How many contradictions in your belief system before you'd leave it?

That's not a proper scientific investigation. Anyway, demonstrability or at least feasibility of continuing to look for it can't be assessed until somebody first looks for it and documents the effort and results. In this case however, you in your infinite wisdom and steel-trap grasp of reality seem to think that nobody should look for demonstrability because it hasn't already presented itself.

Don't forget that the vatican aided in the escape of Nazis, and some people have come forward claiming to quote Werner Von Braun as having said "We had help.... from them," refering to the banks of UFO files, when asked how German technology advanced so exceptionally fast and who gave the help.

Blue Planet Project is a book accessible online. It has new revelations about these subjects and more. Don't ask me about it; judge it yourself. I didn't look at all of it yet, but it didn't appear to be too lengthy.

The original statement was technically correct grammatically but a tiny bit too concise. The things that would draw criticism were the fringy features which would not be supported by science. It did not mean to imply that scentific effort was lacking. So, it actually anticipated the way you responded at large.

Thanks for the almost(?) condescending sympathy.

I know, pushing some of the boundaries entails the risk of taking some lumps, but I do it anyway, usually letting up when the discomfort of being off course sets in.

 

That's wrong. In the chaos after World War 2 with gigantic streams of refugees and displaced persons no one was able to control everything. The Caritas and the Red Cross gave passports to Germans who lost everything. In this chaos it was easy for Nazis to get a passport and a new identity - they needed only some people who gave a false testimony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI0yKMO6J9Y

 

Angels? Nothing written about angels.

(1) suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them
(2) young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side

I would say they remembered very well the message but not so good the messenger. This problem is still today the same. The source of an information is something the most people don't remember very well - not so the information itselve. A story is normally wrong if everyone remembers the same unimportant details. Maybe they met as well a young man and the two men or it were two men and one saw or remembered not the second one. This story in the bible becomes more plausible and not less plausible if such an unimportant detail is different. "Experiment by thoughts": Who said to you it were angels? Do you remember this? And do you remember who was the first who called the one or two men "angel" and why he did so? How came this into your thoughts?

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

 

Anobsitar, please tell us exactly how many contradictions in your belief system would have to exist before you'd leave it.

As a modern Secular Humanist, I'm thinking I'd leave my belief system if I could count the contradictions on one hand, two hands tops.

 

If it is truth then you will be able to prove it

 

What do you think angel means anobsitar?

Eithyer the boble is infallible OR it isn't. EIther you claim that the bible is fallible but there is an underlying truth in whcih case yo0u can;t quote the bible as being absolute truth or You claim that every word is true then yoru claim above is invalid.

Which is it?

 

It means that somebody was high when they invented that (magic invisible people who fly around with wings.....clearly no more real than fairies.)

 

Hmm - difficult to say. I guess I don't know what "angel" means nor what it means to be an angel.

The bible is a book. A book is not infallible. Some are using the bible to stabalize a table - but not even this is a guarantee for the table.

Which is what? The bible is for me a very clear book in an astonishing clear language. I don't remember a problem in the moment. I'm also always astonished what some people like to see in the bible and how lots of people are atomizing the bible in very little snapshots. I guess someone is able to understand the biblical details if he's able to understand the globals. Globals - details - details - globals. Like a pendulum - Glong - deng ... ding - dong. free - dom, love - life , wonder - world. ... Two word sentences ... The bible is maybe an instrument to learn something about the language of the soul ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j3sYZLiEr0

 

Strange comment. Makes no sense in this context. A proof will never be able to be the god of god. Jesus was maybe the proof you are asking for - maybe not. But that's maybe your own decision ... maybe ... maybe not. ... Your way is your way - not our way. But somehow must also be a way to make your way to our way and our way to your way ... Perhaps that's only a question of good will and gods will ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfyY8MHUHxY

 

Analogy: A mathematician stops not to do mathematics only because paradoxes are existing. He studies paradoxes too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8mMWh62XpU

 

Amazing. It is Greek for Messenger

 

Aha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeMis-B7f58

 

Are they really contradictions or have you just not figured out how they fit together yet?

 

[MENTION=950]FreedomSeeker[/MENTION]

I fear your "logic" (=brainwashed brainwashing) tries not really to understand: nothing comes from nothing, except everything! We - everything here - are ourselve the paradox we are not able to explain with thoughtless methods - because without nature, without universe - there's also not science here, there are also no thoughts here - there is not any form of logic here we can speak about - except the logos itselve would be timeless, existenceless as well as the logos would be embedded in all forms of existance. That's really not a reason to do suicide, because we are the children of the logos. We will find a way with the help of god. Mental suicide, physical wars and abortions, greed and the destruction of all living conditions on planet earth are for sure wrong answers. We are responsible on this planet for the creation of god, for every life, for all living conditions; everyone - always - everywhere - not only Christians. I warn you. It's much better to live in fear of hell on earth instead to try to create a hell here on earth. You have to know what you are fighting for. Everyone who lives has to fight for the light of the living logos and the life itselve in all variations - not for darkness, death and destruction and also not against children in their mothers womb. Don't be a mad "hero of death". Jesus lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPcL-nfVl6Q

 

What's your version of how everything comes from nothing?

You must have learned about the logos somewhere besides poking around in the Bible, right?

I believe you meant: responsible for this planet, God's creation.

You have a good grasp of important concepts.

 

I'm not sure wether we ever will be able to find out how god made this - but we should try to find out where the limit of our possible understanding is. The creation of time itselve is so astonishing for me that I'm only on this reason not able to be not an admirer of the creator. I guess we will need thousands of years only for a better understanding for this what we call "time" - if we have a tomorrow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9uT39TsChc

 

I think he is right.
Man is responsible for the creation of god.

 

I like what you say here, basically, but can we do all that w/out having a magical, dead, imaginary friend in our adult lives? CHILDREN have imaginary friends, but intelligent adults do not.

- - - Updated - - -

And Santa. And Bigfoot. And the Lochness Monster. And Yetti. And fairies. And Middle Earth (it's no less real than "heaven" and "hell", since the evidence for both is exactly the same.)

 

He would LOVE to prove it, because he is an intelligent person. But he can't prove it of course, and not one person in the 6000 year history of the world has been able to prove it (even though they'd like nothing more than that.) So they cling to insane stories (that are as believable as children's fairy tales) about talking donkeys, talking snakes, a magical elitist country-club in the sky, etc. because they are too insecure to face up to the reality that there is no after-life. They are simply in denial, I'm afraid.

 

?

??

Aha

It's much more worse. Jesus smiles for example now. And I guess I know why. Can it be you are a little anankastic and you like to create all other human beings in your own totalitarian ideas about human beings? Let me answer with the words of Leo Baeck from the year 1905: „Wie groß immer der Unterschied von Mensch zu Mensch ist, die Gottebenbildlichkeit ist ihnen allen Charakter, ist ihnen allen gemeinsam: sie ist es, die den Menschen zum Menschen macht, ihn als Menschen bezeichnet.“

My own try of a translation/transscription: "How big the difference might be between one human being and another human being - to be children of god is for all of them their character, that's common between them all. The image of god in them is what makes human beings to human beings and is this what let us name them 'human beings'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCmnVtl1epU

 

Modern Secular Humanism (Dawkins/Harris) is for DEMOCRACY, but Jesus supported/believed in MONARCHIES, so Jesus, unlike Dawkins, is the totalitarian. Please get your facts straight. Also, Modern Secular Humanism does not try to stifle freedom of thought, such as freedom of religion - at least if they do, then I would roundly condemn them (like I roundly condemn the insane Mohammad for saying to KILL people who simply leave Islam) Jesus will see that little girls suffer horrifically, forever, if they don't suck up to Jesus' belief system. Jesus and Mohammad were simply insane, it can be argued. Dawkins is far far more moral.

 

How about, Unifier, we believe the Bible when and if they figure out how all those contradictions fit together (like you mentioned), but in the mean time we follow a reality-based, non-contradictory belief system, like modern Secular Humanism.

 

Where is your evidence that Jesus supported monarchies? He seemed pretty indifferent to them as I read scripture.

 

He approved of Kings, IIRC, and said to obey your earthly masters. Modern Secular Humanists want to throw off the shackles of monarchies, unlike Jesus. Please point out where Jesus advocated democracies. You can't, so that shows that Jesus was not nearly as intelligent as modern Secular Humanism (democracy is a given in modern Secular Humanism, basically.)