CAMPBELL34 VS. LIBERTINE :The War To Settle The Score...

When the prophecy of the East Gate was written in the Bible, there was no porch of the East Gate, and those who wrote the prophecy could not of known that a thousand years latter that the orginal Gate would be buried and a second Gate would be built right on top of it, and that Gate would be sealed until the Prince to come would arrive. The prophecy states that anyone who would try to break through the Gate would fail in their attempt. The Moslems tried in 1917 and in 1967 to break throught to void the prophecy. Yet in both attempts, they failed, just as the prophecy stated they would. The only way anyone could of known that these events would happen, is if that person was God. For only God knows the future. God did not leave us without evidence. Its sad to see, the Christian church, and the world turn a blind eye to these prophecies. But you see, even when you bring it to their attention, they are not interested.

 

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Your wrong, God through His Word has revealed Himself through His prophecies. The prophecies you refuse to look at. The Bible is the written proof. If you refuse to even look at it, and if you refuse to consider my personal experiences with God, there is little left. The Bible writes about historical events, before that history happens. May I present some of this evidence?

 

You can do anything you have a mind to do, Campbell.

But, all I am asking you is to give a little proof of your "God" first, then once that is established, we can tackle whether or not the Bible is the "inspired word" of this "God".

I think that's pretty fair.

 

Thank you. =)

It's the truth, at least from my perspective.

I'm a fan of finding the beauty in even the most simple and rugged of things; even things as plain as a chemical reaction.

 

Where the fuck have you been, man?

 

I guess I want to take a sec to first explain what Mr. Campbell signed up for. In Philosophy, people exercise the things they hold to be true in arguments. They present facts in support of a certain conclusion. That means they must be very certain that the conclusion is one that can be drawn. These arguments in a formalized setting with rules and guidelines are what constitutes a debate.

Mr. Campbell's proposed conclusion was that he could prove G-d's existance with irrefutable evidence. But his argument goes something like this (I'm using a different example):

1.) The Bible speaks of stories in which they build landmarks (altars) and have strange occurances that G-d caused, i.e. the walls of Jericho, the preservation of Rahab's house.

2.) We have found the walls of Jericho beneath the city of today, still standing straight up and down in the earth, and Rahab's house still stands as almost the only recognizable thing in the old Jericho ruins.

3.) Therefore, G-d exists.

Again, this helps build my faith, but it still doesn't irrefutably prove G-d's connection to the occurance. It still takes some amount of blind faith, even though we've seen something that helps us add to it.

Mr. Campbell, I do apologize for my anger earlier this week. But I want to tell you that, if you would throw such insulting barbs my way and bring out the worst in me, I can see how you might incidentally insult and dissuade those very people you are trying to convince. We can all be Friends, Mr. Campbell. No one excluded. If one can bite their tongues to concede the battle, then by G-d, they'll win the "war." Avoiding a fight is a mark of honour; only fools insist on quarreling. - Proverbs 20:3 (NLT)

I will quote an admirable individual who trancends generations. Will Rogers cautioned us all, "People's minds are changed through observation, and not through argument."

I hope there will come a point in time that you'll love people enough that you wouldn't want to discourage anyone. You'll love them not just in word, but in deed. You'll have the joy of the Holy Spirit, and relish the time you spend with others, because everyone has the potential to recognize and encourage the Light within.

Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled with your brother; then come and offer your gift. -Matthew 5:23-24

We cannot fully give of ourselves or anything of worth to G-d unless we are right with our fellow man. And if you see your "brothers" are only those in the Church, you've excluded people before they've even had a chance to consider the invitation.

 

P.S. Prophecy that hasn't yet come to pass in entirety isn't evidence, either. I'm really really sorry, but it just isn't. And it doesn't eliminate coincidence, as far as a logical debate is concerned.

Have you looked up any of this stuff yet...? *taps her foot at Mr. Campbell* Come on, please. Just try formulating an argument the right way. You've got nothing to lose...

It's not like Libertine is gonna eat your soul or something if you don't succeed.

 

HiKaru,


Thank you for the response, for providing enlightening view points and good information.

Hikaru, look closely at what I wrote within the context of the relevant parts of this thread; I am saying that the physical processes that produce a mind state are very, very, complex and that what is "imagined" when one utilizes the term "chemical reaction," even when one is utilizing well thought-out generalization, is certainly incomplete because, as implied, we do not know the actual nature of the functioning of much of the mind. And as tempting as it is to conclude about these issues based on important new knowledege and insight there are many significant 'open' questions about how the mind actually functions. It appears to me implicitly clear that physical laws, many of which are unkown to us, dictate the nature of the world, and as you use the term "chemical reaction," whether specific to neurotransmitter levels in the bloodstream or a more general reference, it can be tempting to utilize experimental evidence to rule out possiblities that are unecessary and unwise to rule out. As I indirectly mentioned earlier in this thread, the usefulness of a valid observation is not diminished by not concluding but instead remaining reserved and acting apropriately based on the available information thus remaining 'open' to known and possible exceptions. For example, we discover that there is a compound which has been named morphine that has been found useful in relieving pain however we have also found that we cannot determine exactly why there is significant variation in the required morphine blood concentration in order to offer equivalent pain relief for patients with particular types of severe pain. The potential implications of this observation are very significant, indeed. We realize that there are factors that we have not yet explained; that what particular "chemical states" in the body actually constitute remains a mystery. And we can still make good use of morphine even though there remain significant unanswered questions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8839086&dopt=Abstract

Life is riddled with paradox. Complexity within simplicity, simplicity within complexity. Now if we consider extraordinary phenomena relating to the human body we open a seriously wild can of worms.


Peace,

David




.

 

Hikaru,


I wanted to go on to add and expand, also providing another expression of what I have said earlier in this 'volley,' that if we are to view the human being as a composite of chemical states then we must be aware that our description of that composite is, at our present level of knowledge, far from complete and I forecast that we will soon begin to understand, this to say "measure," much more environmental communication with the "composite" that is of great significance to the "state" of the "composite" including what I have referred to in some of my previous posts as "mind-state." And here I intentionally avoid the use of the terms "psychic state" or "psychological state" though these are included under the 'umbrella term' "mind-state," a term that is meant to desicribe all parts of the mind both known and not known; and it should be mentioned, here, that the use of the term "chemical state" may not have adequate, or appropriate, descriptive breadth when used to refer to "mind state." The aforementioned "environmental communication" certainly including communication that we already have indications of but do not understand the full significance of. I also believe that it is implicit that we will begin (and have already begun during the last approx. thirty years) to measure a "flood of 'anomolies'" of significance in correlating the state of the "composite" ("physical response") with well defined psychological states; cause of this being, in part, due to technological advances in measurement and analysis capabilities.

Although you have touched on this in this thread I wanted to ask, directly, as a rhetorical device, "what are your thoughts on the concept of death as an altered state of consciousness?"


Peace,

David


.

 

That's true enough. Although, I suppose I ought to make it clear that chemical reactions are still part of the causal chain, and anyone who would actually consider the theory that feelings are chemical reactions would realize there must be some actions that cause the reaction (hence the word "reaction"). =) But you have many valid points.

When dealing with these words, I often find that the simplicity in the meaning of the word will suffice.

Death describes a state of no consciousness, as it describes a termination of life, and life would be defined (by most people) as a state of consciousness.

Death would likely be caused by some anomaly or damage to the brain and/or body that causes the whole organism to cease to be able to function, and thus, consciousness is forever lost.

An altered state of consciousness, is just that: consciousness, that is altered. However, a person in an altered state of consciousness will still be conscious of SOMETHING at the very least, even if it has no correllation to reality whatsoever (say, someone who is having an experience on DMT or Salvia divinorum). A person who is dead is conscious of absolutely nothing.

Thus, I conclude that I find it highly improbable that death is merely an altered state of consciousness, but is rather a state of permanent unconsciousness.

Were there evidence to support the existance of a construct such as that which we call a "soul," I might be open to re-evaluating my conclusion.

 

Hikaru,

You write,

I took your original point as referring to not only levels of neurotransmitters in the blood but that we are a chemical state and this is largely true in terms of our knowledege, it might be more accurate, however, to use the term "physical state" or a similar. I believe that this is an important observation that you are making, that is that it appears implicit that we are a "chemical state," or for accuracy lets say "physical state;" I see no reason to 'back away' from this.

Given the above, however, it is important we do not conclude and rule-in or rule-out an "omni-max sky daddy", "omni-max sky mommy" or something that is unusual or that appears incorrect simiply based on limited evidence; we, instead, should act approriately based on the substantial shared knowledge that we have and remian open to new information. But, I will say, that the impetus and or the 'drive,' to conclude is often not so obvious because we all have inner awarenesses, "inner statistics," that we that we feel strongly about; we should voice and work with these awarenesses if we see this as correct and it should be noted that some of our greatest advancements have come from people who had ''lone" insight or insight that was popularly rejected as "nonsense." And I believe that we should, also, be aware that as humans we must, in part, work by consensus and therefore it is most often important in these cases that we ask for proof; very, very important, indeed.

I believe that the man Jesus was a very powerful human being with siginificant enlightenment and that much of what I feel that I have been able to understand about the intention behind what he said constitutes important information, important teachings, for human beings. It seems to me that it is likely that many of the same people that worship the "echo" of the existence of Jesus today are people who would not recongize him if he were manifest in body today and are folks who would be in some capacity be involved in his execution. I say this in part because we have not been properly taught, by our upbringings, which transfer complex sociocultural infomation, to realize that both the 'inner world' and agreement formed in the 'outer world' are extremely important and critical to our function and advancement.


You write,

Hikaru, why conclude? Why not watch, conduct experiments where appropriate, gather information and say "I do not know?" Why the need to conclude? Note that speculation, rendering of inuititve awareness, and forming a prehypothesis, where possible, do not constitute "conclusion." Estimating probablities in order to influence action in areas where these estimations are not required can mislead the mind from thinking in an open manner. There are, however, many situtations where estimating a probablitiy is necessary and very important to do; in a medical emergnecy room or in determining the failure rate of a component upon which life clearly depends, as examples.


Peace,

David


.

 

Wow, fun topic!

How could I ignore this thread the whole time?

 

Continuous evolution through multimodal analysis of patterns. Molly, where are you ?

 

We should start a group finger-painting thread.

 

Feedback loops, sticky cluster.
Scrambled messages of significance.
At the wall, and ever forward.
Implicit ideal model, a paradox not for the eye;
because the truth has no name.
Such majestic reality beyond local chatter;
a truly liquid being, not knowing itself;
so permenant, and ever yielding.


.

 

Then the "prophecy" of your supposed jesus stating "not one stone would stand upon another" is a falsity.

 

Referring to the Temple, not the Gate.

And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Jesus answering saith unto him, ‘seest thou these great buildings? There shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down’.” (Mark 13:1-2)

This prophecy did come true, mate. Historically, the temple was destroyed around AD 70

 

Of which the walls that contained the gates were an integral part.

 

For those historically ignorant ~ this is all that's left: remnant west wall.


The Western Wall in the midst of the Old City in Jerusalem is the section of the Western supporting wall of the Temple Mount which has remained intact since the destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple (70 C.E.). It became the most sacred spot in Jewish religious and national consciousness and tradition by virtue of its proximity to the Western Wall of the Holy of Holies in the Temple, from which, according to numerous sources, the Divine Presence never departed. It became a center of mourning over the destruction of the Temple and Israel's exile, on the one hand, and of religious - in 20th century also national - communion with the memory of Israel's former glory and the hope for its restoration, on the other. Because of the former association, it became known in European languages as the "Wailing Wall".

 

If you look at the passage, Jesus was speaking only of the Temple, the East Gate was not part of the Temple, and was some distance from the Temple. The prophecy reads correctly.