Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: If A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words, Then What Do These Memes Say? (Parts VIII & I)
Source:
The Potters Clay
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa6ulv9aQno
Published: Oct 10, 2018
Author: The Potters Clay
Post Date: 2019-10-07 12:02:10 by Liberator
Keywords: Truth, Memes, Hmmm
Views: 46118
Comments: 340
A little Meme action... Poster Comment: Get bored easily? No time to watch long videos? MEMES TO THE RESCUE! Short & Sweet. These are found at a Christian You Tube called, 'The Potters Clay'... These are REALLY good. Fun stuff. I promise. Spectacular AND clever. It doesn't matter what your core belief is; you will come upon several memes that will stop you dead in your tracks and challenge you. (STRONG SUGGESTION: To adjust and slow these memes down, go to your YouTube 'Settings', then adjust 'Playback Speed to .75. It will give you more time to contemplate the meme, since they move along pretty fast.) When you have the time, please give them all a look; I consider them a crash-course in Earth-Science Truth, Logic, and Reason.
If you haven't seen them, checkout the rest!
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part I
https://youtu.be/ptar5YtS_Sk
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth A Thousand Words - Part II
https://youtu.be/FchgUVA4SxE
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part III
https://youtu.be/Kth6X1g7bWk
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part IV
https://youtu.be/eVk3DIwf66c
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part V
https://youtu.be/qJAsGkP99rg
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part VI
https://youtu.be/z2a6g-nfQRU
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part VII
https://youtu.be/9Xsh2LJ1SvY
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part IX
https://youtu.be/X-D54GbpPjQ
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 150.
#12. To: Liberator (#0)
I watched both. I find them, to varying degrees, flawed. I'm not willing to rehash the science, at least right now. But setting science aside, I'd just speak to the conspiracy factor. If the earth is flat, then it's an absolutely enormous conspiracy going back some 15 generations to perpetuate this round earth lie. And the number of people that would have to be in on it in this day and age is huge. Not just NASA and astronomers, but meteorologists, navigators, and even satellite TV equipment manufactures. Every parent knows how it is, and so does everyone who's ever been a kid. If you tell one lie, you later have to tell another lie to cover up for your first lie. And then a 3rd lie to cover for the second. It goes on and on and eventually the whole house of cards collapses under its own weight. If the earth is flat, then the lie about the earth being round amounts to an absolute huge house of cards. Then again, I guess you would counter that the house has collapsed. For you. Fact is though, it's only collapsed for a tiny fraction of people. If you were right, this would have fallen over a very long time ago. And that's even ignoring the question of what perpetuating this round earth theory was ever supposed to achieve in the first place. If it was to marginalize the story of Genesis in the Bible, then they could have done that in any number of other ways that would be safe from being disproved, unlike something so basic as the shape of the earth.
Thanks for checking them out. Some of the memes aren't going to be A+. But some of them are. (Which meme or memes did you find "flawed" btw?) ...Setting science aside, I'd just speak to the conspiracy factor. If the earth is flat, then it's an absolutely enormous conspiracy going back some 15 generations to perpetuate this round earth lie. I think we can both agree that acceptance of Globe Earth was first making headway near the time of Galileo and Copernicus, which would have been @ the 1500s. It was not fully accepted by a consensus until the mid-1800s -- at coincidentally the same time "institutional Science" (controlled by certain Elites with an agenda) was insisting that "Evolution" was fact AND that Dinosaurs were older than Man. By the late 1800s and early 1900s Globe Earth was still being challenged strongly, believe it or not... The is is now a Publisher called, 'Dead Authors Society' that enables one to purchase a plethora of re-released old books. I'd read, 'Terra Firma: The Earth Not A Plane, Proved From Scripture, Reason, and Fact' (Author: David Wardlaw Scott). It was published in 1903. What especially fascinating about the book and perspective as written is the degree of knowledge about our realm -- even in 1903 -- style of writing, ideological and scientific battles at that time being waged over how our world should be perceived. (I think you and others would find it a great read.) Regarding any difficulty in catapulting any so-called, "Conspiracies" -- well, it's been quite easy. Institutional Science via schools were co-opted, where they *still* manage to convince the public via these secular humanist schools that 'Evolution' and 'Stone Age Man' is indeed a "Fact" -- even though it's been proven impossible. Regarding our realm, Institutional Science and its cabal have simply rigged the system and what they insist are "natural laws" like "gravity", formulas like "the theory of relativity" and one that explains earth "curvature" -- ALL of which not only remain 'theories' but are proven false. The number of people that would have to be in on it in this day and age is huge. Not just NASA and astronomers, but meteorologists, navigators, and even satellite TV equipment manufactures. Right. And many *would* tell you they already *know* the truth of the matter (or risk ostracization and unemployment. *I* can't believe even how much *I* assumed and denied of my own eyes.) Many of those memes can't be denied, btw. There are 8 more Meme Vids that provide further food for thought and additional "scientific" and observational contradictions FWIW. Every parent knows how it is, and so does everyone who's ever been a kid. If you tell one lie, you later have to tell another lie to cover up for your first lie. And then a 3rd lie to cover for the second. It goes on and on and eventually the whole house of cards collapses under its own weight. True. And Globe Earth remain the biggest, clearest case of adulthood Easter Bunny and Santa Claus (besides, 'Evolution, 'Big Bang', and "We from the Gummint and here to help.") If the earth is flat, then the lie about the earth being round amounts to an absolute huge house of cards. Then again, I guess you would counter that the house has collapsed. For you. Fact is though, it's only collapsed for a tiny fraction of people. If you were right, this would have fallen over a very long time ago. Aye-aye on all the above. (Except your last statement; The reason the PTB are freaking out about Flat Earth/NASA is...Knowledge of the truth is growing exponentially...And collapsing like many other things we've been told is "the truth.") And that's even ignoring the question of what perpetuating this round earth theory was ever supposed to achieve in the first place. (The Big Picture: please see my Post #17) If it was to marginalize the story of Genesis in the Bible, then they could have done that in any number of other ways that would be safe from being disproved, unlike something so basic as the shape of the earth. FWIW, besides Genesis, the shape of the Earth is also discussed in Psalms, Job, and Isaiah. But to your premise, multiple civilizations for thousands of years had already presumed its shape not only to be Flat, but having a Dome or Firmament over it. I didn't make that up; That's a fact. Again, "Globe/Ball" earth has only been advanced as a theory since the 1500s, and "fact" only since the mid-1800s.
This is all I see fit to respond to, with I'll do with a simple "of course". Anyone looking over long distances will have the impression the land is flat, with the exception of ships sailing over the horizon which might be mistaken for disappearing in the distant mist. There's no reason ancients living thousands of years ago should be considered a scientific authority. If we don't consider them an authority when they said that all matter could be subcategorized into one of: Earth, Air, Fire & Water, and if they didn't understand even basic things air pressure, bacteria, steam engines and the like, then why would or should they be considered an authority on the shape of the earth?
....and if they didn't understand even basic things air pressure, bacteria, steam engines and the like, then why would or should they be considered an authority on the shape of the earth? Several separate civilizations (or "authorities" of the day) ALL conceptualized similar configurations of our earthly realm as can be seen below. What are the odds?? NONE conceptualized any realm that was remotely a "ball" or globular. These concepts were more accepted even as recently as the 16th century. The elements of the earth are a whole different category. Why should the previous 5,000 years of mankind's knowledge of nature and science be invalidated? They weren't scientifically uneducated and ignorant of technology. In many ways it could be said that they were more advanced and regressed after the Fall of the Roman Empire. What of the Pyramids the world over? All the Chinese and folk herbal remedies and treatment? Roman sewer systems and aqueducts? And so forth. It really wasn't until the mid-19th century and beyond that man began harnessing "high tech" and discoveries on a macro level. Much of the biological by the mid-20th century. Why dismiss and invalidate all past civilizations' scientific credibility, discoveries and truth on the basis of realm concepts? Moreover, hasn't "modern science and tech" had to build on past tested scientific evidence, truths and technologies? "Science" has claimed a "Big Bang" and "Evolution" are "FACT"; Based on what? At the World's museums "Science" claims a "Prehistoric Man" -- that he indeed evolved from Apes. Based on what? Same of the age of fossils and dinosaur bones. Same of both the age of the Universe and alleged near-infinite size. By what criteria does "Science" claim "empirical evidence" in any of these cases? (HAVE those theories been supported by any evidence -- as per "Scientific protocols"? With respect to the actual shape of this earthly realm, I'd mentioned in a prior post that by the turn of the 20th century there was still a big battle raging over the actual shape of the earth. Serious question to you or anyone else: By whose authority, by what criteria IS the earth said to definitively be a "globe"? Because IF it's NASA, they and their credibility is already an ongoing problem and challenge. If it's flight, the horizon is proven to rise as flat -- whether the horizon at ocean level, the horizon at cloud-level, "space" at low-altitude balloon level.
You really are big on that "whose authority?" question, and not just on religious topics. I really don't have the time or inclination to continue on this. Not now. You are wrong on this. I am satisfied that you have chosen to believe the earth is flat, and that the power of that belief overwhelms the physical evidence of a spherical earth that is all around us. So much in this world wouldn't be as it is if the earth was flat, like flying from Chile to New Zealand in 13 hours at commercial jet speeds. That is such a basic piece of evidence that blows flat earth out of the water all by itself. TC posted this vid about the psychological term for describing an inability to accurately understand or comprehend certain subjects. I forget the term. I know I'm terrible at some subjects and good at others. One area I'm good at is math and, as it pertains to the flat earth subject, geometry. If you are not good at spacial comprehension, and it seems you are not, then that's okay. But I can, with full confidence and respect, say to you that you are so very, very wrong in believing the earth is flat. Every single argument for a flat earth falls flat on its face. Every. Single. One. The power we have to believe things that are not true is one of the most underrated powers known to man. Almost no one appreciates how true that is. And that truism is one reason why I cannot believe that God would judge us on what we believe, rather, what we do with what we believe. Best to you...
I am. But aren't you as well? After all, on who or what source shall we base "truth"? (or credibility?) You are wrong on this... I could accept your premise -- IF it were based on refutations. But all I ever see is THIS one by you: ...So much in this world wouldn't be as it is if the earth was flat, like flying from Chile to New Zealand in 13 hours at commercial jet speeds. That is such a basic piece of evidence that blows flat earth out of the water all by itself. It does no such thing. It's been this very same citation of flight times from Chile to New Zealand I keep seeing as THE prima facia "evidence" and a guarantee by you as well as Flat Earth opponents by search engines that our realm is a "Globe." Strange.) It is on this one basis ALL other evidence to the contrary should be dismissed?? Meanwhile, I've lost count of what must be hundreds of pieces of evidences I've submitted that prove the earth is NOT a "GLOBE," and still you claim, "every single argument for a flat earth falls flat on its face. Every. Single. One." Why engage in cognitive absolutism without examining the tangible, provable data, science, observations, and facts? Please refute ANY of the memes. Just one. One area I'm good at is math and, as it pertains to the flat earth subject, geometry. Alrighty then. Great! Then explain the following geometric out- of-the-way paths this (below). It is said that Santiago-Sydney flights (close to your examples of Chile to New Zealand, right?) go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map. Curious geometry: (200 Proofs The Earth Is Not A Spinning Ball)
The nearest airport to Sydney is Kingsford Smith Airport (SYD) and the nearest airport to Santiago is Arturo Merino Benitez Airport (SCL). Your flat earth map says Sydney to Santiago is 25,400km (15,782 nautical miles or 18149 statutory miles). According to round earth maps, the distance is 11,340km (6,250 nautical miles or 7053 statutory miles). According to this page, Quantas and LAN Airlines both declare the flight time is 12.5 hours duration. You can find other sites that go as high as 14 hours but the general range is established. Typical estimates for modern intercontinental airlines is 500mph with some a little faster or slower. The regularly scheduled non-stop Qantas flights are QF27 and QF28 (eastbound and westbound) and these are daily flights advertised as 12.5 hours flight time. You can verify flight prices and times and duration and live flight status of Qantas QF27 and QF28 flights by referring to these flight route numbers in any search engine. So a trip from Santiago to Sydney on Flat Earth Airlines (15,782 miles) would normally require the airliner to fly for 31.5 hours @ 500mph, in keeping with your Flat estimate . For Flat Earth Airlines plane to make that trip in just 12.5 hours, it would have to fly almost 1300mph. However, if you fly on Round Earth Airlines between those two cities - a distance of 6,250 miles - it will take you . . . exactly 12.5 hours. Just as the airlines have advertised for years. Keep in mind that airlines advertise 14 hours but they include at least a half-hour at both departure and arrival for airport delays, boarding, etc. The flight time is always less than what the airlines advertise. Also, some of these sites confuse nautical miles for statute miles so keep that in mind when you make calculations and make sure you know which number the airline is using. Airlines also have extra prep time for very long flights over the oceans and crew layover times that can affect the advertised flight time. Expedia: Santiago to Sydney non-stop flights Well, I'm kinda meandering here a bit. Let me just point out something: there can be no non-stop flights whatsoever between Sydney and Santiago using Boeing/Airbus airliners. They would fall into the ocean with empty fuel tanks if they tried to make a 25,400km flight. Aerospace-Technology.com: The top 10 longest range airliners in the world I could go on at length but I really don't want to contribute to making the world a stupider place.
The question of proof to the skeptic fascinates me, whatever the subject. So, let me ask you something. If I put you in the cockpit of a long-range airc aircraft. Say, flying due north from New York. So you could look out the fron front window the whole time and see the instruments, and gave you detailed flig flight map so you could follow along the route with your finger. Every few hour hours we would land to let you rest/sleep, etc., so that you always knew where you you w you you were in fixed reference to the ground. Then we took back off and continued the the the the route, flying over the north pole, then across through Russia, and down the othe oth othe other side of the world, map in hand, stopping to sleep. Then up again, over the th the the South Pole, and back up this side of the world to New York, would you then beli b beli believe that the world was round? What about if we went up further, into space, and you watched the world turn be below you, would you believe it then? What would it take to convince you to believe that the world really is round?
I always wonder if kooks would abandon their multiple kook theories if you thoroughly disproved their major kook theory. I think they wouldn't. Being a CT nutjob or full-blown multi-kook is a mental habit and deep-set personality characteristic. If you disprove one kookery, they'll just find another one. But then, I've never been able to put it to the test thoroughly. Which is what you are proposing.
I don't care about the "kook" label. I've heard many epithets hurled at me be because of things that I know that I cannot prove to others because I have no me means to do so. I am fascinated by adamant deniers - of God, for example - or, in this case, of the the spheroidal nature o the the spheroidal nature of the Earth. It does not make me angry, in the slightest degree, that people are Flat Ea Earthers. I just wonder what it would take to demonstrate to them that the Ea Earth is, in fact, a spheroid. I'm pretty sure that no amount of book waving for finger-wagging would do it, just a just as no amo just a just as no amount of that has ever been able to convince me of a single thing concer concerning Go concer concerning God and his existence. I required independent, empirical evidence of the of the sort of the of the sort that I would accept. Nobody provided me that, or tried, but God did. did. So I did. did. So I know there's God, because I know God. Since that time, others have vehemently wagged fingers and books at me telling me t me that I me t me that I DON'T know God, that I am delusional, etc., but I just laugh inside at t at them a at t at them and feel a little bit sorry for them, for reasons I needn't further elab elaborate. I've thought about it. I think the world is round because I don't see any pa particular reason to question it. I've sailed the world around, northern and so southern hemispheres, seen that the stars are different down under, seen what lo looks to me like a curved earth, watched ships rise out of the sea on one ho horizon and sink into the sea on the other. That this is because the earth is cu cur cu curved makes sense to me. The notion that there is a giant conspiracy...about AN AN AN ANYTHING...always sounds nutty to me, and makes me wonder why the person ch chooses to reject things that they reject. Still, it doesn't BOTHER me that people think the earth is flat. Heresy doesn't provoke any ire in me.
I would not say it makes me angry either. I've repeatedly said we are all challenged with certain deficiencies. The only thing that does irritate me in this and similar cases is when someone who doesn't understand something purports to do so while completely walling off what I consider basic logic. I guess it's when the time and effort I expend to debate and, what I would consider "enlighten" simply goes absolutely nowhere. That is when it becomes frustrating. I'm sure what I've just said is just as applicable to the my opposition as it is me on whatever subject. Many Christians say there is not enough faith in the world. I say the opposite. There's too much faith in the world. Faith in things that are simply not true. Our capacity to believe things is grossly underestimated and unappreciated.
For years and years you claimed to be a Christian. What is it that changed your mind? Or were you never really a Christian and you just said that because you were raised with Christians or something like that? Or you just said it without thinking about what it was? Seriously what changed your mind to believe in someone who suggests things to people while they are in a trance like state?
Tell me, Stone, how do you/we qualify a "real Christian"? How do you quantify what constitutes "real" belief? What does it really mean to "believe"? Vicomte13 just posted a bit about the meaning of the term concluding the difference with the term "faith" meaning "trust" more than "belief". I do not know about the tech defs of terms between languages. That's not my area, but I do concur that "belief", if it is to be on par with "head knowledge", regardless of whether the knowledge is correct or not, is not something that God cares about. The pseud-documentary called "The Secret", espouses a "Law of Attraction", which claims that whatever attitude you have in your heart is what will come to fruition in your life, whether good or bad. Leaving aside the question of how true that is (I think it is credible) I do think that describes what faith really is. It's not clenching your fists with your eyes shut trying to force your brain cells into aligning with a certain intellectual understanding, kinda like the child's fable story entitled "The Little Engine That Could" which I think we all know (a story that sure, is applicable for accomplishing challenging physical tasks) but it simply not applicable when it comes to understanding God. No, when it comes to God, understanding or acknowledging the truth doesn't come forcefully. It comes from being open minded, which you are not. You proved it by your prior post about how debating the question of 7+8=9 is a waste of time. In the same way, in your mind, debating the age of the earth is similarly a waste of time. You don't care why I and a great many people think it's far older. Unlike you, I am open minded. I always have been, even while I claimed to be a Christian. And my open minded nature allowed me to explore beyond the Bible. As a matter of theology, I subsequently found Michael Newton's work very credible. It fully qualified God as having all the patience the Bible talks about him having, in spite of the Bible's overall claim of the end of human life being the time when God's patience runs out. I find the theology of sin to be rather "messy" and always have, even while a Christian. Messy because sin must be done with intent, and intent is simply not qualifiable in many cases, particularly with very young children. Our comprehension of right and wrong varies abstractly. Under Newton, one's actual theological understanding of God isn't important. This solves the problem of God condemning people to hell for all eternity because of their sinful nature in spite of the fact that they may never had any opportunity to even hear about this one theological message about Jesus dying for our sins even though "Jesus" a name we are not spelling or pronouncing correctly as we have the wrong language. (But somehow, God knows who we mean anyway, right, so He allows us that leeway but not any other kind of leeway?) Sure you have your explanation about how it's okay for God to condemn people -- or allow them to condemn themselves. I, on the other hand, have an explanation for how that doesn't happen at all. If "faith" is indeed not mere head knowledge, but rather expresses actual trust, then I think I can say that I have faith that God doesn't act this way with non-Christians, and will not act that way with me. I will point out, as I have before, that over 90% of what Christianity teaches is compatible with Michael Newton's findings. Namely in terms of loving others, the Golden Rule, putting others first before yourself, loving your enemies, embellishing virtues and quashing vices. All of that is 100% the same. The only thing different is the theology of sin (though even there, there is some overlap), a final judgment after one life, the idea that our humanity is modeled after God, and of course, the question of how many times a soul can incarnate into a human body. And yes, I think it is accurate to say that Christianity does espouse that we did incarnate when soul merged with the human body. The difference is that Christianity says this can only happen once, while according to Newton, it can happen multiple times. In that light, "reincarnation" is not such a far-fetched theology. Michael Newton makes more theological sense. At least to me. Everything falls in place with this model. Contemporary accounts which are easy to find claim past life experiences, and the one account I've posted of several times of the young boy recalling being a pilot that was shot down and killed in WW2 being exceptionally compelling as he allegedly was even able to recall shipmate names at a veteran reunion. Sure you write that off as demons, but then again, you're close minded. You won't listen to any arguments that contradict the Bible, just as Liberator won't, it seems, listen to any arguments that the earth is round. I may not be a Christian, Stone, but it doesn't mean I don't have faith. God is better than anything you or I can possibly imagine. You may agree with that statement superficially, and yet you nonetheless still keep God in a box, not allowing him to be anything more than what the Bible depicts. You think that under God's watch and in accordance to a design that He signed off on, the vast majority of his children will end up burning in hell for all eternity. I say, God is better than that. And under Newton, God IS better than that. Our path is more than a single lifetime. Why shouldn't it be? And I have found what I believe to be validation in my own life that I have had past lives. No, not lives I can remember consciously, but experiences in past lives that would explain certain fears I've had in this life, and fears I am overcoming. Our journey is far longer, far more sophisticated, far deeper than a single lifetime could possibly offer. It all makes more sense.
A Christian is a human being who is indwelt by God's Spirit. That's basically it.
With that definition, under Newton, everyone is a Christian. Edit: Spelling that out, it's because all souls are born of God. It is that reason why we are considered children of God. It has nothing to do with our humanity (which is why evolution doesn't matter). What matters is our origins as souls, and all of us, as souls, originated from God.
In Christian belief, a person is born with a human spirit. However, that human spirit does not function the way it should, and that person experiences emptiness, which then causes that person to seek to fill the void, so to speak. That person will seek and try many things to fill the emptiness, but nothing ever truly satisfies. Oh, maybe for a little while that person will find excitement, relationships, possessions, ect. but in the end, they are still empty. However, when God's Spirit enters in, the human spirit becomes as it was intended, alive and in communion/fellowship with God. We have been created for this very reason, to have inward fellowship with God. If, as you say, all souls are born of God, why does humanity experience such supreme emptiness? Contrariwise, why does the Christian experience such supreme fullness, peace and joy, that wells up from a source not of a persons making, but of God dwelling within?
You illustrate the paradigm difference between conventional Christian belief and the Newton model I subscribe to. Not just Christian belief but also Judaism and Islam. All 3 of these faiths tend to phrase it as though the soul or spirit is an add-on to the physical body. A person is born "with" a human spirit. This expression implies the physical body is the primary identity of the person, of who and what we are, with the soul being a lessor component thrown in as a bonus. Under Newton, however, the soul **IS** the person, with the human body being the "add-on". It is the soul that defines the vast majority of our personal identity and even personality. Modern science has discovered DNA which has been accepted and presumed to be the defining element of all that we are, shaping our personality, favorite colors, virtues and vices. Under Newton, some qualities are indeed defined by our human structure, sexual preferences being one, but most of what we are is defined at the soul level. We are hybrid entities, mostly soul/spirit, but with a lessor human component, which would include capabilities of the human mind. The human body can be compared to a temporary rental unit instead of something that we own "for life" for the soul, and a rental unit that, once it stops working is disposed of and can be replaced at a future time. Stated another way, we do not say that shoes have feet, gloves have hands, or that hats have heads. We say feet have shoes, hands have gloves and so on. Saying a body has a soul is the same as the former when in fact it is a soul that may or may not have, or wear, a body. Certainly this is why fundamentalist Christians have a problem with evolution. Given the assumption that our DNA defines our full identity, it follows that if we are descended from apes, that apes define our origins. Under Newton, that is not a problem as our human nature is only incidental and does not define our true origins as souls. Under Newton, we have an alternate and more sensible explanation for why we are uniquely valuable to God over any other biological life form on earth. Fundamental Christianity, on the other hand, because it maintains our uniqueness revolves around human nature as being special and unique above all other life forms, has to impart something spiritually unique about the human body, about our DNA that other animals do not possess. It must rely on our humanity reflecting the "image of God", which is often inferred to be the human body itself. Under Newton, that's not the case at all. We incarnate into human form because the human body allows for social interaction which permits all manner of spiritual lessons to be learned. If intelligent life exists on other planets, we could just as easily incarnate into alien bodies for the same purpose. The human race is not who we are. It's what we use, and in spiritual terms is completely disposable, as is planet earth itself. I won't attempt to explain why emotions are experienced as it is something that can't be quantified, but I will say that any emotions associated with a certain religious faith do not necessarily validate the theology of that faith.
We incarnate into human form... So there is a God in the Newton model. What role does God play in your incarnation into human form? Is God central to your being? Or is God on the periphery, while you, your spirit, your being is central to your existence? If God isn't central to your existence, but is relegated to some ancillary role while you reincarnate, can you really say that this meets the definition of "God"? It seems that you have a self centered belief as opposed to a God centered belief.
In Newton's books, the actual term that is frequently cited for God is "The Source". My impression is that is the term repeatedly selected by clients to describe God but I won't swear to it. Obviously as an English, human term, it's definition is likely incomplete as, of course, English is certainly not the language of the spirit world. Rather, clients under hypnosis are using English to describe memories they are recalling of the spirit world. I'm sure you can empathize with that sort of issue in comparing English to Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible. I'm not sure where you are going with that question, but it seems a very deep question and I'm not really inclined to recite the whole book. If you are asking about whether our purpose in life is all centered around God or centered around ourselves, I'd probably say it's centered around everyone, including God, and including ourselves. As we grow, all around us also benefit, so it's not like it's even possible to grow in a self-centered way that doesn't benefit everyone. Consider an analogy to be the average family. The life of parents in a healthy family are pretty much centered around the children, in helping them grow and learn wisdom and knowledge. Why then would it, should it, be different between us and God? The idea that we are nothing and God is everything, which is a frequent theme in Christianity, is inaccurate. If God created us "in His image", which is one biblical description I agree with and which I think is largely how things work in the Newton model, then to say we are nothing is inaccurate. We are special. Not because God arbitrarily decided that we were special. We are special because we, as souls, were born of God. We are special because of our origin and nature. And that has absolutely nothing to do with human DNA or evolution or anything having to do with planet earth.
When I look into the clear night sky I see mass (stars, planets, whatever) and wonder, how did this get here? When I try to look beyond the stars, I wonder, where does this end? I try to imagine what is beyond what I can see, and then what is beyond that, and what is beyond that! And I realize I am looking into infinity...and my brain bogs down. (Try it some time) My brain can't deal with something that has no end because I am a finite creature trying to comprehend the infinite. So my point is this: God is EVEN BIGGER than the infinite universe! He made the universe! Merely by speaking it into existence. Out of nothing. So when the Bible says we are as nothing compared to God...we understand that we are indeed "as nothing". Dust. The unsurpassed beauty of Christianity is that we know a God Who, although is All-powerful, All-knowing, Self-existent(Try to comprehend that), has condescended to not only dwell among us, but to actually serve us, and make a way for us to live with Him forever. That, Ping, is the love of God... God is infinitely more than the "The Source". And that is the kind of God you need and do not have...yet.
I can empathize with much of what you say. But I don't see the connect with your final statement. Neither term, "God" or "The Source", can adequately describe all God is. And this conversation isn't about describing all that he is. It's about how life works. You subscribe to a theology written many thousands of years ago, ascribing some divine truthful authority for it. I, on the other hand, subscribe to a more basic & human explanation for Biblical origins. You admit the universe is incomprehensibly large, and yet maintain it is comprehensibly young. I consider the universe both incomprehensibly large and incomprehensibly old. You insist biological life is too miraculous for any explanation other than divine creation to explain it. I say divine creation does not necessarily exclude utilizing evolution. You suggest God is infinitely more than what we can imagine (true) and yet would create a system that would see so many perish for all eternity simply for not understanding or believing a certain theology. I ask why it is God would make understanding a theology, which is something serviced by the human mind, a condition to enjoying eternal life when even mortal parents would not approve of condemning their own kids to death for not understanding, say, basic mathematics. But your final statement implies that you know me, and you really don't. You base the claim on my academic understanding. I think God is better than that. He really has to be, and the Newton model essentially removes limits on God that Biblical Christianity has in place. It works better in every way I can see. If God condemns me for all eternity because of my theological understanding, then He'll condemn me for being an honest man. If you know God as you claim you do, can you honestly tell me that that is something God would actually do?
I can tell you that there is no injustice whatsoever in God. If there were He would not be God. God is not capable of any wrong or imperfection. When He deals with mankind, including you, it is with perfect justice, perfect love, etc. Understanding is not the basis of Christian theology...it is by faith that God finds us acceptable. Child like faith no bigger that a mustard seed. Not everyone can "understand" because that requires mental capacity, but the capacity to have faith is found in everyone. When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in. Adam and Eve were created to be in the prime of life. Everything God spoke into existence was created with the exact appearance of the age He so chose. Some theologians speculate that Adam would have been created to be the age that Christ was when He died on the cross. You say I don't know you, true, but I know human nature. We are all pretty much the same. We all share the same fallen condition. We all need our Creator, to speak to us, to love us and accept us as we are, to restore us to beings that are fit for that eternal life for which we crave.
That is interesting. If corrupt Eve hadn't tempted Adam to eat an apple from the one magical tree in all of creation that could instantly confer on the eater the ability to discern good from evil, primarily by revealing to the eater their own nakedness, it does lead to other questions. If Eve ate the apple first, then she had to know she was naked. Why didn't she go hide her nakedness from Adam? Instead she boldly and cunningly approached him, trying to make him Fall as well. That bitch. And if Adam or Eve had ever refrained from eating those apples of nakedyness, then what use would mankind have for a savior like Jesus? They wouldn't need Jesus at all, being sinless. There would have been no sins to forgive, would there? No one to nail him to a cross, no one to accuse him, etc. And no one ever has explained why God, with his perfect foreknowledge of future events that leads to prophecies that come true, failed to foresee that the snake would tempt Eve and then use her as a Vessel Of Evil to cause Adam's fall. Why didn't God see this coming? Why didn't God protect his creation from Satan's plan to thwart God's entire plan of pure and innocent creation with a couple of apples, a snake and a weak woman? Why wasn't God omniscient back in the days of Eden? Why was God lacking in foreknowledge that Satan would attempt to destroy the very nature of God's creation?
Here's the kicker on this, as I see it. Cause here's the thing. Reincarnation is not in the least bit a new theological concept. It actually predates Christianity itself, and is built in to Hinduism and Buddhism. It's even referenced, I believe, in the Bible as one of Paul's letters seems to discount reincarnation with a line about it being appointed to man "once to die" and after that, the judgment. So in my musings, I've wondered why, if the Newton model is correct, it does not exist as a mainstream faith as the "big 5" do (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism). And the answer I come up with is because there is no mandate built into the Newton model that the belief be spread. Christianity has that in the form of a fear of eternal damnation, so believers are energized with the urgency of teaching others the faith. Can't speak for Islam but in at least some versions of it, if you don't believe you get your head chopped off so that's another energizing factor for the faith. With the Newton model, there is no such mandate to convince others of anything because their is no consequence for not believing the Newton model. Ergo, I postulate that if Christianity did not include the doctrine of Jesus being the son of God, and the necessity of believing in sin being washed away by his blood shed on the cross with a final judgment.... then Christianity would not exist today because people thousands of years ago would not have had any drive to spread the gospel. Not to others, and not to their children.
Which brings me to another question...where is this reincarnation taking you? The "spiritual lessons" you learn each time you reincarnate, do they have some end where you reach perfection? How many times must you repeat life before you get it right...then what? Have you ever watched anyone die? Do you not feel that the act of dying would be painful enough to learn almost every spiritual lesson there is to learn?
Eventually we progress to the point where further trips to the gymnasium called earth is of minimal value, and we stop incarnating, continuing our growth in the spirit realm. Yes, I have. Absolutely not. Not in the least. Not even close. While our approach to death can be terrifying, even to the point of leaving some scars in the form of phobias on subsequent lives (fear of heights, claustrophobia and such), my perception is that exiting this life and returning to the spirit world is so wonderful that it easily would qualify as the happiest day of anyone's life. There was one woman who had a near death experience, or claims to, a Dr. Mary Neal, I think her name is. She drowned in a kayak accident and was underwater for maybe 15 minutes or more. She claims an experience quite compatible with Newton's findings, and was so elated upon death she didn't want to come back. At all. And that in spite of having 4 young children in her care. I recall her interview in which she answered a question as to why she took so many years to write of her experience, and one reason she gave was because she was ashamed. Ashamed that she didn't want to come back in spite of having 4 children that needed and depended on her. It was a sentiment that wasn't even in the least bit negotiable, as what she experienced in her NDE was simply that overwhelming. And it seems she was in every way a very good and loving mother. This woman comes across as very intelligent (she is a medical doctor) and speaks very objectively of her experience. Though I will add in all fairness that she considers her experience to be a validation of Christianity. That in spite of my take on her descriptions as being 100% compatible with Newton. That's a bit of an aside, but the point remains, that death itself is a wonderful thing. While in the Christian model is it a permanent departure and certainly invokes lots of sadness, under the Newton model, it's simply the end of one chapter in the very long book of the story of one soul's total experience in earthly life. Death does not mark an exit from human life from which we never return. In the words of a certain terminator robot, the expression "I'll be back" could certainly be fitting for someone's dying breath.
I've had dreams that were just as real (if not more so) than she experienced in her unconscious state, her NDE as you say. I don't think her experience has anything to do with Christianity. We are dead when the spirit leaves the body...and the spirit does not come back. The human spirit either goes to be with Christ, or the spirit goes into Hades, the fiery holding tank for unbelieving humans, to await the final judgement. With so much returning to the earth (6000 divided by 70 = 85.7 potential reincarnations) we are not seeing ANY sign of human progression toward perfection. In fact, just the opposite. What we ARE seeing is what the Bible describes: Look at that passage closely, Ping. You know its true!
But when have human beings ever been anything else? History reveals that is the fundamental nature of mankind. Even the bible says we're children of the devil and never want to do anything righteous. Everything we find in our recorded history is more of the same things that Paul is complaining about to Timothy, sometimes a little worse or a little better but fundamentally the same as far as human conduct. Exactly where in human history is this era of the Good Old Days that is the baseline to which we should compare all human life? Name a year or a century and a place where these Good Old Days existed. Give some examples of historical eras and locales where mankind was any different than what Paul was complaining about. It sounds a lot like some old guy pining for The Good Old Days. And Paul was an old dude when he wrote this to Timothy. Doesn't it sound like the lament of an old man, staring at approaching death, and regretting his choices and the choices of others outside his control? Normally, when we hear people speak of the Good Old Days, we find those Good Old Days were just the same as the present. The people speaking were just younger and more naive or at least more filled with hope for the future. Now get off my lawn, punk. LOL
Yeah, it does. And given the transparent falsehood of that statement, it should be an alarm bell for everybody reading it that this book is full of hyperbole and colorful speech that CANNOT be taken literally word-for-word.
#152. To: Vicomte13 (#150)
I was disappointed that no one read my mega-post on the Jefferson bible (and my own sleuthing about the possible use of a Baskerville KJV). Jefferson was an interesting Founder, a real Enlightenment kind of guy. Like you, Jefferson focused on the words and moral teachings of Jesus. Like you, he disliked Paul, rather intensely. Like you, he was a church of one and considered himself alone in his beliefs despite being very much a Unitarian most of his adult life. I thought the parallels were interesting. But you like the accounts of miracles in the Gospels and like relics like the Shroud even more. And Jefferson rejected most of them. Anyway, it is an interesting exercise, to see what Jefferson created with a razor and a glue pot over the course of a few nights cutting and pasting bits of a couple KJV bibles and a copy of a Greek and French and Latin bible. You have to wonder what other people might create if they chose to engage in a similar exercise. It does highlight what a person actually believes the real message of the bible is, at least to them. Maybe you should consider publishing the Vicomte bible. I'm sure it would be a big hit down at the rectory. : )
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWhen you have the time, please give them all a look; I consider them a crash-course in Earth-Science Truth, Logic, and Reason.
#20. To: Pinguinite (#12)
I watched both. I find them, to varying degrees, flawed.
#21. To: Liberator (#20)
But to your premise, multiple civilizations for thousands of years had already presumed its shape not only to be Flat, but having a Dome or Firmament over it.
#22. To: Pinguinite, ALL (#21)
There's no reason ancients living thousands of years ago should be considered a scientific authority. If we don't consider them an authority when they said that all matter could be subcategorized into one of: Earth, Air, Fire & Water...
#23. To: Liberator (#22)
By whose authority, by what criteria IS the earth said to definitively be a "globe"? Because IF it's NASA, they and their credibility is already an ongoing problem and challenge. I
#24. To: Pinguinite (#23)
(Edited)
You really are big on that "whose authority?" question, and not just on religious topics.
#34. To: Liberator, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#24)
Curious geometry:
The 747-400, the most common variant in service, has a high-subsonic cruise speed of Mach 0.85–0.855 (up to 570 mph or 920 km/h) with an intercontinental range of 7,260 nautical miles (8,350 statute miles or 13,450 km).[16]
So are 300-400 people per day just dying when their airliners crash into the sea and no one ever mentions it or NASA is somehow deceiving us all? Are you stating that these non-stop flights do actually fly over the United States at any time, day or night, and none of the passengers ever notice all those brightly-lit cities along the way or that huge continental land mass? There are 300-400 people flying these non-stop flights, generally on a daily basis and none of them ever notice they were flying over South America and North America on their way between Chile and Australia? Or is NASA just deceiving us all by getting Qantas to advertise these flights but they never actually take the passengers on those flights after they book them and pay for them? Boeing and Airbus take pride in manufacturing some of the world's longest range airliners. The Boeing 777-200LR - with a massive range of 17,395km - tops the list, followed by the Airbus A340-500 with a range of 16,670km.
#35. To: Liberator (#34)
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
What would it take to convince you to believe that the world really is round?
#37. To: Tooconservative (#36)
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
It does not make me angry, in the slightest degree, that people are Flat Earthers. I just wonder what it would take to demonstrate to them that the Earth is, in fact, a spheroid.
#60. To: Pinguinite (#54)
There's too much faith in the world. Faith in things that are simply not true. Our capacity to believe things is grossly underestimated and unappreciated.
#68. To: A K A Stone, Liberator, Vicomte13, watchman, Tooconservative (#60)
For years and years you claimed to be a Christian. What is it that changed your mind? Or were you never really a Christian and you just said that because you were raised with Christians or something like that? Or you just said it without thinking about what it was? Seriously what changed your mind to believe in someone who suggests things to people while they are in a trance like state?
Or were you never really a Christian...
#84. To: Pinguinite (#68)
how do you/we qualify a "real Christian"?
#86. To: watchman (#84)
(Edited)
A Christian is a human being who is indwelt by God's Spirit.
That's basically it.
#87. To: Pinguinite (#86)
With that definition, under Newton, everyone is a Christian.
#90. To: watchman (#87)
In Christian belief, a person is born with a human spirit.
If, as you say, all souls are born of God, why does humanity experience such supreme emptiness? Contrariwise, why does the Christian experience such supreme fullness, peace and joy, that wells up from a source not of a persons making, but of God dwelling within?
#95. To: Pinguinite (#90)
Under Newton, we have an alternate and more sensible explanation for why we are uniquely valuable to God over any other biological life form on earth.
#97. To: watchman (#95)
So there is a God in the Newton model.
What role does God play in your incarnation into human form?
Is God central to your being? Or is God on the periphery, while you, your spirit, your being is central to your existence?
If God isn't central to your existence, but is relegated to some ancillary role while you reincarnate, can you really say that this meets the definition of "God"?
It seems that you have a self centered belief as opposed to a God centered belief.
#99. To: Pinguinite (#97)
The idea that we are nothing and God is everything, which is a frequent theme in Christianity, is inaccurate.
#102. To: watchman (#99)
God is infinitely more than the "The Source". And that is the kind of God you need and do not have...yet.
#103. To: Pinguinite (#102)
If you know God as you claim you do, can you honestly tell me that that is something God would actually do?
#109. To: watchman, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#103)
When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in. Adam and Eve were created to be in the prime of life. Everything God spoke into existence was created with the exact appearance of the age He so chose. Some theologians speculate that Adam would have been created to be the age that Christ was when He died on the cross.
#114. To: Tooconservative, watchman (#109)
And if Adam or Eve had ever refrained from eating those apples of nakedyness, then what use would mankind have for a savior like Jesus? They wouldn't need Jesus at all, being sinless. There would have been no sins to forgive, would there? No one to nail him to a cross, no one to accuse him, etc.
#131. To: Pinguinite (#114)
Reincarnation is not in the least bit a new theological concept.
a line about it being appointed to man "once to die"
#136. To: watchman (#131)
Which brings me to another question...where is this reincarnation taking you? The "spiritual lessons" you learn each time you reincarnate, do they have some end where you reach perfection? How many times must you repeat life before you get it right...then what?
Have you ever watched anyone die?
Do you not feel that the act of dying would be painful enough to learn almost every spiritual lesson there is to learn?
#137. To: Pinguinite (#136)
This woman comes across as very intelligent (she is a medical doctor) and speaks very objectively of her experience. Though I will add in all fairness that she considers her experience to be a validation of Christianity.
Eventually we progress to the point where further trips to the gymnasium called earth is of minimal value, and we stop incarnating,
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. 2Tim 3
#138. To: watchman, Pinguinite, Liberator (#137)
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. 2Tim 3
#150. To: Tooconservative (#138)
Even the bible says we're children of the devil and never want to do anything righteous.
Replies to Comment # 150. Yeah, it does. And given the transparent falsehood of that statement, it should be an alarm bell for everybody reading it that this book is full of hyperbole and colorful speech that CANNOT be taken literally word-for-word.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 150.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]