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.

 

[Learner]

human emotions are important to biblical understanding!!

Human emotions are provably a barrier to any genuine understanding.

This demonstrates what I was saying, when atheists dismiss (being oblivious) of the importance of human emotions - the key element to reading 'the bible and noting the psychology of it's truth claims'.

It escapes atheists simply because it would seem so simple. Ancient writings therefore are viewed as being so outdated that they don't realise, human psychology of people from back then still hasn't changed today!!

Human emotions interpreting biblical texts must seem to the atheist, "lacking (the illusion of) scientific sophistication" and may seem methodically boring to take as serious, I suppose in a manner of speaking.

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

Thanks for playing.

As irony would have it. Emotions are used in the technological modern world to determine if someone is telling the truth in a lie-detector test!

So, an example of the biblical concept from the viewpoint:
Jesus communicates in a language expressed as compassion.As its written, children naturally in their innocence understand and sense this (truthfulness) better than a lot of the adults lost in worldly distractions, etc. We are to be 'be like children, to understand, and so on and so forth.

Anyway, I enjoyed the game. Cheers mate.

 

[DBT]

Human emotions have no bearing on what is true or false. Something is true or false regardless of how we may feel about it.

Belief has no bearing on whatever happens to be true or false.
Something is either true or false regardless of what we believe.

The world cares nothing about what we believe or feel.

 

[Learner]

Human emotions have no bearing on what is true or false. Something is true or false regardless of how we may feel about it.

Human emotions have bearing significance in contrast to testimonies of individuals. The context is: determining the claims of people who witnessed events by what 'their' feelings were!

Belief has no bearing on whatever happens to be true or false.
Something is either true or false regardless of what we believe.

The same as the above.

If the claims are determined to be true by the analysis of the individual psyche then that counts as leading to evidence that they are telling the truth. Now the best case then you could come up with in this regard is to say these individuals were delusional, believing the events were real in their minds, in which case we'd have to argue further, and you'd have to demonstrate this as your counter argument of course.

Another argument direction would be to determine the conclusion these writers were con men or liars why you'd have to explain why.

As irony would have it. Psychological profiling is used to build a character profile of criminals which can lead to good results of predicting next moves.

The world cares nothing about what we believe or feel.

The same as above

What do you mean by world?.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Emotional expressions in religion:
Pentecostals: hands waving in the air, glossolalia, exhibitionistic fainting in church when 'slain by the spirit'
Islam: Weeping upon hearing the Quran read aloud by a qari, or trained reciter, in a mosque
Hinduism: the kirtan, a call-and-response ritual with music, leading to state of bliss and sometimes mass dancing
LDS: the often-cited 'burning in the breast' that attests to the believer that LDS scripture is true

As DBT says above, absolutely none of this attests to truth. It attests to emotional fervor, to states in which rational thinking is gone. It's also obvious that the adherents in the throes of their dizzying experience would say that they know their experience is true, while doubting that the believers in the rival traditions were in anything but a state of delusion.
There is no belief whatever that can't be adhered to as a faith statement.

 

[bilby]

human emotions are important to biblical understanding!!

Human emotions are provably a barrier to any genuine understanding.

This demonstrates what I was saying, when atheists dismiss (being oblivious) of the importance of human emotions - the key element to reading 'the bible and noting the psychology of it's truth claims'.

I don't dismiss the importance of human emotions; I dismiss those emotions as a means to knowlegde.

It escapes atheists simply because it would seem so simple. Ancient writings therefore are viewed as being so outdated that they don't realise, human psychology of people from back then still hasn't changed today!!

Human emotions interpreting biblical texts must seem to the atheist, "lacking (the illusion of) scientific sophistication" and may seem methodically boring to take as serious, I suppose in a manner of speaking.

No, they are just not a way to know anything. Nothing to do with sophistication, just epistemology.

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

Thanks for playing.

As irony would have it. Emotions are used in the technological modern world to determine if someone is telling the truth in a lie-detector test!

Lie detector tests are almost completely valueless, and are not permitted as evidence pretty much anywhere outside the USA. They don't work, except insofar as they scare the subject into telling the truth.

So, an example of the biblical concept from the viewpoint:
Jesus communicates in a language expressed as compassion.As its written, children naturally in their innocence understand and sense this (truthfulness)

Wait, is it compassion, or truthfulness?

These are NOT synonymous.

better than a lot of the adults lost in worldly distractions, etc. We are to be 'be like children, to understand, and so on and so forth.

Children don't understand. Children are gullible, naïve, and easily fooled.

Ask Jimmy Saville, Jeffrey Epstein, or Donald Trump.

Anyway, I enjoyed the game. Cheers mate.