Jesus was not the Messiah

[N4mddissent]

The true message of the Gospel delivers freedom, not domination. The Christian faith has no desire to control anything, however, many churches have become businesses, and do make an effort to control their communities and members. that is sad but true. As I usually put it, "The local church is not the TRUE CHURCH, but the local needs the TRUE CHURCH."

How many times has this shown up? All the things wrong with christianity are not really problems, since they are not REAL CHRISTIAN beliefs. REAL CHRISTIAN beliefs are perfect and beautiful and good.

Disclaimer: REAL CHRISTIAN beliefs may vary church to church and may not be the same for all people. Subject to terms and conditions as applicable by whatever situation I have already deemed appropriate and moral but henceforth I am obligated to claim to have derived my moral judgement from REAL CHRISTIAN beliefs. REAL CHRISTIAN beliefs are not intended in anyway to construe other christian beliefs as wrong, but merely assert that only REAL CHRISTIAN beliefs are right. Any disputes as to the terms and conditions of REAL CHRISTIAN beliefs will be dismissed and are not subject to arbitration from any outside source except the bible as interpreted by REAL CHRISTIAN belief adherents. Equal Opportunity Discriminator.​

(In the voice of the Samoan Attourney From 'Fear and Loathing')

'As your Attourney...I'd advise you to add the following admendment to your Disclaimer: Family members of the Church are not qualified. Void in Utah!"

Back you fucker, I'm Ahab.

 

[N4mddissent]

The original post makes the wrong request IMO.

Post empirical proof that consciousness can exist in the absence of a physical mind.

Define 'mind', please.

Brain. If no one can offer empirical proof that consciousness- thought, reason, memory, personality, etc... exists in the absence of a physical brain, then that seems a bit of a stumbling block in the argument for god.

We know rocks don't have brains and assume they don't have consciousness. The same for stars and oxygen and water. We also know that conscious states can be altered by physically manipulating the brain. We know that personality, senses, memories, and emotions can all be altered by manipulating the physical brain. We also know that extensive damage to the physical brain can result in the absence of any detectable consciousness. We even have the term brain-death that describes a situation where the "person" is gone, but the body is still alive.

So all evidence indicates consciousness or awareness requires a physical brain. If someone wants to postulate the existence of a conscious being, then they should be prepared to either agree that god has a physical brain or offer empirical proof that consciousness can exist without one.

 

[manifold]

I'm not sure if it qualifies, but there are studies about how plants respond to different types of music and being talked to. That could be construed as a form of consciousness that we just don't really understand, namely because there is no physical brain.

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm not sure if it qualifies, but there are studies about how plants respond to different types of music and being talked to. That could be construed as a form of consciousness that we just don't really understand, namely because there is no physical brain.

There are lot of examples of something we just can't understand yet, that is one of many that the mindless fact gatherers ignore. Many scientists have done experiments which have resulted in "something else" being present, they just can't pin point it.

 

[N4mddissent]

I'm not sure if it qualifies, but there are studies about how plants respond to different types of music and being talked to. That could be construed as a form of consciousness that we just don't really understand, namely because there is no physical brain.

I have heard of stories like that, but I haven't seen any actual scientific studies that support it. Any links would be appreciated for my own curiosity. But really- you want to consider plants conscious?

There are lot of examples of something we just can't understand yet, that is one of many that the mindless fact gatherers ignore. Many scientists have done experiments which have resulted in "something else" being present, they just can't pin point it.

Specifics would be nice. And if there is some unknown, the only fact that supports is that there are unknowns. Like an unidentified blip on a radar does not constitute evidence for aliens. It constitutes evidence for the existence of blips on radars. It may trigger further investigation, but other evidence would need to be found to support any claims of what the blip is.

More importantly though, I feel like your "experiments with 'something else' present" comment is vague and would appreciate specifics and/or context so I don't misunderstand what you're saying. And really, a phrase like "mindless fact-gatherers" sounds a bit like something out of the Bush administration. I am surprised to hear it coming from you, Koder, since I've long considered you one of the more reasonable people here on topics upon which we agree and disagree.

 

[JBeukema]

The original post makes the wrong request IMO.

Post empirical proof that consciousness can exist in the absence of a physical mind.

Define 'mind', please.

Brain....

Must it be a biological or fleshy brain?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/82276-a-i-through-a-brains.html

Must it be wholly so?

The Artificial Hippocampus | h+ Magazine

I posit that all evidence point to the mind* arising from physical states of matter, but that it would not be logical to conclude that it can only arise from a fleshy brain any more than it was reasonable to conclude that flight could only arise from a fleshy wing which flapped. If our understanding, while currently limited, is correct then the consciousness arises from the electrochemical interactions within the brain, Therefore, in theory, any system, regardless of composition, which gave rise to these same interactions (and any other functions or relationships between part of the whole which might be required) should give rise to consciousness.

Thus far, only fleshy brains have been observed giving rise to consciousness, but there is no reason to conclude that it is impossible for other forms of matter, or 'brains' of foreign composition to meet all necessary conditions for the birth of a conscious mind.

This, of course, raises the question of whether we might recognize any such foreign consciousness, which we can discuss in another thread.

Back on topic, it has been shown that:
-Jesus did not meet the messianic prophecies
-Christians don't know what the prophesies are or how many their are
-The NT contains blatant (and poorly conjured) lies built around the writers' poor understanding of the Jewish texts
-Nobody has been able to refute any of this

Christianity: DEBUNKED

*When I use 'mind', I refer to the conscious self which arises from the system, not the physical brain itself, which continues to exist after death, though the mind appears to have ceased to be.

 

[N4mddissent]

Define 'mind', please.

Brain....

Must it be a biological or fleshy brain?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/82276-a-i-through-a-brains.html

Must it be wholly so?

The Artificial Hippocampus | h+ Magazine

I posit that all evidence point to the mind* arising from physical states of matter, but that it would not be logical to conclude that it can only arise from a fleshy brain any more than it was reasonable to conclude that flight could only arise from a fleshy wing which flapped. If our understanding, while currently limited, is correct then the consciousness arises from the electrochemical interactions within the brain, Therefore, in theory, any system, regardless of composition, which gave rise to these same interactions (and any other functions or relationships between part of the whole which might be required) should give rise to consciousness.

Thus far, only fleshy brains have been observed giving rise to consciousness, but there is no reason to conclude that it is impossible for other forms of matter, or 'brains' of foreign composition to meet all necessary conditions for the birth of a conscious mind.

This, of course, raises the question of whether we might recognize any such foreign consciousness, which we can discuss in another thread.

Back on topic, it has been shown that:
-Jesus did not meet the messianic prophecies
-Christians don't know what the prophesies are or how many their are
-The NT contains blatant (and poorly conjured) lies built around the writers' poor understanding of the Jewish texts
-Nobody has been able to refute any of this

Christianity: DEBUNKED

*When I use 'mind', I refer to the conscious self which arises from the system, not the physical brain itself, which continues to exist after death, though the mind appears to have ceased to be.

I don't believe the substance is as important as the form. While I am aware, and find fascinating, the possibility of the emergence of "mind" in artificial "brains", both of the articles you linked express that the artificial brains mimic the form of the human brain.

Take, for example, stringed musical instruments. They come in a variety of designs and materials. A piano strikes strings with keys. A guitar uses the musician's hand directly. A violin uses a bow. But all stringed instruments, to qualify as such, must at the most basic level involve various tension placed upon "strings" which are then made to vibrate at different frequencies producing sound.

The electrical or electro-chemical transfer of information through synapses and neuron, it seems to me must be present for the emergence of mind. Even if those synapses and neurons are not biological, I think the fundamental physical elements must be present. I don't see "mind" being able to emerge in a vacuum,- which is what the concept of god essentially claims. Similarly, the idea of a "soul" is usually an idea of "mind" existing with no physical form.

In either case, I think it would be difficult for anyone to present evidence of "mind" existing in the absence of any physical form. This must be the claim, unless they wish to claim god has a physical form- and that would raise a lot more issues (like omnipresence).

And as to the topic:

I have always thought that the NT references to the OT and the claim they were prophecies about jesus are one of the earliest recorded examples of quote-mining- a technique that has helped shape church dogma to this very day.

 

[Hawkins]

People failed to realize the following,

1. from a legal point of view
A Messiah is required because salvation is needed, salvation is needed because humans can't obey God's previous Covenant. Even the Jews can't keep the Covenant, their Law enforcers the Pharisees failed to obey the Law the Prophets to God's satisfactory. That's why the Messiah was sent.

God foresaw the need for a new covenant and our Messiah was thus sent as part of His Plan. Or else much less soul will be able to be harvested.

2. The Gentile
It was in a historical junction that the Jews' religion started to influence the Gentiles. If a Messiah is not sent, the Gentile will adope the old Jews concept, that is, the Mosaic Law. And since they won't be able to keep the strict rules defined by the Mosaic Law. Most likely, they are going to change most part of the Jews' religion to form a new one.

God foresaw the need for a new covenant for both the Jews and the Gentiles, and thus our Messiah was sent as part of His Plan. Or else much less souls (especially of the Gentiles') will be able to be harvested.

From the above, you shall see the need of someone to get the direction right at that historical moment. And our Messiah came as prophecied, though the Jews may not know His purpose at that moment. It's because only when you view back 2000 years later, you can figure out why such a need for a Messiah.

Apology for my clumsy English.

 

[foggedinn]

Okay, time for the lunatic fringe to post.
I've heard from the Lord on this.

Virtually the entire NT can be understood by a proper understanding of Lev. 16. This is the chapter that describes the Day of Atonement. It's kind of a Cliff Notes version of the NT.

The bullock is slain to prepare the Priest for the sacrifice of the Lamb. John the Baptist is the bullock.

The Lamb of God is slain as a sin sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb.

The scapegoat is brought to the priest. All sins are imputed to the scapegoat. We find out who the scapegoat is when that Man of Sin is revealed; The Son of Perdition. This ends the Day of Atonement.

Upon the revelation of the Son of Perdition, the dragon will be bound for a thousand years; until right before Jesus returns to save us from the Wrath of God.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Okay, time for the lunatic fringe to post.
I've heard from the Lord on this.

Virtually the entire NT can be understood by a proper understanding of Lev. 16. This is the chapter that describes the Day of Atonement. It's kind of a Cliff Notes version of the NT.

The bullock is slain to prepare the Priest for the sacrifice of the Lamb. John the Baptist is the bullock.

The Lamb of God is slain as a sin sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb.

The scapegoat is brought to the priest. All sins are imputed to the scapegoat. We find out who the scapegoat is when that Man of Sin is revealed; The Son of Perdition. This ends the Day of Atonement.

Upon the revelation of the Son of Perdition, the dragon will be bound for a thousand years; until right before Jesus returns to save us from the Wrath of God.

Fogged, you're an idiot. Leviticus is a book for JEWISH PRIESTS! It's the manual for the Levite priests specifically.

Now, how in the fuck can Leviticus be considered a "cliffs notes version" of the NT? Are you really that stupid?

Apparently so. Take your bullshit elsewhere idiot.

 

[John Lemmon]

Jesus delivered gay people from the fringes of society, so maybe he is their savior.

 

[Kalam]

If Islam believes Yeshua was a prophet, why don't they follow his word?

The Bible as it currently exists is essentially unreliable, having had its scriptural integrity compromised by mistranslations upon mistranslations as well as discrepant teachings and accounts of the life of Jesus, A.S. It can be said with confidence that the teachings of Christ no longer exist in their original, uncorrupted form; they were preserved inadequately. If I recall correctly, the first gospel was not even written until a little over 30 years after the death of Jesus. The first standardized canon did not exist until it was approved in 393 AD by the Synod of Hippo. The Qur'an, on the other hand, was recited gradually and publicly by Muhammad, S.A.W., and was immediately preserved both in the minds of his followers and in the writings of scribes who recorded his revelations directly. The order of suwar (chapters) of the Qur'an was standardized by Uthman's orders in 651, 19 years after the death of the prophet, and remains the same today. Had it been inaccurate or flawed in any way, one of the numerous Muslims who had followed Muhammad and listened to his revelations would have stepped forward to correct it. This is what separates Islamic scripture from Jewish and Christian scriptures as far as accuracy is concerned.

 

[ABikerSailor]

IsLAME is a bullshit religion. Your forefathers couldn't agree on how to make the koran, so that is the reason why the whole fucking thing is mixed up.

They revere death and suicide in the pursuit of war. God is a CREATOR, not a destroyer. That demon fucker known as allah (may his name forever be a curse..........ptooie) has twisted the Jewish religion into the current cult of death and destruction that it is.

If you IsLAME morons don't get your shit together, with the way that you are killing each other, eventually you will wipe yourselves out.

We can only hope.

 

[John Lemmon]

If Islam believes Yeshua was a prophet, why don't they follow his word?

The Bible as it currently exists is essentially unreliable, having had its scriptural integrity compromised by mistranslations upon mistranslations as well as discrepant teachings and accounts of the life of Jesus, A.S. It can be said with confidence that the teachings of Christ no longer exist in their original, uncorrupted form; they were preserved inadequately. If I recall correctly, the first gospel was not even written until a little over 30 years after the death of Jesus. The first standardized canon did not exist until it was approved in 393 AD by the Synod of Hippo. The Qur'an, on the other hand, was recited gradually and publicly by Muhammad, S.A.W., and was immediately preserved both in the minds of his followers and in the writings of scribes who recorded his revelations directly. The order of suwar (chapters) of the Qur'an was standardized by Uthman's orders in 651, 19 years after the death of the prophet, and remains the same today. Had it been inaccurate or flawed in any way, one of the numerous Muslims who had followed Muhammad and listened to his revelations would have stepped forward to correct it. This is what separates Islamic scripture from Jewish and Christian scriptures as far as accuracy is concerned.

So Mohammed recited the koran and people wrote it down, that's your idea of accuracy? LOL. What if Mohammed just made the whole shit up? How do you know he didn't just make it all up? Where I come from, you'd be known as a goober: someone who believe anything easily.

 

[Kalam]

IsLAME is a bullshit religion.

Yet it's apparently quite difficult for you to put forth a meaningful argument against it.

Your forefathers couldn't agree on how to make the koran, so that is the reason why the whole fucking thing is mixed up.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. As I said, Uthman had the Qur'an standardized in 651 and it has remained that way ever since.

They revere death and suicide in the pursuit of war.

We revere exertion in defense of Islam. Death isn't sought out, but it shouldn't be feared if it's encountered in the pursuit of justice and righteousness. Purposeful suicide is implicitly forbidden by the Qur'an, defies qiyas, and is even explicitly forbidden by tradition.

And spend in the way of Allah and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands and do good. Surely Allah loves the doers of good. - 2:195​

And kill not the soul which Allah has forbidden except for a just cause... - 17:33​

Salafi Publications | Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen on Committing Suicide Attacking The Enemy by Blowing Oneself Up In a Car

God is a CREATOR, not a destroyer. That demon fucker known as allah (may his name forever be a curse..........ptooie) has twisted the Jewish religion into the current cult of death and destruction that it is.

I'm sorry you feel that way about Judaism. I respectfully disagree; it's not that bad.

If you IsLAME morons don't get your shit together, with the way that you are killing each other, eventually you will wipe yourselves out.

We can only hope.

Keep hoping.

Foreign Policy: The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions

 

[Kalam]

So Mohammed recited the koran and people wrote it down, that's your idea of accuracy? LOL.

Haven't you been banned enough already, troll?

Regardless, I'm interested in hearing why you think the Qur'an as it exists today is not an accurate account of Muhammad's recitation.

What if Mohammed just made the whole shit up? How do you know he didn't just make it all up? Where I come from, you'd be known as a goober: someone who believe anything easily.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want about the authenticity of the Qur'anic message. If your IQ was nearly as high as the number of sock puppet accounts you've registered here, you'd realize that my argument had nothing to do with the Qur'an being the word of God. I merely contended that it is a reliable recording of Muhammad's teachings.

 

[ABikerSailor]

IsLAME is a bullshit religion.

Yet it's apparently quite difficult for you to put forth a meaningful argument against it.

Your forefathers couldn't agree on how to make the koran, so that is the reason why the whole fucking thing is mixed up.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. As I said, Uthman had the Qur'an standardized in 651 and it has remained that way ever since.


We revere exertion in defense of Islam. Death isn't sought out, but it shouldn't be feared if it's encountered in the pursuit of justice and righteousness. Purposeful suicide is implicitly forbidden by the Qur'an, defies qiyas, and is even explicitly forbidden by tradition.

And spend in the way of Allah and cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands and do good. Surely Allah loves the doers of good. - 2:195​

And kill not the soul which Allah has forbidden except for a just cause... - 17:33​

Salafi Publications | Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen on Committing Suicide Attacking The Enemy by Blowing Oneself Up In a Car

God is a CREATOR, not a destroyer. That demon fucker known as allah (may his name forever be a curse..........ptooie) has twisted the Jewish religion into the current cult of death and destruction that it is.

I'm sorry you feel that way about Judaism. I respectfully disagree; it's not that bad.

If you IsLAME morons don't get your shit together, with the way that you are killing each other, eventually you will wipe yourselves out.

We can only hope.

Keep hoping.

Foreign Policy: The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions

Yo.........IsLAME asshole........

Hagar was pissed off at being kicked out of the tribe by Sarah. Hagar wanted to have Ishmael receive the blessing, but he didn't get it.

She was Sarah's top hand maiden, so that would mean that she understood what the Hebrews practiced for religion.

IsLAME is nothing more than a bastardized version o Judaism.

Fuck off ya goddamn pedant, go please purists.

 

[Kalam]

Yo.........IsLAME asshole........

Hagar was pissed off at being kicked out of the tribe by Sarah. Hagar wanted to have Ishmael receive the blessing, but he didn't get it.

She was Sarah's top hand maiden, so that would mean that she understood what the Hebrews practiced for religion.

IsLAME is nothing more than a bastardized version o Judaism.

Fuck off ya goddamn pedant, go please purists.

As expected, you addressed none of my points and attempted to steer the discussion in an entirely different direction. Your failure to either disprove my arguments or admit that you were incorrect has been duly noted.

Muhammad's descent from Ishmael and his incorporation of Jewish stories into the Qur'anic message are hardly pertinent to what we were discussing. I find it more pitiful than funny that you'd call me pedantic for corroborating my positions with historical fact and relevant scripture. Frankly, I've learned to expect about as much from you.

 

[John Lemmon]

So kalam, as it exists today, you don't follow the koran properly. Mohammed promoted killing non-muslims, screwing 9 year olds, sharia law... And don't even try to ask me to quote that book, you know it's there. Anyways, you're the copy&paste king, not me, go for it.

 

[Kalam]

And don't even try to ask me to quote that book

Quote that book.