The Beast Revelation

[Learner]

I see, so you can see parallels between both beliefs? Are you aware of the differences? One faith for example emphasizes strongly the importance of witnesses.

Like Harry Potter, there is is only one writer, i.e. a lone witness. Which faith would that apply to?

 

[pood]

I see, so you can see parallels between both beliefs? Are you aware of the differences? One faith for example emphasizes strongly the importance of witnesses.

Like Harry Potter, there is is only one writer, i.e. a lone witness. Which faith would that apply to?

Got any witnesses for Christ’s time on earth? No, thought not. That’s because there aren’t any.

These are all fairy tales.

One does not first believe — or believe at all. One follows where the evidence goes.

Faith is the opposite of rationality.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The aspect of the belief in God which emphasizes on being guided to get understanding is to first believe in God

Which we reject pointedly as a means to acquire knowledge, or a source of doing so.

Knowledge in it's entirety is NOT solely "calculated" through formulations in science!!!

In fact, I think that coming to understand any thing at all first requires rejecting all belief in/about it and just looking at what reality shows you. Then, you can come to understand what you are seeing without belief, and thus find truth rather than bias.

Just as I was previously alluding to and agreeing to the (contextual) understanding to Michae1's post with the parables example.

Post like yours and some of our friends on this thread, illustrates the Biblical intended understanding and scriptural meanings 'meant by the authors' seems to escape the atheists view for an argument. "Knowledge" in it's entirety is to them, an argument that "consists entirely of formulated calculations of science".

Um...no it ain't!

To that end, I think it's folly to believe in God rather than build understanding about the idea without belief about what must be true.

Ironically: the old atheist arguments used to (and still does) say: "believers only say they believe in God because it makes them feel good.." etc and etc. Putting down the idea, not realising that human emotions is required as a key to understand Truth!

We atheists would expect, then, that believers inevitably understand less about the subject of their belief than people who approach with more sturdy ways of learning about the world.

This means that to get understanding, one must first reject "god" and instead find nature as it is.

If you cannot do this, you will never understand how and why those who got answers found them.

Simply put: The belief in God, the fear to be untruthful and the fear of the consequences... but not afraid to suffer death (fear no evil )from humans, highlights what we can determine from the psychology of authors of the scriptures. Contrary to what atheist argue about "feelings", human emotions are important to biblical understanding!!

Anyhoo..
...Love makes everyone feel good... ain't dat true friends. (what does that say about me )

Christians are afraid of death, very afraid. They are not afraid of untruth, as we can see with the current situation in USA where Christians support the biggest lies and greatest liars.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The aspect of the belief in God which emphasizes on being guided to get understanding is to first believe in God

Which we reject pointedly as a means to acquire knowledge, or a source of doing so.

Knowledge in it's entirety is NOT solely "calculated" through formulations in science!!!

In fact, I think that coming to understand any thing at all first requires rejecting all belief in/about it and just looking at what reality shows you. Then, you can come to understand what you are seeing without belief, and thus find truth rather than bias.

Just as I was previously alluding to and agreeing to the (contextual) understanding to Michae1's post with the parables example.

Post like yours and some of our friends on this thread, illustrates the Biblical intended understanding and scriptural meanings 'meant by the authors' seems to escape the atheists view for an argument. "Knowledge" in it's entirety is to them, an argument that "consists entirely of formulated calculations of science".

Um...no it ain't!

To that end, I think it's folly to believe in God rather than build understanding about the idea without belief about what must be true.

Ironically: the old atheist arguments used to (and still does) say: "believers only say they believe in God because it makes them feel good.." etc and etc. Putting down the idea, not realising that human emotions is required as a key to understand Truth!

We atheists would expect, then, that believers inevitably understand less about the subject of their belief than people who approach with more sturdy ways of learning about the world.

This means that to get understanding, one must first reject "god" and instead find nature as it is.

If you cannot do this, you will never understand how and why those who got answers found them.

Simply put: The belief in God, the fear to be untruthful and the fear of the consequences... but not afraid to suffer death (fear no evil )from humans, highlights what we can determine from the psychology of authors of the scriptures. Contrary to what atheist argue about "feelings", human emotions are important to biblical understanding!!

Anyhoo..
...Love makes everyone feel good... ain't dat true friends. (what does that say about me )

Christians are afraid of death, very afraid. They are not afraid of untruth, as we can see with the current situation in USA where Christians support the biggest lies and greatest liars.

This is one of the reasons I respect the convictions those who take up serpents more than the average Christian. The snake handlers have serious beliefs and they're willing to put very real life and limb on the line for it. If they don't get bitten or if they're bitten and survive, it's proof that the S'prits armor protects them, which indicates that they don't have faith. Rather, it means they know, without faith, that their god is real.

Dying carries with it much more ominous tones though. It means that the now-deceased didn't know/had doubts about the absolute reality of the faith's god and therefore didn't have protection. Some, OTOH, roll with the idea that the dead person has been called home. I don't like the latter. It's weakens the purity and conviction of the purpose(s) of the practice.

 

[Learner]

The aspect of the belief in God which emphasizes on being guided to get understanding is to first believe in God

Which we reject pointedly as a means to acquire knowledge, or a source of doing so.

Knowledge in it's entirety is NOT solely "calculated" through formulations in science!!!

In fact, I think that coming to understand any thing at all first requires rejecting all belief in/about it and just looking at what reality shows you. Then, you can come to understand what you are seeing without belief, and thus find truth rather than bias.

Just as I was previously alluding to and agreeing to the (contextual) understanding to Michae1's post with the parables example.

Post like yours and some of our friends on this thread, illustrates the Biblical intended understanding and scriptural meanings 'meant by the authors' seems to escape the atheists view for an argument. "Knowledge" in it's entirety is to them, an argument that "consists entirely of formulated calculations of science".

Um...no it ain't!

To that end, I think it's folly to believe in God rather than build understanding about the idea without belief about what must be true.

Ironically: the old atheist arguments used to (and still does) say: "believers only say they believe in God because it makes them feel good.." etc and etc. Putting down the idea, not realising that human emotions is required as a key to understand Truth!

We atheists would expect, then, that believers inevitably understand less about the subject of their belief than people who approach with more sturdy ways of learning about the world.

This means that to get understanding, one must first reject "god" and instead find nature as it is.

Simply put: The belief in God, the fear to be untruthful and the fear of the consequences... but not afraid to suffer death (fear no evil )from humans, highlights what we can determine from the psychology of authors of the scriptures. [...].

Christians are afraid of death, very afraid. They are not afraid of untruth, as we can see with the current situation in USA where Christians support the biggest lies and greatest liars.

Current situation?

I was talking of the bible people. It is also written, many will come in Jesus name claiming to be followers of Christ... which I would concur with you on those supporting big lies and being liars etc. It's already written, the bible mentions it first! Believers going through the wide-gate etc, and etc which Jesus condemns..

 

[pood]

Current situation?

I was talking of the bible people. It is also written, many will come in Jesus name... which I would concur with you on those supporting big lies and being liars etc. It's already written, the bible mentions it first! Believers going through the wide-gate etc, and etc which Jesus condemns..

Could you run this through an online translator so it makes sense?

Not sure how many will come in Jesus, though I did not know you thought he was gay. (I believe you wanted “Jesus’s.”)

 

[Learner]

Corrected alterations in bold.
Cheers for highlighting.

 

[pood]

Corrected alterations in bold.
Cheers for highlighting.

You still forgot “Jesus’s.” You know, the possessive case.

 

[Learner]

Corrected alterations in bold.
Cheers for highlighting.

You still forgot “Jesus’s.” You know, the possessive case.

I know, I have thought for some time, that for some reason that is interesting, this seems often to be the convention.

In Jesus name.....

 

[steve_bank]

From what I read the beast is taken to represent Rome. Armageddon is actually an historic battlefield.

Jews who wrote and spoke explicitly against Rome would likely not last long.

Shakespeare is said to have targeted real people in some of his plays.

Yes, it was generally illegal and highly dangerous to directly criticize aristocrats, the monarchy, or the church during Shakespeare’s time (Elizabethan/Jacobean era). The period was heavily censored, and negative references to prominent people were monitored to maintain political and social stability.

That is why I think to understand the gospel Jesus may have been and what YAWEJH represented you have to look at the geopolitical context.

 

[pood]

Corrected alterations in bold.
Cheers for highlighting.

You still forgot “Jesus’s.” You know, the possessive case.

I know, I have thought for some time, that for some reason that is interesting, this seems often to be the convention.

In Jesus name.....

No, it’s not the convention. But beyond this nitpick, why should I believe any of this?

 

[steve_bank]

Learner
I know, I have thought for some time, that for some reason that is interesting, this seems often to be the convention.

So do backyard bee keepers, gardeners, chess players, and stamp collects. It is interesting to them and it makes them feel good. Community with others like them.

To me Christianity underneath it all is just another social function with rituals.

 

[WAB]

Current situation?

I was talking of the bible people. It is also written, many will come in Jesus name... which I would concur with you on those supporting big lies and being liars etc. It's already written, the bible mentions it first! Believers going through the wide-gate etc, and etc which Jesus condemns..

Could you run this through an online translator so it makes sense?

Not sure how many will come in Jesus, though I did not know you thought he was gay. (I believe you wanted “Jesus’s.”)

Corrected alterations in bold.
Cheers for highlighting.

You still forgot “Jesus’s.” You know, the possessive case.

I know, I have thought for some time, that for some reason that is interesting, this seems often to be the convention.

In Jesus name.....

No, it’s not the convention. But beyond this nitpick, why should I believe any of this?

People have been saying 'in Jesus' name' for a long time. Learner is leaving out the apostrophe when writing it, which does appear to be a convention of sorts, at least among people not concerned with grammar. I have heard precious few people actually say, 'In Jesus-es name'. This could be an American thing.

 

[bilby]

The aspect of the belief in God which emphasizes on being guided to get understanding is to first believe in God

Which we reject pointedly as a means to acquire knowledge, or a source of doing so.

Knowledge in it's entirety is NOT solely "calculated" through formulations in science!!!

Maybe not, but knowledge of any kind cannot be obtained through belief.

This we can show to be true through simple logic: I believe A to be true; I believe A to be false; Therefore A is both true and false, which is a contradiction.

The only way to resolve this contradiction is to recognise that "I believe A to be true" cannot entail the conclusion "Therefore A is true".

One thing we CAN know is that belief CANNOT help us to know anything.

Literally anything we can believe to be true, we can also believe to be false.

 

[bilby]

human emotions are important to biblical understanding!!

Human emotions are provably a barrier to any genuine understanding.

Therefore if what you say is true, biblical understanding cannot be genuine.

Thanks for playing.