[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

It says even in the Bible, the words were written by "enlightened men", ofcoure they are supposed to be enlightened by god's word or whatever.


So I guess, it boils down to being able to prove if it is possible for man to be enlightened by an unseen force.

it's possible....but i think the real question is; does god or an 'unseen force' exist? if that cant be figured out, it's kinda pointless to assume that that 'force' can be of any benefit to us.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

it's possible....but i think the real question is; does god or an 'unseen force' exist? if that cant be figured out, it's kinda pointless to assume that that 'force' can be of any benefit to us.

We wouldn't even begin to try and prove one's ability to be enlightened anyway. They would be long lost into nut wards first.

We will never be able to prove an existance, simply because we have already dismissed the source long ago.

Organized religion would hang anyone who would claim enlightenment (or crucify) them, if what they claimed contridicted any already established doctrines.

Science can't prove if there is "anything on the otherside" simply because nothing they can do, can bring anyone back from further than "near death".

Religion can't prove anything beyond ancient lore.

One thing both side have in common, neither have a leg to stand on, beyond belief.

[Oswald2001]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

It says even in the Bible, the words were written by "enlightened men", ofcoure they are supposed to be enlightened by god's word or whatever.


So I guess, it boils down to being able to prove if it is possible for man to be enlightened by an unseen force.

'Your' ideas are never 'yours'.

They don't come 'from' you. They only come 'through' you.

This is true of all things.

Enlightenment is not hard to see or for me to believe...as a concept or actual phenomenon.

'Inspiration', 'hunches' and 'ideas' are the same thing, coming from the same dimension in smaller 'doses' and are unquestioned common occurences.

It's just a matter of scale and frequency.



The problem arises because Man has an agenda and perverts, adds to and twists everything along the way.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by ToMidnightshow ↗

Tell me more!

Only if I get to see cyborg boobs.

[Michael_Jackson]

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies.

^ Part of my own highly customized "10 Commandments" as the original biblical principles relating to morals and worship are completely flawed.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

We wouldn't even begin to try and prove one's ability to be enlightened anyway. They would be long lost into nut wards first.

We will never be able to prove an existance, simply because we have already dismissed the source long ago.

Organized religion would hang anyone who would claim enlightenment (or crucify) them, if what they claimed contridicted any already established doctrines.

Science can't prove if there is "anything on the otherside" simply because nothing they can do, can bring anyone back from further than "near death".

Religion can't prove anything beyond ancient lore.

One thing both side have in common, neither have a leg to stand on, beyond belief.

exactly my point. this is why theism is irrational. science admits to not having all the answers....theism admits to not having evidence for it's claims, working on faith only, but still has the arrogance to claim to know the will of the entity that they cant prove exists.

it's a bit like me saying "i cant find bigfoot or prove that he's real....but i know that God is a giant ape spirit and bigfoot is his son" and then continue to tell others how 'the ape god' wants others to live their lives.

We will never be able to prove an existance, simply because we have already dismissed the source long ago.

again though....that's an assumption. the idea of a 'source' is just that....an idea. hitchens makes a great point in regards to that: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." if there is a 'source', then "The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."

if there is a god, than God is a natural phenomena and, thus, falls under the domain of science as well....

[DiamondSmiles]

Judge Mathis always says Jesus was black and described as having a dark complexion and curly hair.

Waiting for that to hit the fan!

I have never read the Bible. Just relaying another opinion.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by diamondsmiles ↗

Judge Mathis always says Jesus was black and described as having a dark complexion and curly hair.

Waiting for that to hit the fan!

I have never read the Bible. Just relaying another opinion.

Considering his ethnicity or race he sure didn't look like he's portrayed on most crosses etc...

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by diamondsmiles ↗

Judge Mathis always says Jesus was black and described as having a dark complexion and curly hair.

Waiting for that to hit the fan!

I have never read the Bible. Just relaying another opinion.

if he were real (very well could have been), Jesus would likely look more Arab than the white looking Jesus most americans recognize. his skin could have been near black in color....who knows.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

exactly my point. this is why theism is irrational. science admits to not having all the answers....theism admits to not having evidence for it's claims, working on faith only, but still has the arrogance to claim to know the will of the entity that they cant prove exists.

it's a bit like me saying "i cant find bigfoot or prove that he's real....but i know that God is a giant ape spirit and bigfoot is his son" and then continue to tell others how 'the ape god' wants others to live their lives.



again though....that's an assumption. the idea of a 'source' is just that....an idea. hitchens makes a great point in regards to that: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." if there is a 'source', then "The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."

if there is a god, than God is a natural phenomena and, thus, falls under the domain of science as well....

Science is still an evolving thing in itself. Of course it would be ridiculous to put any faith in it. Science while it throws the word "fact" around a lot, is still majority -opinion, theory, and much unfinished research. Just because a science breakthrough happens in some subject such as biology, doesn't make science a fact across the board.

However, as much as I love science, (more so over historical theology) I could never let science be my deciding factor in a belief system. Even if science today "proved" there is, and never was any god(s) with their track record, by tomorrow they will "prove" otherwise.

As far as dismissing, Hitchen I would hope will also agree, it is easy to dismiss something beyond our reaches.

We may never see what people seen in the days they went leaps and bounds, in the name of some god(s). Or maybe we have, and do, we just have already dismissed it, and do so.

Who knows? No one.