0
jimbrown

What if Jesus didn't die on the cross

Recommended Posts

[replyIt is a normal and expected function of the ego. It is difficult to overcome. Personal surrender is tough. That is why we need Jesus the Christ.



Ron,
Jesus' most important revelation is that we need no "savior".

We need no priests.

We don't need Jesus.

We are free to have a direct and personal relationship with god who is us and our fellows wholly and individually.


Peace and Travel with a light Heart,
Jim B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

[replyIt is a normal and expected function of the ego. It is difficult to overcome. Personal surrender is tough. That is why we need Jesus the Christ.



Ron,
Jesus' most important revelation is that we need no "savior".

We need no priests.

We don't need Jesus.

We are free to have a direct and personal relationship with god who is us and our fellows wholly and individually.


Peace and Travel with a light Heart,
Jim B



Maybe you don't need Jesus but, I do.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron,
Jesus' most important revelation is that we need no "savior".

We need no priests.

We don't need Jesus.

We are free to have a direct and personal relationship with god who is us and our fellows wholly and individually.



Sounds like you need to retake religion 101. You seem to have Buddhism confused with Christianity.
Christ removed the sin barrier between us and God.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Jesus' most important revelation is that we need no "savior". We need no priests. We don't need Jesus.



"It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all." (1 Timothy 1:15)

Added: Can one still be considered a Christian when they take away the essentials of what it means to be a Christian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The universe has a beginning...



Says who?

There are lots of theories, consistent with the Big Bang, that postulate the existance of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang.


There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing.



Not correct.

I'm absolutely correct. Please name the "theory", not the guesswork that shows the universe did not have a beginning. An actual scientific theory is far more than "Well maybe this happened..."
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The universe has a beginning...



Says who?

There are lots of theories, consistent with the Big Bang, that postulate the existance of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang.


There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing.



Not correct.

I'm absolutely correct. Please name the "theory", not the guesswork that shows the universe did not have a beginning. An actual scientific theory is far more than "Well maybe this happened..."



Quantum mechanics - maybe you've heard of it -does not allow nothingness.

You should stop practicing physics without a license.

"Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes." Martin Rees .

Try doing some research before putting your foot in your mouth again. I suggest you Google "M-Theory".
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quantum mechanics - maybe you've heard of it -does not allow nothingness.

You should stop practicing physics without a license.

"Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes." Martin Rees .



You've still got the problem with infinite regression. Anyway... "Quantum originator Max Planck expressed this same view in a 1937 address. He stated that science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition," with the goal: "toward God!" (Gillispie, 1975)."

Creation and Quantum Mechanics
by Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quantum mechanics - maybe you've heard of it -does not allow nothingness.

You should stop practicing physics without a license.

"Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes." Martin Rees .



You've still got the problem with infinite regression. Anyway... "Quantum originator Max Planck expressed this same view in a 1937 address. He stated that science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition," with the goal: "toward God!" (Gillispie, 1975)."

Creation and Quantum Mechanics
by Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D.




I don't have a problem with it. YOU are the one arguing against it on the one hand and in favor on the other, according to what fits your neolithic belief system.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against
>unbelief and superstition," with the goal: "toward God!" (Gillispie, 1975)."

Yep. And think how disappointed he would be if he heard someone using his words to try to tear down science in defense of superstition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yep. And think how disappointed he would be if he heard someone using his words to try to tear down science in defense of superstition.



I'm not anti-science. Science has God as it's foundation. Scientists used to be oriented in that way. Nowadays, they worship the creation over the Creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The universe has a beginning...



Says who?

There are lots of theories, consistent with the Big Bang, that postulate the existance of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang.


There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing.



Not correct.

I'm absolutely correct. Please name the "theory", not the guesswork that shows the universe did not have a beginning. An actual scientific theory is far more than "Well maybe this happened..."



Quantum mechanics - maybe you've heard of it -does not allow nothingness.

You should stop practicing physics without a license.

"Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes." Martin Rees .

Try doing some research before putting your foot in your mouth again. I suggest you Google "M-Theory".



If your going to get smart, you should at least be good on your definitions. Spouting off crap like "Our universe *MAY* be just one element" is *not* a scientific theory. It's a hypothesis at best. It's really just a guess. A real theory, a *good* theory (and I quote Stephen Hawking here. I'm sure he's good enough for you, yes?) "a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation." Good theories are things like the theory of gravity, relativity, evolution, etc. There's absolutely nothing out there right now that allows predictions to be tested or observed outside of our universe. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Just the same, nothing allows us to make predictions about, observe, or test for anything pre-Big Bang. As such, any guesswork (your "theory") about stuff existing (our universe or others) pre BB is not rooted in science, but sheer feeling and want. Tying it to some other belief system, theory, etc. doesn't make that portion any more valid. Hell, I might as well say the laws of grammar allow for Cthulhu to reside in the 95784th dimension and call that good science. Never mind we can't actually test for or predict any of it, but hey, it's just a "theory."
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I'm not anti-science. Science has God as it's foundation.

If your science has God as its foundation, then what you call "science" is what other people call "religion."

Ask yourself this. If there was a scientific result that violated your beliefs in God, would you accept it due to the validity of the science or reject it because it conflicts with your preconceptions? If the answer is the latter, then you're not using science - you are using belief.

And as a great many scientists and engineers have discovered to their chagrin, science wins over belief every time in the real world.

>Scientists used to be oriented in that way.

Really? Galileo and Giordano didn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Science has God as it's foundation. Scientists used to be oriented in that way.



Maybe the kind of 'scientists' who believed in the ether, or the four humours, or geocentrism. Aren't you glad that's not what we call science these days?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Science has God as it's foundation. Scientists used to be oriented in that way.



Maybe the kind of 'scientists' who believed in the ether, or the four humours, or geocentrism. Aren't you glad that's not what we call science these days?



Creation Scientists

Added: And those (speaking of the modern scientists) are just the ones who will admit it despite the extreme academic bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Really. Galileo

That link would be a bit more believable if the Church hadn't formally apologized to him for his imprisonment. The Pope recently said that theologians of the time placed too much literal emphasis on the Bible, and that this "led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith, a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation."

It's pretty cool that the Catholic Church now understands that the Bible is not a literally accurate document, and that it is a mistake to confuse (or confabulate) faith and science. I think most Christians understand that nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Science has God as it's foundation. Scientists used to be oriented in that way.



Maybe the kind of 'scientists' who believed in the ether, or the four humours, or geocentrism. Aren't you glad that's not what we call science these days?



Creation Scientists

Added: And those (speaking of the modern scientists) are just the ones who will admit it despite the extreme academic bias.



You really should research Rhys's posts on this forum about 9/11. He's fond of lists too. He's posted a much, much more impressive list than yours of people with masters degrees or better, actually in (kinda) relevant subjects, who think that the Twin Towers must have been brought down by controlled demolition. But that's still bullshit, and he's just as deluded as you are.

Compiling a list of people with sufficient cognitive dissonance to believe in using evidence in their day job and overriding it with superstition in their beliefs is meaningless. Only their reasoning is important - and their reasoning is absolutely hilarious.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You wrote:

"There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing."

That is simply incorrect. Stick to your neolithic belief system, you clearly are unqualified to comment on physics.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing is for sure.....Religion is by far the most controversial subject there is.

There is no wonder a division exists between the believers and the non-believers.

If someone would just post an accurate photo image of God, I think it would satisfy the curiosity and the controversy of all.

Until I see it....I won't believe it.
People are crazy. Cuz there's more of 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm not anti-science. Science has God as it's foundation. Scientists used to be oriented in that way. Nowadays, they worship the creation over the Creator.



No that is completely incorrect, scientists base their hypotheses on conclusions based on sound scientific principals that are repeatable or observable.

Unfortunately for the creationists, talking reptiles and giant vessels that carry mating pairs of all living creatures do not fall into this category.

Christianity is based on impossible fables. Science has nothing to do with it.

In the old days if you did not adhere to the status quo or had scientific hypothesis that were contrary to the bible or the church, you would likely be killed in an excruciating fashion by the hierarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You really should research Rhys's posts on this forum about 9/11. He's fond of lists too. He's posted a much, much more impressive list than yours of people with masters degrees or better, actually in (kinda) relevant subjects, who think that the Twin Towers must have been brought down by controlled demolition. But that's still bullshit, and he's just as deluded as you are.




As that subject interests me considerably, I have read many of the threads here about it.

Rhys did have some ideas that were not quite in line with my own in those conversations but for the most part his thoughts and comments, though often uncouth, were quite in line with my own.

It was the science that we shared and that science is yet to be acknowledged let alone debunked by official sources or yourselves.

It is all part of the IMC jigsaw puzzle, each piece is part of a very transparent end product, though fear, dissonance, ridicule and social pressure are used to ensure that the majority do not become (openly) aware of the extent of the real situation.

An unprecedented amount of energy has been invested into ensuring that this remains the case for the official 9/11 dogma.

I saw many posts indeed where Rhys and other truth advocates’ comments were replied purely with ad hominem (I have to use that word surprisingly often around here) as a basis for the argument, I am surprised he spent so much energy trying to explain his standpoint to unwilling minds.

I do not want to hijack this thread, but neither you nor anyone else managed to successfully rebut Rhys or any of the other truth advocates, you simply scared them off with childish name calling and unprofessional conduct.

If you could use sound science in a professional manner rather than insult and ad hominem in a childish affectation then you may have a point.

I have and open mind about everything and have no real theory other than a strong belief that we are most often not told the truth.

To get this conversation back on track, the very same tactics used by the senators to the official 9/11 myth are used by the church in order to ensure they can continue their stronghold on society.

A free thinking mind is a great threat to the oligarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You wrote:

"There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing."

That is simply incorrect. Stick to your neolithic belief system, you clearly are unqualified to comment on physics.

Apparently Stephen Hawking is unqualified as well. He says the Universe has a beginning.

I'll also note you resorted to mudslinging instead of actually addressing the points, sure sign of someone who knows what they are talking about.

But hey, I'll fully admit I don't know everything out there in physics. So I'll humbly give you the chance to demonstrate your knowledge on the subject. Just give me one experiment done, just one, that involved Pre BB and/or other universes. Nothing fancy is needed, but I'm curious about the basic details: What was their hypothesis? What was the experiment? What did they predict would happen? How was the experiment conducted? What sort of results would have disproved their hypothesis? What results did they get? How do those results show validity to their hypothesis? You know, standard scientific type stuff.

As I do love learning anything and everything about the Universe, I eagerly await your reply on the matter.
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I saw many posts indeed where Rhys and other truth advocates’ comments were replied purely with ad hominem (I have to use that word surprisingly often around here) as a basis for the argument, I am surprised he spent so much energy trying to explain his standpoint to unwilling minds.



And unless you're completely blind you'll have seen just as many posts from Rhys containing nothing but ad hom attacks.

Quote

I do not want to hijack this thread, but neither you nor anyone else managed to successfully rebut Rhys or any of the other truth advocates, you simply scared them off with childish name calling and unprofessional conduct.



'Scared them off'? Again, unless you're completely blind you'll have noticed that not only did Rhys give at least as good as he got on the insults front, he also regularly attempted to use emotional blackmail. If his arguments were being too obviously demolished he'd state that the people arguing with him were willing pawns of the system and therefore culpable as accomplices to mass murder. Now that is how you try and scare someone off!



And finally, yes, every argument Rhys put forward was rebutted, usually many times over. We didn't convince him, but since he's incorporated the 9/11 conspiracy into the very centre of his worldview that's only to be expected. He's got too much of a vested interest in the idea to be open to reason. (Can you spot the parallels that apply to this thread?)
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing.



Type this phrase into Google: "theory prior to big bang", and get back to me on that.

Quote

There is at best, total guess work and imagination, all of which are no better (and I'd argue, are worse) than believing in the concept of some sort of Divine.



You have the right to that opinion. I have the right to think that believing in the Divine is much, much worse that trying to figure it out for ourselves.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0