High Street Sales Slumpm Government...
News2 mins ago
The Truth Of The Bible.
574 Answers
Only the bible describes the state of the world as we head into the End Times.
Only the bible has verifiable prophecies that can be tested for truth.
Is it not time to take the bible seriously?
Only the bible has verifiable prophecies that can be tested for truth.
Is it not time to take the bible seriously?
Answers
the letter in the Times today said: Bible Studies Dear Sir, Keith Elliott writes about the debate over the exclusive authority of the New Testament (credo letters). Christians believe that canonical scripture was established under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That some books entered the canon 'by the skin of their teeth' is immaterial....
18:23 Tue 20th Jul 2021
unblank your mind
"being, existence especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence."
you just said you didnt know what entity meant coz it funnier if you do when you say I always knew dat
midnight - but this is still AB !
william of occam - occam's razor (*) entes non multiplicanda sunt praeter necessitatem
entes - entities have been around for a lorra lorra time ( thx Judge judy)
(*) what he need wunna dem den for? The crushing one liner lives on on AB
o god Naomi - your mind cant be blank on the fourteenth century scholastics, can it?
"being, existence especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence."
you just said you didnt know what entity meant coz it funnier if you do when you say I always knew dat
midnight - but this is still AB !
william of occam - occam's razor (*) entes non multiplicanda sunt praeter necessitatem
entes - entities have been around for a lorra lorra time ( thx Judge judy)
(*) what he need wunna dem den for? The crushing one liner lives on on AB
o god Naomi - your mind cant be blank on the fourteenth century scholastics, can it?
Oh dear MIBs, I really wonder if you actually understand what you write.
Your thoughts on reality are just you dipping your toe in the great seas of philosophy, and getting nowhere.
You seem to be trying to answer questions that nobody has asked.
Even the atheist naturalistic scientists start out with questions on origins, something that seems to be beneath your enquiring mind.
Your thoughts on reality are just you dipping your toe in the great seas of philosophy, and getting nowhere.
You seem to be trying to answer questions that nobody has asked.
Even the atheist naturalistic scientists start out with questions on origins, something that seems to be beneath your enquiring mind.
Theland,. //Even the atheist naturalistic scientists start out with questions on origins, something that seems to be beneath your enquiring mind. //
And like religionists, they all speculate because that's all anyone can do. Your endless blathering on about 'origins' it utterly pointless.
Incidentally, if only your mind were half as enquiring as Mibs' mind you might get somewhere.
And like religionists, they all speculate because that's all anyone can do. Your endless blathering on about 'origins' it utterly pointless.
Incidentally, if only your mind were half as enquiring as Mibs' mind you might get somewhere.
mibn //Reality is that bit that (with any luck) reminds you to stay awake, eyes open and hands on the wheel while driving down life's highway.//
What kind of reality is it when you dream you are in the driver's seat? is that real or unreal?
How do we know that our five senses cover the whole of possible experience ?
Are our 5 senses necessarily sufficient to embrace all that can be known?
Is there more than we are capable of perceiving in the natural world?
Are there perhaps somethings beyond what we perceive as the natural world, not unnatural but supernatural, not beyond nature but beyond us ?
Questions, questions ! Je vais au lit.
What kind of reality is it when you dream you are in the driver's seat? is that real or unreal?
How do we know that our five senses cover the whole of possible experience ?
Are our 5 senses necessarily sufficient to embrace all that can be known?
Is there more than we are capable of perceiving in the natural world?
Are there perhaps somethings beyond what we perceive as the natural world, not unnatural but supernatural, not beyond nature but beyond us ?
Questions, questions ! Je vais au lit.
//mibn //Reality is that bit that (with any luck) reminds you to stay awake, eyes open and hands on the wheel while driving down life's highway.////
//What kind of reality is it when you dream you are in the driver's seat? is that real or unreal?//
Dreaming is real. Dreams are dreams.
//How do we know that our five senses cover the whole of possible experience ?//
We have already confirmed there's much more to existence than what lies within the range of our ‘god given’ sensory experience.
//Are our 5 senses necessarily sufficient to embrace all that can be known?//
Sensory input is just the beginning, essential to the process of perception, the point where conscious analytical processes begin.
//Is there more than we are capable of perceiving in the natural world?//
There's always more but determining what that is requires establishing it's relationship to what we can perceive. That’s how we know what we know.
//Are there perhaps somethings beyond what we perceive as the natural world, not unnatural but supernatural, not beyond nature but beyond us ?//
One might argue that technology, the products of reason if not the process of reason itself is ’supernatural’.
//Questions, questions ! Je vais au lit.//
As I see it the whole point of consciousness and thoughtful deliberation is that this enables us to discover, realise, appreciate and add value to living. Only consciousness and life are consequential.
There’s always more to learn but that process halts when one decides they already know everything anyone needs to know already.
Dors bien et fais de beaux rêves
//What kind of reality is it when you dream you are in the driver's seat? is that real or unreal?//
Dreaming is real. Dreams are dreams.
//How do we know that our five senses cover the whole of possible experience ?//
We have already confirmed there's much more to existence than what lies within the range of our ‘god given’ sensory experience.
//Are our 5 senses necessarily sufficient to embrace all that can be known?//
Sensory input is just the beginning, essential to the process of perception, the point where conscious analytical processes begin.
//Is there more than we are capable of perceiving in the natural world?//
There's always more but determining what that is requires establishing it's relationship to what we can perceive. That’s how we know what we know.
//Are there perhaps somethings beyond what we perceive as the natural world, not unnatural but supernatural, not beyond nature but beyond us ?//
One might argue that technology, the products of reason if not the process of reason itself is ’supernatural’.
//Questions, questions ! Je vais au lit.//
As I see it the whole point of consciousness and thoughtful deliberation is that this enables us to discover, realise, appreciate and add value to living. Only consciousness and life are consequential.
There’s always more to learn but that process halts when one decides they already know everything anyone needs to know already.
Dors bien et fais de beaux rêves
mibn, Thank you for attempting some answers, but starting with answer 1; // Dreaming is real. Dreams are dreams.// is evasive if not self-contradictory; if dreaming is real the dreams being part of that reality must also have an existence, but what is it? are they some form of message, do they relate to a collective unconscious? (see Carl Jung).
Khandro, //Are there perhaps somethings beyond what we perceive as the natural world, not unnatural but supernatural, not beyond nature but beyond us ?//
Perhaps beyond what YOU perceive as the natural world - to me everything is ‘the natural world’ - there is no ‘supernatural’. How you associate that which is (currently) beyond our understanding with an imaginary God is also beyond my understanding. Can you explain why you do that? I can see no logical reason for it.
Perhaps beyond what YOU perceive as the natural world - to me everything is ‘the natural world’ - there is no ‘supernatural’. How you associate that which is (currently) beyond our understanding with an imaginary God is also beyond my understanding. Can you explain why you do that? I can see no logical reason for it.
//...if dreaming is real the dreams being part of that reality must also have an existence, but what is it? are they some form of message, do they relate to a collective unconscious?//
Dreams are a process of the mind, as I understand it, a form of house keeping during which the mind is largely closed to external input. Some of this process bleeds over into the conscious mind and that is what we recall as dreams. I'm no authority on dreams. I'll leave it to science to investigate what happens in the brain during dream cycles.
We need to make a distinction between reality and the process by which we are made aware of it, consciousness. Before we can be made aware of what exists there must be something to be made aware of, existence. If what you perceive does not exists in reality, that no longer qualifies as consciousness of reality but rather as dreams, imagination, delusions, etc.
Putting this all as simply as I can, dreams, imagination, delusions, etc. are all real, but they are not of reality. They are manifestations of the minds attempts to grasp reality. How we determine the difference between reality and what we perceive to be is by coming to understand the means and process of consciousness, how we know what we know. Reason, science and the study of epistemology are the methods we use to make this determination.
Dreams are a process of the mind, as I understand it, a form of house keeping during which the mind is largely closed to external input. Some of this process bleeds over into the conscious mind and that is what we recall as dreams. I'm no authority on dreams. I'll leave it to science to investigate what happens in the brain during dream cycles.
We need to make a distinction between reality and the process by which we are made aware of it, consciousness. Before we can be made aware of what exists there must be something to be made aware of, existence. If what you perceive does not exists in reality, that no longer qualifies as consciousness of reality but rather as dreams, imagination, delusions, etc.
Putting this all as simply as I can, dreams, imagination, delusions, etc. are all real, but they are not of reality. They are manifestations of the minds attempts to grasp reality. How we determine the difference between reality and what we perceive to be is by coming to understand the means and process of consciousness, how we know what we know. Reason, science and the study of epistemology are the methods we use to make this determination.
//We need to make a distinction between reality and the process by which we are made aware of it, consciousness.//
So you separate our human consciousness from reality, but we can only perceive 'reality' (whatever that is) through our senses - which may or may not, as I've said above, be limited.
Are you asserting that say, a walk in the park is real, but our thoughts as we do so isn't?
So you separate our human consciousness from reality, but we can only perceive 'reality' (whatever that is) through our senses - which may or may not, as I've said above, be limited.
Are you asserting that say, a walk in the park is real, but our thoughts as we do so isn't?
Are dreams real? good question
but going back to the original question notwithstanding some interesting questions from Kh and some gormlessness from TUS,
are verifiable prophecies real?
or do they become real only if they come true?
I still think Luke 22
"I did not wish to eat this, until the kingdom of God was fulfilled" was a prophecy of the soon to end world which didnt occur - there was a wide belief that Jesus and resurrection represetned the end of times ( AD50 that is!)
(For I tell you now that I won’t eat this meal again until its meaning is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.”)
but going back to the original question notwithstanding some interesting questions from Kh and some gormlessness from TUS,
are verifiable prophecies real?
or do they become real only if they come true?
I still think Luke 22
"I did not wish to eat this, until the kingdom of God was fulfilled" was a prophecy of the soon to end world which didnt occur - there was a wide belief that Jesus and resurrection represetned the end of times ( AD50 that is!)
(For I tell you now that I won’t eat this meal again until its meaning is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.”)
//Are you asserting that say, a walk in the park is real, but our thoughts as we do so isn't?//
The walk is real, the park is real, the thoughts are real, but thoughts (what we're thinking) do not necessary correlate to reality. Thinking doesn't make what we're thinking real (subjectivity) but thinking rationally (objectively) can get us to a determination of what is real, a process that is not always necessarily a walk in the park.
The walk is real, the park is real, the thoughts are real, but thoughts (what we're thinking) do not necessary correlate to reality. Thinking doesn't make what we're thinking real (subjectivity) but thinking rationally (objectively) can get us to a determination of what is real, a process that is not always necessarily a walk in the park.
