CONTACT

2010-06-05 06:36 PM

PASHA
Seattle, WA
Posts: 96

CONTACT
Science requires empirical proof, religiousness requires faith, so they say.

Image GOD came to earth today, would you, could you believe?
But what if GOD came and HE wasn’t what you expected, say like of another religion-faith?
Or HE appeared different from what millenniums of tradition had made of HIM/HER,
color age species etc.

What is you definition of GOD?
Is it simplistic like Matt Groening’s from the Simpson’s children favorite off
ITCHY and SCRATCHY?
A huge colossus, robed in a white toga, with flowing long locks, and a huge
white Santa beard, with a booming voice like James Earl Jones.
So then what exactly is you ideal vision of GOD if say you believed of such a being?
Or is your imagineered version that of a sixties hippy, with steely blue eyes,caucasian,
long flowing blond hair and beard, a golden tan, and you could just hear him say,
HEY MAN, from behind His abiding all knowing smile, that just screams,
YEP I BEEN THERE, DONE THAT and I KNOW ALL ABOUT IT.

Or is your version a bit more rotund, half dressed, bald with equally deep soulful eyes?

Empirical proof versus blind faith.
Faiths that tells the adherent to take two of these and call me in the morning.
Many religious subscribe to HOLY WRITINGS.
Many of science also but they don’t call theirs holy, but rather wholly tested and proved.
Yet still in both there are lots of contradictions, ie creeds endlessly refined and changed,
and theorems dropped or simply renamed.

Both camps have their measure of infighting, over issues of degrees of separation.
Both are now seemingly diametrically opposed to each other over some really stupid
interpretations, such as he said, she said.

We have scientists who attend church, temple, and so called super religious who at the
first sign of body trouble, disease, ache injury haul off to the medical scientific community.
Medical science has been around as long as the idea of worshiping gods.

So what is the purpose of both? Is it not to serve the greater good, the people?
And yet the nature of men has always allowed something good to devolve, that PEOPLE
serve those ISMS, and their skewed truths. We can find skewed/bent religiousness
globally as well as can be said for the scientific camps, all depending what each hopes
to gain profit thereby.

And what is usually the first thing sacrificed conveniently? That of the greater good.

Imagine if you would, you able to go back in time and so you do, to when science
claims-thinks we were but a collective of hominids that gazed across the savanna,
fearing to leave the coolness of our sanctuary of that sacred mother forest,
staring with longing and awe to the distant horizon, and wondering if there be better
fare than is consumed right here.

How would you be received with the knowledge you possess now? Now add,
that you meet this group and one of which has a wound that is easily repaired by
washing and binding with simple herbs.
Your first aid, how would you now be received?

Now leap forward to the here and now, where science dreams of stepping back
onto the moon, or MARS, to do the most basic terra forming, if the most basic
ingredients can be found in abundance to make the venture worthwhile.

WATER, in the form of LOCKED UP hydrogen and oxygen, or some other oxide,
left over from the previous star making episode that preceded our own SOL.

Now flash back to when science thinks the first aquatic lifeforms crawled out of the
water savanna for the beckoning verdant veranda on the land.
AND GOD PLUCKED a thimble full of dirt from the deep and piled it where it would
remain dry above-AFLOAT the life giving waters,
Gen 1, --vs 9 and also from the Quran

LET THE EARTH bring forth thereof green plants, similar of genus as was inhabitating
in the stable deep. And every type of flora developed from what had been there in the sea,
OCCAMS RAZOR, states nature hates a void.

If life in the form of algal mats and the kelp could grow in the waters below why
not the air above so long it could reach water to sup on.
So why should not some have adapted to the land, or been adapted by a simple
tweak of it’s RNA?

AND GOD SPOKE, let other life fill the sea, ---vs 20
creatures that swim or how about creatures that could fly in the air currents of the sky.
And from these diverse groups came land dwellers, not aquatic but amphibian,
fish that could walk just as the birds. A species akin to their fishy cold blooded cousins.

Another tweak and we find another NEW CREATION that has the ability to self heat regulate,
MAMMALIANS.

And in the midst of that terra formed bio diversity, a special enclave.
A GARDEN, your personal retreat, your yard where you set an AI form molded in your likeness-
you imagineered by your imagination, to tend to your estate,
so that you can do your CREATIVE DIVINE SUBLIME BUSINESS whatever it may be, that such a SUPERIOR-SUPREME beings as such would do to entertain, or keep themselves busy.

When you aren’t doing what it is you do, you stroll your personal patch, to muse, to smile,
to unwind and inspiration find, kicking back, taking joyous pleasure in your creative penchant.
Your E-address, EAST of EDEN, in a place called EDEN.

O I know I know what the BIBLE says about the AU PAIR there.
That GOD only made them from which all the others came to be.

REALLY who says so, when SCIENCE everywhere asks,
did poor EVE really got the worst of that punishment for she had to bear all those first brats,
not just to ADAM? Or did her children commit INCESTRY- get it ANCESTRY?

But lets remember OCCAMS, what if as we know today it is more prudent to cover
the costs by NUMBERS rather than one offs.
CHEAPER by the dozen, heck why not by the hundreds-thousands to make the investment
cost be mitigated and the odds of sudden termination doesn’t shut the whole down.
And this not just with ADAM and EVE, but right across the whole spectrum.

Poor is the farm fisherman who has only one or two roe with so many predators waiting.

Now lets give that hourglass a big olde spin my dear creators-gods and you find that your
garden-creation has run amok with the aide of some activist outsiders.

How would you be received?
JOHN 1 HE came to HIS ELECT-HIS OWN but HIS OWN received HIM NOT.
EXODUS 2, 14 tells of a similar event, when Moses tried to come down off his throne
to the aide his own but they rejected him.

So how would you be received after 2 World Wars, a multitude of genocides, exiles,
and generations of people whose degeneration to all things base- idolatry that made
them more mad-determined than ever before to throw off the shackles of
anyone’s RULE or RULES, hemming their wanton freedom in?

IF GOD came back today to you O mankind, how would you receive HIS KIND?
Psalm 2 tells us what.

We dream like gods, as it is written of the UNSEEN and UNBELIEVABLE GOD.

But we don’t want GOD and HIS stuff, or HIS guff. So how about you meeting with ET?
What if ET is just another cultures time image for GOD and HIS kind?
What if today’s religions- religiousness is but another form of today’s science?

Remember Nature abhors a vacuum-void.
If religion practiced by hypocrites couldn’t fill the need of the greater goo, something NEW
would be formed/birthed to so do.

BAD PRIESTS often caused new ideals to be raised to rally the disenchanted-
disenfranchised around.

But is science today truly something new not just something quite old and equally misunderstood?
Is Science offering anything new? A scientific recipe handed down through the ages
of those hominids at the edge of the savanna to retell to each succeeding progeny the TRUE WAY,

But like in most kitchens where new chefs like to create their own master pieces, a dollop more or less, a dash or pinch more or less even swapping ingredients to suit another’s tastes.
What if the formula had lost it’s form, luster, savor and function or vice versa on any of those,
would we not be at the same junction asking for empirical proof?
Like in the case of Mark 16,17+18 or some recent commercials,
WHERE”S THE BEEF, or SHOW ME THE MONEY, etc.

I truly doubt there is anyone here who doesn’t need some form of proof,
who could believe anything based simply on what someone wrote, without some form
of back up, to make the ASSERTIONS true.

Experience teaches us this, and herein there is no such being as a believer or
unbeliever without some sign of proof. In this we are all equal.
Be it Moses, Jesus or Muhammad, you and I, we all require a modicum of proof to
convince us. All needed to see.

And even Jesus is noted as having said BLESSED ARE YOU THAT HAVE SEEN,
while in another spot He is contradicted. Luke 10 and John 20 where it is noted as
Jesus saying supposedly BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN AND STILL BELIEVE.

So the question one must ask is why do folks believe without seeing PROOF of LIFE?

Doesn’t Occams truth prove that proof is given in both fields of FAITH- be it religious or scientific?
SEEK and YOU SHALL FIND was the good counsel.

So then, let me ask you, why have you believed as you have and to you who can not believe,
why not? What sign do you need?
Is it the same as one Saul of Tarsus who on a beautiful day in his mission to DAMASCUS
needed to be blinded to finally see?

Pax

2010-06-27 11:18 AM

Denita239
New York, NY
Posts: 8

One of my biggest issues with the Bible specifically is the whole idea of faith. If an all-powerful being created us, then wouldn't every fiber of our being automatically sing his praises without reservation.

If He is so Wonderful -then why would he need to make Himself invisible to us - with our eyes and our spirits? Wouldn't we automatically see how beautiful his glory is, like in Revelation? Why would we need to LEARN how to discern the voice of God- wouldn't we automatically KNOW?

If God did come to me in whatever form he chose, then I'd have to ask the question -if he is such a loving God then why would he place the tree of knowledge of good and EVIL in the garden of Eden in the first place.

Most parents I know try to protect their children from harm, but not HIM. uh?? I equate the tree of knowledge of good and EVIL to putting a bottle of milk and a line of cocaine on the table before a toddler. The toddler would be curious about the cocaine if he is not hungry at that moment and the toddler would die.

The next thing I'd have to ask God is how he expects to keep his reputation as a "good" God while allowing Cain to kill Abel? uh?? What parent does that? He has bowed out of human affairs, GRACEFULLY, while we find new and inventive ways to destroy ourselves.

If there is a God, I truly would have to question his motives, his altruism and how He defines love.

2010-07-02 05:16 PM

PASHA
Seattle, WA
Posts: 96

MAYBE IF WE WERE BUT DRONES