Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I haven't read enough of this thread to know what you mean by the reference above. When you say that "religion can cause things"...are you talking about the brain activity cause by meditation and prayer? Because the same changes have been observed by IRRELIGIOUS meditators.

Define Irreligious. please?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I haven't read enough of this thread to know what you mean by the reference above. When you say that "religion can cause things"...are you talking about the brain activity cause by meditation and prayer? Because the same changes have been observed by IRRELIGIOUS meditators.

Thank you. That's the point I was trying to make with my story of how I was able to control my heart rate (I apparently failed).

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Thank you. That's the point I was trying to make with my story of how I was able to control my heart rate (I apparently failed).

Yes, you did fail. Have you read any of the studies?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Actor:

Why do I say religion is superior to science? First religion can cause things, while science cannot. For example, let's look at the purpose of life. You are on the record supporting the idea the purpose of life is to generate life.

I am on record supporting the idea that life has no purpose. The function of life is to reproduce. Purpose and function are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Okay, so why are you still alive? Are you generating new life, now? Are you physically evolving making you indispensable for new life to be generated? If not why are you still hanging around.

Instead of contributing you are using and consuming precious resources that will not be available to the new life waiting to be generated. You are actually a hindrance to evolution, consuming valuable resources needed by future generations. If the true purpose of life is just the continuation of life, you are not needed. Nobody is needed once they procreate, the specific quantity of, life needed to drive evolution.

So since you are hanging around, there must be more to life than procreating for the continuation of the species.

Procreation does not stop once a man ejaculates, nor once the umbilical is cut, nor once the children graduate. It continues as long as you continue to contribute something to the group. It's the group that counts. I've stated this before. I continue to contribute to the group and will until I die.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

BTW we didn't need science to teach us how to procreate.

We didn't need religion either!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

It reads the same whether you read it, I read it, or a Judge reads it. The count is one.

And you're an educated scientist, huh? I have long maintained that the specialty of many institutions of higher learning is dumbing down its students.

You're off to an rather inauspicious, Mr. Actor.

John 20:1-2
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and WE do not know where they have laid Him."
NASB

So tell me...did Mary M have a mouse in her pocket when she found Peter and John to break the news to them? Who is WE?

Secondly, the definition of "different" is as follows: partly or totally unlike in nature, form or quality.

Don't forget for something to be contradictory it must affirm and deny the same thing at the same time and in the same respect. Can you show me where in the synoptics where it is explicitly stated or implied that only so many people showed up at the tomb? Why in the real world couldn't different people or groups have left their homes at different times in the wee hours of the morning to show up at the tomb at different times? This would account for the different writers writing different accounts, yet none of the accounts contradicting one another.

Examples: John had A leaving at 4:00 A.M. and arriving at the tomb first.

Matthew had B and C arriving a little later because this group had previously agreed to go together so one stopped at the home of the other so that they could go together; so they arrived at the tomb later. And Matthew reported it this way.

Mark had D meeting up with B and C on the road on the way to the tomb and reported all three showing up at the time, perhaps because Mark had close personal relationship with D, so he reported it from her perspective.

Luke because these different people left their different homes at different times to go to the tomb, one showed up alone first, other followed later and others still on the way showed up later as they met the earlier ones.

Since there is nothing in the accounts that state only certain people showed up at the tomb at the same time to the exclusion of all others, then we should not read that into the accounts. But this is exactly what you're doing. The bad news for you is that you cannot demonstrate a bona fide contradiction on assumptions. You have to be able to prove from the passages that only a certain people showed up at the tomb all at one time to the exclusion of all other visitors.

Good luck with that. Also enjoy the following read:

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015...tomb-of-jesus/

P.S. Darwin's works are not even fit for use as bird cage liners.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yes, you did fail. Have you read any of the studies?

Have you read the Harvard Study?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I am on record supporting the idea that life has no purpose. The function of life is to reproduce. Purpose and function are not the same thing.
Procreation does not stop once a man ejaculates, nor once the umbilical is cut, nor once the children graduate. It continues as long as you continue to contribute something to the group. It's the group that counts. I've stated this before. I continue to contribute to the group and will until I die.
We didn't need religion either!

Even better life has no purpose. The philosophy of nihilism. Again, why are you still living? There is no purpose so why participate? You keep on bringing up Epicurus and the problem of evil, so why are you still here being tortured by the power of evil? Since you are still here there must be a purpose.

You make no sense. You have satisfied the purposeless life's function, at least I hope you did, so why are you still here?

You have no reason to still be here. You have no purpose. However, I disagree with you, if something has a function, it means there is a purpose.

func·tion
ˈfəNG(k)SH(ə)n/
noun
1.
an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
"bridges perform the function of providing access across water"
synonyms: purpose, task, use, role More [emphasis added]

https://www.google.com/search?q=func...hrome&ie=UTF-8

Thus, Life indeed has a purpose Q.E.D.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by traynor

And yet again:

"I am not interested in your perceptions, or what you perceive them to be (or not be). Those are wholly subjective, internal ruminations on your part that have no relevance. I AM interested in what you consider "credible evidence" that the later writings were anything other than the (somewhat creative) literary efforts of quite ordinary people. Nothing mystical, mysterious, or metaphysical at all."

Another broken record. You have no answers. What kind of God would leave his chosen people to rot in hell because he destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D, leaving untold tens of millions of Jews over all these centuries no spiritual remedy for redemption? Who would trust in such a God's "messiah", especially if he's just mere flesh and blood? This would have to mean that he would be a sinner just like everyone on the planet. Scripture is very plain that there is no righteous human being on the earth who never sins (1Ki 8:46; 2Chron 6:36; Ps 130:3, etc..) Therefore, just how is this flesh and blood Son of David going to be able to rule in complete righteousness?

[Show Me the Wire]

It continues as long as you continue to contribute something to the group. It's the group that counts. I've stated this before. I continue to contribute to the group and will until I die.

The above quote is a gem Actor. Look up fascism and socialism that is their philosophy of life, as long as you are useful or not an inferior race? Once you are not useful

Fascism and socialism used science, especially Darwin to advance this theory of life.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Have you read the Harvard Study?

Have you?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Have you?

Yes.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Another broken record. You have no answers. What kind of God would leave his chosen people to rot in hell because he destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D, leaving untold tens of millions of Jews over all these centuries no spiritual remedy for redemption? Who would trust in such a God's "messiah", especially if he's just mere flesh and blood? This would have to mean that he would be a sinner just like everyone on the planet. Scripture is very plain that there is no righteous human being on the earth who never sins (1Ki 8:46; 2Chron 6:36; Ps 130:3, etc..) Therefore, just how is this flesh and blood Son of David going to be able to rule in complete righteousness?

The answers are supposed to be coming from you. Specifically: what you consider "credible evidence" that the later writings were anything other than the (somewhat creative) literary efforts of quite ordinary people. With absolutely nothing mystical, mysterious, or metaphysical involved.

If there is some credible evidence, please specify what it is. What--other than the comments of those quite ordinary people--do you imagine "proves" that the writings were "divinely inspired"?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The above quote is a gem Actor. Look up fascism and socialism that is their philosophy of life, as long as you are useful or not an inferior race? Once you are not useful

Fascism and socialism used science, especially Darwin to advance this theory of life.

Fascism and socialism are not the same thing. I am not a fascist. I am a socialist.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Even better life has no purpose. The philosophy of nihilism. Again, why are you still living? There is no purpose so why participate? You keep on bringing up Epicurus and the problem of evil, so why are you still here being tortured by the power of evil? Since you are still here there must be a purpose.

You make no sense. You have satisfied the purposeless life's function, at least I hope you did, so why are you still here?

You have no reason to still be here. You have no purpose. However, I disagree with you, if something has a function, it means there is a purpose.

func·tion
ˈfəNG(k)SH(ə)n/
noun
1.
an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
"bridges perform the function of providing access across water"
synonyms: purpose, task, use, role More [emphasis added]

https://www.google.com/search?q=func...hrome&ie=UTF-8

Thus, Life indeed has a purpose Q.E.D.

Purpose implies an intelligent entity. Function does not.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Another broken record. You have no answers. What kind of God would leave his chosen people to rot in hell because he destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D, leaving untold tens of millions of Jews over all these centuries no spiritual remedy for redemption? Who would trust in such a God's "messiah", especially if he's just mere flesh and blood? This would have to mean that he would be a sinner just like everyone on the planet. Scripture is very plain that there is no righteous human being on the earth who never sins (1Ki 8:46; 2Chron 6:36; Ps 130:3, etc..) Therefore, just how is this flesh and blood Son of David going to be able to rule in complete righteousness?

So you're saying the Bible is flawed? I thought it was the word of God, even the "Old Testament?"

This is a troubling revelation indeed.