|
Post by rizdek on Jan 18, 2019 14:45:41 GMT
I can't seem to get Heeeyyy to respond, so maybe you will, if, perchance, you watched the video. I watched it but might have missed it, but where did he mention Genesis? He mentions it at the beginning, and the passage is shown at the very end. Ok I'll watch again. Sorry I missed it.
edit: At the beginning he talks about a 13th century person named Nachmanides, I think and says this guy predicted 10 dimensions from Genesis. Have you read Nachmanides? Is it what this poster asks?
"...Nachmanides had anticipated "String Theory" physics and the possibility of more than 4 dimensions by centuries through studying the first chapter of Genesis. He came to the conclusion that there were 4 dimensions that were "knowable" and 6 that were "unknowable". The basis for this was the fact that in Genesis 1 there are a total of 10 times where the text says "And God said". Each time God spoke, a new dimension was created..."
And then later the narrator refers to a passage in Ephesians...but I didn't see where anyone actually referenced a specific passage in Genesis.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 18, 2019 19:29:14 GMT
I like threads like this for two reasons. 1) This is the Religion, Faith, and Spirituality board, and it's relevant for people like myself who are genuinely interested in it; a lot more relevant than threads about what restroom transgenders should use or the cultural appropriation of white people wearing dreadlocks, and other silly nonsense. 2) When a thread like this goes up, every materialistic creep on the board has to come in with some snark. It's funny to watch. Some of them are just sounding off, possibly because they feel there is an effort to convert them, but others seem to take it like a responsibility. An on-topic thread goes up, and they rush in like firefighters on their way to a burning apartment building. I can't seem to get Heeeyyy to respond, so maybe you will, if, perchance, you watched the video. I watched it but might have missed it, but where did he mention Genesis? I don't remember him making a direct reference to Genesis, but since Genesis is where it all began.....
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 18, 2019 19:35:33 GMT
I can't seem to get Heeeyyy to respond, so maybe you will, if, perchance, you watched the video. I watched it but might have missed it, but where did he mention Genesis? I don't remember him making a direct reference to Genesis, but since Genesis is where it all began..... I read someone comment somewhere about how Nachmanides claimed that Genesis 1 had "And God said let there be...thus and so" 10 times and each time God said that, a new dimension formed. That's the closest I could find to an explanation of what he meant.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 18, 2019 19:49:15 GMT
I don't remember him making a direct reference to Genesis, but since Genesis is where it all began..... I read someone comment somewhere about how Nachmanides claimed that Genesis 1 had "And God said let there be...thus and so" 10 times and each time God said that, a new dimension formed. That's the closest I could find to an explanation of what he meant. I'm going to watch it again too. Didn't realize that Heeeyyy had already replied to you. I just went straight to my notifications.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 18, 2019 20:06:25 GMT
Where else would it be? In the butt? Heart, or partially in the heart. OK: I know I am wasting my time once again, but please substantiate with any authoritative medical, or scientific source for this latest claim of yours. Which part of the heart IYHO equates to the cerebrum and how does that work?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 18, 2019 21:27:14 GMT
Heart, or partially in the heart. OK: I know I am wasting my time once again, but please substantiate with any authoritative medical, or scientific source for this latest claim of yours. Which part of the heart IYHO equates to the cerebrum and how does that work?
No wonder he has the complete heebie geebies about heart transplants then! What an idiot!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 18, 2019 23:56:54 GMT
It’s also funny because it demonstrates the futility and inconsistency of Christian faith, and how there is no consensus on how to interpret anything in scripture. Do you agree with Heeeyyy that the entire creation story is just allegory (or a parable as she put it) and not a literal event? No consensus? Would you prefer that Christianity be more like Communism? Come to think of it, there were cases of Communism failing to reach a consensus too. You're comparing two unlike things (religion to political ideology). I have no preference for either and I don't see the relationship between one and the other. To answer your question, I used to think Genesis was allegory in the sense that Adam and Eve and their children were collectives instead of individuals. Now I'm not so sure. Here's the problem Erjen, I'm an atheist and therefore a neutral observer. Let's assume I don't know what to believe about Christians, Christianity, or the bible for a moment. Now this isn't an accurate analogy because I was a Christian for 30 years and I've read and studied the bible for most of that time. But let's just pretend I only just picked it up for the first time and just now reading Genesis. I have my grandmother (RIP) a very devout, Pentecostal Christian telling me that the creation story is REAL. It is 100% literal, and exactly what happened. I've got a co-worker (a Lutheran) who also believes in the literal account of creation (talking snakes, man created from dust, women created from ribs, etc), but doesn't believe that everything in the story literal. The "days" weren't actually 24 hour periods, but long periods of time, and the fruit wasn't actually "magical" but only symbolic of them disobeying God. Then I've got Heeeyyy saying that the entire story is just a "parable" (she mean's allegory), and that none of it is a literal event of anything that actually happened. And now you (who identifies as a Christian) are telling me that you're "not so sure". I've got four different Christians all telling me something completely different about this story in the bible. Do you not see the problem with this? If four different "Christians" can read a bible story that is fundamental to the belief system, and can come away with four different interpretations, then doesn't that mean that the story is a complete failure? Doesn't it plainly demonstrate the failure of this God utilizing this form of communication for relaying his message? If you are not sure how to interpret the story, then why should I take ANY of it seriously? What reason do any of us have for considering any of it reliable when the first, most basic, and most fundamental story in it cannot even be interpreted consistently between believers?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 19, 2019 0:18:33 GMT
No consensus? Would you prefer that Christianity be more like Communism? Come to think of it, there were cases of Communism failing to reach a consensus too. You're comparing two unlike things (religion to political ideology). I have no preference for either and I don't see the relationship between one and the other. To answer your question, I used to think Genesis was allegory in the sense that Adam and Eve and their children were collectives instead of individuals. Now I'm not so sure. Here's the problem Erjen, I'm an atheist and therefore a neutral observer. Let's assume I don't know what to believe about Christians, Christianity, or the bible for a moment. Now this isn't an accurate analogy because I was a Christian for 30 years and I've read and studied the bible for most of that time. But let's just pretend I only just picked it up for the first time and just now reading Genesis. I have my grandmother (RIP) a very devout, Pentecostal Christian telling me that the creation story is REAL. It is 100% literal, and exactly what happened. I've got a co-worker (a Lutheran) who also believes in the literal account of creation (talking snakes, man created from dust, women created from ribs, etc), but doesn't believe that everything in the story literal. The "days" weren't actually 24 hour periods, but long periods of time, and the fruit wasn't actually "magical" but only symbolic of them disobeying God. Then I've got Heeeyyy saying that the entire story is just a "parable" (she mean's allegory), and that none of it is a literal event of anything that actually happened. And now you (who identifies as a Christian) are telling me that you're "not so sure". I've got four different Christians all telling me something completely different about this story in the bible. Do you not see the problem with this? If four different "Christians" can read a bible story that is fundamental to the belief system, and can come away with four different interpretations, then doesn't that mean that the story is a complete failure? Doesn't it plainly demonstrate the failure of this God utilizing this form of communication for relaying his message? If you are not sure how to interpret the story, then why should I take ANY of it seriously? What reason do any of us have for considering any of it reliable when the first, most basic, and most fundamental story in it cannot even be interpreted consistently between believers? Yes, they are two unlike things, but we were talking about consensus, which applies to both of them, as you full well know. You're never going to drop the "talking snake" bit, are you? I've explained my thoughts on that many times. If you don't want to accept it, you don't have to.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 19, 2019 0:53:55 GMT
Wikipedia: "The organization is based in Plano, Texas. It focuses on explaining world events from its view of the Bible, ..." Obviously, as objective as Ray Comfort's explanation of creation using the banana. I’d like to see the quote which supports the headline though. Does Genesis actually tell us that or this this all down to interpretation once again? There isn't a quote that even hints at that in Genesis. The only thing I've found is where someone thought because Genesis 1 says "And God created thus and so" 10 times and that it meant each time he created, he created a new dimension. Since it says it 10 times there must be 10 dimensions. There's no reason that I can see to assume that is what those words appearing 10 times might signify and even if there aremore dimensions I see no reason to assume the "REAL" (TM) reality is found in those dimensions we can't see or sense, as opposed to the 4 dimensions we are familiar with. Why wouldn't we assume we live in the main reality and those other dimensions are the "shadow reality?" I think there is something satisfying to some people to assume something ELSE is the real thing, something ELSE is significant, that there must be more to everything than meets the eye. They love a mystery and love to thing they're in the in crowd to believe in these mysteries...like they have a special knowledge. I think it stems from a natural tendency to see design and meaning to the world around us. It helped (and continues to help) us survive so the tendency was selected for. It is stronger in some than in others.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 19, 2019 1:00:33 GMT
You're comparing two unlike things (religion to political ideology). I have no preference for either and I don't see the relationship between one and the other. Here's the problem Erjen, I'm an atheist and therefore a neutral observer. Let's assume I don't know what to believe about Christians, Christianity, or the bible for a moment. Now this isn't an accurate analogy because I was a Christian for 30 years and I've read and studied the bible for most of that time. But let's just pretend I only just picked it up for the first time and just now reading Genesis. I have my grandmother (RIP) a very devout, Pentecostal Christian telling me that the creation story is REAL. It is 100% literal, and exactly what happened. I've got a co-worker (a Lutheran) who also believes in the literal account of creation (talking snakes, man created from dust, women created from ribs, etc), but doesn't believe that everything in the story literal. The "days" weren't actually 24 hour periods, but long periods of time, and the fruit wasn't actually "magical" but only symbolic of them disobeying God. Then I've got Heeeyyy saying that the entire story is just a "parable" (she mean's allegory), and that none of it is a literal event of anything that actually happened. And now you (who identifies as a Christian) are telling me that you're "not so sure". I've got four different Christians all telling me something completely different about this story in the bible. Do you not see the problem with this? If four different "Christians" can read a bible story that is fundamental to the belief system, and can come away with four different interpretations, then doesn't that mean that the story is a complete failure? Doesn't it plainly demonstrate the failure of this God utilizing this form of communication for relaying his message? If you are not sure how to interpret the story, then why should I take ANY of it seriously? What reason do any of us have for considering any of it reliable when the first, most basic, and most fundamental story in it cannot even be interpreted consistently between believers? Yes, they are two unlike things, but we were talking about consensus, which applies to both of them, as you full well know. Actually, I don't know what you mean by this. Consensus in the religious sense has to do with what the religion actually teaches, and for most Christians, they believe what they do based on faith. What does that have to do with communism? You're never going to drop the "talking snake" bit, are you? I've explained my thoughts on that many times. If you don't want to accept it, you don't have to. I didn't ask you about the talking snake! That's not even relevant to my question.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 19, 2019 1:12:14 GMT
No consensus? Would you prefer that Christianity be more like Communism? Come to think of it, there were cases of Communism failing to reach a consensus too. You're comparing two unlike things (religion to political ideology). I have no preference for either and I don't see the relationship between one and the other. To answer your question, I used to think Genesis was allegory in the sense that Adam and Eve and their children were collectives instead of individuals. Now I'm not so sure. Here's the problem Erjen, I'm an atheist and therefore a neutral observer. Let's assume I don't know what to believe about Christians, Christianity, or the bible for a moment. Now this isn't an accurate analogy because I was a Christian for 30 years and I've read and studied the bible for most of that time. But let's just pretend I only just picked it up for the first time and just now reading Genesis. I have my grandmother (RIP) a very devout, Pentecostal Christian telling me that the creation story is REAL. It is 100% literal, and exactly what happened. I've got a co-worker (a Lutheran) who also believes in the literal account of creation (talking snakes, man created from dust, women created from ribs, etc), but doesn't believe that everything in the story literal. The "days" weren't actually 24 hour periods, but long periods of time, and the fruit wasn't actually "magical" but only symbolic of them disobeying God. Then I've got Heeeyyy saying that the entire story is just a "parable" (she mean's allegory), and that none of it is a literal event of anything that actually happened. And now you (who identifies as a Christian) are telling me that you're "not so sure". I've got four different Christians all telling me something completely different about this story in the bible. Do you not see the problem with this? If four different "Christians" can read a bible story that is fundamental to the belief system, and can come away with four different interpretations, then doesn't that mean that the story is a complete failure? Doesn't it plainly demonstrate the failure of this God utilizing this form of communication for relaying his message? If you are not sure how to interpret the story, then why should I take ANY of it seriously? What reason do any of us have for considering any of it reliable when the first, most basic, and most fundamental story in it cannot even be interpreted consistently between believers? Also an atheist here, and I don't believe the Bible is the word of any god. But I could almost see the benefit of a God producing a Bible that can be taken a million different ways if he just wanted to make things interesting on earth and get as many people to be able to find a way to believe in him. Maybe he just wants to watch what happens when folks interpret things differently and maybe he isn't depending on anyone actually using the Bible as a means to some sort of eternal salvation. I mean, look at it. There's something for everyone in it. There's basis for getting rich, for being poor, for suffering persecution, for overcoming and being dominant, for having slaves, for saying slavery is wrong, for starting wars, for not believing in wars, for having multiple wives, for being monogamous, being against killing, to engage in mass killing, getting along and getting in each other's faces. You name it, regardless of the kind of person one wants to be, they can find a justification for it in the Bible. And, if you drop back to just the OT, you've got Jews and Muslims springing from that to form some of the major religions of the world and look at how differently they look at how to "serve God."
Since I've dropped my original thoughts about God that I was raised with, I've been able to explore, mentally, lots of different options for what some sort of super mind might do for grins and giggles. And it isn't worrying about whether a mass of barely evolved primates "find Jesus" and "give their hearts to God." It might be experimenting with intelligent (or quasi-intelligent beings) like I might do if I could write a computer program with some artificial intelligence controlling some moving objects to see how they interact and if they'll destroy themselves or cooperate. Not that I know how to write a program like that, but I'm sure good programmers could and do.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 19, 2019 1:26:47 GMT
Heart, or partially in the heart. OK: I know I am wasting my time once again, but please substantiate with any authoritative medical, or scientific source for this latest claim of yours. Which part of the heart IYHO equates to the cerebrum and how does that work? However poetically, the head and the heart are discussed as different components of personality, sometimes "competing" for control within the individual. How much that has to do with "science" is not important because it has much to do with art. If you have a problem with that, it's likely just as well you stay away from art, thank you. Lately, in large time scales anyway, there is the sinoatrial node, believed to contribute to the success of heart transplants, if you believe much in those sorts of things.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 19, 2019 1:33:15 GMT
Yes, they are two unlike things, but we were talking about consensus, which applies to both of them, as you full well know. Actually, I don't know what you mean by this. Consensus in the religious sense has to do with what the religion actually teaches, and for most Christians, they believe what they do based on faith. What does that have to do with communism? You're never going to drop the "talking snake" bit, are you? I've explained my thoughts on that many times. If you don't want to accept it, you don't have to. I didn't ask you about the talking snake! That's not even relevant to my question. You've been mentioning the talking snake in posts to others. Communism and Christianity are both belief systems. One is political and one is religious. Why would lack of a consensus invalidate Christianity as a belief system?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 19, 2019 1:42:29 GMT
OK: I know I am wasting my time once again, but please substantiate with any authoritative medical, or scientific source for this latest claim of yours. Which part of the heart IYHO equates to the cerebrum and how does that work? However poetically, the head and the heart are discussed as different components of personality, sometimes "competing" for control within the individual. How much that has to do with "science" is not important because it has much to do with art. If you have a problem with that, it's likely just as well you stay away from art, thank you. Lately, in large time scales anyway, there is the sinoatrial node, believed to contribute to the success of heart transplants, if you believe much in those sorts of things. This post is abject, total and complete bullshit. The sinoatrial node is the 'pacemaker' of the heart and has nothing special to do with transplants except that all healthy hearts have it functioning correctly.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 19, 2019 1:48:07 GMT
OK: I know I am wasting my time once again, but please substantiate with any authoritative medical, or scientific source for this latest claim of yours. Which part of the heart IYHO equates to the cerebrum and how does that work?
No wonder he has the complete heebie geebies about heart transplants then! What an idiot! Observe as Goz and FF make up their own science to support their agenda.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 19, 2019 1:51:25 GMT
No wonder he has the complete heebie geebies about heart transplants then! What an idiot! Observe as Goz and FF make up their own science to support their agenda. This will be good! Another heart transplant denier like climate change and chemtrails?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 19, 2019 1:51:45 GMT
You're comparing two unlike things (religion to political ideology). I have no preference for either and I don't see the relationship between one and the other. Here's the problem Erjen, I'm an atheist and therefore a neutral observer. Let's assume I don't know what to believe about Christians, Christianity, or the bible for a moment. Now this isn't an accurate analogy because I was a Christian for 30 years and I've read and studied the bible for most of that time. But let's just pretend I only just picked it up for the first time and just now reading Genesis. I have my grandmother (RIP) a very devout, Pentecostal Christian telling me that the creation story is REAL. It is 100% literal, and exactly what happened. I've got a co-worker (a Lutheran) who also believes in the literal account of creation (talking snakes, man created from dust, women created from ribs, etc), but doesn't believe that everything in the story literal. The "days" weren't actually 24 hour periods, but long periods of time, and the fruit wasn't actually "magical" but only symbolic of them disobeying God. Then I've got Heeeyyy saying that the entire story is just a "parable" (she mean's allegory), and that none of it is a literal event of anything that actually happened. And now you (who identifies as a Christian) are telling me that you're "not so sure". I've got four different Christians all telling me something completely different about this story in the bible. Do you not see the problem with this? If four different "Christians" can read a bible story that is fundamental to the belief system, and can come away with four different interpretations, then doesn't that mean that the story is a complete failure? Doesn't it plainly demonstrate the failure of this God utilizing this form of communication for relaying his message? If you are not sure how to interpret the story, then why should I take ANY of it seriously? What reason do any of us have for considering any of it reliable when the first, most basic, and most fundamental story in it cannot even be interpreted consistently between believers? I believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, that Moses parted the Red Sea, and that a snake talked to Eve. And obviously there's no way for me to prove what I believe is right. I just have to have faith in what I believe and what I've been taught. But your points got me thinking. Those stories, and the details, maybe they're just context. Maybe the details don't matter so much. Maybe it's ok if someone thinks Genesis is a parable. Maybe those details ARE up for interpretation. Maybe they're just to help us see the greater picture. Maybe we don't need to understand the whole picture, as long as we grasp the big picture. I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud here. You have trouble believing that a snake could verbalize words with it's mouth? Yeah, I have trouble believing that too, but I also believe that in those days there was a more efficient method of communication.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 19, 2019 1:53:39 GMT
Observe as Goz and FF make up their own science to support their agenda. This will be good! Another heart transplant denier like climate change and chemtrails? You're lying again, Goz. I have never denied that the climate is changing.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 19, 2019 1:55:48 GMT
This will be good! Another heart transplant denier like climate change and chemtrails? You're lying again, Goz. I have never denied that the climate is changing. What is my 'agenda' re heart transplants, Erjenious?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2019 15:47:18 GMT
OK: I know I am wasting my time once again, but please substantiate with any authoritative medical, or scientific source for this latest claim of yours. Which part of the heart IYHO equates to the cerebrum and how does that work? However poetically, the head and the heart are discussed as different components of personality, sometimes "competing" for control within the individual. How much that has to do with "science" is not important ... Yep, looks like I was wasting wasting my time again... I have no problem with the commonplaces of art and poetry where the human heart is concerned. But I doubt if the consideration which began this exchange was meant to be an cultural one. I think we both know that. The heart's natural pacemaker – the SA node – sends out regular electrical impulses from the top chamber (the atrium) causing it to contract and pump blood into the bottom chamber (the ventricle). However any relation to consciousness through this action is hard to find. Indeed a consideration seems irrelevant and it looks like you are just grasping at straws again.
|
|