Are you a child of God? Will you be God’s master or slave?

Are you a child of God? Will you be God’s master or slave?

God has always seen us as his children. We are all children of God. Remember that God lets Jesus take control at his right hand. If you are a child of God then your birthright is Godliness. As Jesus says, the kingdom of God is both within you and outside of you. Just as your child cannot help but be like and emulate you, we cannot help but be Godlike as we follow our Godly mentor who dwells within us. Knowing this makes it easier for us to understand why and how we created the Gods we know and continue to create as we evolve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_complex

I am a God WIP, (work in progress), and so are you. I am not saying you and I are the traditional miracle working God who may have never existed. I am saying that the only God you can ever know is the good we find within ourselves. It's the God of the Conscience, or the God of right over wrong. That is quite different from me or someone thinking they are the traditional creator God, or thinking that they are more than anyone else. Jesus would define this concept as one just seeing that they have joined God’s divine council by embracing his own Christ mind. Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Think of yourself as a member of God’s Divine Council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Council

Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
------------------

The logic and common sense of you being a God is quite simple if you look into yourself. Something most do not do as they have been duped into thinking that God is a miracle working God that they can somehow know only through a church. Speculation is all we can put for what God and his attributes are and we have to base what we know of God by what we are. That is why religions give God only human attributes except for miracle working. Many have yet to put away that childish notion.

As above so below.

As a parent, you will want your child to be as good as or exceed whatever you are. This is natural for any human parent and since we are in God’s mental image, God would be subject to the same desires. Christians and others in the Abrahamic faiths think this Godly position to be egotistical yet it is firmly rooted in Judaism with their Divine Council and with logic of what a parent would want.

I ask you what Jesus asks us in scriptures. Have ye forgotten that ye are a God?

Can you accept your Godly birth-rite or will you remain in poverty?

Can you see that the only God fit to rule men is a man? Can you see that that is all we have ever had as a God as God’s will has always been expressed by a man?

Regards
DL

I don't believe any deity exists, and I have yet to hear any religious apologetics that I find remotely compelling. Furthermore I don't think we need religion, or belief in a deity, to help us be moral. I also find many of the dated "moral" concepts of established religions reprehensible. In my opinion the inability of a supposedly omniscient omnipotent deity to create and communicate moral precepts that don't date, and in fact fall behind the evolution of human societies, is a damning refutation of the religions based on those morals that are unacceptable to human societies just a few hundred years later; and it's of no use to cherry pick one or two ideas that are profound or moral, even they are assigned to an alleged deity in human form, when so many of the ideas don't pass muster in the 21st century. That kind of inconsistency is incongruous with

I see no logic in anyone claiming themselves to be a god. In fact I find such a claim quite worrying. We're human animals and that should be enough. It's time to put superstition in the dustbin of history, unfortunately I fear it's going to be a long slow process, if indeed it's possible.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:It's time to put superstition in the dustbin of history, unfortunately I fear it's going to be a long slow process, if indeed it's possible.

Well put and I think it is possible to rid ourselves of superstition without losing our spirituality or sense of social conscience, if you prefer.

As a Gnostic Christian, I think there is more than what we see but ethically and morally we are on the same page.

Regards
DL

Anyone is entitled to his/her opinion regarding religion and there is no doubt many false religions exist, as foretold in the Bible.

What you have to do is consider each one on the basis on which it originated.

Many can be dismissed out of hand as man made to suit a purpose.

One thing is certain, man exists, man was created, the only rational explanation is a creator as the Bible explains.

polyglide ,
Don't you think it is about time to also look at other sources and see the range of alternatives to what has become the " Christian " explanation ?
Some of the alternatives seem much more likely and can be supported sensibly with considerable evidential back - up .
In contrast , the essence of the " Christian " story increasingly seems to be an invention of Paul.

polyglide wrote:One thing is certain, man exists, man was created, the only rational explanation is a creator as the Bible explains.

Creationism is demonstrably false, so claiming creation as a certainty when all the masses of evidence refutes it is again very ironic. Nor is it the only rational explanation, in fact it's not even remotely rational at all to believe in a bronze age myth with no proper evidence when we have as much evidence for evolution as science could possibly be expected to produce, and certainly as much as any other scientific theory.

The bible also has demonstrably erroneous claims in it, including the Genesis creation myth, unless you want to deny the scientific evidence validated by biology, chemistry, physics, geology, and cosmology, in favour of a 6 day creation myths. Which is your choice of course, but that's hardly rational, let alone the most rational choice, and it's definitely not a certainty.

In fact I'm not sure there is any such thing as certainty, epistemologically speaking. Though I will happily defer to anyone with any real philosophical knowledge or expertise.

polyglide wrote:Anyone is entitled to his/her opinion regarding religion and there is no doubt many false religions exist, as foretold in the Bible.

What you have to do is consider each one on the basis on which it originated.

Many can be dismissed out of hand as man made to suit a purpose.

One thing is certain, man exists, man was created, the only rational explanation is a creator as the Bible explains.

Rational indicates that you have looked at the evidence and used reason to come to a rational decision.

What evidence have you looked at?

Is your lack of evidence not evidence that you are wrong?

Can we call anything that comes from a book with talking animals and looks so much like a book of myths evidence?

Regards
DL

I have considered evolution, the only alternative to creation.

It fails on so many grounds as to be impossible.

Then you have the alternative of considering creation and a creator.

I agree the Bible has it's seemingly contravercial elements, however. it is only if you seek the truth that you will find it.

There is obviously a purpose for not having everything in black and white as the Seek and Ye Shall Find indicates.

polyglide wrote:I have considered evolution, the only alternative to creation.

It fails on so many grounds as to be impossible.

Then you have the alternative of considering creation and a creator.

I agree the Bible has it's seemingly contravercial elements, however. it is only if you seek the truth that you will find it.

There is obviously a purpose for not having everything in black and white as the Seek and Ye Shall Find indicates.

Yet you do not seek God. You idol worship the Word and it's God.

As to creation. Why are the other religious creation stories any less probable than Christianity's.
Why are theirs wrong and your right?

Regards
DL

Because their foundations are made of mud.

polyglide wrote:Because their foundations are made of mud.

While yours are made of B.S.

Regards
DL

YES-BASIC SENSE.

polyglide wrote:YES-BASIC SENSE.

Showing that you have no idea as to what basic sense means.

Basic sense does not believe in talking animals or a God so incompetent that he has to destroy what he creates.

Regards
DL

Hi GI,
As you appear not to actually know what anything means, I will take your comments for what they are worth, nothing.

polyglide wrote:Hi GI,
       As you appear not to actually know what anything means, I will take your comments for what they are worth, nothing.

Ancient mythologies are replete with animals that humans anthropomorphised. Your bible has simply plagiarised some early myths and religions as part of its own narrative. Nor is this by any means new as far as religions are concerned.

GIA does make a valid point about the claim that an omniscient omnipotent deity ceated everything then destroyed it all in a fit of pique after it turned out exactly as such a being must have known it would.

It's illogical and irrational. The Noah myth is also plagiarised from an earlier religion.

Dr.Sheldon,

I am aware of all the myths and sources of most and feel that you do not realise the importance of the possibility of more than one ceative being, being involved in everything.

polyglide wrote:Dr.Sheldon,

               I am aware of all the myths and sources of most and feel that you do not realise the importance of the possibility of more than one ceative being, being involved in everything.

               

It's no more a possibility than unicorns garden fairies and mermaids, until it's properly evidenced. Accepting things that are not evidenced, basing what you believe on faith, or favouring superstition over scientific evidence is not being open minded, it's irrational hokum.

DR. Sheldon,
Not so long ago you would no doubt have thought the same about putting a man on the moon or the many adances [evolutions] that have taken place.

Because you cannot understand it, it just makes you ignorant

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
                 Not so long ago you would no doubt have thought the same about putting a man on the moon or the many adances [evolutions] that have taken place.

                Because you cannot understand it, it just makes you ignorant

How you do love to make up lies, is it a Christian thing? Putting a man on the moon was the result of empirical science, not pie in the sky bronze age superstitions, so your childish ad hominem is something of an own goal, again. It's not a lack of understanding that makes me disbelieve in unicorns and mermaids any more than deities, it's the complete lack of any credible or tangible evidence, and it speaks volumes for me that when I point this out the best argument your self proclaimed "expert debating skills" can muster is yet another childish insult.

DR. Sheldon,
You entirely miss the point.

I have a feeling you are unable to tell a lie from the truth.

This is a failing of most people who are lost souls.

They cannot accept anything other than what is on their plate.

Had everyone had the same opinion then things would have stood still and we would have been in the stone age
looking at it from your point of view.

I do not believe in unicorns or mermaids, I believe that all we can see and all that we cannot see has an origin, if it indeed exists.

If it has an origin it must have an originator [ I hope I am not going too fast for you] I would have thought the most important matter for anyone to deal with is, how and why.

Your attitude is purely based on evolution and I have already stated many times evolution is a fact.

The main reason for evolution is changed circumstances.

There has been numerous changes to the earth for reasons we know not, there has also been many changes to all that dwell therein.

The changes are a fair explanation of why evolution takes place but do not explain how all matters were created and that ultimately, is the only thing that is of any consequence.

If further explanation is needed, ask the nearest two year old to do so.

Polyglide wrote: If it has an origin it must have an originator [ I hope I am not going too fast for you] I would have thought the most important matter for anyone to deal with is, how and why.

So you're saying god had an originator? What might that be and what evidence have you?

Or are you making a claim for which you have no evidence based on anumber apparent norm that you are claiming can't have an exception only to introduce an exception immediately?

That's called special pleading, it's another logical fallacy that an expert in debating would be aware of.

Tell me if I'm going too fast.....

Polyglide wrote: Your attitude is purely based on evolution and I have already stated many times evolution is a fact.

So my attitude is purely based on a fact, well this is progress of a sort I suppose. If we can just get you to grasp that evolution is validated by a process and not open to subjective opinion who knows what you might learn.

Polyglide wrote: The changes are a fair explanation of why evolution takes place but do not explain how all matters were created and that ultimately, is the only thing that is of any consequence.

If further explanation is needed, ask the nearest two year old to do so.

I'm afraid even a two year old would have grasped by now the simple fact that evolution does not and has never made any claims about the origins of life. The sheer clumsy repetitive stupidity of trying to piggy back an unevidenced claim for supernatural creation on this might also be obvious to a two year old. Suffice to say it has passed your expert debating skills by.

Can you really need this explained again?

1. Evolution is a scientific fact that utterly destroys the genesis account of cation.
2. Evolution makes NO CLAIMS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE.
3. There is no evidence for biblical creationism which is at least in part refuted by the abundant evidence science has validated for evolution and the age of the earth.
4. You're using a god of the gaps polemic to suggest that not knowing something justifies an unevidenced claim.
5. Simply put your claim is based on magic apples and talking snakes, or risible nonsense if you prefer.

I will once more ask you to drop the childish ad hominem, or I will simply return the favour.

Really -- I'm beginning to see why I so rarely visit these threads - tbh I thought this was a silly thread, but not everyone shares my views - HOWEVER, I don't believe it should be used as an excuse for another squabble - use the PM facility please, if you want to abuse each other

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
                 You entirely miss the point.

                  I have a feeling you are unable to tell a lie from the truth.

This from a man who believes in talking animals and a genocidal son murdering God.

Oy-vey.

Regards
DL

Dr. Sheldon,
The odds of fairies being in existance are about 1% of those of there not being an intelligent force involved in creation.

Yet you do not believe in fairies and do not accept that there is a creator, strange.

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                 The odds of fairies being in existance are about 1% of those of there not being an intelligent force involved in creation. Yet you do not believe in fairies and do not accept that there is a creator, strange.

The odds of you producing a post without line breaks and massive spaces appear to be nil. Just what evidence are you using for those stats you've made up on the spot? What's strange is you seem to think this amounts to evidence, truly bizarre.

1. Evolution is the most well evidenced and most scrutinised scientific theory science has.
2. No one, not one scientist has ever been able to falsify it with a single piece of evidence.
3. No one has ever been able to produce a single piece of scientific evidence for creationism.

It doesn't even count as scientific because it's basis presupposes supernatural claims, and cannot therefore be falsified, that disqualifies any of it's claims from being scientifically valid anyway. This is basic stuff that anyone making claims about science should know. Those three bullet pointed sentences are factually correct by the way. Sorry if this is not what you believe, but science doesn't deal in belief or faith.

boatlady wrote:Really -- I'm beginning to see why I so rarely visit these threads - tbh I thought this was a silly thread, but not everyone shares my views - HOWEVER, I don't believe it should be used as an excuse for another squabble - use the PM facility please, if you want to abuse each other

Maybe having an open discussion if more useful than hiding it in a pm, boatlady? If you don't visit here regularly and it offends you, maybe being here is not for you.

What is a debate but an erudite squabble?

I'm not prepared to tolerate ad hominem abuse on any of the threads - the discussion in my view as moderator had overstepped the mark in terms of proper debate.

boatlady wrote:I'm not prepared to tolerate ad hominem abuse on any of the threads - the discussion in my view as moderator had overstepped the mark in terms of proper debate.

To be fair I did apologise for my part in letting myself be drawn into that. Though I had let quite a few posts from another poster slide when almost every one contained some form of ad hominem directed at me. I initially pointed these out for quite some time as well in the hope the poster in question would desist. Then finally lost patience as his responses largely ignored my post content in favour of petty insult.

He has even resumed his personal ad hominem in some responses, though they're not as overtly derisory as they had been. Though I've not respond this time around. There is line between deriding an argument or claim and pure ad hominem which the poster in question doesn't seem to recognise.

I am trying to keep an eye on things and while I don't want to keep on nagging people I do think it's important to try and keep the discussion entertaining and civil.

boatlady wrote:I am trying to keep an eye on things and while I don't want to keep on nagging people I do think it's important to try and keep the discussion entertaining and civil.

Duly noted. I'll bear this in mind. Oh and thanks of course.

Dr. Sheldon,
Your constant request for a scientific paper to prove everything is groundless.

If you were in front of a moving bus, you would know that if you did not move you would be hurt.

You would not even have to have seen a bus to know that to be true, nor any scientific paper.

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                Your constant request for a scientific paper to prove everything is groundless. If you were in front of a moving bus, you would know that if you did not move you would be hurt.  You would not even have to have seen a bus to know that to be true, nor any scientific paper.

For someone who repeatedly claims to have a good knowledge of science this is a shocking refutation of the claim. Scientific facts like evolution can only be refuted by the same rigorous process that validated them. So no, my request is not groundless, it highlights your duplicitous claims for scientific evidence that refutes evolution for what they are, and similarly exposes the claims for scientific evidence that validates creationism as utterly without merit and thoroughly dishonest. Your bus analogy is quite funny though, if you really grasped this argument at all you'd see that instincts are not what we use to research and validate evidence. I'd thought we were done with these silly analogies after your fire one. The last sentence is yet again covered by Hicthen's razor and dismissed without evidence in the same fashion it is offered. Forgive me but how many times will you continue to use spurious unevidenced claims and arguments in the knowledge they will be summarily dismissed? It's an awful waste of bandwidth.

Are you seriously saying that base unevidenced instinct based on superstitious belief actually refutes scientifically validated facts? Dear oh dear....that's not worthy of proper debate as you could clearly claim anything you liked and deny anything you like on that basis you could claim the world was flat.

Dr. Sheldon,
I am afraid it is you that cannot understand my stand point.

You think evolution is the reason we have the various plant and animal life, I have pointed out that every animal has a seperate DNA, I have also requested a simple question by way of a request.

Show me stage by stage, exactly how the butterfly has such a complicated life cycle.

How many legs did it start with, one eye or too, why can many only survive on one particular plant and lay their eggs in a particular manner and place.

The odds as calculated in the manner scientists approve of, is about 10 to the power of 45.

I have said many times the fact that certain things evolve, proves only that they evolve and nothing more.

"I have pointed out that every animal has a seperate DNA, "

No it doesn't, this claim is laughably wrong. As an example humans share 96% of their DNA with chimpanzees. Why you would repeat such an obviously ridiculous claim I do not know?

Why do you keep repeating your ridiculous butterfly question when I've answered it more than once? Do you really think you'll get a different answer if you keep repeating it?

Tell us all step by step using scientifically validated evidence how God created the universe.

No bare claims please.

" The odds as calculated in the manner scientists approve of, is about 10 to the power of 45."

That's just a repetition of Hoyle'S fallacy. I've already explained to you that your bare unevidenced claim about odds is ignoring the fact species evolve step by step with each stage building on the last.

For every successful stage there would be a correspondingly high number of extinctions. Both the timescales involved and the high failure show that your clumsy odds analogy is wrong.

Try and picture a pyramid, now each layer of blocks represent a stage in evolution. Now imagine a vast desert littered with billions of failed attempts some that didn't get past the first single block. Imagine the billions of years and countless attempts for a small number of successes, and that only an even smaller number of those would succeed at the next stage. It's obvious the odds are not being defied at all.

As I've explained before with the lottery long odds are overcome all the time by the corresponding number of repetitions of seemingly random events. Environmental demands would do the rest.

Of course we could just go the simple route and point out that we're here to disprove your argument. Since all the evidence supports  Darwinian evolution and you can't  cite even one single piece of peer reviewed evidence for the multitude of creationist clichés you've posted that speaks for itself.

Dr. Sheldon,
In the beginning God took hold of the energy within his domain and turned it into a number of different atoms and molecules, from which he made all forms of materials, in due course he decided to form the earth and the rest of the universe and all that that entails, this is an on going process and will end so far as we are concerned as foretold in the New Testamant.

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                In the beginning God took hold of the energy within his domain and turned it into a number of different atoms and molecules, from which he made all forms of materials, in due course he decided to form the earth and the rest of the universe and all that that entails, this is an on going process and will end so far as we are concerned as foretold in the New Testamant.

Farr.

I said scientific evidence. Not fairytale superstition and guesswork.