God... Is Time.

[Hollie]

PostmodernProph is a Bible literalist? How do you figure that?

she doesn't "figure" it.....she calls anyone she can't beat in an argument a YEC because it helps her pretend she is superior to them.......

You've never put forth an argument for anything. Your silly one-liners do nothing more than defend an inability to adequately express concepts in sentence format.

Other than a YEC'ist, how do we describe one who takes biblical tales and fables as literal rendering of history?

yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

and yet I believe neither......

You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.

 

[RandomVariable]

she doesn't "figure" it.....she calls anyone she can't beat in an argument a YEC because it helps her pretend she is superior to them.......

You've never put forth an argument for anything. Your silly one-liners do nothing more than defend an inability to adequately express concepts in sentence format.

Other than a YEC'ist, how do we describe one who takes biblical tales and fables as literal rendering of history?

yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

and yet I believe neither......

You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.

Hollie, I am kind of serious about this, maybe actually serious. Have you had your inability to comprehend diagnosed?

 

[Hollie]

You've never put forth an argument for anything. Your silly one-liners do nothing more than defend an inability to adequately express concepts in sentence format.

Other than a YEC'ist, how do we describe one who takes biblical tales and fables as literal rendering of history?

yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

and yet I believe neither......

You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.

Hollie, I am kind of serious about this, maybe actually serious. Have you had your inability to comprehend diagnosed?

Are you really serious or just kinda' maybe serious?

 

[RandomVariable]

yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

and yet I believe neither......

You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.

Hollie, I am kind of serious about this, maybe actually serious. Have you had your inability to comprehend diagnosed?

Are you really serious or just kinda' maybe serious?

Not sure. It is one thing to take what someone says and cast it in a new light or change the angle of perception or even play a little on the words but it is very different, and probably against board rules, to reply to a post and just completely misrepresent what they just said. Are you aware this is what you are doing?

 

[Hollie]

Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

and yet I believe neither......

You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.

Hollie, I am kind of serious about this, maybe actually serious. Have you had your inability to comprehend diagnosed?

Are you really serious or just kinda' maybe serious?

Not sure. It is one thing to take what someone says and cast it in a new light or change the angle of perception or even play a little on the words but it is very different, and probably against board rules, to reply to a post and just completely misrepresent what they just said. Are you aware this is what you are doing?

As this is an issue of great concern to you, why don't you and the self-entitled "prophet" discuss his particular version of christian theology. He has previously identified Genesis as the creation of time by the gawds. Is that a literal interpretation or not? If not, let us know the definitive interpretation of those bible elements that are literal renderings and those that are not.

 

[RandomVariable]

and yet I believe neither......

You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.

Hollie, I am kind of serious about this, maybe actually serious. Have you had your inability to comprehend diagnosed?

Are you really serious or just kinda' maybe serious?

Not sure. It is one thing to take what someone says and cast it in a new light or change the angle of perception or even play a little on the words but it is very different, and probably against board rules, to reply to a post and just completely misrepresent what they just said. Are you aware this is what you are doing?

As this is an issue of great concern to you, why don't you and the self-entitled "prophet" discuss his particular version of christian theology. He has previously identified Genesis as the creation of time by the gawds. Is that a literal interpretation or not? If not, let us know the definitive interpretation of those bible elements that are literal renderings and those that are not.

Please reread this exchange and explain to me your value-added here?

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

Postmodern: and yet I believe neither......

Hollie: You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.​

I believe everyone is allowed a little indulgence in trolling here and there but this is... What is this? I do not even know what this is. Can you not read? Can you not comprehend? Can you not think? If you are trying to be clever, you're not. And if you are trying to troll you are even failing in that.

 

[Hollie]

You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.

Hollie, I am kind of serious about this, maybe actually serious. Have you had your inability to comprehend diagnosed?

Are you really serious or just kinda' maybe serious?

Not sure. It is one thing to take what someone says and cast it in a new light or change the angle of perception or even play a little on the words but it is very different, and probably against board rules, to reply to a post and just completely misrepresent what they just said. Are you aware this is what you are doing?

As this is an issue of great concern to you, why don't you and the self-entitled "prophet" discuss his particular version of christian theology. He has previously identified Genesis as the creation of time by the gawds. Is that a literal interpretation or not? If not, let us know the definitive interpretation of those bible elements that are literal renderings and those that are not.

Please reread this exchange and explain to me your value-added here?

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

Postmodern: and yet I believe neither......

Hollie: You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.​

I believe everyone is allowed a little indulgence in trolling here and there but this is... What is this? I do not even know what this is. Can you not read? Can you not comprehend? Can you not think? If you are trying to be clever, you're not. And if you are trying to troll you are even failing in that.

I couldn't help but notice you made every attempt to avoid addressing what I wrote.

You and the "prophet" may want to address the legitimacy of the genesis fable. Is it a literal rendering or not? If you and the "prophet" are going to simply pick and choose through the bibles; accept the parts you like, discard those you don't, why bother with any of it?

Why troll the thread when you have nothing to contribute?

 

[RandomVariable]

Hollie, I am kind of serious about this, maybe actually serious. Have you had your inability to comprehend diagnosed?

Are you really serious or just kinda' maybe serious?

Not sure. It is one thing to take what someone says and cast it in a new light or change the angle of perception or even play a little on the words but it is very different, and probably against board rules, to reply to a post and just completely misrepresent what they just said. Are you aware this is what you are doing?

As this is an issue of great concern to you, why don't you and the self-entitled "prophet" discuss his particular version of christian theology. He has previously identified Genesis as the creation of time by the gawds. Is that a literal interpretation or not? If not, let us know the definitive interpretation of those bible elements that are literal renderings and those that are not.

Please reread this exchange and explain to me your value-added here?

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

Postmodern: and yet I believe neither......

Hollie: You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.​

I believe everyone is allowed a little indulgence in trolling here and there but this is... What is this? I do not even know what this is. Can you not read? Can you not comprehend? Can you not think? If you are trying to be clever, you're not. And if you are trying to troll you are even failing in that.

I couldn't help but notice you made every attempt to avoid addressing what I wrote.

You and the "prophet" may want to address the legitimacy of the genesis fable. Is it a literal rendering or not? If you and the "prophet" are going to simply pick and choose through the bibles; accept the parts you like, discard those you don't, why bother with any of it?

Why troll the thread when you have nothing to contribute?

Questioning the legitimacy of the "genesis fable" might be a perfectly good conversation but it was not part of the conversation when you brought it up. Example:

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.
​

Deflection is often used on the board to disrupt a conversation when one does not like the way things are going. Such as, "My religion does no wrong because your religion did..." But bringing up random topics is not deflection. It is a demonstration of an inability to hold a coherent conversation.

In your reply to Postmodern's statement that he does not interpret the scriptures literally you reply that failed to notice something. How is him failing to notice something related to whether or not he interprets the scriptures literally? It's not. It is just a random statement that does not even qualify as deflection.

 

[Hollie]

Are you really serious or just kinda' maybe serious?

Not sure. It is one thing to take what someone says and cast it in a new light or change the angle of perception or even play a little on the words but it is very different, and probably against board rules, to reply to a post and just completely misrepresent what they just said. Are you aware this is what you are doing?

As this is an issue of great concern to you, why don't you and the self-entitled "prophet" discuss his particular version of christian theology. He has previously identified Genesis as the creation of time by the gawds. Is that a literal interpretation or not? If not, let us know the definitive interpretation of those bible elements that are literal renderings and those that are not.

Please reread this exchange and explain to me your value-added here?

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

Postmodern: and yet I believe neither......

Hollie: You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.​

I believe everyone is allowed a little indulgence in trolling here and there but this is... What is this? I do not even know what this is. Can you not read? Can you not comprehend? Can you not think? If you are trying to be clever, you're not. And if you are trying to troll you are even failing in that.

I couldn't help but notice you made every attempt to avoid addressing what I wrote.

You and the "prophet" may want to address the legitimacy of the genesis fable. Is it a literal rendering or not? If you and the "prophet" are going to simply pick and choose through the bibles; accept the parts you like, discard those you don't, why bother with any of it?

Why troll the thread when you have nothing to contribute?

Questioning the legitimacy of the "genesis fable" might be a perfectly good conversation but it was not part of the conversation when you brought it up. Example:

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.
​

Deflection is often used on the board to disrupt a conversation when one does not like the way things are going. Such as, "My religion does no wrong because your religion did..." But bringing up random topics is not deflection. It is a demonstration of an inability to hold a coherent conversation.

In your reply to Postmodern's statement that he does not interpret the scriptures literally you reply that failed to notice something. How is him failing to notice something related to whether or not he interprets the scriptures literally? It's not. It is just a random statement that does not even qualify as deflection.

I can agree with your comments regarding deflection. Its a common tactic used when religionists are held to a consistent, identifiable standard. The "prophet" has claimed that the genesis fable is a standard by which we can identify the beginning of time. It was a simple matter to challenge that. Genesis suggests a 6,000 year old earth. Is that accurate or not? If not, what standard (other than none or personal preference), is used to reach that conclusion? Similarly, if the Noah fable is not literally true, what does that suggest about the veracity of other biblical tales? In other words, is the message of the bibles a cold, unalterable law: Ye must believeth this, or be damned, or rather an exercise in pick and choose theism?

Are we to accept that the bibles range from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and humans are then asked to pick and choose which aspects are literal and which are not?

Is the biblical flood literally or not? Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary).

Kinda. Sorta. Yes and no, some yes, some no. Super. Make it up as you go. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains:

Believe this, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – roasted in Hell.

 

[RandomVariable]

Not sure. It is one thing to take what someone says and cast it in a new light or change the angle of perception or even play a little on the words but it is very different, and probably against board rules, to reply to a post and just completely misrepresent what they just said. Are you aware this is what you are doing?

As this is an issue of great concern to you, why don't you and the self-entitled "prophet" discuss his particular version of christian theology. He has previously identified Genesis as the creation of time by the gawds. Is that a literal interpretation or not? If not, let us know the definitive interpretation of those bible elements that are literal renderings and those that are not.

Please reread this exchange and explain to me your value-added here?

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

Postmodern: and yet I believe neither......

Hollie: You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.​

I believe everyone is allowed a little indulgence in trolling here and there but this is... What is this? I do not even know what this is. Can you not read? Can you not comprehend? Can you not think? If you are trying to be clever, you're not. And if you are trying to troll you are even failing in that.

I couldn't help but notice you made every attempt to avoid addressing what I wrote.

You and the "prophet" may want to address the legitimacy of the genesis fable. Is it a literal rendering or not? If you and the "prophet" are going to simply pick and choose through the bibles; accept the parts you like, discard those you don't, why bother with any of it?

Why troll the thread when you have nothing to contribute?

Questioning the legitimacy of the "genesis fable" might be a perfectly good conversation but it was not part of the conversation when you brought it up. Example:

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.
​

Deflection is often used on the board to disrupt a conversation when one does not like the way things are going. Such as, "My religion does no wrong because your religion did..." But bringing up random topics is not deflection. It is a demonstration of an inability to hold a coherent conversation.

In your reply to Postmodern's statement that he does not interpret the scriptures literally you reply that failed to notice something. How is him failing to notice something related to whether or not he interprets the scriptures literally? It's not. It is just a random statement that does not even qualify as deflection.

I can agree with your comments regarding deflection. Its a common tactic used when religionists are held to a consistent, identifiable standard. The "prophet" has claimed that the genesis fable is a standard by which we can identify the beginning of time. It was a simple matter to challenge that. Genesis suggests a 6,000 year old earth. Is that accurate or not? If not, what standard (other than none or personal preference), is used to reach that conclusion? Similarly, if the Noah fable is not literally true, what does that suggest about the veracity of other biblical tales? In other words, is the message of the bibles a cold, unalterable law: Ye must believeth this, or be damned, or rather an exercise in pick and choose theism?

Are we to accept that the bibles range from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and humans are then asked to pick and choose which aspects are literal and which are not?

Is the biblical flood literally or not? Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary).

Kinda. Sorta. Yes and no, some yes, some no. Super. Make it up as you go. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains:

Believe this, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – roasted in Hell.

Another method of argument, which is sometimes used if deflection fails, is to overwhelm a post with items as to escape the certain defeat.

All your items are worthy of discussion, which I would be happy to indulge you in, they do not, however, negated the fact that:

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.
​

is not a coherent reply to Postmodern's post. I would not bother bringing it to your attention if you did not do it so very often. (I am so very tempted to say, 'all the time' but that is just a bit of a hyperbole.)

 

[Hollie]

As this is an issue of great concern to you, why don't you and the self-entitled "prophet" discuss his particular version of christian theology. He has previously identified Genesis as the creation of time by the gawds. Is that a literal interpretation or not? If not, let us know the definitive interpretation of those bible elements that are literal renderings and those that are not.

Please reread this exchange and explain to me your value-added here?

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

Postmodern: and yet I believe neither......

Hollie: You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.​

I believe everyone is allowed a little indulgence in trolling here and there but this is... What is this? I do not even know what this is. Can you not read? Can you not comprehend? Can you not think? If you are trying to be clever, you're not. And if you are trying to troll you are even failing in that.

I couldn't help but notice you made every attempt to avoid addressing what I wrote.

You and the "prophet" may want to address the legitimacy of the genesis fable. Is it a literal rendering or not? If you and the "prophet" are going to simply pick and choose through the bibles; accept the parts you like, discard those you don't, why bother with any of it?

Why troll the thread when you have nothing to contribute?

Questioning the legitimacy of the "genesis fable" might be a perfectly good conversation but it was not part of the conversation when you brought it up. Example:

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.
​

Deflection is often used on the board to disrupt a conversation when one does not like the way things are going. Such as, "My religion does no wrong because your religion did..." But bringing up random topics is not deflection. It is a demonstration of an inability to hold a coherent conversation.

In your reply to Postmodern's statement that he does not interpret the scriptures literally you reply that failed to notice something. How is him failing to notice something related to whether or not he interprets the scriptures literally? It's not. It is just a random statement that does not even qualify as deflection.

I can agree with your comments regarding deflection. Its a common tactic used when religionists are held to a consistent, identifiable standard. The "prophet" has claimed that the genesis fable is a standard by which we can identify the beginning of time. It was a simple matter to challenge that. Genesis suggests a 6,000 year old earth. Is that accurate or not? If not, what standard (other than none or personal preference), is used to reach that conclusion? Similarly, if the Noah fable is not literally true, what does that suggest about the veracity of other biblical tales? In other words, is the message of the bibles a cold, unalterable law: Ye must believeth this, or be damned, or rather an exercise in pick and choose theism?

Are we to accept that the bibles range from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and humans are then asked to pick and choose which aspects are literal and which are not?

Is the biblical flood literally or not? Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary).

Kinda. Sorta. Yes and no, some yes, some no. Super. Make it up as you go. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains:

Believe this, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – roasted in Hell.

Another method of argument, which is sometimes used if deflection fails, is to overwhelm a post with items as to escape the certain defeat.

All your items are worthy of discussion, which I would be happy to indulge you in, they do not, however, negated the fact that:

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.
​

is not a coherent reply to Postmodern's post. I would not bother bringing it to your attention if you did not do it so very often. (I am so very tempted to say, 'all the time' but that is just a bit of a hyperbole.)

It's clear you're employing the very tactic of deflection you're accusing others of doing. I gave you a specific example of my challenge to the "prophet" in connection with his claim that the genesis fable could be an accurate baseline for the beginning of time. You chose to sidestep that with nothing more than a shuffling of the comments you posted earlier with not a single attempt to address my posted comments.

It appears that you cannot defend either the literal rendering of the bibles as an accurate documentary of earth's history or the comments of the self-entitled "prophet" as using biblical tales and fables as an accurate rendering of earth history.

 

[Boss]

I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.

The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.

I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?

Interesting.
But I disagree.
Time is an illusion that we have created.
Time only exists on this earth. Even the astronauts who are in the space station do not experience time in the same way that we do. Once anything leaves the atmosphere and orbit of this earth........... time ceases to exist.

God is Love. In that sentence, Love is both predicate nominative and predicate adjective. Nominative because Love is the essence of God. Adjective because Love describes God.

Love is everything.
Love is everywhere, or almost everywhere.
Absence of Love is ................Hell.

"Once anything leaves the atmosphere and orbit of this earth.... time ceases to exist."

Wonderful! You've apparently unlocked the key to immortality! We simply travel away from the orbit of earth where time doesn't exist, then we can never age!

 

[Boss]

Time isn't something that's real. It is an illusion that an observer can sense if he's aware of it. Otherwise, an observer can only perceive one picture at a time that gives him the sense of motion, which is needed to sense time. Since we're only stationary information until processed into pictures, time, motion, space and matter, everything we experience is an illusion.

No one can perceive any picture until light travels. My argument is that we can't observe the present. Regardless of your theories on time, this remains true. If you want to imagine time as slices or frames which give perception of motion, that's fine... it has nothing to do with my argument.

Both light information and information that forms visible objects are processed at the same exact time to form a picture we can observe. That picture is always the present unless God gives us pictures of the future or past to observe, in which, the present can't be observed at the same time.

It seems as if you feel compelled to explain how light works to me. Try to get this through your head... We can't "observe" anything in the present. The "picture" is a snapshot of the past. This is NOT A THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT! I don't really care what you believe God gives us or doesn't give us. I am discussing the scientific fact that physics has to happen before we can perceive anything. Light has to travel, images have to be processed, our perception of "the present" is no longer in the present, it is forever in the past.

 

[BreezeWood]

Are you really serious or just kinda' maybe serious?

Not sure. It is one thing to take what someone says and cast it in a new light or change the angle of perception or even play a little on the words but it is very different, and probably against board rules, to reply to a post and just completely misrepresent what they just said. Are you aware this is what you are doing?

As this is an issue of great concern to you, why don't you and the self-entitled "prophet" discuss his particular version of christian theology. He has previously identified Genesis as the creation of time by the gawds. Is that a literal interpretation or not? If not, let us know the definitive interpretation of those bible elements that are literal renderings and those that are not.

Please reread this exchange and explain to me your value-added here?

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

Postmodern: and yet I believe neither......

Hollie: You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.​

I believe everyone is allowed a little indulgence in trolling here and there but this is... What is this? I do not even know what this is. Can you not read? Can you not comprehend? Can you not think? If you are trying to be clever, you're not. And if you are trying to troll you are even failing in that.

I couldn't help but notice you made every attempt to avoid addressing what I wrote.

You and the "prophet" may want to address the legitimacy of the genesis fable. Is it a literal rendering or not? If you and the "prophet" are going to simply pick and choose through the bibles; accept the parts you like, discard those you don't, why bother with any of it?

Why troll the thread when you have nothing to contribute?

Questioning the legitimacy of the "genesis fable" might be a perfectly good conversation but it was not part of the conversation when you brought it up. Example:

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.
​

Deflection is often used on the board to disrupt a conversation when one does not like the way things are going. Such as, "My religion does no wrong because your religion did..." But bringing up random topics is not deflection. It is a demonstration of an inability to hold a coherent conversation.

In your reply to Postmodern's statement that he does not interpret the scriptures literally you reply that failed to notice something. How is him failing to notice something related to whether or not he interprets the scriptures literally? It's not. It is just a random statement that does not even qualify as deflection.

RV: Questioning the legitimacy of the "genesis fable" might be a perfectly good conversation but it was not part of the conversation when you brought it up ...

Post: I have to disagree....."time" is meaningless to an eternal being......I believe that Genesis tells us the first thing created was "time".....that which separates day and night......the passage of time......

.
" Deflection is often used on the board to disrupt a conversation " - so claims the dismembering christian.

OP: I am discussing the scientific fact that physics has to happen before we can perceive anything.

are you again implying physics has captured the living Spirit ?


* or in your case is deflection just an acronym for distraction ....

.

 

[RandomVariable]

Please reread this exchange and explain to me your value-added here?

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

Postmodern: and yet I believe neither......

Hollie: You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.​

I believe everyone is allowed a little indulgence in trolling here and there but this is... What is this? I do not even know what this is. Can you not read? Can you not comprehend? Can you not think? If you are trying to be clever, you're not. And if you are trying to troll you are even failing in that.

I couldn't help but notice you made every attempt to avoid addressing what I wrote.

You and the "prophet" may want to address the legitimacy of the genesis fable. Is it a literal rendering or not? If you and the "prophet" are going to simply pick and choose through the bibles; accept the parts you like, discard those you don't, why bother with any of it?

Why troll the thread when you have nothing to contribute?

Questioning the legitimacy of the "genesis fable" might be a perfectly good conversation but it was not part of the conversation when you brought it up. Example:

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.
​

Deflection is often used on the board to disrupt a conversation when one does not like the way things are going. Such as, "My religion does no wrong because your religion did..." But bringing up random topics is not deflection. It is a demonstration of an inability to hold a coherent conversation.

In your reply to Postmodern's statement that he does not interpret the scriptures literally you reply that failed to notice something. How is him failing to notice something related to whether or not he interprets the scriptures literally? It's not. It is just a random statement that does not even qualify as deflection.

I can agree with your comments regarding deflection. Its a common tactic used when religionists are held to a consistent, identifiable standard. The "prophet" has claimed that the genesis fable is a standard by which we can identify the beginning of time. It was a simple matter to challenge that. Genesis suggests a 6,000 year old earth. Is that accurate or not? If not, what standard (other than none or personal preference), is used to reach that conclusion? Similarly, if the Noah fable is not literally true, what does that suggest about the veracity of other biblical tales? In other words, is the message of the bibles a cold, unalterable law: Ye must believeth this, or be damned, or rather an exercise in pick and choose theism?

Are we to accept that the bibles range from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and humans are then asked to pick and choose which aspects are literal and which are not?

Is the biblical flood literally or not? Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary).

Kinda. Sorta. Yes and no, some yes, some no. Super. Make it up as you go. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains:

Believe this, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – roasted in Hell.

Another method of argument, which is sometimes used if deflection fails, is to overwhelm a post with items as to escape the certain defeat.

All your items are worthy of discussion, which I would be happy to indulge you in, they do not, however, negated the fact that:

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.
​

is not a coherent reply to Postmodern's post. I would not bother bringing it to your attention if you did not do it so very often. (I am so very tempted to say, 'all the time' but that is just a bit of a hyperbole.)

It's clear you're employing the very tactic of deflection you're accusing others of doing. I gave you a specific example of my challenge to the "prophet" in connection with his claim that the genesis fable could be an accurate baseline for the beginning of time. You chose to sidestep that with nothing more than a shuffling of the comments you posted earlier with not a single attempt to address my posted comments.

It appears that you cannot defend either the literal rendering of the bibles as an accurate documentary of earth's history or the comments of the self-entitled "prophet" as using biblical tales and fables as an accurate rendering of earth history.

Fine. Would you like an exchange of thoughts in which I explain who/what God is? You will have to tell me what you think and what you want to know. I will read and reply. I am not interested in arguing with you. If you would like to have such a conversation we should start a new thread, before Boss gets upset gives us a time-out.

 

[RandomVariable]

Not sure. It is one thing to take what someone says and cast it in a new light or change the angle of perception or even play a little on the words but it is very different, and probably against board rules, to reply to a post and just completely misrepresent what they just said. Are you aware this is what you are doing?

As this is an issue of great concern to you, why don't you and the self-entitled "prophet" discuss his particular version of christian theology. He has previously identified Genesis as the creation of time by the gawds. Is that a literal interpretation or not? If not, let us know the definitive interpretation of those bible elements that are literal renderings and those that are not.

Please reread this exchange and explain to me your value-added here?

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

Postmodern: and yet I believe neither......

Hollie: You're suffering from "I don't understand" syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.​

I believe everyone is allowed a little indulgence in trolling here and there but this is... What is this? I do not even know what this is. Can you not read? Can you not comprehend? Can you not think? If you are trying to be clever, you're not. And if you are trying to troll you are even failing in that.

I couldn't help but notice you made every attempt to avoid addressing what I wrote.

You and the "prophet" may want to address the legitimacy of the genesis fable. Is it a literal rendering or not? If you and the "prophet" are going to simply pick and choose through the bibles; accept the parts you like, discard those you don't, why bother with any of it?

Why troll the thread when you have nothing to contribute?

Questioning the legitimacy of the "genesis fable" might be a perfectly good conversation but it was not part of the conversation when you brought it up. Example:

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.
​

Deflection is often used on the board to disrupt a conversation when one does not like the way things are going. Such as, "My religion does no wrong because your religion did..." But bringing up random topics is not deflection. It is a demonstration of an inability to hold a coherent conversation.

In your reply to Postmodern's statement that he does not interpret the scriptures literally you reply that failed to notice something. How is him failing to notice something related to whether or not he interprets the scriptures literally? It's not. It is just a random statement that does not even qualify as deflection.

RV: Questioning the legitimacy of the "genesis fable" might be a perfectly good conversation but it was not part of the conversation when you brought it up ...

Post: I have to disagree....."time" is meaningless to an eternal being......I believe that Genesis tells us the first thing created was "time".....that which separates day and night......the passage of time......

.
" Deflection is often used on the board to disrupt a conversation " - so claims the dismembering christian.

OP: I am discussing the scientific fact that physics has to happen before we can perceive anything.

are you again implying physics has captured the living Spirit ?


* or in your case is deflection just an acronym for distraction ....

.

Please explain 'dismembering christian'. In other words, who am I and what am I doing?

 

[RandomVariable]

Can time create?

Interesting question. At first I was tempted to say yes... look at the Grand Canyon. But time alone didn't create that. Not to sound like Obama, but time had help from other elements. Then I was tempted to say time is required to create something, but again... is it? Quantum entanglement challenges such a notion.

As we've seen in this thread, the word "time" can be used to mean a variety of things. It's never exclusive to any of those things it's just that we use the word to mean different things in different context. In this particular context, we are discussing the "arrow of time" and the point in time we perceive as "present." Our perception of present is actually not the moment of the present, that already happened and we've experienced the after-effect.

We rely on faith because we can't observe, measure, test or examine the precise moment of 'present' time. All we have to go by is what we perceive after the present, in the past.

Since we are abusing your thread to a degree I rarely see I will post a follow-up.

You stated the Grand Canyon was created, presumably by water and time. I would phrase it as the Grand Canyon was formed over time by water. The nuance is the lack of an intelligent force. To elaborate my question: Can time create creatively?

 

[Abishai100]

Avatar Attribution



Much of religious texts from around the world seem to imply that God the hypothetical wise creator governs over two realms of folly or frailty (or at least provides guidance about them):

1. Mischief

2. Vanity

If we take iconography from both spiritualism and art (since art represents a social perception of sentimentalism usually), we obtain two characters (or avatars) who represent a focus on mischief and vanity.

These two avatars are Shiva, the Hindu god of meditation and devastation, and Cyclonus, an A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) science-fiction robot warrior who serves as a diabolical consultant and drone for the sinister Decepticon army from the robot-apocalypse themed animated franchise Transformers (Hasbro).

Shiva represents a curiosity about control over chaos (as it applies to the unpredictability of turbulence and devastation), while Cyclonus represents a curiosity about tampering with civics and ethics (as they apply to leadership and prominence). Shiva and Cyclonus are great characters to use in discussions about the gravity of mischief and vanity.

Mischief draws human beings towards gibberish, while vanity draws human beings towards self-indulgence. Shiva seems to offer comments about doing away with gibberish, while Cyclonus seems to offer comments/symbols about the general opportunism associated with self-indulgence.

If God, a possible all-knowing Creator, does not exist, where do we get ideas about characterizing the philosophical complexities of emotions about sentimentalism, frailty, self-organization (or governance), and humility? While many philosophers have conjectured that we don't need a figurehead God to talk about the concepts of government and social contracts, they do not necessarily discount the curiosity about imagining elaborate hierarchies of leadership (which lead to a theoretical God or supreme being).

"To make peace, we must make war." We can reorient this adage to suggest, "To understand God, we must understand men."

Shiva and Cyclonus are as useful in the discussion about the limits or power of God as are the governance-philosophy models offered by great thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche. How do Shiva and Cyclonus reveal the social sentiments surrounding a curiosity about governance/power characterization?

I like differentiating the concepts or symbols surrounding Shiva and Cyclonus. Shiva seems to represent jurisprudence, while Cyclonus seems to represent profiteerism.

Shiva appears resolute and pensive, while Cyclonus appears fierce and cunning.

I like thinking about how this topic illuminates the social appeal of relevant civics-caricature Hollywood (USA) movies such as "The Devil's Advocate" (1997).







Cyclonus (Wikipedia)

Shiva (Wikipedia)

 

[Genevieve]

I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.

The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.

I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?

Interesting.
But I disagree.
Time is an illusion that we have created.
Time only exists on this earth. Even the astronauts who are in the space station do not experience time in the same way that we do. Once anything leaves the atmosphere and orbit of this earth........... time ceases to exist.

God is Love. In that sentence, Love is both predicate nominative and predicate adjective. Nominative because Love is the essence of God. Adjective because Love describes God.

Love is everything.
Love is everywhere, or almost everywhere.
Absence of Love is ................Hell.

"Once anything leaves the atmosphere and orbit of this earth.... time ceases to exist."

Wonderful! You've apparently unlocked the key to immortality! We simply travel away from the orbit of earth where time doesn't exist, then we can never age!

Where in there did I say our body doesn't age even if it's outside of time?
I don't know whether it does or not, but pretty sure those people on the space station age.

 

[BreezeWood]

Please explain 'dismembering christian'. In other words, who am I and what am I doing?

Two kids standing in the woods. Good kids, done nothing much wrong in their lives. They start talking about one of their teachers who is really hot, and married. Branch falls from a tree close by and crashes to the ground.

Next day the two kids ... Branch crashes nearby.

... A branch crashes and he freezes.

.
sorry christian, I just feel dismembering a tree to make a point is not a message the Almighty would appreciate, one that is promulgated by christian disrespect for living beings embedded from their scriptural "genesis".


all living beings are Spiritual = / = Time nor Gravity.

.