Have you read " The lost symbol " by Dan Brown . I saw the movie first and feel asleep while it was going on , but I caught one point before sleep overtook Me . It was Tom Hanks saying 503 503 there is something about 503 that is reoccurring in all ancient writings . Well that is Lori7 and my Birthday 5/03 . Don't you find that weird . I do considering my God i have been trying to shake delusion has been with me sense I was 8. I find it extremely strange . Tom Hanks grew up in Sacramento just like me . I always felt a kinship to him because of it . So I read the book and you can not believe the parallels in the story to my own life . My Father conflicts of old economic theories verses new Ideas in economic theories clashing . You could say it is a common generational gap , except the book talked directly to Me in many other ways . The whole Melek thing relating to King of the underworld . Franklin 8 . I live across the street from a school built in 1918 named Franklin school . I live in a residential neighborhood called Franklin Park . There was many many other parallels. I don't come from a point of specialty over others . I know the interpretation I present has a sound that seems like that . It is that there is some kind of unifying force at play causing the parallels and in the parallel I am having real difficulty finding my own free will . If I am influenced by my surroundings in this manner then it is my contention that everybody is. I am not special in this way as I see Lori7 falling in the same dream category. I have seen others fall victim of the same delusions with similar number affiliations . There is a guy with affiliations to 5357 just like Me , 3 day 5th month and 57th year . He is sure he is the White Brother of Hopi Legends . He supports it with strange math . I did the same thing when I joined this forum . Don't you think that is weird and coincidental. So then someone on that same forum posted an old writing from Jewish mysticism and it said 11+7+8 is god . So the number of god is 26 . Now I knew I was born at Lad air force base sense I could talk, but what I did not know was the original name of Ladd Air-force Base . It was called 26 mile strip . I found that minutes before that guy posted the 11+7+8 =26 thing about God . Now that is to weird . This is all just a sampling at what i am getting at . There is some kind of prodding going on and it is external of Lori and I . That is the only conclusion I can come to for when I doubt more extraordinary things manifest , nothing today thank god . Yet the day is not over
is god a sociopath
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
I contend that there is a parallel perception going on that motivates human activity and Wellwisher is at the threshold of understanding , Wellwisher is bringing into focus the dream state that drives the collection of similarity of motivating forces . I should have known by the handle that well wishers uses that they would be at the threshold for if you think about the act of wishing in a well then it is not that far of a jump to understand the 12 Iman coming out of a well . The same well children wish upon . Even the song Twinkle Twinkle little star is in the same nature of the wish if you ask Me . It ties in nicely with the Pharaohs wish of live long and Prosper. Which ties in nicely with star wars ideology . A continuation of the Pharaohs wish in modern interpretations. Better said " The dream is well and still alive and it comes from ancient dreams of better times in future generations . The dream that will not die until it is full filled by someone or several people or all of us together . I don't know , but it do know it is hard to side step the dream and see it for what it really is . An Ancient Goal maybe ? and we live the motions of that ancient goal until it is full filled
Not all all, it just means you are a significance junkie, and clearly you do not understand the statistics behind 'The Birthday Problem'
I for instance share my birthday with a former colleague, and a brother in law. It's not weird, it's just statistics.
what's an example of existing imperfection?
well then don't use it as part of your argument then.
christ is the fulfillment because he was born without sin, which is inherent in the flesh. iow, he's genetically perfect.
in the garden before the fall, people didn't have to practice rituals and sacrifice, and follow rules, because they were perfect, and in communion with god. they did what was right inherently.
only after the fall, when sin was introduced, did all of the rules and rituals and sacrifice occur.
jesus is the restored perfection of the human race...genetically. that's why it's all about his blood. that's what the communion ceremony represents. that's why we have to be born again through him. we will all be made perfect like him, through him. he is the savior because he is the restoration of the human race.
so because of jesus, all of the rules and rituals and sacrifices are no longer relevant. our perfection in christ will be inherent (genetic).
so get your shit straight if you're going to argue!
well then don't use it as part of your argument then.
I am perfectly well allowed to it use to argue against those that use it as a basis for their beliefs, DUH!
Since when did genes equate to sin? I think you are making shit up.
you should at least believe in the basis for your own argument. duh!
if we are born into it...and it's inherent...passed down from generation to generation. the bible constantly designated the desires of the flesh as evil and being opposed to the spirit. and jesus' blood redeems, restores, heals, and saves. that's not metaphorical. think about the communion ceremony. the bible says we will receive new bodies. what the hell else would it be?
Don't be absurd! There are two sides to every debate, a pro and a con, cons do not believe the pro's position, do they? They pick holes in the pro position, use pro's own words against them, prove the logical failings in their statements.
No, it's ludicrous.
that's not what you're doing. you're using it as a basis for an argument as if it is correct when you don't believe it is correct, and that's dishonest.
why?
Proponents say it's correct, so we argue against it by saying "if you say 'A' is true, that contradicts 'B'", etc. As opponents we do not believe in either 'A' or 'B', this is not dishonest!
You are mashing science into your religion. I don't think you actually understand the science, so leave it alone, eh?
yes it is dishonest. here's an idea. why don't you use your own arguments? why can't you oppose with something that you actually believe?
you are soooo full of it. i understand enough about genetics to know that what i said about christ makes absolute sense, and so do you, which is why you're copping out with this lame-ass response. this premise isn't rocket science phlog, and science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, they just answer different questions about the same thing.
No it is not dishonest. Proponents make a claim based upon religious texts, skeptics/opponents in debate pull the text to pieces, and point out inconsistencies. This is HONEST debate.
Eh? Simply, because I do not have a particular belief that is contradictory! Merely, I see the proofs offered by those holding the belief as deeply flawed.
Why do you see this as a fight? That I have a contradictory belief? Why do you make it a conflict? All opponents do is point out the flaws and unconvincing nature of the material offered to them as proof. We are not swayed, and we are not contrarians. We just don't buy what you are trying to sell.
Oh please, no you don't.
Please, show me the genes.
No, it's genetics. It took us longer to decode the human genome than it did to put people on the Moon. It's MORE complex than rocket science! DUH!
Hardly. Religion just makes up answers. Science and religion are, and always will be exclusive, because the scientific stance will always be 'we just don't know' until there is a good model and evidence to support it. Religions just make outlandish claims.
nobody's trying to sell you anything, and you're using something that not only do you not believe in, but that you purposely have no understanding of as an argument, and that is absolutely dishonest.
show you the genes. you are so full of crap. nobody's attempting to decode the human genome here einstein, this is what we're talking about...
what are we born into? our flesh.
how are attributes of our flesh handed down from generation to generation? by our dna.
what determines the inherent attributes of our flesh? our dna.
if these inherent attributes are to be changed, then what would have to change? our dna.
the only reason you're so adamant about making science and religion mutually exclusive is because you don't want to believe in god. science is how. god is why. nothing that exists is exclusive. everything is connected in some way.
Everything that is pleasurable is forbidden? If the things that God forbids are the only pleasures that you take from this life then you have bigger problems my friend.
Lori, get a clue! Have you ever actually participated in a formal debate? Been to a town hall meeting?
If someone proposes something you disagree with, you listen to, and read back their proposal, with your criticisms, point by point. You compare statements, and pick up on inconsistencies, and contradictions. THIS IS HOW IT IS DONE. You are INSANE if you think this is dishonest.
You are using pseudo scientific language to bolster your bullshit, nothing more.
i'm not insane, and i think it's dishonest. i don't see how you think that using an argument that you don't even believe in IS honest.
then again, you'll do just about anything to deny god. it doesn't have to make sense, or be genuine...
now you're flat out lying. there's nothing i said about the very basic premise of genetics that you can disagree with. you're really losing it phlog. you should take some time and regroup if you can't do better than this.
No Lori, dishonest is you picking choosing which parts of the bible you think are relevant, and discarding the parts you find inconvenient, and then championing non-biblical directives on top of that!
Utter BULLSHIT. You wouldn't recognise a perfect genome if it got up and bit you on the ass.
i don't think any of it's irrelevant. i look at it comprehensively, unlike you who absolutely refuses to see the big picture.
and talk about not seeing the forest through the trees...you recognise the perfect genome by the health and behavior of the human who possesses it.
A big picture, made from contradictory statements is 100% correct? I don't think so, it just proves the unreliability of anything based upon it.
Behaviour? OK, you are embarrassing yourself now, so stop.