Community > Posts By > ReserveCorp
Topic:
The proof is in the pudding
|
|
De LA soul say 3 is a magik number What is that about? Me not know. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Who invented who
|
|
"Dark matter" is a fooler of a term, a place holder for something that is, at this time, strictly hypothetical. In other words, they have no idea what they're talking about. Isn't it strange that modern science supposedly knows that the "Big Bang" happened 13.3097441 billion years ago, give or take 10 minutes, but doesn't know what makes up 94% of the universe?
Many science-savvy people take it for granted that the universe is made not only of Carl Sagan's oft-quoted "billions and billions" of galaxies, but also a vast amount of an invisible substance called dark matter. This odd matter is thought to be a new kind of subatomic particle that doesn't interact via electromagnetism, nor the strong and weak nuclear forces. Dark matter is also supposed to be five times more prevalent in the universe than the ordinary matter of atoms. According to evolution's Big Bang theory all matter was flung out into the universe. According to the second law of thermal dynamics (Entropy) the energy used during the big bang is being used up and any expansion is slowing down. Eventually expansion would stop and equilibrium (no movement) will take place. Science has given evidence that the universe is continuing to expand and doing so at a faster rate. Since a creator is out of the question scientists have spent nine decades searching for an explanation. Dark Matter is the latest "discovery". However, the reality is that dark matter's existence has not yet been proven. Dark matter is still a hypothesis yet some sectors of the science community already assume it is "near" fact. Any scientific theory has to make predictions, and if it's right, then the measurements that are performed should line up with the predictions. Dark matter theories make predictions for how fast galaxies are rotating. But measurements made of the detailed dark matter distribution at the center of low mass galaxies didn't line up with those predictions. If dark matter does exists and is causing the universe to expand at a higher rate then it has to interact with matter and obey the laws of physics. Stars orbit their parent galaxy in nearly circular paths and gravity is the force that holds the stars in those orbits. Newton's equations predict that the force that makes the stars move in a circular path, F(circular), should equal the force due to gravity on the star, F(gravity), or else the star would fly off into space or fall in to the center of the galaxy (Newton's F = ma). Near the center of galaxies, Rubin and Ford found that F(circular) was roughly equal to F(gravity), as expected. But far from the center of the galaxies, the two sides of the equation didn't match up very well. These insights reveal that either we don't understand how inertia works, we don't understand how gravity works. Since God has been left out a third possibility is that the equal sign is wrong, meaning that there is some other force or effect that the equation doesn't include. Newton is wrong! So,again, in order to maintain the theory a proven law of physics is denied and an unproven theory (dark matter) now reins supreme. If dark matter does effect normal matter as we know it then it should be measurable and monitor it's direct effect on regular matter. Other physicists have suggested modifications of the laws of gravity. Einstein's general relativity doesn't help here because, in this realm, Einstein's and Newton's predictions are essentially identical. That a type of matter that doesn't interact with light at all, yet exerts a gravitational pull, permeates the universe. Question: how can a type of matter exist that doesn't interact with light yet exerts a gravitational pull on light? As in many theories and assumptions put forward to defend evolution no scientific proof exists yet the scientific community will cling fast to these theories (teaching them to our children as fact) until several decades pass and they are found to be without a sound scientific base. But then society continues to live within this deception. |
|
|
|
Good question, actually. There IS another way, but it's only for an elite group of people, those, like Elijah and Enoch (and others who we may never have heard of) who aligned their wills perfectly with God's will while on earth. When that happens, the individual "fuses" with the fragment of God within them (Luke 17:21) and (is "translated" in a spiritual "chariot of fire") by-passes normal mortal death, going directly to "heaven" (the "mansions" that Jesus spoke of (John 14:2)) (2Ki 2:11) And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb 11:5) Anyway, I'm not real big on the bible but there's the tell-tale accounts of two people who did not die to get to heaven. Blake's post starts here They didn't die YET. It is appointed unto man to die once (no exceptions) given in the Bible. Elijah and Enoch are the two great witnesses in the last days who are killed for proclaiming The Word of God. I didn't say they died. I said what the bible says, that they were "translated" directly to the "mansions" by-passing normal mortal death. They are not on earth anymore. And no, they are not the two witnesses. Your sect of Christianity may say that the two witnesses are Elijah and Enoch, but the fact is that there is no universal Christian view on it and in fact, no one knows who they are, or even if they are. |
|
|
|
OMG!!!!!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (CNN) — A prosperity gospel televangelist from Louisiana says Jesus has asked him to buy a new private jet. And wouldn't you know it, Jesus has real nice taste in planes. Jesse Duplantis, leader of Jesse Duplantis Ministries and the owner of three other private jets, is asking his followers to chip in so his ministry can purchase a brand new Dassault Falcon 7X, which runs about $54 million. In a video recently published on his website, Duplantis says the planes get him closer to the Lord -- both literally and figuratively -- and he had a divine conversation in which Jesus asked for the new aircraft by name. "It was one of the greatest statements the Lord ever told me, he said, 'Jesse do you want to come up where I'm at?'" the minister says. "'I want you to bleed me for a Falcon 7X.'" By "bleed," Duplantis -- er, Jesus -- apparently meant "ask for donations." Duplantis goes on to tell his followers that jets, especially nice ones with good fuel efficiency, allow him and his ministries to reach more people around the world. And no, it wouldn't technically be his, it would be the ministry's. "I really believe that if Jesus was physically on the earth today, he wouldn't be riding a donkey," he added with a chuckle. In the video, Duplantis also shows his followers a photo of him standing beside his other three jets: a Cessna Citation 500, an IAI Westwind II, and a Dassault Falcon 50. Under the portrait is a quote, which he proudly reiterates: "It's not about possessions, it's about priorities." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ can you BELIEVE the audacity of this 'preacher' who wants his followers to donate $54 million dollars to him,so he can purchase a 4th jet for him,that he claims jesus told him to buy?? and,how ridiculously stupid are the people who follow him?? i think that people like this should be put UNDER the prison for fraud,and have all of their TAX FREE assets stripped from them,and have them donated to a REAL charity that DESERVES a tax free status!! does anybody actually believe that 'jesus' told him to take money from the poor,and buy him a 4th $54 million dollar jet? and,how are we letting frauds like this Piece of crap take advantage of poor,good intentioned,god fearing people like this,and not doing anything about it?? what are your thoughts about this?? There is apparently a certain percentage of people who need this sort of thing, or who are too gullible to be able to say No. |
|
|
|
Good question, actually. There IS another way, but it's only for an elite group of people, those, like Elijah and Enoch (and others who we may never have heard of) who aligned their wills perfectly with God's will while on earth. When that happens, the individual "fuses" with the fragment of God within them (Luke 17:21) and (is "translated" in a spiritual "chariot of fire") by-passes normal mortal death, going directly to "heaven" (the "mansions" that Jesus spoke of (John 14:2)) (2Ki 2:11) And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb 11:5) Anyway, I'm not real big on the bible but there's the tell-tale accounts of two people who did not die to get to heaven. |
|
|
|
Topic:
How do you
|
|
...to the ignorant, unknown technology could be considered God like powers.... Or as Arthur C Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." |
|
|
|
Topic:
How do you
|
|
I totally agree. My beliefs are mine. I enjoy learning different things but I don't need to defend my beliefs I hope you don't mind my offering this bit from The Urantia Book which I think supports exactly what you said. (I bolded some text.) 99:5.6 Any religious belief which is effective in spiritualizing the believer is certain to have powerful repercussions in the social life of such a religionist. Religious experience unfailingly yields the “fruits of the spirit” in the daily life of the spirit-led mortal. 99:5.7 Just as certainly as men share their religious beliefs, they create a religious group of some sort which eventually creates common goals. Someday religionists will get together and actually effect co-operation on the basis of unity of ideals and purposes rather than attempting to do so on the basis of psychological opinions and theological beliefs. Goals rather than creeds should unify religionists. Since true religion is a matter of personal spiritual experience, it is inevitable that each individual religionist must have his own and personal interpretation of the realization of that spiritual experience. Let the term “faith” stand for the individual’s relation to God rather than for the creedal formulation of what some group of mortals have been able to agree upon as a common religious attitude. “Have you faith? Then have it to yourself.” |
|
|
|
Topic:
Who invented who
|
|
The urantia book sounds a bit like how scientology began. How so? When you read it, what reminded you of Scientology? If you are interested in knowing how The Urantia Book came about, here's a pretty good explanation, fwiw: http://www.609g.biz.ht/index.html |
|
|
|
Topic:
The Living Presence of God
|
|
From mightymoe
the bible isn't meant to be understood, its meant to be explained by someone who says they are closer to God than you... And exactly how would you know that? The Bible is meant to be understood. But only those who have read it would know that. But bigd, I can say the exact same thing about The Urantia Book. Here, let me try it out: paraphrasing bigd: The Urantia Book is meant to be understood. But only those who have read it would know that. In fact, such is our unofficial motto: "You have to read it to believe it." Amen. |
|
|
|
Topic:
The Living Presence of God
|
|
So whether you read these 500 quotes or not, you will never understand Christianity without reading The Scriptures in their entirety. Maybe not. Maybe it doesn't matter if anyone understands Christianity. You yourself reject a major tenet of mainstream Christianity, the Trinity. And 80% of "The Scriptures" is the scriptures of the Jews. So maybe reading The Scriptures in their entirety would cause one to understand Judaism 80% and Christianity 20%. I really fail to see how reading a book in its entirety which is 80% the Hebrew scriptures will cause anyone to understand Christianity. There must be some un-said assumptions here. Maybe all they need is to know what they need to do to attain eternal life, that information directly from Jesus, not from Paul or Peter or Moses, etc. Oh, here it is: ...Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (Luke 10:25) "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." (Luke 10:27) "Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21) The only ones who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, according to Jesus, is "he who does the will of my Father." So simple. Throw the rest out, imo. |
|
|
|
Topic:
The Living Presence of God
|
|
Can't any religious folks have a disscussion without posting 500 quotes from the bible? The bible is abstract, meaning everyone interprets a different way... So by posting scriptures isn't really helping anything, just makes for an argument... Plus that, if we can read it here, we can read it in the bible as well... Sometimes I get the impression that the book and what is written in them is more important than the ideals it is meant to instruct. The books no longer supports the religion but become the religion itself. Quoting the passages from the book is only pertinent if the person reading the passages believes the concepts of the book. The passage quotes prove nothing except that it is written in that book. In science fiction, imagination is written as fantasy based on science. Most religious texts don't have a basis in science or reality. If you look in the fiction section of a book store you will find lots of books based on imagination and belief. The commonality is they are all based on some type of fantasy. It doesn't matter how complex the fantasy is, if it is not based on reality - it is fiction. Now when passages are quoted and the work is based on fiction it has the same importance as quoting "The Hobbit" or "A Princess of Mars". Any relation to reality is subjective to interpretation. However, if you quote passages from a book of stereo instructions the passage has significance because stereos exist in the real world, wires, input/output jacks and components exist in the real world. You can go find them and follow the quoted passage to a definite outcome. Right. And if you do interpret those instructions incorrectly it yields immediate negative results. (No sound from the speakers) I get it. And thanks, Moe and Tom for some well thought out posts. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Who invented who
|
|
I think saying and doing certain things on stage in front of the prime minister may have had something to do with it and it was made to look like a robbery Wikipedia says: On 11 September 1987, just after Tosh had returned to his home in Jamaica, a three-man gang came to his house on motorcycles and demanded money.[13][14] Tosh replied that he did not have any with him but the gang did not believe him. They stayed at his residence for several hours and tortured him in an attempt to extort money from Tosh. Over the hours, as various Tosh's associates arrived to visit him, they were also taken hostage by the gunmen. The gunmen became more and more frustrated, especially the chief thug, Dennis "Leppo" Lobban, a man whom Tosh had previously befriended and tried to help find work after a long jail sentence.[13] Tosh said he did not have any money in the house, after which Lobban and the fellow gunmen began opening fire in a reckless manner. Tosh was shot twice in the head and killed. Herbalist Wilton "Doc" Brown also died as a result of wounds sustained during the robbery. Several others in the house were wounded, including Tosh's common law wife, Andrea Marlene Brown, disc jockey Jeff 'Free I' Dixon and his wife, Yvonne, Tosh's drummer Carlton "Santa" Davis and musician Michael Robinson.[15][16] According to Police Commissioner Herman Ricketts, Dennis "Leppo" Lobban surrendered and two other men were interrogated but not publicly named.[17] Lobban went on to plead innocent during his trial, telling the court he had been drinking with friends. The trial was held in a closed court due to the involvement of illegal firearms. Lobban was ultimately found guilty by a jury of eight women and four men and sentenced to death by hanging.[18] His sentence was commuted in 1995 and Lobban remains in jail.[19] Another suspect was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.[20] The other two gunmen were never identified by name. It is said that they were killed in a daylight gun battle in the street. [19] |
|
|
|
Topic:
Who invented who
|
|
The Urantia Book is a collection of spiritualistic channelled writings (as per claims from William Sadler) mostly from the 1930s, compiled and published in 1955. William Sadler never claimed any such thing. Nor was The Urantia Book "channeled." And what does "spiritualistic" mean? Dave, you really should stop copying and pasting material from hostile Christian sources about The Urantia Book, which you yourself have not read. The Urantianism
There is no such word as "Urantianism." was founded by two former Seventh-day Adventists--Chicago psychiatrist William Sadler
I know this is an attempt to smear, Dave, associating with the Seventh Day Adventists, but in fact, everyone has a history. Christianity was founded by a Jew or a bunch of Jews. So what? The Urantia Book was delivered to William Sadler by seven spirit beings in 1934.
The above is totally false. Who made that up or why, I have no idea. If you want to know how The Urantia Book came about, here's the story here: http://www.609g.biz.ht/index.html The writings combine Christianity with a cosmology of extraterrestrial spirit beings. The book presents an elaborate pseudo-history of the universe (the book actually claims there are many universes, superuniverses, and so on), and that the name of planet Earth in this cosmology is "Urantia". In the Urantia Book Jesus was the most important spirit being in this universe who came to "Urantia" (Earth) to solidify his superior status, but the ideas of original sin or any need for Jesus to atone for human sins are rejected. In this, it departs from biblical theology.
It doesn't matter if it "departs from biblical theology." And what is "biblical theology"? 80% of the bible is the scriptures of the Jews. Christianity departs from biblical theology if the truth were known. The Urantia Book is an amalgamation of the Theosophical literature of the late 19th century or early 20th century:
It is not. There are sticking similarities.
What are "sticking similarities" exactly? I've never heard of them before. The Urantia Book contains pronouncements on evolution, cosmology, physics and quantum mechanics, which Martin Gardner ( former Scientific American mathematics columnist) finds deeply flawed.
Martin Gardner is dead, and he himself was deeply flawed. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Who invented who
|
|
what seems odd to me, the more science discovers the more proof about the Hebrew God there is. There is no "proof" about the Hebrew God or any other God. No "proof." There is only belief. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Who invented who
|
|
Who's Yeshua, your the 1st person I've ever heard have a bad word for ganesha. It's an affectation, calling Jesus "Yeshua." |
|
|
|
Topic:
Who invented who
|
|
What's the deal with all this scripture quoeting, does it prove god, why is their never any mention of other religions or goddess's. If God/gods and goddess's do exist didn't they exist before 'scripture'. If I said God was talking to me and told me to write a book and I started quoiting this book to you, you would probably dismiss me as a lunatic This is a religious thread . Yes, but not a Christian/Bible thread necessarily. And , yes most of us would think your a lunatic (as you say) if you claim you wrote a book that God told you to and you quoted from it.
Why? Why? Because God's Word is complete and has been.
That is just your belief, right? You can't "prove" your statement. Why? Because "your book" would not be inspired by God.
And how could you possibly know that? Can you prove that your book is inspired by God? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Topic:
The Living Presence of God
|
|
And furthermore, the problem with a Christian Only forum is who gets to decide who is a Christian? Who is the arbiter of such things? The Pope? Jerry Falwell? And what do they agree on? For instance, I believe in God the Father, the Creator, the Trinity, in Jesus as God's divine son, in Jesus as the Savior, in the Resurrection and the Crucifixion, and so on, and yet there were self-righteous Christians on the DH Christian Only forum who said I was not a Christian. I just didn't believe EVERYTHING exactly as they did, so I was not a Christian, according to them. I follow Jesus only, and that's not good enough. You have to follow Paul, John, Ringo, and George, and the entire Old Testament and every blasphemy against God in it, or you're not a Christian, according to them. So no, a "Christian Only" forum is unworkable, in my opinion. Who decides who is a Christian? Aye, Matey, thar's the rub. That was dh. Here it is what the individual feels. Thank you. What the individual feels is how it should be. |
|
|
|
Topic:
The Living Presence of God
|
|
And furthermore, the problem with a Christian Only forum is who gets to decide who is a Christian? Who is the arbiter of such things? The Pope? Jerry Falwell? And what do they agree on? For instance, I believe in God the Father, the Creator, the Trinity, in Jesus as God's divine son, in Jesus as the Savior, in the Resurrection and the Crucifixion, and so on, and yet there were self-righteous Christians on the DH Christian Only forum who said I was not a Christian. I just didn't believe EVERYTHING exactly as they did, so I was not a Christian, according to them. I follow Jesus only, and that's not good enough. You have to follow Paul, John, Ringo, and George, and the entire Old Testament and every blasphemy against God in it, or you're not a Christian, according to them. So no, a "Christian Only" forum is unworkable, in my opinion. Who decides who is a Christian? Aye, Matey, thar's the rub.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The proof is in the pudding
|
|
you pray to a rock, gold image, painting and you get hardship. [the perfect example is Greece. they went from a great community of multiple sources to a nation so far in debt they will never see the light of day].
Yes, its much better to pray to a cross, some beads, a statue or an imaginary magical entity someone else told you about. By your own standards, you should be Catholic because the Catholic church is one of the most financially backed which will yield the highest "blessings". Could it be that peoples beliefs are not based in mortal gains? Could it be that other religions understand that belief is a personal experience and allow others to believe as they will? They have no 'Need' to impose their beliefs of the rest of humanity? They don't operate feeling they constantly need to 'Justify' their beliefs to anyone? Then there are those who's scripture comes from within based on morals and values they gain thru life experiences. They are not so 'Insecure' in their beliefs that they feel they need to fight all other religions to prove to themselves they are 'Worthy'. They don't live in 'fear' of life or the afterlife and see the world's beauty instead of the world's corruption. the Catholics are 3rd world to me. look at Central/South America. full of Catholics suffering like the hindu/buddhist. a good indication that Catholicism is incorrect. besides, if you read the actual Catholic Encyclopedias, you will discover their admitted lies and interferences within scripture. example: the original Matthew 28:19 has Yeshua telling His disciple to baptize in HIS NAME only. the Catholic Encyclopedia admits in 2nd century changing it to Father-Son-Holy Ghost. so in theory, since the Catholics bastardized the baptismal formula, anyone baptized in the trinity is not actually baptized by the WORD/COMMAND of Yeshua [God in the flesh]. so yeah, toss Catholics to me all day, I don't buy their statues, images, a-n-a-l beads, hail Mary's, pray to the dead. what I see is Romans who tossed their Greek myths [statues of zeus, demeter, etc] and created new statues of the disciples and Yeshua [which is against what the Bible teaches]. to me, Catholics are still as pagan as their ancestors were. anyone who needs a trinket is weak minded. Wow, ^THAT^ is what you got out of what I wrote? Musta touched a nerve? nope, I took your post concerning Catholics use of crosses, prayer beads, statues, etc. and then added some facts concerning Catholics that have been documented within their archives. and knowing they did bastardized portions of scripture is a little upsetting. in my view, it would have been nice to have seen scripture in it's purest form, not what the Catholics wanted it to say!! it's good the Hebrews always had a copy of the Torah [O.T]. even within the kjv you can find some adaptations to it [Isiah was written in Hebrew 1,500 years before Latin existed...but the latin word Lucifer is found within the Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah]...but if you read the Torah, you see where it was not bastardized because the Jews had the original which the Catholics could not actually change without being revealed immediately]. but not much of a nerve, as much as I just would have liked to been able to see a copy of scripture where the Catholics did not have the need to spread their lies within it. another example: we know that Paul was given orders to preach to the Gentiles [which includes the Romans] and Peter to the Jews because he was a disciple. and yet, the Catholics claim Peter was in Rome to become first pope. this is a lie. it actually saddens me to think of all of those people misled from the truth. those who believed a lie. it's a horrible shame if you consider it. I understand that knowing someone purposely changed a manuscript for their benefit, by excluding the original idea, means nothing to you. but when they confess to it, it leads past to wondering why, and to what were they trying to hide that would conflict with their own belief. but that is just me. I like to ask why. Iam and I are in agreement on this. And the worst thing about the Catholics changing Matthew 28:19 from "baptizing in my name" to "baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," is not the clever sophistry they use when they say they changed the "baptismal formula," but the fact that they actually altered the words of Jesus to suit their emerging Trinity doctrines. Instead of saying we changed the "baptismal formula," they should simply say, "Yes, we changed the words of God." |
|
|
|
You have not provided any evidence to support your claims.
You have not provided the Ancient word that is the source of a "hell." You have proven nothing. All you are good for is your opinions. and everyone has one of those. Some people have even more. Just a question? Isn't belief the ultimate opinion? Why do you need evidence or proof? Belief requires no evidence or proof that is why it is called belief? Have you considered asking yourself why you need to justify your beliefs with evidence or proof? Or, why you seek that justification from others? These are all good questions. Excellent. No offense to bigd but he said, "You have not provided any evidence to support your claims." So what? "Evidence"? Bigd, you cannot even prove that there is a God, and you certainly cannot prove that God wrote or inspired the scriptures, so why should anyone have to "prove" anything from the scriptures? Someone has to prove something using the scriptures that you say is "God's Word" without any proof? |
|
|