do you believe in God

[A_Son_of_God]

So the parents of said children should feel guilty because its their fault?
What a fucking sick system of thinking that is...

Does your ancestry stop at your parents? If you think like that, no wonder you can't get past any information further than the last 20 -40 years, which is pretty much the age difference between us and our parents.
You're the one making the conclusion to be guilty for being a human who passes on your genes to your children. Or are you claiming that your genetics have no effect in it? Or that the radiation from warfare from your grandfathers era (and probably ours in the near future) has affected the way human health is today?
It's easier to blame God eh. Best blame God, than accept that human actions have consequences that kill us.

 

[NickUK]

Does your ancestry stop at your parents? If you think like that, no wonder you can't get past any information further than the last 20 -40 years, which is pretty much the age difference between us and our parents.
You're the one making the conclusion to be guilty for being a human who passes on your genes to your children. Or are you claiming that your genetics have no effect in it? Or that the radiation from warfare from your grandfathers era (and probably ours in the near future) has affected the way human health is today?
It's easier to blame God eh. Best blame God, than accept that human actions have consequences that kill us.

Don't change your tune to 'genetics' you implied it was sin causing it...
Yet again adapting your argument to fit the criticism like you always do time and time again

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Don't change your tune to 'genetics' you implied it was sin causing it...
Yet again adapting your argument to fit the criticism like you always do time and time again

Genetics is the mechanism that sin is passed on by. Use your brain. Just because you wish it didn't fit your thought pattern doesn't mean it isn't fact. Genetics is the mechanism we pass down our code errors. Did you not know that? I am surprised something so simple could baffle you in this way man.

Let me clarify it for you.
Genetics is the information that is passed down. It is passed down in a code system, which we can call DNA for the most part. When the code is faulted, this is an error. "Sin" literally comes from a word describing an arrow missing the target. It does not reach the mark of what it was aimed for. Maybe you misunderstand the meaning of sin. I don't know.

 

[NickUK]

Genetics is the mechanism that sin is passed on by. Use your brain. Just because you wish it didn't fit your thought pattern doesn't mean it isn't fact. Genetics is the mechanism we pass down our code errors. Did you not know that? I am surprised something so simple could baffle you in this way man.

*rolls eyes*

 

[A_Son_of_God]

*rolls eyes*

Roll away. I edited the comment. I hope it comes up for you. Instead of being on the attack, and the offended train, why not instead question what you seem to misunderstand? Otherwise, I don't really want to respond to you like I don't with that other person who can't actually discuss points. You can, and you do. But still, to claim that I'm adapting my argument is a cop out on your part. I'm well aware of what I believe regarding sin. It isn't me questioning why God allows things to happen. I know the answer, and I love God, and feel comforted in knowing the truth. So I'm not the one stuck with the understanding or misunderstanding at all. God has been merciful to me, and allowed me to understand these things, and I am happy to share them. But I'm not a whipping post, okay?

 

[NickUK]

Roll away. I edited the comment. I hope it comes up for you. Instead of being on the attack, and the offended train, why not instead question what you seem to misunderstand? Otherwise, I don't really want to respond to you like I don't with that other person who can't actually discuss points. You can, and you do. But still, to claim that I'm adapting my argument is a cop out on your part. I'm well aware of what I believe regarding sin. It isn't me questioning why God allows things to happen. I know the answer, and I love God, and feel comforted in knowing the truth. So I'm not the one stuck with the understanding or misunderstanding at all. God has been merciful to me, and allowed me to understand these things, and I am happy to share them. But I'm not a whipping post, okay?

Sorry you made me angry for a while there...
I don't usually get involved in these type of discussions...
I felt I had to say what was on my mind....
I won't do it again...

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Sorry you made me angry for a while there...
I don't usually get involved in these type of discussions...
I felt I had to say what was on my mind....
I won't do it again...

Well...now I'm sorry. I am not trying to make you not respond mate.
Still, the thought that you have of me changing my tune, or adapting my argument isn't accurate. The information wasn't presented before, as the point wasn't. To be honest, I think you'll find I have used it with someone else somewhere on here.
I'm sorry mate. I do appreciate your comments, just not the claim I'm adjusting the story. Well, technically I am, as I have had to make repeated edits in my comments. Nonetheless, not in that way of tailoring it to suit. Just that I forget to put things in, or maybe I haven't done my homework on things.

 

[Kev45]

Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian millenarian restorationist Christian denomination.

“Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For . . . what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? —2 CORINTHIANS 6:14, 15."

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1989807

An example and direct quotes of some Watch Tower rules, the body that governs the religion and rules, of which there are many.

You should live with fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses only.

You should ensure, when choosing to live with Jehovah’s Witnesses, that they are excellent followers of the rules of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

You shall not live in a house with someone of the opposite sex unless you are married to them.

You shall not live in a house with someone whom you are divorced from.

You should accept that apostates are mentally diseased (a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle).

You should loathe and hate apostates (lol).

You should believe that baptized members who disassociate from the religion are to be regarded as the “antichrist”.

You should not put too much emphasis on your health (kinda f*cks up the genetics argument).

You should accept that the bible is the most effective help in handling mental health issues (see 'apostate' above) .

You should not take another Jehovah’s Witness to court (google JW sex abuse).

You shall not believe in evolution (edited, also contradicts the sly "genetics" argument).

You shall limit your association with persons who are looked upon as bad association. Social interaction outside of formal worship settings is generally curtailed (such as non-JW internet chat sites and, which is forbidden).

You shall not attend Alcoholics Anonymous.

You should not wear tight clothing.

Women should not wear yoga pants.

Women shall wear skirts or dresses to kingdom halls and when preaching.

Women shall wear a head-covering when conducting a bible study where a baptized male is present.

Women shall not pray in the presence of baptized men other than exceptional circumstances.

You should prioritize preaching over education.

Elders shall obtain a confession or have at least two witnesses to confirm that serious sins have been committed
(google JW sex abuse).

Elders shall not prevent or encourage individuals affected by serious sins such as rape, child abuse or child sexual abuse from reporting them to Law Enforcement Agencies.

You shall believe that the dead are in a state of unconsciousness.

You shall believe that those who are not of the 144000 have an opportunity to live forever on earth in paradise conditions.

You should believe that Jesus and Jehovah can read minds.

You should not read literature that may adversely affect your faith (such as "apostate" internet forums).

You shall believe that Jesus Christ returned invisibly in 1914 and set up his kingdom invisibly in heaven.

You shall believe that the gathering of the “other sheep” began in 1935 and that these ones represent ALL who have an earthly hope, both living and dead.

You should believe that Satan and his demons were ousted out of heaven in 1914.

You should not be alone with your girlfriend / boyfriend.

You should not masturbate.

You should resist divorce from an unbelieving marriage partner if the grounds for divorce do not include adultery.

You shall scream if you are being raped, even if screaming would result in your death.

You should not have a career as a police officer.

Home - Jehovah's Witnesses

If you have access to documents or publications that may help improve transparency within Jehovah’s Witnesses, or may help bring justice for victims, we welcome your anonymous submissions. Thank you. SUBMIT DOCUMENTS Jehovah’s Witnesses: Earth’s most fragile belief system This website was...

avoidjw.org

"This website was founded by dedicated, baptized Jehovah's Witnesses. Its mission is to reveal documents, files, and publications that are kept secret from the vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, particularly vulnerable persons and women. The purpose is to encourage honesty and transparency in a religious group that considers itself God's organization on Earth - Matthew 24:45; Mark 4:22."

 

[deafsilentfem]

biggest con in the world is religions as human race is a lot older than religion

 

[Moriarty]

Life isn't complex.
Simply allowing people to do as they wish, within the guidelines of society and self preservation is all we need.
People make it complex when they get ideas above thier understanding.
Which is why we should never teach politics as a university degree, better they learn philosophy.

Politicains today tend to know feck all about real life and only see what they can gain from it.
Not all, but most.

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” ​

Douglas Adams.

 

[Kev45]

Which is why we should never teach politics as a university degree, better they learn philosophy.

But didn't you state either your degree or masters is a PPE, I can't recall which, and I am far too lazy this morning to use the site search engine?

You do know a PPE includes politics, right?

Politics/philosophy/economics or sociology replacing the philosophy element.

 

[Altair]

See, from my studies, I see the chances of this being possible so far from reasonable that it becomes non-scientific to presume it happened like that. To say "It happened though, because we're here" is cyclic reasoning, and does not prove how bacteria formed from mush. Bacteria are not simple. They are complex. There is no such thing as a simple life form, because all life forms rely on other systems to be in place for them to exist, let alone often, other things to live off.

All I can say to this is, "Really?" How do you deduce this?

No, it isn't. It is NOT fact, nor proven and documented. Prove it for me then. Let me see your documented proof that "Evolution is by Natural Selection".

So, more so than a monkey or apes? Interesting.

We're talking about "trees" in the plural here. Not one. For instance, there are Linnaean and Phylocode, just to mention two. There is much that is not in agreement between different scientists in these areas, and ones that just don't fit, or throw spanners into their conventions.

That doesn't make sense mate. That's just a statement. It is not agreed on by the scientific community. Some for instance, believe that ... wait up, you said it! Life came from STARS! So, either life came from the stars, or it came from the ocean. Which one was it? It can't be both, can it?

The Bible plainly says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". THEN it says, "Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness on the surface of the watery deep..."
THEN it says that God made light come to be, and that THIS was the first day. God's first creative day was that of making light visible on the surface of an already existing earth, with water upon it, in a universe he'd already made. (Genesis 1:1-5)
And as for the seventh day, it did not end. It is still going. (Genesis 2:3)

On this, I agree with you. If a person has a preconceived idea, and claims that the earth is 6000 years old, after being shown scriptural proof that this is not the case, there is no way to argue nor explain anything to that person, as it is like explaining the road rules to a penguin.

It doesn't specifically mention dinosaurs, although it does mention things like the great sea monsters of the past. But at the same time, I read an article on Archaeopteryx for instance, and it was claimed that this ancient dinosaur predated any bird, but it was later to be found WITH fossils of other birds at the time.

There is much evidence of giant creatures who have disappeared off the earth. Just because the Bible doesn't mention it doesn't mean they're not there though. I mean, there is nothing in the Bible stating they didn't exist. We can theorise (and only theorise) many different reasons as to why they were here, or even what they are. But we really don't know. The truth won't be revealed until the resurrection, if indeed then at all.

It wasn't. It's a later addition. I appreciate there are theories on it, but it's a later work. Why can I say that? Because it is not mentioned until a later date. People claim that Jude quotes from it, but it is more likely that Jude quoted from a common source at the time. But these works were not part of the Bible canon. There are many works prior to the Council of Nicaea to show that the Bible was already collated and in agreement in the majority of cases. The earliest goes back to 170CE, but even before then, the apostles had a gift of the holy spirit, which was to "understand inspired sayings". These "gifts" of the spirit were not passed on down the line, but were ONLY passed on by the laying on of the hands of the apostles. Those given the gift could not pass it on. They could only do what they were given the gift of. Thirty years after Jerusalem's destruction - approximately - the apostle John wrote the caps on the Bible - namely his three letters, his gospel account, and before these, the book of Revelation.
The same can be said of the Hebrew Scriptures before it, and for instance, why Maccabees - although historically accurate in the case of one of the books, just wasn't inspired to be part of the Bible canon. There is evidence that the books we have today are the same books that Jesus had (the Hebrew ones, I mean) and used.
Edit: The Book of Enoch may have been an earlier work. Revising my understanding of the Book of Enoch - although I have read it (and have a copy of it, or at least a translation), I don't dwell on these apocryphal works unless necessary, and I do forget things.
The evidence is that it is not Bible canon, and the reason it is not part of it, is because it did not meet the qualifications of being an inspired text.
For instance, in what is called the FIRST letter to the Corinthians, Paul states in it that he had written to them earlier (1 Corinthians 5:9). So why is THIS letter called 1Corinthians, and not 2Corinthians? Because not all letters of Paul were inspired of God, just as any other writing about Jesus, God, the Jews, Moses, Abraham or even Enoch, were not inspired of God.

It's not 'Cyclic Reasoning.. It's HIGHLY probable. There's a difference.

As you say Bacteria are not simple. But they once were. There's the thing.

They HAD to be Simple in the First place. Get it?

Evolution happens.. It is a fact.

Natural selection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A monkey or apes heart is not made of the same material of a Pig.

Simple Biology, nothing special about it.

Bacterial mats on the Ocean floor had to have some form of building blocks.

The 'Building Blocks' of DNA Come from Exploding Stars. Atoms. This is also FACT.

WHY doesn't the Bible mention Dinosaurs or Neanderthals? I'm still waiting for an answer to this Q.

The book of Enoch was deleted because it talked of 200 Angels coming to Earth from Heaven and they had sex with humans.

Yep, iv'e read it too.!

When certain books are omitted from scripture and others added.. New testament.. Old testament...! You begin to get a picture of exactly what was going on.

I'm not here to make you doubt your belief. You believe what you want. Just don't preach your beliefs to others.

Fair enough?

 

[NickUK]

A son of god likes to explore religion in great depth with others and your arguments give him strength.
He is using his creative arguing skills to confirm his beliefs every time you set him a problem to solve...it just keeps reinforcing his faith every hurdle he overcomes.
I don't think he is preaching, I think he is empowering himself.

 

[Altair]

A son of god likes to explore religion in great depth with others and your arguments give him strength.
He is using his creative arguing skills to confirm his beliefs every time you set him a problem to solve...it just keeps reinforcing his faith every hurdle he overcomes.
I don't think he is preaching, I think he is empowering himself.

You might be right.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

It's not 'Cyclic Reasoning.. It's HIGHLY probable. There's a difference.

There IS a difference between highly probable and cyclic reasoning. You should really be careful here, because what you're saying is highly probable is the idea that "It happened though, because we're here", which you didn't say, but for some reason you want to defend. I said it, not you, although I said it in a way that IF you said it, it would be circular reasoning. But as probability you claim is HIGHLY probable, here are some facts for you:

Much of this theory of primordial soup that some (not all) evolutionary scientists claim is based on a scientist's work, named Stanley Miller. He - in very simple terms, and not belittling his good work on forming amino acids, passed a spark through an atmosphere, making amino acids.

Stanley Miller's experiment provided only four amino acids from passing a spark through an atmosphere he'd made. From that, he claimed it was the basis for life, as some informed also do today, as well as many uninformed. Now take note, he did not bring life about. Not at all. He simply formed amino acids, from the point of view of a scientist in a laboratory, forcing an atmosphere to be as best as possible to create such things. Kind of like God, don't you agree? I mean, God made the atmosphere to not only make life, but to sustain it. Something Miller failed to do. Still, let's analyse what he said about it.

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions." he and his assistant stated.

Yet, Francis Hitching - a journalist who goes to task on questioning this primordial soup theory (not a believer in God as far as I'm aware, although a believer in some form of cosmic power) - highlights the dilemma when he makes the point in his publication "The Neck of the Giraffe", "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."

See, I didn't take a side. I looked at it from a point of view as to what information was available, and chose to see how probability plays off. So far, oxygen was necessary, yet oxygen is also destructive. But let's keep on going.

Just like Miller, having to take the amino acids away from the spark, as they would be destroyed by the dynamics of a spark that created them in the first place, these amino acids that many believe formed in a primordial soup as such would have had to be formed in the "spark", inasmuch as the UV radiation, then get out of it, to the water, to such a level that the UV would not reach, but then would need UV again to continue providing energy for reproduction. What it means is that both of these environments - although allowing formation of the molecules, also allow the destruction of them again. Now aren't you telling me that it lasted for millions of years? Again, Hitching can be quoted. He says:

“the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”

And he's right. In fact, there are two other scientists who highlight the problem here. Richard Dickerson and George Wald. Richard Dickerson states that polymerisation is not favoured in an aqueous environment, but it is rather a depolymerising atmosphere. So it is not conducive to molecules becoming bigger. Wald states:

“Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.”

In fact Wald goes on to call it, "the most stubborn problem that confronts us.”⁠ Who did he mean when he said "us"? He meant evolutionists. Because he too is one.

So your "highly probable" is not that highly probable at all. There is much, much more. And each little step will show how mindblowingly complex each step of this imagined world actually is. So much so, that probability is thrown out the window, and it becomes blind faith in pseudo-science.

As you say Bacteria are not simple. But they once were. There's the thing.

They HAD to be Simple in the First place. Get it?

Evolution happens.. It is a fact.

No. They didn't have to be. Claiming it because you believe it is not proof of it. All it proves is you believe it, but doesn't provide any basis for others to learn from or consider. No, it is not a fact. At least not a fact in the way of having an ancestry that were not humans - other than God himself - the master blueprint maker.

Natural selection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A monkey or apes heart is not made of the same material of a Pig.

That's the whole point. Yet, we seem more closely related to a pig than a monkey or ape, at least in the case of organs, going about this idea that "our nearest relative" should be "nearest" to us in some scientific way. Don't you agree?

Simple Biology, nothing special about it.

Simples. LOL Okay

Bacterial mats on the Ocean floor had to have some form of building blocks.

Agreed. They had to be eating something eh.

The 'Building Blocks' of DNA Come from Exploding Stars. Atoms. This is also FACT.

Atoms come from energy. Energy never needed a star in the first place. And if it was "survival of the fittest", would you not agree that bacteria were doing damn fine without any bigger, more complex, delicate organs that depend on even more complex environments than they did?

WHY doesn't the Bible mention Dinosaurs or Neanderthals? I'm still waiting for an answer to this Q.

I answered it. How did you overlook it?

The book of Enoch was deleted because it talked of 200 Angels coming to Earth from Heaven and they had sex with humans.

Yep, iv'e read it too.!

The Bible already told us this, not about 200. It doesn't mention a number, but it already mentions "the Sons of God" coming down and materialising, forcing women to have sex, and they produce offspring. In fact, that is the whole basis for why God used a flood. The angels who don't die from physical limits/restraints were now trapped, having to leave earthly bodies, but having nowhere to go. They attempted to return to their original places, but instead they were restricted. So this is nothing new in the Book of Enoch. In fact, the reason to know that Enoch didn't write it himself is based on Jewish beliefs, of which Jews weren't around in Enoch's day.

When certain books are omitted from scripture and others added.. New testament.. Old testament...! You begin to get a picture of exactly what was going on.

I'd be interested to hear your theory on this too.

I'm not here to make you doubt your belief. You believe what you want.

Agreed. Even if you did try to though, I like to see what people have as way of an argument for their side. I hate lies, and I love truth. So I like to dig. I don't want to believe a lie. Hence, I changed my perspectives and am STILL trying to work on the harder job of controlling myself. That is the hard bit for me.

Just don't preach your beliefs to others.

No. That is a command from Jesus. Preaching saves lives. See, Jesus is a king in heaven, and he's commanded it until he returns. It won't go on forever. In fact, the preaching of the GOOD news is about to end. But preaching will be done until the system has collapsed. As the apostles stated in the instance when the governments - egged on by the religious leaders - tried to ban them from preaching, "We must obey God as ruler rather than men." When mankind starts telling people what to do in such a way as preventing them from doing good to others, and commands bad to others, then God must be obeyed first. Not man.

Fair enough?

Is it?

 

[A_Son_of_God]

A son of god likes to explore religion in great depth with others and your arguments give him strength.
He is using his creative arguing skills to confirm his beliefs every time you set him a problem to solve...it just keeps reinforcing his faith every hurdle he overcomes.
I don't think he is preaching, I think he is empowering himself.

I am doing both. Thanks for your keen eye If there was a closer "truth", I'd lean toward it.

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

 

[Moriarty]

There IS a difference between highly probable and cyclic reasoning. You should really be careful here, because what you're saying is highly probable is the idea that "It happened though, because we're here", which you didn't say, but for some reason you want to defend. I said it, not you, although I said it in a way that IF you said it, it would be circular reasoning. But as probability you claim is HIGHLY probable, here are some facts for you:

Much of this theory of primordial soup that some (not all) evolutionary scientists claim is based on a scientist's work, named Stanley Miller. He - in very simple terms, and not belittling his good work on forming amino acids, passed a spark through an atmosphere, making amino acids.

Stanley Miller's experiment provided only four amino acids from passing a spark through an atmosphere he'd made. From that, he claimed it was the basis for life, as some informed also do today, as well as many uninformed. Now take note, he did not bring life about. Not at all. He simply formed amino acids, from the point of view of a scientist in a laboratory, forcing an atmosphere to be as best as possible to create such things. Kind of like God, don't you agree? I mean, God made the atmosphere to not only make life, but to sustain it. Something Miller failed to do. Still, let's analyse what he said about it.

"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions." he and his assistant stated.

Yet, Francis Hitching - a journalist who goes to task on questioning this primordial soup theory (not a believer in God as far as I'm aware, although a believer in some form of cosmic power) - highlights the dilemma when he makes the point in his publication "The Neck of the Giraffe", "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."

See, I didn't take a side. I looked at it from a point of view as to what information was available, and chose to see how probability plays off. So far, oxygen was necessary, yet oxygen is also destructive. But let's keep on going.

Just like Miller, having to take the amino acids away from the spark, as they would be destroyed by the dynamics of a spark that created them in the first place, these amino acids that many believe formed in a primordial soup as such would have had to be formed in the "spark", inasmuch as the UV radiation, then get out of it, to the water, to such a level that the UV would not reach, but then would need UV again to continue providing energy for reproduction. What it means is that both of these environments - although allowing formation of the molecules, also allow the destruction of them again. Now aren't you telling me that it lasted for millions of years? Again, Hitching can be quoted. He says:

“the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”

And he's right. In fact, there are two other scientists who highlight the problem here. Richard Dickerson and George Wald. Richard Dickerson states that polymerisation is not favoured in an aqueous environment, but it is rather a depolymerising atmosphere. So it is not conducive to molecules becoming bigger. Wald states:

“Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.”

In fact Wald goes on to call it, "the most stubborn problem that confronts us.”⁠ Who did he mean when he said "us"? He meant evolutionists. Because he too is one.

So your "highly probable" is not that highly probable at all. There is much, much more. And each little step will show how mindblowingly complex each step of this imagined world actually is. So much so, that probability is thrown out the window, and it becomes blind faith in pseudo-science.



No. They didn't have to be. Claiming it because you believe it is not proof of it. All it proves is you believe it, but doesn't provide any basis for others to learn from or consider. No, it is not a fact. At least not a fact in the way of having an ancestry that were not humans - other than God himself - the master blueprint maker.

That's the whole point. Yet, we seem more closely related to a pig than a monkey or ape, at least in the case of organs, going about this idea that "our nearest relative" should be "nearest" to us in some scientific way. Don't you agree?

Simples. LOL Okay

Agreed. They had to be eating something eh.

Atoms come from energy. Energy never needed a star in the first place. And if it was "survival of the fittest", would you not agree that bacteria were doing damn fine without any bigger, more complex, delicate organs that depend on even more complex environments than they did?

I answered it. How did you overlook it?

The Bible already told us this, not about 200. It doesn't mention a number, but it already mentions "the Sons of God" coming down and materialising, forcing women to have sex, and they produce offspring. In fact, that is the whole basis for why God used a flood. The angels who don't die from physical limits/restraints were now trapped, having to leave earthly bodies, but having nowhere to go. They attempted to return to their original places, but instead they were restricted. So this is nothing new in the Book of Enoch. In fact, the reason to know that Enoch didn't write it himself is based on Jewish beliefs, of which Jews weren't around in Enoch's day.

I'd be interested to hear your theory on this too.

Agreed. Even if you did try to though, I like to see what people have as way of an argument for their side. I hate lies, and I love truth. So I like to dig. I don't want to believe a lie. Hence, I changed my perspectives and am STILL trying to work on the harder job of controlling myself. That is the hard bit for me.

No. That is a command from Jesus. Preaching saves lives. See, Jesus is a king in heaven, and he's commanded it until he returns. It won't go on forever. In fact, the preaching of the GOOD news is about to end. But preaching will be done until the system has collapsed. As the apostles stated in the instance when the governments - egged on by the religious leaders - tried to ban them from preaching, "We must obey God as ruler rather than men." When mankind starts telling people what to do in such a way as preventing them from doing good to others, and commands bad to others, then God must be obeyed first. Not man.

Is it?

An excellent post.
A lot to think about in there Son of.
I do have another alternative if your willing to listen to it.

If we live in an infinite universe surrounded by an infinite number of other universes, then by the laws of probabilites, god or gods do exist an infinite number of times.
Unless of course there are also an infinite number of universes which dont have a law of probability hence destiny, faith and fate are pre-ordained.

The simple question I have is does your belief catagorically exist in this universe that we percieve as our own?
After all, it must exist in an infinite number of universes, it must also be both true and false in an infinte number of universes..
Is ours one of them where it exist, it does not or we dont know?

IF the universe is infinite and there are an infinite number of infinite universes then anything that can happen must happen.
So is it possible that we have a bleed over belief from a universe which actually has a god, or are we a bleed over from on which does not hence the skepticism?
Both of those states must exist.
Hence to believe in God cannot be discounted as he/she/it must exist somewhere in space time, because we cannot disprove god.
In fact everything science says when you consider the infinite means god must exist in an infinite number of ways.
Just perhaps not here in our space time, yet or ever either in the past or the future.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

An excellent post.
A lot to think about in there Son of.
I do have another alternative if your willing to listen to it.

If we live in an infinite universe surrounded by an infinite number of other universes, then by the laws of probabilites, god or gods do exist an infinite number of times.
Unless of course there are also an infinite number of universes which dont have a law of probability hence destiny, faith and fate are pre-ordained.

The simple question I have is does your belief catagorically exist in this universe that we percieve as our own?
After all, it must exist in an infinite number of universes, it must also be both true and false in an infinte number of universes..
Is ours one of them where it exist, it does not or we dont know?

IF the universe is infinite and there are an infinite number of infinite universes then anything that can happen must happen.
So is it possible that we have a bleed over belief from a universe which actually has a god, or are we a bleed over from on which does not hence the skepticism?
Both of those states must exist.
Hence to believe in God cannot be discounted as he/she/it must exist somewhere in space time, because we cannot disprove god.
In fact everything science says when you consider the infinite means god must exist in an infinite number of ways.
Just perhaps not here in our space time, yet or ever either in the past or the future.

There is a scripture that states something like that God holds the universe in between his thumb and forefinger. Not that God literally has a thumb or forefinger, as he's a spirit creature, but it is explained this way to help us understand that the universe is not infinite, and that God is in full control of it.

Whether there are other universes or not is something that we may discover in time, and that would be exciting to discover. I have a personal belief that there is no largest object (universe, etc), and there is no smallest object (quark, etc), but it is an infinite search of depth. Why I say this is there are many phenomena in the universe, such as mathematics that conveniently match each other (like when a percentage question is flipped, (12% of 50 = 50% of 12, etc), or that everything we examine has a frame of where it's accurate, as opposed to inaccuracy outside of that frame. I don't believe the universe is infinite, in other words. But where I also differ is I don't believe "universe" has to be the biggest thing we know of. Just a hypothesis, but who's to say there aren't clusters of universes, and then super clusters, etc etc, etc.

So, no, I don't believe God is restricted to this universe. God is the one who has provided us with a life to be able to experience, examine and be amazed at all these things. Being a perceiver is a gift, and it was shared for the very reason that God knew we'd enjoy it.

Can you imagine if God sat us all down and shoved desks under our noses, and forced us to study books on stuff instead of examining things for ourselves, and discovering. How dull it would be. Instead of letting us work things out, he just told us everything. We'd be no more happy than a hard drive.

 

[Brummiedean]

Nope!!