The Scientific poof that GOD exists without a doubt.

[GLASNOST]

When are we getting to the scientific proof? ... I want to look over the math if you don't mind ...

Join the group. We are all waiting.

 

[GLASNOST]

When did Jimmy Swaggert get his degree in Astrophysics?

All you need is faith, ra-ta-da-ta-da!

 

[emilynghiem]

I watched the first 10 minutes. If God existed before time, why couldn't the cause of the Big Bang have existed before time?

Exactly BULLDOG
No matter how we define God, the Universe or the Source of all Life,
there can always be something that caused that thing to come into existence.

The Universe, including God, can thus be seen as eternal or infinite, self existent, with no beginning and no end.

Since we as humans are finite, in knowledge language and perception, whatever is true about God, the Universe, or Life is faith based, can neither be proven nor disproven to exist or not.

Since this is faith based, what we rely on is whether we can reach agreement on what is true or right.

As long as we agree that God represents the greatest good or collective truth, we can still communicate and operate effectively. Regardless of proof or not.

Hebrews 3:4 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Again with an appeal to authority fallacy.

• Gravity. Job 26:7. He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. ...
• Water Cycle. Job 26:8. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. ...
• The Earth's Core. Job 28: 5. The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire.

Chronicles 16:30 "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable'' A Geocentric model might be wrong. You have some handy 'quotes'?

Out planet follows a course, it's not simply drifting in space. How would ancient man know all this?

The Bible verse includes the term "immovable".

How did the gods get that so wrong?

Maybe it refers to climate change or flat earth believers. Who are proof of the immovable!

Or, those who wrote of an immovable earth believed the earth was exactly that. That's what they wrote.

Dear Hollie and BULLDOG
The fairest explanation I can find on this passage is that it doesn't mean the planet earth is fixed and immovable.
Because the people back then did not see or refer to earth as a planet.

They likely meant that the land they live on, their relationship to it, does not "shift or change in positions" like the stars do.
Like the phrase describing someone as having their "feet firmly planted on the ground."

They were using earth to mean man's relationship with God is firmly established, as in the center of man's Life.

They had no knowledge or opinion of anything else like life in the universe beyond that.

That is my best interpretation.

True, but a god who created everything, would know. The Bible isn't portrayed as the opinions of ancient people, as you seem to imply. It is called "THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" You should make the distinction, and define which parts are God's word, and which parts can only be considered to be the beliefs of people long ago, and then we can have a fair basis for discussion. You can't just jump back and forth between the two, depending on which one doesn't match the point you want to make.

Dear BULLDOG because each person's process of discerning the two is unique to them, unfortunately the process IS going to jump around and not be clear or linear.

In the end, we will come to agreements point by point, on key principles we agree on and find to be universal.

But this process is as unique as you are. As I am. And as the unique relationship that joins you and me.

So that is why it is going to look so scattered. We do not learn by collectively imposing "one way" on everyone. We learn by individual experience.

Where the order comes in, once you and I agree how to communicate and make sense to each other, then we can expand on this connection and work more effectively in other ways and relationships. We can build from there.

When everyone does that, we can all build more cooperative constructive relationships. And collectively we influence whole institutions and society to work more inclusively and cooperatively, respecting individuals.

The changes occur here and there.

Because people are so diverse, yes, it will look scattered.

I mostly agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that the bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it isn't. If you believe it isn't, then large chunks of Christian dogma become total crap. If you believe it is, then rational discussion is not possible.

Dear BULLDOG

1. Inspired by God means intended or designed to be written, edited and preserved as is.
This does not require it to be inerrant.
If people create their own conditions around inerrancy, that is part of their
spiritual process. It is still meant for them to process information that way.
So it is still part of the divine inspiration and design.

Two ways this could be described:

2. One way I heard it described is like a scale.
We do not need scales to be perfect to the .00001 decimal place
if all we are measuring is good enough for pounds and ounces.
So whatever interpretation is "good enough" to convey the relevant message
is what the Bible is used for. If there are conflicts, the point is for THOSE PEOPLE
in conflict to resolve their issues. Like I said, the process is UNIQUE to THOSE PEOPLE.

3. The way I see it is more like this:
Did you see the movie The Matrix where the visionary oracle tells
the main character "what he needs to hear for certain things to take place."
If he misinterprets the message, it is meant to be, so that he goes through
a process to fulfill the journey and purpose he is designed for.

So even the ambiguities and errors are part of the spiritual process
and divinely designed for a purpose.

In general for the Bible to be divinely inspired and universal
does not mean everyone has to see it and use it the same way.

The GENERAL spiritual process and message is universal,
that humanity moves from living by the letter of the law and retributive justice,
which gets corrupted by greed and leads to endless death war and destruction,
to living by the spirit of truth and restorative justice, which brings healing and lasting peace.

But the PROCESS itself of reconciling and growing through stages
can involve any number of approaches and lessons. So anyone
can get things out of the bad, true or false, good or bad, as part of their process.

That is still divinely inspired, and is still that person's valid process of
working out their own understanding about truth and life
and relations with others in society etc.

 

[emilynghiem]

When are we getting to the scientific proof? ... I want to look over the math if you don't mind ...

Join the group. We are all waiting.

Dear GLASNOST and ReinyDays
Proof that the spiritual process is universal
is relative to different people. Healing is universal, and can apply
to any number of conditions. But what matters and changes
someone's mind depends on what they relate to which is relative.

I find that one of the more helpful ways to demonstrate
how the universal spiritual process works is to understand
how prayers for forgiveness of past conditions can
transform and heal people as well as relationships.

If you both want to see a demonstration of how spiritual healing works,
let's pick something where we can show the difference it makes
if people agree to receive forgiveness and healing.

it can be people from conflicting groups that want to agree on a common solution.

It can be a medical study, such as finding subjects willing to undergo spiritual
healing to record the impact on their health conditions in a measurable quantifiable way.

The study I referenced was on Rheumatoid Arthritis.

A relatively simple condition that could be used for a replicated study
are addictive or phobic "eating disorders" where the person's mental
or spiritual state is stuck in either guilt or fear about eating or gaining weight.
So changing that state of mind is something that could be quantified,
if we can find patients and doctors willing to set up a formal medical study on that.

I also received msgs from a new contact online who has a young family member
suffering from severely dangerous homicidal and violent obsessions
and is currently institutionalized for safety reasons while undergoing treatment.

This is something that could possibly be treated, cured or made manageable
by spiritual healing therapy, although the person may still need to stay detained.
At least the "before and after" observations could be medically documents
to show any changes or improvement to the patient's ability to control
and avoid the chronic rage and violent impulses.

Pick some issue or some condition where you would like to see
the impact of healing.

And I can contact the sources I know of with reputable effective history of healing,
and see what it takes to replicate the team prayer studies that were done on RA.

 

[BULLDOG]

I watched the first 10 minutes. If God existed before time, why couldn't the cause of the Big Bang have existed before time?

Exactly BULLDOG
No matter how we define God, the Universe or the Source of all Life,
there can always be something that caused that thing to come into existence.

The Universe, including God, can thus be seen as eternal or infinite, self existent, with no beginning and no end.

Since we as humans are finite, in knowledge language and perception, whatever is true about God, the Universe, or Life is faith based, can neither be proven nor disproven to exist or not.

Since this is faith based, what we rely on is whether we can reach agreement on what is true or right.

As long as we agree that God represents the greatest good or collective truth, we can still communicate and operate effectively. Regardless of proof or not.

Hebrews 3:4 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Again with an appeal to authority fallacy.

• Gravity. Job 26:7. He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. ...
• Water Cycle. Job 26:8. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. ...
• The Earth's Core. Job 28: 5. The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire.

Chronicles 16:30 "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable'' A Geocentric model might be wrong. You have some handy 'quotes'?

Out planet follows a course, it's not simply drifting in space. How would ancient man know all this?

The Bible verse includes the term "immovable".

How did the gods get that so wrong?

Maybe it refers to climate change or flat earth believers. Who are proof of the immovable!

Or, those who wrote of an immovable earth believed the earth was exactly that. That's what they wrote.

Dear Hollie and BULLDOG
The fairest explanation I can find on this passage is that it doesn't mean the planet earth is fixed and immovable.
Because the people back then did not see or refer to earth as a planet.

They likely meant that the land they live on, their relationship to it, does not "shift or change in positions" like the stars do.
Like the phrase describing someone as having their "feet firmly planted on the ground."

They were using earth to mean man's relationship with God is firmly established, as in the center of man's Life.

They had no knowledge or opinion of anything else like life in the universe beyond that.

That is my best interpretation.

True, but a god who created everything, would know. The Bible isn't portrayed as the opinions of ancient people, as you seem to imply. It is called "THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" You should make the distinction, and define which parts are God's word, and which parts can only be considered to be the beliefs of people long ago, and then we can have a fair basis for discussion. You can't just jump back and forth between the two, depending on which one doesn't match the point you want to make.

Dear BULLDOG because each person's process of discerning the two is unique to them, unfortunately the process IS going to jump around and not be clear or linear.

In the end, we will come to agreements point by point, on key principles we agree on and find to be universal.

But this process is as unique as you are. As I am. And as the unique relationship that joins you and me.

So that is why it is going to look so scattered. We do not learn by collectively imposing "one way" on everyone. We learn by individual experience.

Where the order comes in, once you and I agree how to communicate and make sense to each other, then we can expand on this connection and work more effectively in other ways and relationships. We can build from there.

When everyone does that, we can all build more cooperative constructive relationships. And collectively we influence whole institutions and society to work more inclusively and cooperatively, respecting individuals.

The changes occur here and there.

Because people are so diverse, yes, it will look scattered.

I mostly agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that the bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it isn't. If you believe it isn't, then large chunks of Christian dogma become total crap. If you believe it is, then rational discussion is not possible.

Dear BULLDOG

1. Inspired by God means intended or designed to be written, edited and preserved as is.
This does not require it to be inerrant.
If people create their own conditions around inerrancy, that is part of their
spiritual process. It is still meant for them to process information that way.
So it is still part of the divine inspiration and design.

Two ways this could be described:

2. One way I heard it described is like a scale.
We do not need scales to be perfect to the .00001 decimal place
if all we are measuring is good enough for pounds and ounces.
So whatever interpretation is "good enough" to convey the relevant message
is what the Bible is used for. If there are conflicts, the point is for THOSE PEOPLE
in conflict to resolve their issues. Like I said, the process is UNIQUE to THOSE PEOPLE.

3. The way I see it is more like this:
Did you see the movie The Matrix where the visionary oracle tells
the main character "what he needs to hear for certain things to take place."
If he misinterprets the message, it is meant to be, so that he goes through
a process to fulfill the journey and purpose he is designed for.

So even the ambiguities and errors are part of the spiritual process
and divinely designed for a purpose.

In general for the Bible to be divinely inspired and universal
does not mean everyone has to see it and use it the same way.

The GENERAL spiritual process and message is universal,
that humanity moves from living by the letter of the law and retributive justice,
which gets corrupted by greed and leads to endless death war and destruction,
to living by the spirit of truth and restorative justice, which brings healing and lasting peace.

But the PROCESS itself of reconciling and growing through stages
can involve any number of approaches and lessons. So anyone
can get things out of the bad, true or false, good or bad, as part of their process.

That is still divinely inspired, and is still that person's valid process of
working out their own understanding about truth and life
and relations with others in society etc.

The Bible being the INERRANT WORD OF GOD is a major tenet of Christianity. What the Bible says is real and literal. If you don't believe me, then ask any religious nut. Whatever you are describing is not Christianity.

 

[emilynghiem]

I watched the first 10 minutes. If God existed before time, why couldn't the cause of the Big Bang have existed before time?

Exactly BULLDOG
No matter how we define God, the Universe or the Source of all Life,
there can always be something that caused that thing to come into existence.

The Universe, including God, can thus be seen as eternal or infinite, self existent, with no beginning and no end.

Since we as humans are finite, in knowledge language and perception, whatever is true about God, the Universe, or Life is faith based, can neither be proven nor disproven to exist or not.

Since this is faith based, what we rely on is whether we can reach agreement on what is true or right.

As long as we agree that God represents the greatest good or collective truth, we can still communicate and operate effectively. Regardless of proof or not.

Hebrews 3:4 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Again with an appeal to authority fallacy.

• Gravity. Job 26:7. He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. ...
• Water Cycle. Job 26:8. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. ...
• The Earth's Core. Job 28: 5. The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire.

Chronicles 16:30 "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable'' A Geocentric model might be wrong. You have some handy 'quotes'?

Out planet follows a course, it's not simply drifting in space. How would ancient man know all this?

The Bible verse includes the term "immovable".

How did the gods get that so wrong?

Maybe it refers to climate change or flat earth believers. Who are proof of the immovable!

Or, those who wrote of an immovable earth believed the earth was exactly that. That's what they wrote.

Again, when has the earth moved out from under your feet. And when has the earth speed up in its spinning or jumped out of orbit. Can I depend on the seasons or not? Can I count on morning, noon, and night? Does the moon go through its phases or are they undependable? I'm not going to argue with you. The truth is obvious enough for most people.

If he Earth was firm and unmovable, none of those things would be possible.

Again BULLDOG you are talking about the literal planet Earth.

When the people back then referred to earth and life on earth,
they more likely meant life as they knew it.

This reminds me of people arguing over the literal meaning of
the "days of creation." It makes more sense that "day" means "age."
It becomes absurd to use "day" to mean "earth days" if the
sun and earth were in process of being created. How in the heck
can that be measured in "earth days" if the relationship between
the sun and earth was itself being created?

Same here. If the people back then DID NOT THINK in terms of
the earth being a planet, then they would not refer to earth that way.

It seems more likely they saw man living on earth
and thought of God up in the heavens. And were referring
to that relationship staying fixed for all human history.

If you want to keep picking that apart, that is your own way of
thinking and processing. And it has nothing to do with what
people meant back then anyway.

I suggest that you just do what Jefferson did, and stick to the
natural laws of civility, peace and justice that he saw Jesus as
a teacher and example of, and ignore the mythical and mythological references.

If you are more Secular Gentile, the natural laws and science
are for you, not the other language that is for the churched believers
who talk to God that way.

To each his or her own!

Find what works for you, and stick with that.

 

[emilynghiem]

I watched the first 10 minutes. If God existed before time, why couldn't the cause of the Big Bang have existed before time?

Exactly BULLDOG
No matter how we define God, the Universe or the Source of all Life,
there can always be something that caused that thing to come into existence.

The Universe, including God, can thus be seen as eternal or infinite, self existent, with no beginning and no end.

Since we as humans are finite, in knowledge language and perception, whatever is true about God, the Universe, or Life is faith based, can neither be proven nor disproven to exist or not.

Since this is faith based, what we rely on is whether we can reach agreement on what is true or right.

As long as we agree that God represents the greatest good or collective truth, we can still communicate and operate effectively. Regardless of proof or not.

Hebrews 3:4 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Again with an appeal to authority fallacy.

• Gravity. Job 26:7. He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. ...
• Water Cycle. Job 26:8. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. ...
• The Earth's Core. Job 28: 5. The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire.

Chronicles 16:30 "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable'' A Geocentric model might be wrong. You have some handy 'quotes'?

Out planet follows a course, it's not simply drifting in space. How would ancient man know all this?

The Bible verse includes the term "immovable".

How did the gods get that so wrong?

Maybe it refers to climate change or flat earth believers. Who are proof of the immovable!

Or, those who wrote of an immovable earth believed the earth was exactly that. That's what they wrote.

Dear Hollie and BULLDOG
The fairest explanation I can find on this passage is that it doesn't mean the planet earth is fixed and immovable.
Because the people back then did not see or refer to earth as a planet.

They likely meant that the land they live on, their relationship to it, does not "shift or change in positions" like the stars do.
Like the phrase describing someone as having their "feet firmly planted on the ground."

They were using earth to mean man's relationship with God is firmly established, as in the center of man's Life.

They had no knowledge or opinion of anything else like life in the universe beyond that.

That is my best interpretation.

True, but a god who created everything, would know. The Bible isn't portrayed as the opinions of ancient people, as you seem to imply. It is called "THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" You should make the distinction, and define which parts are God's word, and which parts can only be considered to be the beliefs of people long ago, and then we can have a fair basis for discussion. You can't just jump back and forth between the two, depending on which one doesn't match the point you want to make.

Dear BULLDOG because each person's process of discerning the two is unique to them, unfortunately the process IS going to jump around and not be clear or linear.

In the end, we will come to agreements point by point, on key principles we agree on and find to be universal.

But this process is as unique as you are. As I am. And as the unique relationship that joins you and me.

So that is why it is going to look so scattered. We do not learn by collectively imposing "one way" on everyone. We learn by individual experience.

Where the order comes in, once you and I agree how to communicate and make sense to each other, then we can expand on this connection and work more effectively in other ways and relationships. We can build from there.

When everyone does that, we can all build more cooperative constructive relationships. And collectively we influence whole institutions and society to work more inclusively and cooperatively, respecting individuals.

The changes occur here and there.

Because people are so diverse, yes, it will look scattered.

I mostly agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that the bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it isn't. If you believe it isn't, then large chunks of Christian dogma become total crap. If you believe it is, then rational discussion is not possible.

Dear BULLDOG

1. Inspired by God means intended or designed to be written, edited and preserved as is.
This does not require it to be inerrant.
If people create their own conditions around inerrancy, that is part of their
spiritual process. It is still meant for them to process information that way.
So it is still part of the divine inspiration and design.

Two ways this could be described:

2. One way I heard it described is like a scale.
We do not need scales to be perfect to the .00001 decimal place
if all we are measuring is good enough for pounds and ounces.
So whatever interpretation is "good enough" to convey the relevant message
is what the Bible is used for. If there are conflicts, the point is for THOSE PEOPLE
in conflict to resolve their issues. Like I said, the process is UNIQUE to THOSE PEOPLE.

3. The way I see it is more like this:
Did you see the movie The Matrix where the visionary oracle tells
the main character "what he needs to hear for certain things to take place."
If he misinterprets the message, it is meant to be, so that he goes through
a process to fulfill the journey and purpose he is designed for.

So even the ambiguities and errors are part of the spiritual process
and divinely designed for a purpose.

In general for the Bible to be divinely inspired and universal
does not mean everyone has to see it and use it the same way.

The GENERAL spiritual process and message is universal,
that humanity moves from living by the letter of the law and retributive justice,
which gets corrupted by greed and leads to endless death war and destruction,
to living by the spirit of truth and restorative justice, which brings healing and lasting peace.

But the PROCESS itself of reconciling and growing through stages
can involve any number of approaches and lessons. So anyone
can get things out of the bad, true or false, good or bad, as part of their process.

That is still divinely inspired, and is still that person's valid process of
working out their own understanding about truth and life
and relations with others in society etc.

The Bible being the INERRANT WORD OF GOD is a major tenet of Christianity. What the Bible says is real and literal. If you don't believe me, then ask any religious nut. Whatever you are describing is not Christianity.

No, the Bible being the Word of God does
not mean man's interpretation is inerrant
but means the purpose of how it is written is designed that way.
Whether we make errors of it, or not.

It does not have to be perfectly understood or perfectly clear and interpreted 100% correct
in order to be used as God intends,
to get us through the spiritual process
to reach the goal of establishing truth justice and peace.

It can be full of things that don't make sense, or create conflicts
and controversy, and still get us to the goal in keeping with God's intended purpose.

 

[emilynghiem]

I watched the first 10 minutes. If God existed before time, why couldn't the cause of the Big Bang have existed before time?

Exactly BULLDOG
No matter how we define God, the Universe or the Source of all Life,
there can always be something that caused that thing to come into existence.

The Universe, including God, can thus be seen as eternal or infinite, self existent, with no beginning and no end.

Since we as humans are finite, in knowledge language and perception, whatever is true about God, the Universe, or Life is faith based, can neither be proven nor disproven to exist or not.

Since this is faith based, what we rely on is whether we can reach agreement on what is true or right.

As long as we agree that God represents the greatest good or collective truth, we can still communicate and operate effectively. Regardless of proof or not.

Hebrews 3:4 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Again with an appeal to authority fallacy.

• Gravity. Job 26:7. He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. ...
• Water Cycle. Job 26:8. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. ...
• The Earth's Core. Job 28: 5. The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire.

Chronicles 16:30 "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable'' A Geocentric model might be wrong. You have some handy 'quotes'?

Out planet follows a course, it's not simply drifting in space. How would ancient man know all this?

The Bible verse includes the term "immovable".

How did the gods get that so wrong?

Maybe it refers to climate change or flat earth believers. Who are proof of the immovable!

Or, those who wrote of an immovable earth believed the earth was exactly that. That's what they wrote.

Dear Hollie and BULLDOG
The fairest explanation I can find on this passage is that it doesn't mean the planet earth is fixed and immovable.
Because the people back then did not see or refer to earth as a planet.

They likely meant that the land they live on, their relationship to it, does not "shift or change in positions" like the stars do.
Like the phrase describing someone as having their "feet firmly planted on the ground."

They were using earth to mean man's relationship with God is firmly established, as in the center of man's Life.

They had no knowledge or opinion of anything else like life in the universe beyond that.

That is my best interpretation.

True, but a god who created everything, would know. The Bible isn't portrayed as the opinions of ancient people, as you seem to imply. It is called "THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" You should make the distinction, and define which parts are God's word, and which parts can only be considered to be the beliefs of people long ago, and then we can have a fair basis for discussion. You can't just jump back and forth between the two, depending on which one doesn't match the point you want to make.

Dear BULLDOG because each person's process of discerning the two is unique to them, unfortunately the process IS going to jump around and not be clear or linear.

In the end, we will come to agreements point by point, on key principles we agree on and find to be universal.

But this process is as unique as you are. As I am. And as the unique relationship that joins you and me.

So that is why it is going to look so scattered. We do not learn by collectively imposing "one way" on everyone. We learn by individual experience.

Where the order comes in, once you and I agree how to communicate and make sense to each other, then we can expand on this connection and work more effectively in other ways and relationships. We can build from there.

When everyone does that, we can all build more cooperative constructive relationships. And collectively we influence whole institutions and society to work more inclusively and cooperatively, respecting individuals.

The changes occur here and there.

Because people are so diverse, yes, it will look scattered.

I mostly agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that the bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it isn't. If you believe it isn't, then large chunks of Christian dogma become total crap. If you believe it is, then rational discussion is not possible.

Dear BULLDOG

1. Inspired by God means intended or designed to be written, edited and preserved as is.
This does not require it to be inerrant.
If people create their own conditions around inerrancy, that is part of their
spiritual process. It is still meant for them to process information that way.
So it is still part of the divine inspiration and design.

Two ways this could be described:

2. One way I heard it described is like a scale.
We do not need scales to be perfect to the .00001 decimal place
if all we are measuring is good enough for pounds and ounces.
So whatever interpretation is "good enough" to convey the relevant message
is what the Bible is used for. If there are conflicts, the point is for THOSE PEOPLE
in conflict to resolve their issues. Like I said, the process is UNIQUE to THOSE PEOPLE.

3. The way I see it is more like this:
Did you see the movie The Matrix where the visionary oracle tells
the main character "what he needs to hear for certain things to take place."
If he misinterprets the message, it is meant to be, so that he goes through
a process to fulfill the journey and purpose he is designed for.

So even the ambiguities and errors are part of the spiritual process
and divinely designed for a purpose.

In general for the Bible to be divinely inspired and universal
does not mean everyone has to see it and use it the same way.

The GENERAL spiritual process and message is universal,
that humanity moves from living by the letter of the law and retributive justice,
which gets corrupted by greed and leads to endless death war and destruction,
to living by the spirit of truth and restorative justice, which brings healing and lasting peace.

But the PROCESS itself of reconciling and growing through stages
can involve any number of approaches and lessons. So anyone
can get things out of the bad, true or false, good or bad, as part of their process.

That is still divinely inspired, and is still that person's valid process of
working out their own understanding about truth and life
and relations with others in society etc.

The Bible being the INERRANT WORD OF GOD is a major tenet of Christianity. What the Bible says is real and literal. If you don't believe me, then ask any religious nut. Whatever you are describing is not Christianity.

PS the main "tenet in Christianity" is forgiveness
as the greatest act of love or charity.

So forgiveness does not require our understanding
or interpretation of the Bible to be perfect.

We can learn to receive forgiveness, grace and healing
with or without the Bible, with or without contradictions
and huge errors or conflicting interpretations etc.

And the message in the Bible about divine forgiveness
bringing healing and salvation to our relations and to
humanity is STILL TRUE AND UNIVERSAL.

So it does not depend on the literal Bible, which
is mainly a TOOL for teaching the process of
forgiveness and correction to those who follow it.

For those who follow other cultural laws or systems,
the path to reconciling in truth would use those relative systems
that people normally use to communicate and resolve issues
among themselves.

If people use science, then science is used to correct and develop understanding over time.

If people use Buddhism, or use the Bill of Rights and Constitution to correct themselves
and each other, then those laws are used as tools relative to the audience or community.

None of these have to be perfect.

They just have to be good enough to COMMUNICATE
the truth that THOSE PEOPLE are trying to convey and establish.

Concepts don't always translate perfectly between English, Spanish, French etc.
So people use the closest equivalent culturally when it comes to idioms,
and try to capture the SPIRIT of the expression.

It isn't going to be perfect, because people's perceptions
and frame of reference are different and unique to them and their culture.

 

[BULLDOG]

I watched the first 10 minutes. If God existed before time, why couldn't the cause of the Big Bang have existed before time?

Exactly BULLDOG
No matter how we define God, the Universe or the Source of all Life,
there can always be something that caused that thing to come into existence.

The Universe, including God, can thus be seen as eternal or infinite, self existent, with no beginning and no end.

Since we as humans are finite, in knowledge language and perception, whatever is true about God, the Universe, or Life is faith based, can neither be proven nor disproven to exist or not.

Since this is faith based, what we rely on is whether we can reach agreement on what is true or right.

As long as we agree that God represents the greatest good or collective truth, we can still communicate and operate effectively. Regardless of proof or not.

Hebrews 3:4 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Again with an appeal to authority fallacy.

• Gravity. Job 26:7. He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. ...
• Water Cycle. Job 26:8. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. ...
• The Earth's Core. Job 28: 5. The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire.

Chronicles 16:30 "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable'' A Geocentric model might be wrong. You have some handy 'quotes'?

Out planet follows a course, it's not simply drifting in space. How would ancient man know all this?

The Bible verse includes the term "immovable".

How did the gods get that so wrong?

Maybe it refers to climate change or flat earth believers. Who are proof of the immovable!

Or, those who wrote of an immovable earth believed the earth was exactly that. That's what they wrote.

Dear Hollie and BULLDOG
The fairest explanation I can find on this passage is that it doesn't mean the planet earth is fixed and immovable.
Because the people back then did not see or refer to earth as a planet.

They likely meant that the land they live on, their relationship to it, does not "shift or change in positions" like the stars do.
Like the phrase describing someone as having their "feet firmly planted on the ground."

They were using earth to mean man's relationship with God is firmly established, as in the center of man's Life.

They had no knowledge or opinion of anything else like life in the universe beyond that.

That is my best interpretation.

True, but a god who created everything, would know. The Bible isn't portrayed as the opinions of ancient people, as you seem to imply. It is called "THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" You should make the distinction, and define which parts are God's word, and which parts can only be considered to be the beliefs of people long ago, and then we can have a fair basis for discussion. You can't just jump back and forth between the two, depending on which one doesn't match the point you want to make.

Dear BULLDOG because each person's process of discerning the two is unique to them, unfortunately the process IS going to jump around and not be clear or linear.

In the end, we will come to agreements point by point, on key principles we agree on and find to be universal.

But this process is as unique as you are. As I am. And as the unique relationship that joins you and me.

So that is why it is going to look so scattered. We do not learn by collectively imposing "one way" on everyone. We learn by individual experience.

Where the order comes in, once you and I agree how to communicate and make sense to each other, then we can expand on this connection and work more effectively in other ways and relationships. We can build from there.

When everyone does that, we can all build more cooperative constructive relationships. And collectively we influence whole institutions and society to work more inclusively and cooperatively, respecting individuals.

The changes occur here and there.

Because people are so diverse, yes, it will look scattered.

I mostly agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that the bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it isn't. If you believe it isn't, then large chunks of Christian dogma become total crap. If you believe it is, then rational discussion is not possible.

Dear BULLDOG

1. Inspired by God means intended or designed to be written, edited and preserved as is.
This does not require it to be inerrant.
If people create their own conditions around inerrancy, that is part of their
spiritual process. It is still meant for them to process information that way.
So it is still part of the divine inspiration and design.

Two ways this could be described:

2. One way I heard it described is like a scale.
We do not need scales to be perfect to the .00001 decimal place
if all we are measuring is good enough for pounds and ounces.
So whatever interpretation is "good enough" to convey the relevant message
is what the Bible is used for. If there are conflicts, the point is for THOSE PEOPLE
in conflict to resolve their issues. Like I said, the process is UNIQUE to THOSE PEOPLE.

3. The way I see it is more like this:
Did you see the movie The Matrix where the visionary oracle tells
the main character "what he needs to hear for certain things to take place."
If he misinterprets the message, it is meant to be, so that he goes through
a process to fulfill the journey and purpose he is designed for.

So even the ambiguities and errors are part of the spiritual process
and divinely designed for a purpose.

In general for the Bible to be divinely inspired and universal
does not mean everyone has to see it and use it the same way.

The GENERAL spiritual process and message is universal,
that humanity moves from living by the letter of the law and retributive justice,
which gets corrupted by greed and leads to endless death war and destruction,
to living by the spirit of truth and restorative justice, which brings healing and lasting peace.

But the PROCESS itself of reconciling and growing through stages
can involve any number of approaches and lessons. So anyone
can get things out of the bad, true or false, good or bad, as part of their process.

That is still divinely inspired, and is still that person's valid process of
working out their own understanding about truth and life
and relations with others in society etc.

The Bible being the INERRANT WORD OF GOD is a major tenet of Christianity. What the Bible says is real and literal. If you don't believe me, then ask any religious nut. Whatever you are describing is not Christianity.

No, the Bible being the Word of God does
not mean man's interpretation is inerrant
but means the purpose of how it is written is designed that way.
Whether we make errors of it, or not.

It does not have to be perfectly understood or perfectly clear and interpreted 100% correct
in order to be used as God intends,
to get us through the spiritual process
to reach the goal of establishing truth justice and peace.

It can be full of things that don't make sense, or create conflicts
and controversy, and still get us to the goal in keeping with God's intended purpose.

Again, What you describe is not Christianity. Yes, there is a lot of wisdom in that book, and some of the moral lessons are very worthwhile. Much of it is not. None of it is proof that a God exists.

 

[BULLDOG]

I watched the first 10 minutes. If God existed before time, why couldn't the cause of the Big Bang have existed before time?

Exactly BULLDOG
No matter how we define God, the Universe or the Source of all Life,
there can always be something that caused that thing to come into existence.

The Universe, including God, can thus be seen as eternal or infinite, self existent, with no beginning and no end.

Since we as humans are finite, in knowledge language and perception, whatever is true about God, the Universe, or Life is faith based, can neither be proven nor disproven to exist or not.

Since this is faith based, what we rely on is whether we can reach agreement on what is true or right.

As long as we agree that God represents the greatest good or collective truth, we can still communicate and operate effectively. Regardless of proof or not.

Hebrews 3:4 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Again with an appeal to authority fallacy.

• Gravity. Job 26:7. He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. ...
• Water Cycle. Job 26:8. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. ...
• The Earth's Core. Job 28: 5. The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire.

Chronicles 16:30 "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable'' A Geocentric model might be wrong. You have some handy 'quotes'?

Out planet follows a course, it's not simply drifting in space. How would ancient man know all this?

The Bible verse includes the term "immovable".

How did the gods get that so wrong?

Maybe it refers to climate change or flat earth believers. Who are proof of the immovable!

Or, those who wrote of an immovable earth believed the earth was exactly that. That's what they wrote.

Dear Hollie and BULLDOG
The fairest explanation I can find on this passage is that it doesn't mean the planet earth is fixed and immovable.
Because the people back then did not see or refer to earth as a planet.

They likely meant that the land they live on, their relationship to it, does not "shift or change in positions" like the stars do.
Like the phrase describing someone as having their "feet firmly planted on the ground."

They were using earth to mean man's relationship with God is firmly established, as in the center of man's Life.

They had no knowledge or opinion of anything else like life in the universe beyond that.

That is my best interpretation.

True, but a god who created everything, would know. The Bible isn't portrayed as the opinions of ancient people, as you seem to imply. It is called "THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" You should make the distinction, and define which parts are God's word, and which parts can only be considered to be the beliefs of people long ago, and then we can have a fair basis for discussion. You can't just jump back and forth between the two, depending on which one doesn't match the point you want to make.

Dear BULLDOG because each person's process of discerning the two is unique to them, unfortunately the process IS going to jump around and not be clear or linear.

In the end, we will come to agreements point by point, on key principles we agree on and find to be universal.

But this process is as unique as you are. As I am. And as the unique relationship that joins you and me.

So that is why it is going to look so scattered. We do not learn by collectively imposing "one way" on everyone. We learn by individual experience.

Where the order comes in, once you and I agree how to communicate and make sense to each other, then we can expand on this connection and work more effectively in other ways and relationships. We can build from there.

When everyone does that, we can all build more cooperative constructive relationships. And collectively we influence whole institutions and society to work more inclusively and cooperatively, respecting individuals.

The changes occur here and there.

Because people are so diverse, yes, it will look scattered.

I mostly agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that the bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it isn't. If you believe it isn't, then large chunks of Christian dogma become total crap. If you believe it is, then rational discussion is not possible.

Dear BULLDOG

1. Inspired by God means intended or designed to be written, edited and preserved as is.
This does not require it to be inerrant.
If people create their own conditions around inerrancy, that is part of their
spiritual process. It is still meant for them to process information that way.
So it is still part of the divine inspiration and design.

Two ways this could be described:

2. One way I heard it described is like a scale.
We do not need scales to be perfect to the .00001 decimal place
if all we are measuring is good enough for pounds and ounces.
So whatever interpretation is "good enough" to convey the relevant message
is what the Bible is used for. If there are conflicts, the point is for THOSE PEOPLE
in conflict to resolve their issues. Like I said, the process is UNIQUE to THOSE PEOPLE.

3. The way I see it is more like this:
Did you see the movie The Matrix where the visionary oracle tells
the main character "what he needs to hear for certain things to take place."
If he misinterprets the message, it is meant to be, so that he goes through
a process to fulfill the journey and purpose he is designed for.

So even the ambiguities and errors are part of the spiritual process
and divinely designed for a purpose.

In general for the Bible to be divinely inspired and universal
does not mean everyone has to see it and use it the same way.

The GENERAL spiritual process and message is universal,
that humanity moves from living by the letter of the law and retributive justice,
which gets corrupted by greed and leads to endless death war and destruction,
to living by the spirit of truth and restorative justice, which brings healing and lasting peace.

But the PROCESS itself of reconciling and growing through stages
can involve any number of approaches and lessons. So anyone
can get things out of the bad, true or false, good or bad, as part of their process.

That is still divinely inspired, and is still that person's valid process of
working out their own understanding about truth and life
and relations with others in society etc.

The Bible being the INERRANT WORD OF GOD is a major tenet of Christianity. What the Bible says is real and literal. If you don't believe me, then ask any religious nut. Whatever you are describing is not Christianity.

PS the main "tenet in Christianity" is forgiveness
as the greatest act of love or charity.

So forgiveness does not require our understanding
or interpretation of the Bible to be perfect.

We can learn to receive forgiveness, grace and healing
with or without the Bible, with or without contradictions
and huge errors or conflicting interpretations etc.

And the message in the Bible about divine forgiveness
bringing healing and salvation to our relations and to
humanity is STILL TRUE AND UNIVERSAL.

So it does not depend on the literal Bible, which
is mainly a TOOL for teaching the process of
forgiveness and correction to those who follow it.

For those who follow other cultural laws or systems,
the path to reconciling in truth would use those relative systems
that people normally use to communicate and resolve issues
among themselves.

If people use science, then science is used to correct and develop understanding over time.

If people use Buddhism, or use the Bill of Rights and Constitution to correct themselves
and each other, then those laws are used as tools relative to the audience or community.

None of these have to be perfect.

They just have to be good enough to COMMUNICATE
the truth that THOSE PEOPLE are trying to convey and establish.

Concepts don't always translate perfectly between English, Spanish, French etc.
So people use the closest equivalent culturally when it comes to idioms,
and try to capture the SPIRIT of the expression.

It isn't going to be perfect, because people's perceptions
and frame of reference are different and unique to them and their culture.

None of the things you list ever claimed to be perfect, or the only way. The bible and it's adherents claim both.

 

[emilynghiem]

I watched the first 10 minutes. If God existed before time, why couldn't the cause of the Big Bang have existed before time?

Exactly BULLDOG
No matter how we define God, the Universe or the Source of all Life,
there can always be something that caused that thing to come into existence.

The Universe, including God, can thus be seen as eternal or infinite, self existent, with no beginning and no end.

Since we as humans are finite, in knowledge language and perception, whatever is true about God, the Universe, or Life is faith based, can neither be proven nor disproven to exist or not.

Since this is faith based, what we rely on is whether we can reach agreement on what is true or right.

As long as we agree that God represents the greatest good or collective truth, we can still communicate and operate effectively. Regardless of proof or not.

Hebrews 3:4 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Again with an appeal to authority fallacy.

• Gravity. Job 26:7. He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. ...
• Water Cycle. Job 26:8. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. ...
• The Earth's Core. Job 28: 5. The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire.

Chronicles 16:30 "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable'' A Geocentric model might be wrong. You have some handy 'quotes'?

Out planet follows a course, it's not simply drifting in space. How would ancient man know all this?

The Bible verse includes the term "immovable".

How did the gods get that so wrong?

Maybe it refers to climate change or flat earth believers. Who are proof of the immovable!

Or, those who wrote of an immovable earth believed the earth was exactly that. That's what they wrote.

Dear Hollie and BULLDOG
The fairest explanation I can find on this passage is that it doesn't mean the planet earth is fixed and immovable.
Because the people back then did not see or refer to earth as a planet.

They likely meant that the land they live on, their relationship to it, does not "shift or change in positions" like the stars do.
Like the phrase describing someone as having their "feet firmly planted on the ground."

They were using earth to mean man's relationship with God is firmly established, as in the center of man's Life.

They had no knowledge or opinion of anything else like life in the universe beyond that.

That is my best interpretation.

True, but a god who created everything, would know. The Bible isn't portrayed as the opinions of ancient people, as you seem to imply. It is called "THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" You should make the distinction, and define which parts are God's word, and which parts can only be considered to be the beliefs of people long ago, and then we can have a fair basis for discussion. You can't just jump back and forth between the two, depending on which one doesn't match the point you want to make.

Dear BULLDOG because each person's process of discerning the two is unique to them, unfortunately the process IS going to jump around and not be clear or linear.

In the end, we will come to agreements point by point, on key principles we agree on and find to be universal.

But this process is as unique as you are. As I am. And as the unique relationship that joins you and me.

So that is why it is going to look so scattered. We do not learn by collectively imposing "one way" on everyone. We learn by individual experience.

Where the order comes in, once you and I agree how to communicate and make sense to each other, then we can expand on this connection and work more effectively in other ways and relationships. We can build from there.

When everyone does that, we can all build more cooperative constructive relationships. And collectively we influence whole institutions and society to work more inclusively and cooperatively, respecting individuals.

The changes occur here and there.

Because people are so diverse, yes, it will look scattered.

I mostly agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that the bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it isn't. If you believe it isn't, then large chunks of Christian dogma become total crap. If you believe it is, then rational discussion is not possible.

Dear BULLDOG

1. Inspired by God means intended or designed to be written, edited and preserved as is.
This does not require it to be inerrant.
If people create their own conditions around inerrancy, that is part of their
spiritual process. It is still meant for them to process information that way.
So it is still part of the divine inspiration and design.

Two ways this could be described:

2. One way I heard it described is like a scale.
We do not need scales to be perfect to the .00001 decimal place
if all we are measuring is good enough for pounds and ounces.
So whatever interpretation is "good enough" to convey the relevant message
is what the Bible is used for. If there are conflicts, the point is for THOSE PEOPLE
in conflict to resolve their issues. Like I said, the process is UNIQUE to THOSE PEOPLE.

3. The way I see it is more like this:
Did you see the movie The Matrix where the visionary oracle tells
the main character "what he needs to hear for certain things to take place."
If he misinterprets the message, it is meant to be, so that he goes through
a process to fulfill the journey and purpose he is designed for.

So even the ambiguities and errors are part of the spiritual process
and divinely designed for a purpose.

In general for the Bible to be divinely inspired and universal
does not mean everyone has to see it and use it the same way.

The GENERAL spiritual process and message is universal,
that humanity moves from living by the letter of the law and retributive justice,
which gets corrupted by greed and leads to endless death war and destruction,
to living by the spirit of truth and restorative justice, which brings healing and lasting peace.

But the PROCESS itself of reconciling and growing through stages
can involve any number of approaches and lessons. So anyone
can get things out of the bad, true or false, good or bad, as part of their process.

That is still divinely inspired, and is still that person's valid process of
working out their own understanding about truth and life
and relations with others in society etc.

The Bible being the INERRANT WORD OF GOD is a major tenet of Christianity. What the Bible says is real and literal. If you don't believe me, then ask any religious nut. Whatever you are describing is not Christianity.

PS the main "tenet in Christianity" is forgiveness
as the greatest act of love or charity.

So forgiveness does not require our understanding
or interpretation of the Bible to be perfect.

We can learn to receive forgiveness, grace and healing
with or without the Bible, with or without contradictions
and huge errors or conflicting interpretations etc.

And the message in the Bible about divine forgiveness
bringing healing and salvation to our relations and to
humanity is STILL TRUE AND UNIVERSAL.

So it does not depend on the literal Bible, which
is mainly a TOOL for teaching the process of
forgiveness and correction to those who follow it.

For those who follow other cultural laws or systems,
the path to reconciling in truth would use those relative systems
that people normally use to communicate and resolve issues
among themselves.

If people use science, then science is used to correct and develop understanding over time.

If people use Buddhism, or use the Bill of Rights and Constitution to correct themselves
and each other, then those laws are used as tools relative to the audience or community.

None of these have to be perfect.

They just have to be good enough to COMMUNICATE
the truth that THOSE PEOPLE are trying to convey and establish.

Concepts don't always translate perfectly between English, Spanish, French etc.
So people use the closest equivalent culturally when it comes to idioms,
and try to capture the SPIRIT of the expression.

It isn't going to be perfect, because people's perceptions
and frame of reference are different and unique to them and their culture.

None of the things you list ever claimed to be perfect, or the only way. The bible and it's adherents claim both.

Dear BULLDOG
If other people claim that, that is their business.
Clearly that is not a universal tenet of Christianity
because I don't require that and I know other people who don't either.

The person who explained using the Bible like a scale
so it didn't have to be used perfectly is also Christian.

If you do not believe in Christianity and the Bible that is not your battle.
That is for Christians who want to argue that, that is THEIR process.

I would not recommend that nonbelievers try to resolve issues
between Christians.

The way I've seen Christians resolve differences is when
they respect and believe each other to be fellow believers,
they will NOT accept any such corrections from a nonbeliever.

That is like asking someone who does not speak French
to resolve an argument over interpreting a French poem
between two native French speakers. It will likely take
another French speaker to resolve conflicts between
fellow French speakers.

If the Bible does not speak to you, there is NO SENSE in
you using it or arguing over it.

I don't get into arguments over physics, big bang,
singularities and how what created which thing when etc.

That is NOT my language, so I let people argue over
that who get something out of that conversation.

I don't. So I use Constitutional language to resolve
issues with fellow Democrats, Republicans and other
political advocates.

I use the Bible when it helps communicate with
fellow Christians. But if it doesn't work or help,
I will go use something else. Usually personal experiences
to share a common understanding or solve problems.

Whatever you are citing sounds like
"other people's issues"

That is THEIR spiritual process.

If you don't even believe it is real or relevant,
I wouldn't waste any time energy or thought on it.

There are other ways to get to the same understanding.

I would stick to the ones that have value and meaning
to YOU. This sounds like someone else's process, not yours!

 

[BULLDOG]

I watched the first 10 minutes. If God existed before time, why couldn't the cause of the Big Bang have existed before time?

Exactly BULLDOG
No matter how we define God, the Universe or the Source of all Life,
there can always be something that caused that thing to come into existence.

The Universe, including God, can thus be seen as eternal or infinite, self existent, with no beginning and no end.

Since we as humans are finite, in knowledge language and perception, whatever is true about God, the Universe, or Life is faith based, can neither be proven nor disproven to exist or not.

Since this is faith based, what we rely on is whether we can reach agreement on what is true or right.

As long as we agree that God represents the greatest good or collective truth, we can still communicate and operate effectively. Regardless of proof or not.

Hebrews 3:4 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Again with an appeal to authority fallacy.

• Gravity. Job 26:7. He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. ...
• Water Cycle. Job 26:8. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. ...
• The Earth's Core. Job 28: 5. The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire.

Chronicles 16:30 "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable'' A Geocentric model might be wrong. You have some handy 'quotes'?

Out planet follows a course, it's not simply drifting in space. How would ancient man know all this?

The Bible verse includes the term "immovable".

How did the gods get that so wrong?

Maybe it refers to climate change or flat earth believers. Who are proof of the immovable!

Or, those who wrote of an immovable earth believed the earth was exactly that. That's what they wrote.

Dear Hollie and BULLDOG
The fairest explanation I can find on this passage is that it doesn't mean the planet earth is fixed and immovable.
Because the people back then did not see or refer to earth as a planet.

They likely meant that the land they live on, their relationship to it, does not "shift or change in positions" like the stars do.
Like the phrase describing someone as having their "feet firmly planted on the ground."

They were using earth to mean man's relationship with God is firmly established, as in the center of man's Life.

They had no knowledge or opinion of anything else like life in the universe beyond that.

That is my best interpretation.

True, but a god who created everything, would know. The Bible isn't portrayed as the opinions of ancient people, as you seem to imply. It is called "THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" You should make the distinction, and define which parts are God's word, and which parts can only be considered to be the beliefs of people long ago, and then we can have a fair basis for discussion. You can't just jump back and forth between the two, depending on which one doesn't match the point you want to make.

Dear BULLDOG because each person's process of discerning the two is unique to them, unfortunately the process IS going to jump around and not be clear or linear.

In the end, we will come to agreements point by point, on key principles we agree on and find to be universal.

But this process is as unique as you are. As I am. And as the unique relationship that joins you and me.

So that is why it is going to look so scattered. We do not learn by collectively imposing "one way" on everyone. We learn by individual experience.

Where the order comes in, once you and I agree how to communicate and make sense to each other, then we can expand on this connection and work more effectively in other ways and relationships. We can build from there.

When everyone does that, we can all build more cooperative constructive relationships. And collectively we influence whole institutions and society to work more inclusively and cooperatively, respecting individuals.

The changes occur here and there.

Because people are so diverse, yes, it will look scattered.

I mostly agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that the bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it isn't. If you believe it isn't, then large chunks of Christian dogma become total crap. If you believe it is, then rational discussion is not possible.

Dear BULLDOG

1. Inspired by God means intended or designed to be written, edited and preserved as is.
This does not require it to be inerrant.
If people create their own conditions around inerrancy, that is part of their
spiritual process. It is still meant for them to process information that way.
So it is still part of the divine inspiration and design.

Two ways this could be described:

2. One way I heard it described is like a scale.
We do not need scales to be perfect to the .00001 decimal place
if all we are measuring is good enough for pounds and ounces.
So whatever interpretation is "good enough" to convey the relevant message
is what the Bible is used for. If there are conflicts, the point is for THOSE PEOPLE
in conflict to resolve their issues. Like I said, the process is UNIQUE to THOSE PEOPLE.

3. The way I see it is more like this:
Did you see the movie The Matrix where the visionary oracle tells
the main character "what he needs to hear for certain things to take place."
If he misinterprets the message, it is meant to be, so that he goes through
a process to fulfill the journey and purpose he is designed for.

So even the ambiguities and errors are part of the spiritual process
and divinely designed for a purpose.

In general for the Bible to be divinely inspired and universal
does not mean everyone has to see it and use it the same way.

The GENERAL spiritual process and message is universal,
that humanity moves from living by the letter of the law and retributive justice,
which gets corrupted by greed and leads to endless death war and destruction,
to living by the spirit of truth and restorative justice, which brings healing and lasting peace.

But the PROCESS itself of reconciling and growing through stages
can involve any number of approaches and lessons. So anyone
can get things out of the bad, true or false, good or bad, as part of their process.

That is still divinely inspired, and is still that person's valid process of
working out their own understanding about truth and life
and relations with others in society etc.

The Bible being the INERRANT WORD OF GOD is a major tenet of Christianity. What the Bible says is real and literal. If you don't believe me, then ask any religious nut. Whatever you are describing is not Christianity.

PS the main "tenet in Christianity" is forgiveness
as the greatest act of love or charity.

So forgiveness does not require our understanding
or interpretation of the Bible to be perfect.

We can learn to receive forgiveness, grace and healing
with or without the Bible, with or without contradictions
and huge errors or conflicting interpretations etc.

And the message in the Bible about divine forgiveness
bringing healing and salvation to our relations and to
humanity is STILL TRUE AND UNIVERSAL.

So it does not depend on the literal Bible, which
is mainly a TOOL for teaching the process of
forgiveness and correction to those who follow it.

For those who follow other cultural laws or systems,
the path to reconciling in truth would use those relative systems
that people normally use to communicate and resolve issues
among themselves.

If people use science, then science is used to correct and develop understanding over time.

If people use Buddhism, or use the Bill of Rights and Constitution to correct themselves
and each other, then those laws are used as tools relative to the audience or community.

None of these have to be perfect.

They just have to be good enough to COMMUNICATE
the truth that THOSE PEOPLE are trying to convey and establish.

Concepts don't always translate perfectly between English, Spanish, French etc.
So people use the closest equivalent culturally when it comes to idioms,
and try to capture the SPIRIT of the expression.

It isn't going to be perfect, because people's perceptions
and frame of reference are different and unique to them and their culture.

None of the things you list ever claimed to be perfect, or the only way. The bible and it's adherents claim both.

Dear BULLDOG
If other people claim that, that is their business.
Clearly that is not a universal tenet of Christianity
because I don't require that and I know other people who don't either.

The person who explained using the Bible like a scale
so it didn't have to be used perfectly is also Christian.

If you do not believe in Christianity and the Bible that is not your battle.
That is for Christians who want to argue that, that is THEIR process.

I would not recommend that nonbelievers try to resolve issues
between Christians.

The way I've seen Christians resolve differences is when
they respect and believe each other to be fellow believers,
they will NOT accept any such corrections from a nonbeliever.

That is like asking someone who does not speak French
to resolve an argument over interpreting a French poem
between two native French speakers. It will likely take
another French speaker to resolve conflicts between
fellow French speakers.

If the Bible does not speak to you, there is NO SENSE in
you using it or arguing over it.

I don't get into arguments over physics, big bang,
singularities and how what created which thing when etc.

That is NOT my language, so I let people argue over
that who get something out of that conversation.

I don't. So I use Constitutional language to resolve
issues with fellow Democrats, Republicans and other
political advocates.

I use the Bible when it helps communicate with
fellow Christians. But if it doesn't work or help,
I will go use something else. Usually personal experiences
to share a common understanding or solve problems.

Whatever you are citing sounds like
"other people's issues"

That is THEIR spiritual process.

If you don't even believe it is real or relevant,
I wouldn't waste any time energy or thought on it.

There are other ways to get to the same understanding.

I would stick to the ones that have value and meaning
to YOU. This sounds like someone else's process, not yours!

You might note this thread is supposed to be about scientific proof that God exists.

 

[emilynghiem]

I watched the first 10 minutes. If God existed before time, why couldn't the cause of the Big Bang have existed before time?

Exactly BULLDOG
No matter how we define God, the Universe or the Source of all Life,
there can always be something that caused that thing to come into existence.

The Universe, including God, can thus be seen as eternal or infinite, self existent, with no beginning and no end.

Since we as humans are finite, in knowledge language and perception, whatever is true about God, the Universe, or Life is faith based, can neither be proven nor disproven to exist or not.

Since this is faith based, what we rely on is whether we can reach agreement on what is true or right.

As long as we agree that God represents the greatest good or collective truth, we can still communicate and operate effectively. Regardless of proof or not.

Hebrews 3:4 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Again with an appeal to authority fallacy.

• Gravity. Job 26:7. He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. ...
• Water Cycle. Job 26:8. He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. ...
• The Earth's Core. Job 28: 5. The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire.

Chronicles 16:30 "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable'' A Geocentric model might be wrong. You have some handy 'quotes'?

Out planet follows a course, it's not simply drifting in space. How would ancient man know all this?

The Bible verse includes the term "immovable".

How did the gods get that so wrong?

Maybe it refers to climate change or flat earth believers. Who are proof of the immovable!

Or, those who wrote of an immovable earth believed the earth was exactly that. That's what they wrote.

Dear Hollie and BULLDOG
The fairest explanation I can find on this passage is that it doesn't mean the planet earth is fixed and immovable.
Because the people back then did not see or refer to earth as a planet.

They likely meant that the land they live on, their relationship to it, does not "shift or change in positions" like the stars do.
Like the phrase describing someone as having their "feet firmly planted on the ground."

They were using earth to mean man's relationship with God is firmly established, as in the center of man's Life.

They had no knowledge or opinion of anything else like life in the universe beyond that.

That is my best interpretation.

True, but a god who created everything, would know. The Bible isn't portrayed as the opinions of ancient people, as you seem to imply. It is called "THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" You should make the distinction, and define which parts are God's word, and which parts can only be considered to be the beliefs of people long ago, and then we can have a fair basis for discussion. You can't just jump back and forth between the two, depending on which one doesn't match the point you want to make.

Dear BULLDOG because each person's process of discerning the two is unique to them, unfortunately the process IS going to jump around and not be clear or linear.

In the end, we will come to agreements point by point, on key principles we agree on and find to be universal.

But this process is as unique as you are. As I am. And as the unique relationship that joins you and me.

So that is why it is going to look so scattered. We do not learn by collectively imposing "one way" on everyone. We learn by individual experience.

Where the order comes in, once you and I agree how to communicate and make sense to each other, then we can expand on this connection and work more effectively in other ways and relationships. We can build from there.

When everyone does that, we can all build more cooperative constructive relationships. And collectively we influence whole institutions and society to work more inclusively and cooperatively, respecting individuals.

The changes occur here and there.

Because people are so diverse, yes, it will look scattered.

I mostly agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that the bible is either the inerrant word of God, or it isn't. If you believe it isn't, then large chunks of Christian dogma become total crap. If you believe it is, then rational discussion is not possible.

Dear BULLDOG

1. Inspired by God means intended or designed to be written, edited and preserved as is.
This does not require it to be inerrant.
If people create their own conditions around inerrancy, that is part of their
spiritual process. It is still meant for them to process information that way.
So it is still part of the divine inspiration and design.

Two ways this could be described:

2. One way I heard it described is like a scale.
We do not need scales to be perfect to the .00001 decimal place
if all we are measuring is good enough for pounds and ounces.
So whatever interpretation is "good enough" to convey the relevant message
is what the Bible is used for. If there are conflicts, the point is for THOSE PEOPLE
in conflict to resolve their issues. Like I said, the process is UNIQUE to THOSE PEOPLE.

3. The way I see it is more like this:
Did you see the movie The Matrix where the visionary oracle tells
the main character "what he needs to hear for certain things to take place."
If he misinterprets the message, it is meant to be, so that he goes through
a process to fulfill the journey and purpose he is designed for.

So even the ambiguities and errors are part of the spiritual process
and divinely designed for a purpose.

In general for the Bible to be divinely inspired and universal
does not mean everyone has to see it and use it the same way.

The GENERAL spiritual process and message is universal,
that humanity moves from living by the letter of the law and retributive justice,
which gets corrupted by greed and leads to endless death war and destruction,
to living by the spirit of truth and restorative justice, which brings healing and lasting peace.

But the PROCESS itself of reconciling and growing through stages
can involve any number of approaches and lessons. So anyone
can get things out of the bad, true or false, good or bad, as part of their process.

That is still divinely inspired, and is still that person's valid process of
working out their own understanding about truth and life
and relations with others in society etc.

The Bible being the INERRANT WORD OF GOD is a major tenet of Christianity. What the Bible says is real and literal. If you don't believe me, then ask any religious nut. Whatever you are describing is not Christianity.

PS the main "tenet in Christianity" is forgiveness
as the greatest act of love or charity.

So forgiveness does not require our understanding
or interpretation of the Bible to be perfect.

We can learn to receive forgiveness, grace and healing
with or without the Bible, with or without contradictions
and huge errors or conflicting interpretations etc.

And the message in the Bible about divine forgiveness
bringing healing and salvation to our relations and to
humanity is STILL TRUE AND UNIVERSAL.

So it does not depend on the literal Bible, which
is mainly a TOOL for teaching the process of
forgiveness and correction to those who follow it.

For those who follow other cultural laws or systems,
the path to reconciling in truth would use those relative systems
that people normally use to communicate and resolve issues
among themselves.

If people use science, then science is used to correct and develop understanding over time.

If people use Buddhism, or use the Bill of Rights and Constitution to correct themselves
and each other, then those laws are used as tools relative to the audience or community.

None of these have to be perfect.

They just have to be good enough to COMMUNICATE
the truth that THOSE PEOPLE are trying to convey and establish.

Concepts don't always translate perfectly between English, Spanish, French etc.
So people use the closest equivalent culturally when it comes to idioms,
and try to capture the SPIRIT of the expression.

It isn't going to be perfect, because people's perceptions
and frame of reference are different and unique to them and their culture.

None of the things you list ever claimed to be perfect, or the only way. The bible and it's adherents claim both.

Dear BULLDOG
If other people claim that, that is their business.
Clearly that is not a universal tenet of Christianity
because I don't require that and I know other people who don't either.

The person who explained using the Bible like a scale
so it didn't have to be used perfectly is also Christian.

If you do not believe in Christianity and the Bible that is not your battle.
That is for Christians who want to argue that, that is THEIR process.

I would not recommend that nonbelievers try to resolve issues
between Christians.

The way I've seen Christians resolve differences is when
they respect and believe each other to be fellow believers,
they will NOT accept any such corrections from a nonbeliever.

That is like asking someone who does not speak French
to resolve an argument over interpreting a French poem
between two native French speakers. It will likely take
another French speaker to resolve conflicts between
fellow French speakers.

If the Bible does not speak to you, there is NO SENSE in
you using it or arguing over it.

I don't get into arguments over physics, big bang,
singularities and how what created which thing when etc.

That is NOT my language, so I let people argue over
that who get something out of that conversation.

I don't. So I use Constitutional language to resolve
issues with fellow Democrats, Republicans and other
political advocates.

I use the Bible when it helps communicate with
fellow Christians. But if it doesn't work or help,
I will go use something else. Usually personal experiences
to share a common understanding or solve problems.

Whatever you are citing sounds like
"other people's issues"

That is THEIR spiritual process.

If you don't even believe it is real or relevant,
I wouldn't waste any time energy or thought on it.

There are other ways to get to the same understanding.

I would stick to the ones that have value and meaning
to YOU. This sounds like someone else's process, not yours!

You might note this thread is supposed to be about scientific proof that God exists.

Yes, and that is why I offered a better approach:
of replicating medical studies on the effects of spiritual
healing, which demonstrates the process taught in
Christianity about forgiveness enabling correction.

This universal process of forgiveness correlating
with better rates of recovery, healing and reconciliation
and restoration of healthy mind body and relationships
can be captured and replicated by scientifically quantifiable
research studies, using medical conditions or sociological problems
as the target to measure conditions before and after the process.

At the same time, the degrees of unforgiveness correlating
with failure to heal, reconcile or restore mind, body and relationships
can also be quantified and compared.

Trying to use the Bible to "prove" God is like
trying to use variables like X Y and Z to prove
1 2 and 3 exist. No, X Y and Z are variables that
are used to express relationships between existing values.
The variables or language used do not "prove
those values exist," but people assume those values exist where
the variables are used to communicate ideas about the
relations and nature of the concepts being discussed.

I find it more helpful to AGREE what values people
believe in common, first, then second agree what
Variable or terms to use to express those values.

So if people believe in Truth, Justice and Peace as UNIVERSAL VALUES
then we might agree that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit
are VARIABLES/Collective Symbols for those three principles
that guide or govern humanity universally.

If people do NOT agree to use terms God/Jesus/Holy Spirit
then we can agree to use SECULAR terms of Truth/Justice/Peace
and still have the same conversations about how
to ACHIEVE "truth justice and peace" using
SECULAR TERMS and not mess with religious symbolism for that.

How does substituting equivalent terms relate to scientific proof?

We can conduct sociological studies by documents statistics
to show correlations as follows:
* ability of nontheists and theists to reconcile their language differences
and AGREE that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are interchangeable with
Truth/Justice/Peace
CORRELATES with the ability of those people
to forgive and include each other equally despite these differences in beliefs
* inability of nontheists and theists to reconcile
CORRELATES with unforgiveness and rejection/exclusion
of each other because of these differences in beliefs

Thus we could prove it isn't a matter of someone's beliefs, whether theist or nontheist,
but a matter of forgiveness or unforgiveness
if they can AGREE what is meant by God
or if they continue to disagree and do not recognize
the equivalent meanings of God using secular terms.

 

[Moonglow]

Oh, gawd. Yet another in the endless "proof of the gawds" threads that always fail to provide proof.

Hollie, First there is only one GOD, and HE is not constrained because HE created TIME; as well as, SPACE and MATTER. You are constrained, because you must willingly take time to view data. If you choose to ignore select data, then you do so most likely to continue to dwell in your own comfortable ideology.

Good, now explain how God was created.

 

[emilynghiem]

Oh, gawd. Yet another in the endless "proof of the gawds" threads that always fail to provide proof.

Hollie, First there is only one GOD, and HE is not constrained because HE created TIME; as well as, SPACE and MATTER. You are constrained, because you must willingly take time to view data. If you choose to ignore select data, then you do so most likely to continue to dwell in your own comfortable ideology.

Good, now explain how God was created.

This is like explaining where does LIFE come from.
Believing in God's will is like believing in Good Will for all Humanity.
Where does that Good Will come from.

Believing in Jesus is like believing in Justice.
If nobody has seen this perfect Justice
why do we keep demanding it and asking for it
as if this standard really exists?

We have inherent desire or faith in a higher Justice
and Greater Good than what we see now.

So that is like having faith in Justice or God we have never seen.

 

[Colin norris]

Oh, gawd. Yet another in the endless "proof of the gawds" threads that always fail to provide proof.

Hollie, First there is only one GOD, and HE is not constrained because HE created TIME; as well as, SPACE and MATTER. You are constrained, because you must willingly take time to view data. If you choose to ignore select data, then you do so most likely to continue to dwell in your own comfortable ideology.

There is no God and never has been. I challenge anyone on earth to provide any respectable evidence including you. I know you can't but If you can babble on with your religious rubbish forever. It means absolutely nothing without proof.

It's delusional people like you who chose to ignore select data. What you believe is rubbish. Data comes from science not filthy religion.

 

[GLASNOST]

When are we getting to the scientific proof? ... I want to look over the math if you don't mind ...

Join the group. We are all waiting.

Dear GLASNOST and ReinyDays
Proof that the spiritual process is universal
is relative to different people. Healing is universal, and can apply
to any number of conditions. But what matters and changes
someone's mind depends on what they relate to which is relative.

I find that one of the more helpful ways to demonstrate
how the universal spiritual process works is to understand
how prayers for forgiveness of past conditions can
transform and heal people as well as relationships.

If you both want to see a demonstration of how spiritual healing works,
let's pick something where we can show the difference it makes
if people agree to receive forgiveness and healing.

it can be people from conflicting groups that want to agree on a common solution.

It can be a medical study, such as finding subjects willing to undergo spiritual
healing to record the impact on their health conditions in a measurable quantifiable way.

The study I referenced was on Rheumatoid Arthritis.

A relatively simple condition that could be used for a replicated study
are addictive or phobic "eating disorders" where the person's mental
or spiritual state is stuck in either guilt or fear about eating or gaining weight.
So changing that state of mind is something that could be quantified,
if we can find patients and doctors willing to set up a formal medical study on that.

I also received msgs from a new contact online who has a young family member
suffering from severely dangerous homicidal and violent obsessions
and is currently institutionalized for safety reasons while undergoing treatment.

This is something that could possibly be treated, cured or made manageable
by spiritual healing therapy, although the person may still need to stay detained.
At least the "before and after" observations could be medically documents
to show any changes or improvement to the patient's ability to control
and avoid the chronic rage and violent impulses.

Pick some issue or some condition where you would like to see
the impact of healing.

And I can contact the sources I know of with reputable effective history of healing,
and see what it takes to replicate the team prayer studies that were done on RA.

I don't care what people believe or why they do as long as they get out da' way when they see me coming. And if they are shoving their crap down someone else throat they would be smart to wait until I am out of earshot.

 

[GLASNOST]

Good, now explain how God was created.

Show me your god and I'll tell you. This one was made by Geppetto:

 

[GLASNOST]

There is no God and never has been. I challenge anyone on earth to provide any respectable evidence ...... Data comes from science not filthy religion.

The facts (so far) are in your favour.

 

[Colin norris]

There is no God and never has been. I challenge anyone on earth to provide any respectable evidence ...... Data comes from science not filthy religion.

The facts (so far) are in your favour.

I'll be so bold to predict that ehileever human beings inhabit this planet and ads holes point to the ground, my prediction will remain in fact.