction restitution and healing, not judgement and punishment
universal inclusion, not exclusion to divide and attack
compassion and charity, not coercion and oppression
rebuilding and restoring neighborly relations and community
not killing, destroying, abusing power to commit genocide etc.

Your words might find the ears of god.

There is no mistaking true Christian leadership with the abusive Antichrist politics,
as the two are as opposite as night and day.

For me the american Christianity or Humanity is often combined with a very zoroastrian element: positve=Christ=Ahura Mazda, negative=Antichrist=Angra Mainu. Also Atheists and Muslims are using such concepts continously. But did you ever try to think about why god created also this what we call evil?

One is charitable towards all people, uplifts transforms heals and unites to serve and benefit all humanity.
The other divides, kills and destroys for political greed for power over others for one's own gain.

One brings life, the other brings death.

That's true: life is good, death is bad. But every life passes only through this universe and dies here.

That is why the Bible shows both paths in history: the killing and genocide of the Old Testament

Old Testament? Genocide? Makes no sense. Is there any concrete background for you now to think about something special in this context?

from living by the LETTER of the law that gets corrupted by material greed and political control;
versus the rebirth and restoration of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament
from living by the SPIRIT of the law that allows the letter to be restored and fulfilled in full,
and for all wrongs and ills to be righted and make new in Christ Jesus as representing
Restorative Justice bringing salvation healing and peace to all humanity as intended at the start.

Let me try to say with the words of the bible what I think about he justice of human beings, although I lived in the 20th and 21st century:

-----
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
-----

As long as you understand that all the atoms that comprise life on earth; the atoms that make up the human body, are traceable to the stars that cooked light elements into heavy elements in their core, under extreme temperatures and pressures. These stars, the high mass ones among them, went unstable in their later years. They collapsed and then exploded, scattering their enriched guts across the galaxy. Guts made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and all the fundamental ingredients of life itself. These ingredients became part of gas clouds, that condense, collapse, form the next generation of solar systems stars with orbiting planets and all of those planets now have ingredients for life itself.

Many people feel small, because they’re small and the universe is big, but I feel big, because my atoms, came from those stars. There is a level of connectivity. That’s really what you want in life, you want to feel connected, you want to feel relevant. You want to feel like your a participant in the goings on of activities and events around you. That’s precisely what we are, just by being alive.

And what has this what you say here to do with anything what I said to someone else?

I changed by the way all atoms of my body completly and still I am here.



PS: I don't know in the moment how many of your mistakes I corrected here. It were a lot.

 

[james bond]

Since you made it a test, atheists are usually wrong. BTW, if I got 1 out of 4 wrong, then I'm 75% right.

The answers are 1) TRUE 2) TRUE 3) FALSE 4) TRUE. You got 2/4. I'll give you #3 because I meant to say, "Science is mostly wrong before they get it right." The rest is the Ontological argument which you didn't seem to understand. I'll make it extra credit, so zero extra credit.

Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.

That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible. Science says GMO foods are fine. There are pros and cons according to the Bible. (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)

Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth. He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.

Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was a test of their free will. So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet. They were to be good stewards of the earth. Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.

The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world. Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects. By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin. By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.

This was perfect for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.

GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people. This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants. The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction. Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in. These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.

These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.



People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short. As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God. We long to get back to the original state or source. It's inherent in us. As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.

This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.

Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.

If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.

You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.

Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.

 

[james bond]

So to further make my point about how the Bible explained the type of foods we should have. The closer to the source the better. That means organic or natural foods. However, be sure that you are indeed getting "organic" or "natural" foods and not just hyperbole. Organic is not just a label, but the way farming used to be done until science took over. Science led to more higher refined and processed foods and having too much in our diet leads to problems. Take a look at how canola oil is made. It's disgusting. Using olive, peanut or coconut is better. Unfortunately, organic and natural foods cost more so, as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version.



It is baffling that someone ever thought they would be suitable for human consumption. The process involves a harsh extraction process that includes bleaching, deodorizing and the highly toxic solvent hexane. These oils are used in a lot of our processed foods due to cheaper cost. These include “healthy” salad dressings, butter replicates, mayonnaise, cookies and more. In a nutshell, these seed oils (canola, safflower, vegetable, corn, soy, sunflower) are high in Omega-6 fatty acids. Eating an excess of Omega-6 can lead to increased inflammation in the body and potentially contribute to disease. Even though Adam had to toil away in the fields to eat since being banished, he still lived to a ripe old 930.

I'm not against science, by any means, but the way it is used is not healthy and what the Bible or God had in mind.

You said, "as good Christians, we should be on the lookout for a lower cost version." Why would being on the lookout for a lower cost version make you a good christian? How does that make you a better person in gods eyes?

Dear sealybobo also what about other costs:
costs to health
costs to society

if you believe in being charitable toward all, and treating others equally, then finding the healthiest most cost effective food sources and means of distribution would be a way for people to (1) take care of our own households which is in the Bible (2) love our neighbors as ourselves by wanting them to have ACCESS to the healthiest sustainable food sources (3) teaching people to fish by making sure every community has help to become self-sustaining.

I guess this is part of ethics and "social justice"
if you believe Christ Jesus brings Peace and Justice to all humanity as equal children under one family, father or "God."

If you believe that the greatest good and good will for all is the meaning of God's will. so we as people of conscience and good faith would seek what is most beneficial, equitable and sustainable for all humanity. if we love our neighbors as ourselves.

You don't need a belief in a God to be a good person. In fact, I would say it is just the opposite. A lot of times these believes create some really BAD people.

Most, if not all religions, believe in some for of last judgment. The only one that doesn't is atheism, but even atheists wish some people get their just desserts. Evil comes from free will, and that's what led to original sin so it's not possible. We're not perfect.

 

[james bond]

That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible. Science says GMO foods are fine. There are pros and cons according to the Bible. (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)

Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth. He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.

Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was a test of their free will. So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet. They were to be good stewards of the earth. Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.

The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world. Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects. By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin. By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.

This was perfect for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.

GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people. This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants. The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction. Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in. These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.

These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.



People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short. As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God. We long to get back to the original state or source. It's inherent in us. As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.

This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.

Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.

Hi forkup before you go any further with this
(A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'

The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'

Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).

Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.

(B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
* retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
* restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace

(C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
(as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)

Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
and that
* unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
* forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively

Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.

Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.

We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.

Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.

Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree, that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.

What's your origin of disease? Is it evolution?

 

[forkup]

Give me evidence backed by science that god exist please.Since you believe science ends up backing the bible anyway. Any example will do.

That's a whole another thread, but I can give you an example of how science backs up the Bible. Science says GMO foods are fine. There are pros and cons according to the Bible. (Note that the Bible can't change, but science keeps changing its theories all the time until they get it right.)

Genesis 1:26-30 tells us that God created Adam and Eve and instructed them to multiply and fill the earth, to subdue it and rule over every living thing that moves on the earth. He also told them that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their food.

Genesis 2:15-17 tells us that Adam cultivated and kept the Garden of Eden and they were free to eat from any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was a test of their free will. So, prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, working the land didn’t involve toil and hard labor as the ground hadn’t been cursed yet. They were to be good stewards of the earth. Genesis 3:17-19 tells us it was only after Adam and Eve disobeyed and sinned against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God cursed the ground. He told Adam he would now only be able to eat the plants that grew for him by toiling and laboring over the land.

The above passages show us mankind’s role on the earth and how that role changed after sin entered the world. Plants, animals and trees today are still suffering the effects of that initial sin and are very susceptible to the ravages of disease, drought and insects. By genetically modifying food sources, it offsets the effects of the original sin. By altering the genetic makeup of organisms such as plants, animals or bacteria to make them more resistant to insects, temperature or disease, scientists and farmers are working together to improve food sources for the world’s population.

This was perfect for them, but they sinned and that's what has caused all the problems.

GMO foods are known to cause serious allergies for some people. This is caused by the foreign proteins introduced into the plants. The proteins added could be from a plant that they are allergic to causing a reaction. Also, some genetically modified plants are engineered to be resistant to diseases and viruses by adding antibiotic genes to the plant so that the resistance to these diseases is built in. These antibiotics can remain in the consumer's body and actually reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics medications.

These genetic alterations may come with much risk to humans, animals and plants, though, and only time will tell if this experiment will be helpful or harmful in the long run.



People admire perfection and we strive for it, often falling short. As Descartes and I have been saying, that's evidence for God. We long to get back to the original state or source. It's inherent in us. As to those who do not care, that was their free choice and they chose the consequences.

This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.

Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.

If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.

You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.

Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.

Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.

 

[forkup]

This is not evidence and makes no sense. Strictly rambling ons.

Makes a lot more sense than those videos you post. We are done, sir.

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.

Hi forkup before you go any further with this
(A) do we all have the same understanding that both faith in God and no faith in God
can never be fully proven, either one, because what we are talking about is 'faith based'

The concepts God stands for rely on faith on collective or greater things beyond our immediate empirical perceptions, like depending on memories that are "faith based" because those events are not physically happening in the moment where we can 'recreate them as proof.'

Are we in agreement on this? That no matter what we discuss back and forth, the opinions beliefs and perceptions of all people are still going to remain faith-based according to what each of us believes is consistent with what we have seen (and we will never see all the things other people have seen, so our perception of their experiences are FAITH based).

Is it safe to say we all agree we can't prove either side one way or another but can only prove our position to ourselves, basically.

(B) if you are okay with that, are you okay with the process of identifying what concepts are MEANT by God, Jesus and other symbols. Instead of trying to prove a Biblical deity exists, or personal Jesus, are we all okay here with agreeing that Jesus in the Bible represents the process of Justice being established globally for all humanity, but the stages in human history move from
* retributive justice by the letter of the law which gets corrupted and leads to death and endless war
* restorative justice by the spirit of the law which corrects past wrongs and leads to lasting life and peace

(C) My "theory" is that although we cannot prove if God exists since God represents something greater than man and is outside our immediate limited/finite scope that we can quantify in empirical terms;
1. we can form a consensus on the MEANING of God and Jesus
such as God meaning Nature, forces of Life, laws of the Universe, whole of creation,
collective truth laws or knowledge, Wisdom, Love, Good will or greater good for all humanity, etc.
2. we can demonstrate a REPEATED replicable pattern of how FORGIVENESS
moves individuals from states of conflict and ill will in relations
to healing, peace and restored faith and good will in relations
(as well as the same forgiveness process healing the mind and body, from mental and emotional ills to physical disease and collective social ills such as reducing crime by curing people of addiction and abuse that drive them to harm themselves and others in a vicious cycle repeated over generations)

Even though we can't prove where this forgiveness and transformation power/process comes from, we can demonstrate that people follow a predictable pattern
and that
* unforgiveness correlates with ill conditions (disease, mental and emotional problems, personal and political conflicts, crime and war between people, groups and nations)
* forgiveness correlates with healing relations, body mind and spirit, individually and collectively

Note :if you don't use terms such as spirit/spiritual, the term "collective" can be substituted and it still stands for the faith-based level that is beyond just the individual experience, but connects with other people in society, other living beings in the universe, and refers to the interconnect life energy and effects we have on each other, either positive or negative, constructive or destructive.

Whatever you call the body of laws, the collective truth or knowledge of the workings of the world,
that collective level is what we could agree we mean by God's laws or the word of God.

We can't prove this exists, it's all conjecture/faith based, but we can still try to agree on set terms to represent these principles and relations so we can communicate with each other.
We have both believers using scriptural laws authority and religious symbolism to express laws.
And secular gentiles using nontheist scientific approaches to quantify what's going on, either as a spiritual, social or political process.

Why can't we align both, the religious terminology for this process of spiritual development to maturity, and the secular terms for social and political development. Our language may be two totally separate systems, but we can still describe the same forces and process at work.
No matter if we call this Nature, or God, or what we call the law of science and the Universe.
If we are talking about the same concepts consistently, the different terms should not be in conflict.
Whatever is really true/universal should be backed by science affirming it, and also interpretations of the Bible should be consistent. All systems are faith based, the question is how can we align them by agreeing on the terms and principles they stand for, in order to 'translate' back and forth.

Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree, that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.

What's your origin of disease? Is it evolution?

Some are organisms struggling to survive ( bacteria,parasites)
Some are half-organisms who need living organisms to reproduce ( virusus)
Some are mutations going haywire (cancer)
So yes evolution
You are making a very common assumption from religious ppl
Namely that man is the ultimate species, that we are in some way the culmination of a supreme beings will to create. We are in fact just one of the organisms that has walked this earth. We aren't the last, longest lived or most succesfull in any objective sense.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is no God, until proven otherwise. Thread closed.

Hi Mudda what if you define God to be the forces of Life and Nature that naturally exist?
Are you saying there is no consistent system to the laws and forced out there?
That is one definition of God that is workable.
It is all theory, like the laws of gravity are theory.

We can "prove" when our brains go into dream states,
but we can't "prove" what we dreamed last night and have to
take each other's word for it on faith.

Are you going to reject gravity, dreams, theories on homosexuality
because these can never be proven? Good luck living in a world where you depend on things to be proven first.
They can be proven to you, but not proven to everyone without still relying on some faith.
Even the laws of gravity are theories we assume will continue to hold, but that's based on faith.
And yet we still take advantage of and use the laws of gravity to work for us, regardless if we can prove this or not.

We don't have hangups or religious arguments over gravity (unless you are one of the flat earth theorists)
but we argue over God because that has been abused politically to divide and attack by tribe for dominance.
if we get rid of the political bullying environment around it, there is no reason to argue emotionally about
God any more than we would over gravity! We need to be that neutral and Zenlike and not drag past politics into our debates.

Most of the distortion and disruption is from emotional baggage.
Get that factor out of the way, and we can actually work through the other terminology like math and science
without this emotional sidetaking and undercutting/backbiting going on.

sorry for that, and I hope it gets better and we can focus more on the actual
content of principles and relationships that science and religion are used to symbolize.
These are like two different languages for relationships and processes in the world.
So of course people are going to describe it differently from their own cultural and linguistic preferences and background.

this should be seen as a positive challenge not a negative conflict that there are different languages for the
laws of natural, life and relations between humans and the collective world. Big deal. why can't we deal with this maturely?

 

[Mudda]

There is no God, until proven otherwise. Thread closed.

Hi Mudda what if you define God to be the forces of Life and Nature that naturally exist?
Are you saying there is no consistent system to the laws and forced out there?
That is one definition of God that is workable.
It is all theory, like the laws of gravity are theory.

We can "prove" when our brains go into dream states,
but we can't "prove" what we dreamed last night and have to
take each other's word for it on faith.

Are you going to reject gravity, dreams, theories on homosexuality
because these can never be proven? Good luck living in a world where you depend on things to be proven first.
They can be proven to you, but not proven to everyone without still relying on some faith.
Even the laws of gravity are theories we assume will continue to hold, but that's based on faith.
And yet we still take advantage of and use the laws of gravity to work for us, regardless if we can prove this or not.

We don't have hangups or religious arguments over gravity (unless you are one of the flat earth theorists)
but we argue over God because that has been abused politically to divide and attack by tribe for dominance.
if we get rid of the political bullying environment around it, there is no reason to argue emotionally about
God any more than we would over gravity! We need to be that neutral and Zenlike and not drag past politics into our debates.

Most of the distortion and disruption is from emotional baggage.
Get that factor out of the way, and we can actually work through the other terminology like math and science
without this emotional sidetaking and undercutting/backbiting going on.

sorry for that, and I hope it gets better and we can focus more on the actual
content of principles and relationships that science and religion are used to symbolize.
These are like two different languages for relationships and processes in the world.
So of course people are going to describe it differently from their own cultural and linguistic preferences and background.

this should be seen as a positive challenge not a negative conflict that there are different languages for the
laws of natural, life and relations between humans and the collective world. Big deal. why can't we deal with this maturely?

Is this just a copy&paste gust of windbag, or do you actually write all this bullshit out every time?