in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
Viviane I was referring to the most recent common ancestor of humanity.
The soul is what produces the sense of infinity in your mind. And the search for meaning, justice, beauty and so on. No other animal do that. So we can assume we have some extra in our animal minds.
I know you're a positivist. I don't know if you're aware of that but you belongs to a failed French philosophy.
Science could only be created in the Christian theology.
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
Abiogenesis seems to be the origin of life. Or panspermia.
Evolution is the origin of species and the origin of animal minds (as explained in traducionism).
I believe in some point the Creator of the universe gave a soul to a couple of humanoids. This happened thousands of years ago (as explained by "the most recent ancestor" evolutionary concept).
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
Human mind search for meaning.
No animal do this.
How evolution explains the search of meaning in the human mind?
one hundred years have passed and the society still supports this lie, which of course, is the basis of their other lies, like that of the unfaithful and not discreet slave appointed in 1919. however, i wonder, what will happen after 50 years, when the overlapped generation will pass?.
and if you want, what will happen with this religion in 2100?, could it survive with the same lie??
?.
1914 is invisible and overlapping. I guess it can last forever this way.
People just want mirages.
update on mouthy (grace gough)this is graces granddaughter.
i wanted to send an update that today my beautiful grandmother passed away - surrounded by friends and family.
- may 22 1927 - sept 2nd 2016. mouthys_granddaughter.
Condolences to her family.
Requiescat in pace
the jw/wtbt's anti-scriptural & anti-christ teaching that "a person's own death wipes out their sins" (based on their lie that romans 6:7 is to be interpreted literally) appears to have had a little wedge inserted into it.
despite making numerous accurate references to the fact that 1st century christians had figuratively died to sin, the svengalis at the top of the brooklyn pyramid point-blank refuse to discuss/cite/quote romans 6:7 and its true meaning.
page 10, par.
Prologos can you refute the concept of sin in a philosophical way?
You're partially right about the Bible.
Bible purpose is to be theologically right about salvation of the soul. Secondly it intend to be historically correct too related to it's main goal.
Christians knew since Saint Augustine that Genesis cannot be read literally.
Sola Scriptura is wrong and cannot be defended. So atheism based on the refutation of Sola Scriptura is right in some way.
if you were a computer programmer and you were to create a simulated automated world, that would constantly evolve and self run after initial designs.
first you would have to code the rules, laws, and core elements of this world.
while this is being coded, the program is not run yet, so none of it exists.
The sensation of simulation was perceived by Plato.
He said the physical world is just a (poor) simulation of the ideal world (literally world of ideas).
We have souls that want to live in the ideal world.
Kant and Schopenhauer made a good development upon this theory.
the jw/wtbt's anti-scriptural & anti-christ teaching that "a person's own death wipes out their sins" (based on their lie that romans 6:7 is to be interpreted literally) appears to have had a little wedge inserted into it.
despite making numerous accurate references to the fact that 1st century christians had figuratively died to sin, the svengalis at the top of the brooklyn pyramid point-blank refuse to discuss/cite/quote romans 6:7 and its true meaning.
page 10, par.
That's my point. If doesn't matter to the puppets why the puppeteer have a lot of interest in this matter (salvation of the soul)?
the jw/wtbt's anti-scriptural & anti-christ teaching that "a person's own death wipes out their sins" (based on their lie that romans 6:7 is to be interpreted literally) appears to have had a little wedge inserted into it.
despite making numerous accurate references to the fact that 1st century christians had figuratively died to sin, the svengalis at the top of the brooklyn pyramid point-blank refuse to discuss/cite/quote romans 6:7 and its true meaning.
page 10, par.
I always wonder about things like that. If JW. Organisation was just a money grabber why spin things like that? What difference things like that would do in the money flow? Why spin things about salvation of the soul?
That's the very reason some supernatural evil is behind this organisation.
watchtower refuses to translate stauros as cross despite having no evidence to refute the long-standing ancient belief that jesus died on a cross; and in spite of evidence that the romans were in fact using crosses in executions by jesus' day.
they shun the word simply because of the use of crosses in ancient pagan religions.. watchtower refuses to refer to their places of worship with the word church because of the word's supposed pagan origin or past usage to refer to pagan places of worship.. now contrast watchtower's self-righteous attitude of avoiding the use of all words having pagan religious usages, with the new testament verse of 2 peter 2:4:.
certainly god did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into tarʹta·rus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment.. tartarus is a word that had rich pagan mythological meaning when it was written in the nt.
It's strange Jesus using a parable about Hell too. Why Jesus would use a false doctrine as analogy? JW theology is pure nonsense.
