EVOLUTION - Page 12

Ironwood,

Unfortunately our discussion has deteriorated to the point you have adopted ad hominems and mockery as your argument.

What I said about perspective went right over your head.

Quote from you: "You assume you know my beliefs or spiritual leanings and experiences. For shame."

Actually, you've made your somewhat convoluted beliefs known. After all, we are on the internet are we not? Case in point...

"You seem to think there is no valid reason to be concerned with or skeptical of the words of man. Yet you so readily admonish anything I say when it questions your position.
What you don't understand is that I am even open to your experiences. Regardless of my words and their generally perceivable position."

My position has been clear since my first post.
I made no assertion that I was open to both paradoxes, that's your stick. Though you only argue for one, that being the theory of evolution. As you yourself realized in the above quote.

Fact is your insistence on referring to scripture as "the word of man" and assumption that if God existed he couldn't preserve his word even in the face of our fallible natures means YOU demonstrate a closed mind, unwilling to accept the possibility of my "experiences" as you say, being genuine. God didn't assure me of the validity of scripture until I first demonstrated faith that they could be true, you haven't done that. You can ask why God chose this avenue to communicate to us all you want but it won't change the fact that he has.

As far as other denominations are concerned, yes they do demonstrate our fallibleness. NOT any imperfection of God. People have invoked many a name to justify war, God being one of them, that is true. But at the heart of all wars is greed as the motivation behind them coupled with prideful glory seeking. Faults of man, not God. And why wouldn't Satan inspire other "scriptures" to confuse the issue? It works, keeping people from seeking the truth, truth being God. Leads them astray or causes them to dismiss any effort to know for sure all together; as you have.

No, I do not consider myself a prophet, just a humble servant of the Lord. And just so you know, no I wasn't indoctrinated as you assumed earlier. You or people you know have a good chance of having spent more time in church then I. I found my heart sincerely softening toward the possibility of the scriptures being true one day in my very adult life and the spirit of God acted, Claiming me as his and confirming the truthful validity of scripture in an instant. An experience that no words can sufficiently explain. Naturally once the accompanying euphoric feelings began to subside the carnal side wanted to know exactly what it was that just transpired in my life. So I set about to know all I could about scripture, first the content, then the context including the language of the times for each portion of the Bible. I took into consideration the customs and lifestyles with historical events mentioned, and what archaeological evidence there was. All my research affirmed what I already knew after that day, God is real and he's choosing those of us who are willing to repent of our rebellion against him to reveal himself to on a personal level.

Too bad you are not open to the possibilities that are before you.
It is our own intellectualism that is the wide path of destruction that is before us all. And our pride is what inhibits us from seeing the narrow truthful gate of salvation.

You are right about one thing...both paradoxes are faith driven at the end of the day. The question is where is your faith placed, in what YOU understand or what God wants you to understand?

I honestly wish you well and a good life.

Theory,

Your statement declaring a form of pantheism doesn't negate the fact that you take a huge leap of faith in believing all life came from one original cell that somehow spontaneously came forth. Your original claim to me was: to think that evolution as currently theorized didn't happen as you believe, spontaneously from a single cell, was ridiculous. I refuted the "science" you suggested supported your claim. If you believe in pantheism that is your prerogative but you do not have the scientific upper hand with such beliefs. What you've expressed reduces God to virtual nonexistence. A belief system I just don't buy into, sorry, no offense intended.

quote:

---

Unfortunately our discussion has deteriorated to the point you have adopted ad hominems and mockery as your argument.

---

Um no, I would be specific but you offered no example.

What I will say is that yes, deterioration has occured because the base presumptions on both of our parts are falling apart.

In reference to me with you, you aren't the general indocrinated bible thumper, you are a different kind. One that I need more info and backround on now that this discovery has been made.

You assume still that you know about my "beliefs", but as you have stated, they are convoluted and and I will add incomplete as any open minded finite human being's would be.

Again, one of the foundations of my assertion of your likely closed mindedness.

But for now I will continue.

quote:

---

What I said about perspective went right over your head.

---

Says you, a person still using a close minded belief to eschew my nuanced points.

quote:

---

I made no assertion that I was open to both paradoxes

---

I know, hence again, close minded.

To use your own words...

quote:

---

I believe it is your limitations causing narrow minded thinking, not my limitations

---

quote:

---

I made no assertion that I was open to both paradoxes

---

as it is...

quote:

---

incomprehensible, so you don't dare approach it with an open mind.

---

You have chosen to attempt to defend an ambiguous notion of...

quote:

---

An everlasting God who has no beginning or end

---

which you clearly state is incomprehensible. But implying that you have a selective knowledge of this god and what it is and its intentions beyond others who make just the same sorts of claims as you do, channelers, prophets, psychics, you name it.

Most of whom are saying most of the same things. With those same exceptions.

The same exceptions found in most presented scriptures.

Since this covers multiple points as once lets simplify.

1. Defining god. We both agree that god is likely incomprehensible by finite human perception.

Yet you make various statements indicating that you hold a specific definition of god that you defend when others talk of god in a fashion you don't like, understand, or agree with.

One of the core presumptions my arguements of and towards you have been based upon are the common religious human interpretations of a scripture based and defined god. Which so far, appears to hold true.

Let me ask you this. As it will help clarify for many some points.

In your current modeled belief of god, is it a separate entity from existance and humanity?

2. Open mindedness. Scriptural truth, theoretical possibilities, god's preserved message.

I have personally already noted that there is much truth in scritpure, and openness towards it. Before elaborating on other points you have made out of context, lets finish by stating that you have denied evolutionary theory, and paradoxical theory outright.

End of story case closed, you are closed minded I am not, even though I sound like it sometimes. As perhaps is the case with you?

But to address your out of context point of god's message. I never denied the possibility that a god message is inherent in anything, and would say it is present in all things.

But to keep it simple. The point I made was that scripture itself as a whole must be met with healthy skepticism as all words tainted by man must. And since I would simplify and say that truth would always be "god's message" and have stated that much truth resides in scripture, and that truth can never be eradicated but but buried and people's perceptions of it manipulated, that god's message is always preserved.

Scripture is irrelevant to god's message ultimately. All men have equal access to truth and likely god.

You are the one claiming some sort of selectivist view on who has the right message, and who is really speaking with god.

When it is even you who are arguing that the amongst the greatest problems

quote:

---

God hates the fact we used our wills to suppress him in our minds and rebel against him

---

When all others appear to be doing is discovering god, even in science, yet you don't like how they limitedly attempt to describe an indescribable concept as you yourself say you cannot do either.

I fear you are even cherry picking your scripture reading as well, as everyone must do if they wish to come to a singular non contradictory belief.

My advice to you is to not limit yourself to scripture. I have no issue with believing that you were finally awakened to a higher power through scripture and a mystical event.

But for that to lead to the closing of your mind to other avenues is truly sad and indeed an affront to god and his message.

You would close minds from finding god to hold onto some notion of scriptures singular divinity or some such nonsense.

Sad.

I will tell you that I have touched what I perceive to be divinity throughout my entire life. Even moreso recently.

And I will gladly challenge and ecourage you and your positions as you both limit yet endorse awakenings of sorts.

I am not the one advocating only one side sir, that is you, this is your wake up call.

Theory, I would be wary of limiting possibility.

Even god as you define it is capable of sending manifestations of any sort to convey any desired information.

Your assumption that the collective whole that is god is not conscious is not likely correct at all. I definitely don't have a clue as to what proof you would have access to in order to make such a declaration.

Perhaps you believe individuals are not connected consciously, energetically etc.

Ironwood,

"Um no, I would be specific but you offered no example. "

Examples you requested:

"I know I'm tired of wars over this squabble, why haven't you fixed that? Eh, prophet?"

And :"No, you are. You are brazen enough to claim the voices in your head..."

Don't worry, I'm not offended, just pointed out the fact of the deterioration of a discussion.

Quote: "In your current modeled belief of god, is it a separate entity from existance and humanity? "

Yes. From humanity, not from existence. Not sure what you were asking to be honest.

quotes: "Yet you make various statements indicating that you hold a specific definition of god that you defend when others talk of god in a fashion you don't like, understand, or agree with. "

I have personally already noted that there is much truth in scritpure, and openness towards it. Before elaborating on other points you have made out of context, lets finish by stating that you have denied evolutionary theory, and paradoxical theory outright.

"End of story case closed, you are closed minded I am not, even though I sound like it sometimes. As perhaps is the case with you?"

Ironwood, this is the crux of our disagreement.
I'd hoped you would have realized that an open mind is crucial in ones search for truth. Once truth is found what's the point? The problem between you and I is you're not open to the fact that I searched with an open mind and found truth. Once you find the truth, lies become obvious. Why keep an open mind for lies?

I have to cut this short but let me leave you with this; Is there an answer in your reach that will eliminate the need for open-mindedness and replaced by knowledge? What if God does give the desirous of him knowledge? Are you truly open to that?

So you have the answer to all lives questions eh? Care to share?

My jabs are irrelevant, and I wasn't worried if you were offended or not. People get offended way too easily and generally in protecting some challenged belief.

But again, if your found truth is so basic I hope you will share it. Because the truths I've found so far aren't an end, they are but steps in a journey.

But at least you've finally admitted that you are close minded.

Ultimate knowledge without any further need for open mindedness? I would say not likely while in human form and unevolved in consciousness. Because that truth would be basically all knowledge of everything at once with full comprehension.

But even a limited truth such as a direction would not allow for a closed mind per se.

It would seem to me that the form of closed mind you speak of would be not closed at all. You appear to be mixing ideas, but this depends on just what truth you believe you have been given.

Because true truth, again, is exists at all times and can be found in all things and all paths as all is gods creation.

Scripture didn't even exist for all mankind to find your truth at all times.

I fear you are likely still advocating exactly what god abhores. Disconnect, that is how we suppress god in our minds and rebel against him.

By fighting ourselves and eachother instead of realizing we are all connected, that gods house is within all of us.

So because god's own potential creation of evolution as a tool of creation wasn't written in one set of highly lacking documents excludes it from existance? Absurd logic.

And evolution also doesn't exist because it contradicts scripture and you know scripture is right cause god told you so. Well, you don't give much to work with there, you would have to explain. Cause I'm doubting by your description so far god botheered to tell you, by the way, evolution is bullshit.

But untill you elaborate its pointless to ask many questions or speculate.

Ironwood,

I have been sharing, you're just not open to the possibity of absolution. It seems you're only open to bits and pieces of fragmented knowledge and believe nothing is ever truly known. How can you consider yourself some kind philosopher of truth when you use the lie as part of your arsenal?

Case in point: "My jabs are irrelevant, and I wasn't worried if you were offended or not." Was your response after your denial "Um, no" when I concluded this discussion has deteriorated to the point you employed such tactics. You lose credibility.

Quote: "Ultimate knowledge without any further need for open mindedness? "

Another decietful tactic. My point as you know, was if you know something to be true and someone calls attention to information that is contrary and you know to be untrue, then it's pointless to be open to that disinformation. You also know I said open mindedness is crucial in the search for truth. But once known why use the same process to defend or express it? And yes, the truth of God can be known, no it doesn't mean we become all knowing. Projecting assumptions doesn't provide a proper shield for your close mind.

I personally think you can not see your own closed mind. You want me to elaborate but what can I say that will open your mind the the idea that God can, has and does communicate? You alluded to our connectivity to the universe and on a sub atomic level that is true. But what of individualism and freewill? Those are known truths as well. We have them... Do you believe how they are used bares consequences?

Unless you find a way to reconcile truth as your anchor how can you escape the sea of ambiguity that you admitted your in?

Ps. Ironwood,

Your quotes:-" because god's own potential creation of evolution as a tool of creation wasn't written in one set of highly lacking documents excludes it from existance? Absurd logic."

"by the way, evolution is bullshit."

No Ironwood, defending a belief you denounce in the same post is absurd.
There is a verse in James that goes something like " A double minded man is unstable in all his ways... Like a lost ship tossed to and fro at sea."

From what you have presented to me this last couple of days I'd say you with your philosophy are the exemplification of that verse. Nighty,night.
I





"

"God" has no consious mind because there would be no point init. If god knows the answer to everything then why would there be a need to think?

By sugesting that god needs to ponder over anything then you put forward that god doesn't know everything thus destroying all relgions on this planet that beleive god is all mighty.

Perhaps in the awakening of god and/or reality it had a consious and asked itself the most simple of questions, why? And if god is all knowing Then answers itself in a split second causing there to be no more need for anything causing himself to be obsoleat.

but on the otherhand perhaps gods approuch was more like a infant and questioned everything and created life as an experiment mearly to learn but if this were true it would mean all religions and beleifs are wrong as god is not tge all knowing but actually the all questioning.

Manbible- how can you discard the most logical explination of the creation (evolution) but cling so tightly to the bibles sugestion that we are the children of incest? (Adam and eve)

are you sugesting that god tryed to creat humans a few times before Creating us hense the bones of many sub species of humanoid... If so then again your god doesn't seem so powerfull.

Theory, my points are just that, of not knowing, some judge that lack of infinite knowledge, some claim to have insider knowledge.

But oddly none can explain reality beyond our difinitive lacking.

Not even those who claim god to have spoken and clarified to them alone.

quote:

---

I have been sharing, you're just not open to the possibity of absolution. It seems you're only open to bits and pieces of fragmented knowledge and believe nothing is ever truly known. How can you consider yourself some kind philosopher of truth when you use the lie as part of your arsenal?

---

To which lie do you fail to speak? To what information do we, the rest of humanity, lack?

You have sadly failed to provide further clarification or evidence of your so called experiences which define your position.

I still do not claim that this denies such experience or even divine informing.

However, your interpretation and distribution are very much in question, and you, as so many before you, may be guilty of forming your experience into your own personally gainful direction.

But no one will ever know the truth as long as you run from the questions.

Yes, even your "truths" will have to face the education and ignorance of man to be seen as or actually an active part of reshaping humanity.

quote:

---

you're just not open to the possibity of absolution

---

Wow, so wrong. I advocate the closest to acceptance without denial of true absolution, regardless of my distaste for those avoiding what I feel is deserved of them.

quote:

---

Case in point: "My jabs are irrelevant, and I wasn't worried if you were offended or not." Was your response after your denial "Um, no" when I concluded this discussion has deteriorated to the point you employed such tactics. You lose credibility.

---

Um, well, to the best of my own knowledge of my own intentions, I was stating that I had full agreement of the degredation of the conversation based upon presumptions.

quote:

---

Quote: "Ultimate knowledge without any further need for open mindedness? "

Another decietful tactic. My point as you know, was if you know something to be true and someone calls attention to information that is contrary and you know to be untrue, then it's pointless to be open to that disinformation.

---

Actually I was quite open and undeceitful with my position stating that our limited physical and consciously unevolvled selves would be lkely unable to process such profound information and even further likely take and use it in a tainted fashion to further our own greed driven agendas.

Even though I didn't elaborate due to fear of you failing to see my original point to begin with... oh, darn, how did that work out again?

I won't even bother with referencing your own point about projecting assumption to further your own agenda or protecting your own sheild etc.

quote:

---

I personally think you can not see your own closed mind. You want me to elaborate but what can I say that will open your mind the the idea that God can, has and does communicate?

---

Really? That's your response?

Wow. So sad.

Uh, how about you said what was said to you?... Don't worry, no one is hanging on your every word, they are awaiting what god had to say to you, and you alone. The words that were unworthy to them because they chose thinking for themselves rather then ingesting words of others who were openly and obviously attempting to use religion against them.

quote:

---

But what of individualism and freewill? Those are known truths as well. We have them... Do you believe how they are used bares consequences?

---

But now you speak close to my heart. Of course our free will bares consequence. Our ignorance, apathy, and even gullibility to deceit drives us to self destruction, which is why I so openlly challenge people like you.

If you can't see my desire for truth and betterment of all, at least at this point, then I have little hope for you.

quote:

---

Your quotes:-" because god's own potential creation of evolution as a tool of creation wasn't written in one set of highly lacking documents excludes it from existance? Absurd logic."

"by the way, evolution is bullshit."

---

I truly hope you are joking, but even a mistake is allowable.

The evolution is bullshit statement was a jesting reference to you and your proclaimed point of view.

Ironwood,

You denied using mockery, that was your lie. Then you trivialized it when cornered. You have no credibility.

I admit I missed the point when you said ""by the way, evolution is bullshit." My bad. However the aforementioned verse and my comment stands. That's what I get for typing out responses while on the move with my Iphone LOL.

The sad thing is you haven't figured out how much you limit your knowledge of God. You want me to tell you what He verbally said?? When I say "God told me" that is an expression used for the lack of words to describe how he has communicated. You set the perimeters of how God should, would or could do that then wonder why he hasn't personally communicated with you??? Hows about a little humbleness, eh?

You are using human perspective to contemplate what the Spirit of God is accomplishing and his motives for doing so. You will never find the truth that way. What evidence could I possibly give you that could prove God???That would defy the need for faith which God has called all of us to have.

Why assume I believe God has only communicated with me in the way he has? Millions around the world had been told, (oops there I go again, that figure of speech thingy), oh well, the same thing I was. Your'e just not open to it. Like I said, he's personally confirmed the scriptures.

Now how about you stop avoiding my question. Concerning God, what must become known to you that you would become secure enough in your knowledge to no longer entertain possibilities that are contrary. Or to put it another way, that your mind would be closed to the idea because you know it's not possible? Saying "we haven't evolved our consciousness to the point of understanding God" is a cop out. If you believe as you say, that divine communication is possible" then answer my question directly.

Theory,

There was no concept of incest in the beginning. Only after man turned his back in rebellion against God did that concept arise. And that was to prolong the human race because our gene pool had become so corrupted God desired to slow the effects down. Otherwise we would have died as a species long ago. If you think about it, what you profess requires incest as well, we all being part of the whole and all. The whole being a god without thought, eh?

No, I'm suggesting God made millions of species similar to others with millions having gone extinct since the fall. And just why do you think the theory of evolution is logical? Only one set of fossils were found of "Lucy" yet there's a dozen or so displays across the country. All varied and different in there presentations. And I won't even get into the fact that the fossils in question weren't all found at the same place or are even of the same animal. Which is most likely a chimpanzee.javascript:insert_text(''

quote:

---

You denied using mockery, that was your lie. Then you trivialized it when cornered. You have no credibility.

---

Uh no, I'm infamous for mockery here, why would I deny it? I asked for examples to which you referred remember?

quote:

---

You want me to tell you what He verbally said?? When I say "God told me" that is an expression used for the lack of words to describe how he has communicated. You set the perimeters of how God should, would or could do that then wonder why he hasn't personally communicated with you???

---

I set no parameter, I was asking to see how you would define and describe your "interaction".

Your assumption that god has not "spoken" to me and told me scripture was not to be fully trusted is your own limited failure.

quote:

---

What evidence could I possibly give you that could prove God???

---

Never asked you to prove god, asked you what specific information you recieved. Pretend you were a prophet meant to write a scripture so the rest of the world can share your experience.

If you can. Because you can sure make claims, but so far backing them up with anything seems to elude you.

quote:

---

What evidence could I possibly give you that could prove God???That would defy the need for faith which God has called all of us to have.

---

Needing faith for belief of god is indeed a cop out. People sling the word belief around alot without thinking about its meaning.

Most honest people would admit that they don't know what god is but sensibly figure it exists. Its always the definition of what god is that is the problem and contextual source of debate. But you, like many zealots don't seem to understand context and nuance.

God as you have defined and described is a conceptual theory. By your own unwitting admission. Because you cannot define something beyond comprehension to claim belief in.

But you don't appear to understand basic logic either.

quote:

---

Now how about you stop avoiding my question

---

What question would that be? I'm afraid I may have missed it in my monumental efforts attempting to sift through your nonsense.

So god failed to compensate for the gene pool and had to make a correction? Weird, I thought your god was smart enough to do things right the first time, oh well. Your god sucks

"Uh no, I'm infamous for mockery here, why would I deny it? I asked for examples to which you referred remember?"

Ironwood,

You just keep going in circles as if you can't follow a train of thought or comprehend what you're told. As I pointed out many times now, "um no" said by YOU is your denial to me when I accurately accused you of mockery originally. And technically, you asked for an example after your denial. You have no credibility. I get the impression now you're quite proud of your dubious reputation of mocking. That must be part of your efforts to "discover absolution for the betterment of all mankind", eh?

I gather you present pretentious arguments just for the sake of arguing.

After all I've said about how God interacts with his people and affirms truth in the heart, scriptures as an example, you still deny the fact I've answered you??? Talk about stiff necked!

Then you throw this in from left field?

"Your assumption that god has not "spoken" to me and told me scripture was not to be fully trusted is your own limited failure."

If you expect to be taken seriously (which at this point I doubt) then you will have to elaborate here. Because despite your narrow mindedness there are people who know more of God and walk with God; but you not have the signs of being one of them.

If the eternal stakes weren't so high I'd be greatly amused at the pompous stance you agnostic types take. You do not know and haven't experienced a true relationship with God on Gods terms so no one else has nor could they possibly know either. And so if they disagree with your surreal opinions; they're dishonest? Get real!

If I seem presumptuousness and judgmental in anyway perhaps you should reconsider how you present yourself. You come off as intellectually dishonest, immature and merely like to argue with people. Perhaps when you stop isolating things being told to you so you can deliberately confuse the intended message and couch your responses in a self aggrandizing fashion we can continue, but for now you bore me. No offense intended, just an observation of your internet presence. Good day.

Ps> You want a definitive description of what God is : Spirit and Truth. Deal with it.