Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Texas Public School Bible Classes Teach Races Come from Noah’s Sons, B


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 343
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Bible is true, except for when parts are proven to be false, at which point they become "metaphorical".

-k

God was not a literary master by the looks of it, otherwise I guess footnotes explaining things would have been used. Not even a glossary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible is true, except for when parts are proven to be false, at which point they become "metaphorical".

-k

I don't think any have been proven to be false, since there is no proof that will satisfy the believers. Ancient fossils found in ancient geological strata? Why, God created that to test the faith of believers, who know the earth is only 6000 years old. He can do anything, you know. Geology and the physics and chemistry it's based on are obviously false. For one thing not all scientists agree with each other 100% on every facet of physics and chemistry, never mind evolution.

But, come on, we're having way too much fun here. As Betsy has said herself, we would just ignore her otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if Christians fought against people who work on the Sabbath with the same ferocity they fight against homosexuality.

-k

rolleyes.gif

Yes, imagine that.

When people refuse to use their God-given freedom to choose and instead, bully their way in by invoking their so-called rights to be able to observe their Sabbath, and demand that Sabbath should be anyday that suits them....and that the Pastors and priests from all Christian churches should be preaching 24/7!

Of course to them, creating their own church that will cater to this demand is out of the question.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting, dear....

Acceptance of homosexuality by some churches happened only in the last few decades or so...

You're advocating that just because others had done so, therefore we all should.


No....the Christian God does not bow to the ways of this world. I stand firmly by what I've stated before: To be a Christian is to agree and follow the stipulations of God.

That homosexuality has been deemed by some Christian denominations as not a sin only proves my point. In fact, the existence of so many different Christian denominations--Presbyterian, Anglican, Unitarian, Catholic, Evangelical, Calvinist, etc.--proves it even better. So too does the shift in practices within some of the aforementioned. There is no one, universal set of Christian rules or values.


I never once said it should be any different. I, along with Mighty AC, only said you have a choice and explained how that is. You are the one speaking about an absence of choice; there's one god and one set of rules issued by it. Taking that to its logical conclusion, you believe that just because you hold to the dogma of one particular Christian sect, all who call themselves Christians should so as to not be liars. Do you think members of the United Church are real Christians? Is anyone who follows a denomination other than your own?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No....the Christian God does not bow to the ways of this world. I stand firmly by what I've stated before: To be a Christian is to agree and follow the stipulations of God.

As previously discussed, the Bible calls for the death of nonbelievers and so the church slaughtered them for hundreds of years. You claimed these were the acts of evil men; but, weren't they just following the stipulations of your god?

I assume that you personally refrain from murdering witches, hindus and disobedient children; so, you or the leaders of your sect must have decided to ignore some of your god's stipulations at some point.

So, to hitch a ride on g_bambino's excellent question, are you sure that you are a 'real' Christian? If so, how can you be sure?

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the Bible call for the death of non-believers? If it's in the old testament, Jesus specifically came to obviate it. (So I don't understand why it's part of he Christian bible.) I can't see Jesus calling for the death of non-believers - hell he was trying to make his followers better Jews, not Christians. He was real peeved that the non-Jews seemed to be following his teachings better than his Jewish followers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Acceptance of homosexuality by some churches happened only in the last few decades or so - due to pressures from the current societal climes, and as means to keep their churches intact - what with threats of split-ups.

You're advocating that just because others had done so, therefore we all should. Just because other churches had decided to veer away from the specific stipulation, therefore it should be an acceptable choice for a Christian to consider. Well, here's an old adage from my grandmother: just because your friend decided to eat poo doesn't mean it's alright to eat it.

No....the Christian God does not bow to the ways of this world. I stand firmly by what I've stated before: To be a Christian is to agree and follow the stipulations of God.

Anyway....I have no wish to argue the doctrine with anyone who has no understanding of it. It's futile.

The same could be said of the acceptance of abolishing slavery a couple of centuries ago. The progressives who began the abolishionist movements in England did not have tradition behind them when they were preaching reforms. In the U.S., entire churches like the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians etc. split over the slavery issue and have remained divided ever since. Why is slavery today considered unchristian by most, when it was sanctioned up until the 1800's in America? The most likely answer was that the change was needed because of the changing attitudes that were seeded by recognizing and expanding the rights of the individual. Even the framers of the Constitution, who were trying to figure out how to put together a secular, democratic state when it was made up of abolitionist and slave-holding states could not resolve that question and put it off for future generations to deal with....which they did with the bloody Civil War of the 1860's!

Today, even young evangelicals are pulling away from their churches and demanding changes on social issues such as gay rights, because they are growing up in a world where previously secretive, shamed and closeted homosexuals no longer have to hide in the shadows or flee to gay ghettos in major cities. Today, in many areas, they can live openly and let everyone know they are homosexuals. The younger evangelicals may also have some awareness of the new science which has shed much light on how our sexual orientations are determined. The takeaway from the reports I have read is that while there is quite a bit of fluidity in female sexual orientation (many more women than men identify as bisexual, or switch orientation during their lives) it does not happen with gay men....no different than heterosexual men suddenly deciding that they are gay! That, btw is why we are always suspicious of the fervent evangelists who are the most obsessed with 'the sin of homosexuality.' How many times have they turned out to be gays themselves who spent a life brainwashed to hate themselves and their feelings and seeking relief by railing against homosexuality. Most of us who are straight have never considered this issue priority#1 regardless of how we felt about the issue.

So, if younger evangelicals are being turned off by the churches that preach that their gay friends are sinners going to hell, and they feel have unrealistic sexual morality standards to begin with, not to mention see these churches as too political - too close to Republican politics in the U.S., where the majority of young evangelicals consider climate change a real and serious issue...after all, they will spend more of their lives dealing with it than we will....then it looks like it is time for the zeitgeist of church thinking to edge forward also! Just as with slavery, it will divide churches, leaving some on both sides of a bitter dispute; but eventually the rejectionist holdouts die of old age, just as the pro-slavery segrationists died out until they had no more influence.

Why Young Evangelicals Are Leaving The Church - CNN

And the most recent episode of PBS's Religion and Ethics Newsweekly had an interesting report on the problems that Focus on the Family and evangelical churches in their home base of Colorado Springs Colorado are facing in trying to deal with younger evangelicals who are drifting away or demanding change, and the leaders who are trying to respond to the challenge while maintaining what they see as biblical principles. I listen to the audio podcast upload of the show; the PBS video is posted here. This feature begins about 3 minutes in to the broadcast.

Regarding the wider issue of what we consider secularism, I have done much reading in recent weeks, but haven't felt the time to post challenges to how secularism is presented by both the religious opponents of secularism, and the non-religious and atheist supporters of secularism. What I am finding of late, reading through the history of where the notion of secularism began in western culture is that it is a product of the Enlightenment, and if it has an absolute beginning, it would be with the dualistic philosophy of Rene Descartes 300 years ago, when he, like virtually all of his contemporaries were Christians, but seen the prevailing thinking of the time which believed in animist life forces pervading nature, as being a hindrance to progress. Descartes wanted a clear line drawn between what is divine and what is natural; so in dealing with the human mind, he created a philosophy to try to explain mental function now known as Cartesian Dualism - here, the brain (what little was understood during his time) as well as the body are inert matter, no different than the rocks and the soil around us. But, what made us alive was the infusion of soul, or mind - interfacing with the pineal gland under the brain according to his theory so that the soul could direct the body.

What has been missed regarding the separation of divine and matter by Descartes and later philosophers like Immanuel Kant, who thought out a complete separation of science from religion....putting them in the separate magisterias where religion would run the spiritual life, while science and government would function in a secular realm where religion is kept out. Over the years, the scientific establishment found less and less of merit regarding religion and even philosophy - as many of the harshest critics of religion today, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have as much contempt for philosophy as they do for theology. They want a world where science answers all questions and is even the source of spiritual contemplation.

So, it's worth taking a step back and look at the history of modern secularism and consider that it didn't begin with dogmatic atheists trying to destroy religion! Instead, secularism which wants an unenchanted world that we can freely exploit, was the product of earlier religious thinkers who wanted religion out of the way of development - which at that time was exploiting the land, mining and building factories. The change in thinking about nature was every bit as much a catalyst for the Industrial Era as any inventions that the Enlightenment created.

So, after Christianity created this Frankenstein monster of a secular world devoid of any spiritual appreciation of nature and life itself, I would like to know how religion finds its place again. One place it won't be found is in the modern fundamentalist theologies that follow right along with the secular libertarian dismantling and destruction of nature for useable products.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the Bible call for the death of non-believers? If it's in the old testament, Jesus specifically came to obviate it. (So I don't understand why it's part of he Christian bible.) I can't see Jesus calling for the death of non-believers - hell he was trying to make his followers better Jews, not Christians. He was real peeved that the non-Jews seemed to be following his teachings better than his Jewish followers.

Betsy said that to "be a Christian is to agree and follow the stipulations of God." Are God and Jesus not the same dude? Can we scrap the old testament now or does some of it still apply? If some of it does apply, who decides which parts?

According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus says the old testament applies. However, Romans and Galatians say that the OT no longer counts. How do Christians know that they are the 'real' deal and that the other sects are just posers?

Some sects accept evolution but Betsy's group only partially accepts it based on passages in Genesis. In both cases men made the distinction between God's word and metaphor. How do we know who made the right call? Are both groups still 'real' Christians?

Jesus condoned slavery but men have decided that slavery is immoral. Are we more ethical than Jesus or is slavery not a big deal?

In short, there are endless sects, doctrines and personal interpretations that fall under the blanket of Christianity. They can't agree on the wishes or their own god yet many feel confident enough in their own interpretation to impose it on society and deny rights to others.

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to post
Share on other sites

The same could be said of the acceptance of abolishing slavery a couple of centuries ago. The progressives who began the abolishionist movements in England did not have tradition behind them when they were preaching reforms. In the U.S., entire churches like the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians etc. split over the slavery issue and have remained divided ever since. Why is slavery today considered unchristian by most, when it was sanctioned up until the 1800's in America? The most likely answer was that the change was needed because of the changing attitudes that were seeded by recognizing and expanding the rights of the individual. Even the framers of the Constitution, who were trying to figure out how to put together a secular, democratic state when it was made up of abolitionist and slave-holding states could not resolve that question and put it off for future generations to deal with....which they did with the bloody Civil War of the 1860's!

Today, even young evangelicals are pulling away from their churches and demanding changes on social issues such as gay rights, because they are growing up in a world where previously secretive, shamed and closeted homosexuals no longer have to hide in the shadows or flee to gay ghettos in major cities. Today, in many areas, they can live openly and let everyone know they are homosexuals. The younger evangelicals may also have some awareness of the new science which has shed much light on how our sexual orientations are determined. The takeaway from the reports I have read is that while there is quite a bit of fluidity in female sexual orientation (many more women than men identify as bisexual, or switch orientation during their lives) it does not happen with gay men....no different than heterosexual men suddenly deciding that they are gay! That, btw is why we are always suspicious of the fervent evangelists who are the most obsessed with 'the sin of homosexuality.' How many times have they turned out to be gays themselves who spent a life brainwashed to hate themselves and their feelings and seeking relief by railing against homosexuality. Most of us who are straight have never considered this issue priority#1 regardless of how we felt about the issue.

So, if younger evangelicals are being turned off by the churches that preach that their gay friends are sinners going to hell, and they feel have unrealistic sexual morality standards to begin with, not to mention see these churches as too political - too close to Republican politics in the U.S., where the majority of young evangelicals consider climate change a real and serious issue...after all, they will spend more of their lives dealing with it than we will....then it looks like it is time for the zeitgeist of church thinking to edge forward also! Just as with slavery, it will divide churches, leaving some on both sides of a bitter dispute; but eventually the rejectionist holdouts die of old age, just as the pro-slavery segrationists died out until they had no more influence.

Why Young Evangelicals Are Leaving The Church - CNN

And the most recent episode of PBS's Religion and Ethics Newsweekly had an interesting report on the problems that Focus on the Family and evangelical churches in their home base of Colorado Springs Colorado are facing in trying to deal with younger evangelicals who are drifting away or demanding change, and the leaders who are trying to respond to the challenge while maintaining what they see as biblical principles. I listen to the audio podcast upload of the show; the PBS video is posted here. This feature begins about 3 minutes in to the broadcast.

Regarding the wider issue of what we consider secularism, I have done much reading in recent weeks, but haven't felt the time to post challenges to how secularism is presented by both the religious opponents of secularism, and the non-religious and atheist supporters of secularism. What I am finding of late, reading through the history of where the notion of secularism began in western culture is that it is a product of the Enlightenment, and if it has an absolute beginning, it would be with the dualistic philosophy of Rene Descartes 300 years ago, when he, like virtually all of his contemporaries were Christians, but seen the prevailing thinking of the time which believed in animist life forces pervading nature, as being a hindrance to progress. Descartes wanted a clear line drawn between what is divine and what is natural; so in dealing with the human mind, he created a philosophy to try to explain mental function now known as Cartesian Dualism - here, the brain (what little was understood during his time) as well as the body are inert matter, no different than the rocks and the soil around us. But, what made us alive was the infusion of soul, or mind - interfacing with the pineal gland under the brain according to his theory so that the soul could direct the body.

What has been missed regarding the separation of divine and matter by Descartes and later philosophers like Immanuel Kant, who thought out a complete separation of science from religion....putting them in the separate magisterias where religion would run the spiritual life, while science and government would function in a secular realm where religion is kept out. Over the years, the scientific establishment found less and less of merit regarding religion and even philosophy - as many of the harshest critics of religion today, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have as much contempt for philosophy as they do for theology. They want a world where science answers all questions and is even the source of spiritual contemplation.

So, it's worth taking a step back and look at the history of modern secularism and consider that it didn't begin with dogmatic atheists trying to destroy religion! Instead, secularism which wants an unenchanted world that we can freely exploit, was the product of earlier religious thinkers who wanted religion out of the way of development - which at that time was exploiting the land, mining and building factories. The change in thinking about nature was every bit as much a catalyst for the Industrial Era as any inventions that the Enlightenment created.

So, after Christianity created this Frankenstein monster of a secular world devoid of any spiritual appreciation of nature and life itself, I would like to know how religion finds its place again. One place it won't be found is in the modern fundamentalist theologies that follow right along with the secular libertarian dismantling and destruction of nature for useable products.

Apostasy is very much in the Bible. Christians - including priests - turning their backs on the faith.

Nothing new about The Church being under siege - nor other interpretations of Christianity. They had that problem during the time of Paul. Jesus had warned us of those things.

WIP

The takeaway from the reports I have read is that while there is quite a bit of fluidity in female sexual orientation (many more women than men identify as bisexual, or switch orientation during their lives) it does not happen with gay men....no different than heterosexual men suddenly deciding that they are gay! That, btw is why we are always suspicious of the fervent evangelists who are the most obsessed with 'the sin of homosexuality.'

While there could be homosexual priests struggling with their homosexuality (thus to some of us they seem "obsessed" with the sin of homosexuality).....unfortunately, only to succumb to it (perhaps led astray by the homosexuals that's already in the church).

It is no stretch of the imagination to see that a lot of these homosexual priests are homosexual-pedophiles, who saw the church as a playground to be able to indulge in their perversities with children. There is a "magic age" that homosexuals prefer to introduce another male to homosexuality - if I'm not mistaken, it's 12 or 14? If I recall correctly, it's been in the topic that was posted years ago regarding NAMBLA (North America Man-Boy Love Association).

Why do we see men preferring to be boy scout leaders, or hockey coaches? The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are homosexual men. Lest someone says that most homosexuals are not pedophiles - nobody said they were.

So-called studies nowadays are of course, suspect - we've seen a lot of biased so-called studies that endorses their ideology - from evolution, to environment to lifestyles etc.,

Perhaps it wouldn't be long that we can justify the rape of an infant when some studies reveal that pedophiles who like infants and toddlers couldn't help what they are - and the all-inclusive society will try to accomodate to make such acts legal.

The homosexual scandal that's rocking the Vatican right now is just the latest. Italian newspapers allege that the reason the Pope resigned is due to more scandals that are about to erupt.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 7:04 AM

Report on Gay Cabal in Vatican Forced Pope to Resign…?

http://www.theipinionsjournal.com/2013/02/report-on-gay-mafia-in-vatican-forced-pope-to-resign/

There was an investigated report on this homosexual cabal years ago, also in one of the old threads.

From a logical point of view, why would it be surprising to see the church as one of the choice places to infiltrate by homosexual predators and pedophiles? What better authority to have and abuse than wearing the frock that gives one the "power," being identified as a "representative" of God? It's better than being a teacher...or a daycare provider.

From a Christian point of view, it is but an evidence that Satan knows how to manipulate human weaknesses to do his bidding. We see the results of his works. What better way to turn people away from God?

And from a Christian point of view, too...one should feel compassion for a homosexual who struggles to be righteous in the eyes of God. It is the sin that is wrong, not the temptation.

So no, it didn't start with modern atheists/secularists except that the challenges and tactics being used by God-bashers these days are quite different....more sophisticated in the ways of politics and manipulations. There is no denying that it's the time of secularism, and relativism rules!

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Betsy said that to "be a Christian is to agree and follow the stipulations of God." Are God and Jesus not the same dude? Can we scrap the old testament now or does some of it still apply? If some of it does apply, who decides which parts?

Have I not explained this before in so many threads?

Who sez the Old Testament is being scrapped???? No need to read any farther....as no doubt, the rest are just ala-Dawkins claims complete with hysterics.

Like I said, like some of the new atheists here, you hardly understand anything about the Bible - therefore it's not something you should debate about. At least, do your homework and read some previous posts, and try to learn the basics. It doesn't make any sense that you'd argue about something you clearly have no understanding about.

And I have no wish to spoonfeed you the same things that had already been argued to death in other posts.

Try the thread "Questions, Criticisms etc..," Come to think of it, I should update that.....

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

The same could be said of the acceptance of abolishing slavery a couple of centuries ago. The progressives who began the abolishionist movements in England did not have tradition behind them when they were preaching reforms. In the U.S., entire churches like the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians etc. split over the slavery issue and have remained divided ever since. Why is slavery today considered unchristian by most, when it was sanctioned up until the 1800's in America? The most likely answer was that the change was needed because of the changing attitudes that were seeded by recognizing and expanding the rights of the individual. Even the framers of the Constitution, who were trying to figure out how to put together a secular, democratic state when it was made up of abolitionist and slave-holding states could not resolve that question and put it off for future generations to deal with....which they did with the bloody Civil War of the 1860's!

It's nothing about being progressives or not - but rather what is clearly wrong! That those who favored slavery then were like the relativists today?

Then, it's all about the economic ramifications. Everybody knew it was wrong!

If I recall correctly, you studied the Bible, Wip....so you must know the analogy of slavery and sin (Israel's freedom from slavery), the point God was trying to make in the OT.

Speaking of economic ramifications - that's the new battlecry for same-sex marriage. That's in the news lately. It'll be good for the economy - sez advocates!

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who sez the Old Testament is being scrapped???? No need to read any farther....as no doubt, the rest are just ala-Dawkins claims complete with hysterics.

I didn't say the OT is being scrapped. In response to this statement by you:

I stand firmly by what I've stated before: To be a Christian is to agree and follow the stipulations of God.

I asked these questions:

As previously discussed, the Bible calls for the death of nonbelievers and so the church slaughtered them for hundreds of years. You claimed these were the acts of evil men; but, weren't they just following the stipulations of your god?

I assume that you personally refrain from murdering witches, hindus and disobedient children; so, you or the leaders of your sect must have decided to ignore some of your god's stipulations at some point.

So, to hitch a ride on g_bambino's excellent question, are you sure that you are a 'real' Christian? If so, how can you be sure?

Canuckistani then mentioned that Jesus came along to obviate the OT. Hence my questions about which parts still apply.

To be serious though, as a Christian how can you be certain which passages are acceptable to ignore and which must be followed? With over 40,000 Christian denominations why do you think your sect has interpreted and cherry picked the Bible more appropriately than the others?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be serious though, as a Christian how can you be certain which passages are acceptable to ignore and which must be followed? With over 40,000 Christian denominations why do you think your sect has interpreted and cherry picked the Bible more appropriately than the others?

The core message of the Bible has never changed. Refer to th OP in the topic, The Bible (the explanation about the Bible).

The truth of the Scriptures come from the original manuscript, in Greek and Aramaic. Thus I advice you, if you truly want to understand the Bible, you've got to do some Bible Study, preferably the one that explains word translations, customs and cultures of the day, etc.., My Bible study is KJV. I am still studying...and will keep on.

KJV (1611) still stands as accurate as any English version.

Btw, we're still finding new manuscripts practically everyday......in fact one valuable manuscript was recently discovered in the New York Public Library - how is that for cool!smile.png

At the same time modern scholarship has improved so much nuances of the original language are being revealed, but nothing that has been discovered had changed historical doctrinal truths.

We're talking about translations here as opposed to manuscripts.

The original manuscripts - ranging in date from late 1st century up until Rennaissance time - are startlingly consistent, especially when you consider that these were copied over and over again - by dedicated scholars and monks in less than modern comfort - and copied from different manuscripts, and yet still they`re consistent.

Radical changes that accommodate homosexuality and feminism - since I suppose those are the issues you care about - were not in the older text but rather came about in modern times. That`s why now, it`s important for Christians to be aware of the existence of bibles that were manipulated to suit modern times.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're talking about translations here as opposed to manuscripts.

No. We're talking about interpretations and selective readings. (Do you expect us to believe the calls in the Bible for the death of non-believers were simply mis-translated?) You therefore haven't answered the question.

Radical changes that accommodate homosexuality and feminism - since I suppose those are the issues you care about - were not in the older text but rather came about in modern times. That`s why now, it`s important for Christians to be aware of the existence of bibles that were manipulated to suit modern times.

What, specifically, were these "radical changes" to the text of the Bible?

[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to post
Share on other sites

The bible has always been a political document. OT stuff about why it was right for the Israelis to holocaust the Caananites - because God told them to - is just politica excuse making. The Gospels match the times they were written in, with John being much more anti Jewish because by that time the Jews were persectuing the Christians. The council of Nicea accepting only the 4 gospels out of the hundreds that exist, because they matched the aims of the council. Etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Similar Content

    • By Regina
      The Canadian Government is planning to waste at least $235 million for a project, The Thirty Meter Telescope, which won't even be built on Canadian soil.  The Thirty Meter Telescope most likely will employ few Canadians.  To make matters worse, the telescope will be built in Hawaii, USA on land which is both environmentally and religiously sensitive to the indigenous Hawaiians.  I hope everybody will protest against the waste of tax money and human rights abuses.  Please sign the petition to stop the injustice happening within the USA at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.  I am posting a link to an online petition against the Thirty Meter Telescope and waste of taxpayer money: https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-a-call-to-divest-canada-s-research-funding-for-the-thirty-meter-telescope-on-mauna-kea
      Please tell your friends to sign the petition too.  Thank you for your time.
    • By mazerunner
      Of course, I have nothing against the religious beliefs of people who adhere to their religion, however, for me personally, marrying of an adult man to a girl is immoral and I can not react indifferently to this topic.
      Early marriage and early onset of sexual activity have long-term consequences for women's health.
      Also, in poor countries, a young mother, being forced to quit her education and begin to do household work, is deprived of the opportunity to get a profession and is economically or completely dependent on her husband.
    • By Exegesisme
      3 Legislation for Investing in Meditation and Genome, What They Should Do​

      By Exegesisme

      On my experience of meditation, and the exegesis of the experience and other human experiences recorded in classical literatures, there is supernatural world, and supernatural beings can communicate with any natural being and any living being. Human dream is the phenomena of the interactions among information of genome, information of new experience from environment, and information from supernatural beings. I have kept a record about more than 1 million words around my supernatural experience. They very likely are aliens who human beings want to look for scientifically.

      Through proper training of meditation, a human meditator can achieve a state of various inner senses, they communicate with human through human inner senses. Sometimes a common human feels a sudden fear without obvious reason, maybe a warning from them. Messages from them usually are subtle and weak, so human beings can live a life without paying clear attention at them. As an example, people can simply ignore dream. This situation somewhat likes human could live with classical physics before the discoveries of theories of relativity and quantum.

      The messages of the communication may be coded into unknown neutrinos and/or gravitons. In human knowledge these two sorts of particles can go into human body. As a human jumps up and gets a feeling of gravity, the person may not know the gravity is not only a force, but also huge particles with huge information. Usually human beings ignore the information coded in gravity, as a student in a classroom ignores the teaching of a teacher.

      Genome is not only functional as the core of general biology, and also as the core of spirit, mind, soul, emotion and knowledge. Genome records message not only through the order of chemical bases, and also through electromagnetic interaction of the charged particles in DNA molecules and gravitational interaction of all real particles in DNA molecules. The supernatural phenomena appeared in the state of meditation, sleep and dream are evidences of these interactions, and human upset with the supernatural phenomena is the object of psychiatric study.

      All human religions and human mythologies are from the same source, and through with different exegesis of different denomination. My experience is partially linked with Buddhism, my exegesis is based on Christianity and modern sciences. The supernatural beings also have discussed other religions with me. They often give false messages to encourage irrational behaviors, but allow human meditator to debate with them rationally. You can imagine the dialogues between Moses and God, and between John and various angels.

      Their grammars are somewhat different from human grammars. They like to use one word to express different things. The meditator often hear they say one word to mean every possible thing. There is a hierarchical structure of meaning in their expression, from surface to deep, and even radiating out. Their messages usually are very vague, and sometimes consciously misleading, and also guiding human towards new knowledge, forming hypothesis about phenomena in unknown realm.

      They warned me yesterday night evil cults would emerge enormously, if meditators half rationally and half irrationally accept their irrational encouragements. With the popularity of meditation, I believe this warning. Before this time, they had already discussed with me several times about possible new legislation related to the relationship between human world and supernatural world.

      I have a feeling they take us human as the objects of their experimental observation, which may be a proper hypothesis to explain the very complex interactions between them and us human, and their attitudes towards the results of these interactions. We, human, as a whole, need through legislation to tell them our general attitude to the relationship with them. I believe there is perfect one and only perfect one god, who also guides them.

      With these knowledge more witnesses, more evidences, and more public, I believe human society may be heavily reshaped. All human behaviors are recorded in their observation, this fact will become a part of human self-consciousness, and human beings will much more concern the long term influences of their behaviors on each moment.

      I suggest the parliament hold a hearing, to collect witnesses and evidences of supernatural phenomena from meditators, as preparation for legislation in the relationship between human beings and supernatural beings, making the constitutional expression "the supremacy of god" meaningful, and as adjustment for investing in the field of meditation and genome. I believe this is the most important thing the current parliament should do.
    • By Exegesisme
      The Reunion of Faith and Science, Creation and Evolution​
      By Exegesisme
      I do believe that Bible is a book about facts of body, emotion, soul, mind and spirit. Nowadays, a human understands bible in very narrow way which causes conflicts between faith and science, creation and evolution. This is false of human.
      To my understanding, Darwin was just unknowingly in the grace of God and found the real way through which God created everything. The only difference between the Bible and the theory of Darwin is that Bible is about the knowledge of everything, and the theory of Darwin is about the knowledge from human thinking in a very limited domain and on very limited facts in that domain.
      If we understand Bible with open mind, we can explain everything on Bible that today science can explain. However, the authorities of religions persist their explanations, which make all major conflicts between faith and science, creation and evolution. We should learn from Newton, do more job on the reunion of faith and science, creation and evolution, And do not learn anything from Kant, he was a man who was arrogantly to limit the domain of God, and to open the door for human demon.
    • By Exegesisme
      I am glad to discuss with you both.
      I see a difference between you as following:
      Freddy​ : If anything , this system we have is as ideal as it gets. The only issues are always at the top. Of course accountability is difficult to execute at the top without having to much power in one hand.
      Moonlight Graham​: Capitalism is an economic system that takes advantage of the selfish side of human nature. What if an economic system were designed that was both efficient and that took advantage of the altruistic side of human nature?
      I agree with both of you, and have a theory (my own theory) to include your ideas.
      I am top-ism, which you can think as the name of my theory, which means always thinking for the being over top and transcending top, and refining any thing under top to the top and then transcending it to the being over top.
      Top-ism can be used for faith, any beauty under top can be refined to the top, and then believe a much more beautiful vision of it with the being over top. If see top as now, then under top as history, and over top as future.
      To Freddy, "issues are always at the top", so we need creatively to create the being over the top to avoid these issues at the top. You know, for a specific system, there is a specific set of issues which can not solved in the system, we need a new system to transcend the system and then avoid its specific issues all together.
      To Moonlight Graham, I admit there is altruistic side of human nature, and even in some relations this side is very strong. However, usually, the selfish side of human nature is more general and deep, and we can use the selfish side to explain the altruistic side, and we can not use the altruistic side to explain the selfish side. Therefore, I created a theory of morality firstly on human selfish nature , and around this core, let the selfish benefits and altruistic benefits grow alternatively. This moral theory with top-ism together, I hope that the creative evolution of human politics and in turn human society may speed up.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...