After The Fall

[jeremyp]

Through the “procession of the Equinoxes”

Precession

the sun gradually shifts its position a little each year, till in about every 2,000 years it begins the year in a different Sign. This was foreseen;

By whom?

and it was also foreseen where the sun began its courses, and where the teaching of this Heavenly Book commenced, and where we were to open its first page.

You do understand that it is the Earth that precesses and not the Sun, don't you?

Also, the Sun came into existence about 4.6 billion years ago. There was nobody around to force it then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

This is him here I believe, pretty much all of the quotes you see have been derived from this 'collection'...

Well spotted. It's quite spectacularly bonkers stuff, though whether he/it really means it or is just stringing together random terms as a wind up is anyone's guess. Clearly though he isn't aware that in fact the three-legged virgin priests of Pnim relocated the Northern Campsite to the Southern Caravan Park of Verisimilitude using the Earth's orbit around the Moon to slingshot the Dormobile of Destiny from one to the other. What can the great void of new nature's mind imply? I don't know, but it's an interesting question...

...or perhaps not.

[SqueakyVoice]

To remind the Egyptians which way round to wear their knickers. So the riddle of the sphinx, where to start reading the stars and which way round to wear our knickers.

Oh. In that case, is it,

"What's brown and sphinxy?"

"I don't know, what is brown and sphinxy?"

"A sphinx."

?

[horsethorn]

The monotheism of Israel does not and cannot evolve from polytheism, because the two are based on radically divergent world-views, radically divergent intuitions about reality. The monotheism of Israel was not, it could not be the natural outgrowth of the polytheism of an earlier age, it was a radical break with it. 
Monotheism was a revolution, not an evolution.

Polytheism > henotheism or monolatry > monotheism.

It's pretty simple, really, especially as there is still some evidence of the process that wasn't completely redacted out of the bible.

ht

[bluehillside Retd.]

Polytheism > henotheism or monolatry > monotheism.

It's pretty simple, really, especially as there is still some evidence of the process that wasn't completely redacted out of the bible.

Oh dear God, horsethorn's actually feeding him! Will no-one think of the children? The horror! The horror!

[horsethorn]

Oh dear God, horsethorn's actually feeding him! Will no-one think of the children? The horror! The horror!

Well, Vlad doesn't want to play, and TW is dull and boring. Gotta find a new playmate!

Besides, it'll be fun to deconstruct his argument by using his own book...

ht

[newnature]

Polytheism > henotheism or monolatry > monotheism.

It's pretty simple, really, especially as there is still some evidence of the process that wasn't completely redacted out of the bible.

ht

I would say Polytheism was added to the Bible. History will show a major Polytheism concept that was added.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, “When I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses, “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.” He continued, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh sent me to you.’ ”


Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God’s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God’s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled “yod-heh-vav-heh” in Hebrew; in ancient times the “vav” was pronounced “w”). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: “I Will Be What I Will Be,” meaning “My nature will become evident from my actions.” 


Then God answers Moses’ question about what to say to the people: “Tell them: ‘Ehyeh’ (“I Will Be,” a shorter form of the explanation) sent me.” This explanation derives God’s name from the verb “h-v-h,” a variant form of “h-y-h,” “to be.” Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.

[~TW~]

Well, Vlad doesn't want to play, and TW is dull and boring. Gotta find a new playmate!

Besides, it'll be fun to deconstruct his argument by using his own book...

ht

 Horsethorn newnature was a breath of fresh air after months and months of crap topics you and your mates have served up here the forum sprung to life yesterday,granted it was crap but different from what we get from you and the rest of the duffers. For example No god because I cant see him or no God cause he does not talk to me

  I will look in when it improves come back newnature.

                                        ~TW~   

[Shaker]

Horsethorn newnature was a breath of fresh air after months and months of crap topics you and your mates have served up here the forum sprung to life yesterday,granted it was crap

The forum sprung [sic] to life but granted it was crap.

Right.

[newnature]

Well, Vlad doesn't want to play, and TW is dull and boring. Gotta find a new playmate!

Besides, it'll be fun to deconstruct his argument by using his own book...

ht

It will be hard for you to deconstruct my arguments using the bible. I know what Satan and his ministers of righteousness did to the bible.

[newnature]

Drivel.

The real revolution came much later, when people started to realize that we don't need to make up magic beings in order to explain stuff.

So, to return to the point I was making - you really think all the stars literally rotate around the pole star? And, what, the Earth stays still? Do you think the Earth is flat too?

The real revolution came with the Apostle Paul. People glorify themselves by filtering everything they say and everything they do through that screen of self-protection, self-elevation, and self-gratification. No matter what we wish others to believe, we seek to satisfy self first and foremost.


For notwithstanding that we speak of “fixed stars,” there is a constant, though slow, change taking place amongst them. There is also another change taking place owing to the slow recession of the pole of heaven (about 50” in the year); so that while Alpha in the constellation of Draco was the Polar star when the Zodiac was first formed, the Polar Star in now Alpha in what is called Ursa Minor. This change alone carries us back at least 5,000 years.

[newnature]

He is Robert Stone.
If you know his history on forums like this then you will realise, as others before, that interaction, conversation and the like, are a complete and utter waste of your time and effort.

I got to learn a lot of good stuff doing that. There are more smart people on forums than there are in churches.

[newnature]

Blimey, nn is obviously trying to rival Sass with the number of nutty posts one after another.

No one has disproved any of those nutty posts so far.

[newnature]

A random word generator - definitely a random word generator. The spelling is pretty good though the grammar is a bit off in places, but it's remarkable how much these algorithms have improved in recent years. One of the clues though is that they just churn out gibberish regardless of the content of the comments and questions that are put to them.

Do we have a policy on this mb about algorithms posting?

You are a God hater, good for you. It is churned out gibberish, because you are a God hater. The defense mechanism resident within the pride nature of the human heart would be instant in it’s response to protest the accusation of wrath worthiness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

new algorithm,

No one has disproved any of those nutty posts so far.

That's because they're not even wrong. If you really think there's a "God" then start by demonstrating that without the circularity of, "it's true because a book says so/the book is correct because God made it so". Just quoting more of the book in reply will keep you anchored in not even wrong territory, so it's your call as to whether or not you actually want to post something worth considering.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

new algorithm,

That's because they're not even wrong. If you really think there's a "God" then start by demonstrating that without the circularity of, "it's true because a book says so/the book is correct because God made it so". Just quoting more of the book in reply will keep you anchored in not even wrong territory, so it's your call as to whether or not you actually want to post something worth considering.

MMM......I see your approach and methodology here Hillside
but it does beg the question 'Why don't you change the record?'

[Shaker]

MMM......I see your approach and methodology here Hillside
but it does beg the question 'Why don't you change the record?'

Probably because nobody's playing a newer tune than nobody's favourite mouldy oldie, "I've provided the evidence ... before ... somewhere else ... but the site is down ... and the mods pulled it anyway ... before the dog was sick on it."

[newnature]

new algorithm,

That's because they're not even wrong. If you really think there's a "God" then start by demonstrating that without the circularity of, "it's true because a book says so/the book is correct because God made it so". Just quoting more of the book in reply will keep you anchored in not even wrong territory, so it's your call as to whether or not you actually want to post something worth considering.

You hate the bible because of the accusation of wrath worthiness. That book knew the human heart would not only be quick, but that it would be ingenious in the pleas that it would offer as to why they are not wrath-worthy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

new algorithm,

You are a God hater, good for you. It is churned out gibberish, because you are a God hater. The defense mechanism resident within the pride nature of the human heart would be instant in it’s response to protest the accusation of wrath worthiness.

You can't hate something you've been given no reason to think exists in the first place.

Try again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

new algorithm,

You can't hate something you've been given no reason to think exists in the first place.

Try again.

Come on Hillside you are almost as obsessed with God as you are with Leprechauns.

[bluehillside Retd.]

new algorithm,

Me:

That's because they're not even wrong. If you really think there's a "God" then start by demonstrating that without the circularity of, "it's true because a book says so/the book is correct because God made it so". Just quoting more of the book in reply will keep you anchored in not even wrong territory, so it's your call as to whether or not you actually want to post something worth considering.

You:

You hate the bible because of the accusation of wrath worthiness. That book knew the human heart would not only be quick, but that it would be ingenious in the pleas that it would offer as to why they are not wrath-worthy.

So that'll be a "no" then. I have no reason to "hate" the bible (though it's fair to say that I hate some behaviours of those who look to it to justify their awfulness, but that's a different matter). The question you just ran away from though was whether or not you could demonstrate this "God" of yours without recourse to circular reasoning. Just spitting the dummy in response is avoidance, and it does you no credit. 

Try again.

[newnature]

new algorithm,

You can't hate something you've been given no reason to think exists in the first place.

Try again.

Your in a bad spot, because you still have your identity in Adam, Adam in rebellion. This is the age of grace, bad move on your part. The human heart would not only be quick, but that it would be ingenious in the pleas that it would offer as to why they are not wrath-worthy.

[Shaker]

Your in a bad spot

I've been to Corby too.

[bluehillside Retd.]

new nature,

Your in a bad spot, because you still have your identity in Adam, Adam in rebellion. This is the age of grace, bad move on your part. The human heart would not only be quick, but that it would be ingenious in the pleas that it would offer as to why they are not wrath-worthy.

Further avoidance noted. So you don't have an argument for this "God" that isn't circular - I assumed as much, but thought it only fair to allow you hang yourself.

It must be awful for you - you've invested all this time in a mad iron-age ontology, only to find that you have no way to demonstrate the central pillar that's supposed to hold it up.

You have my sympathy - if ever though you do feel like attempting an actual argument for this "God" that isn't logically hopeless, I'll read it with interest. Probably best not to hold my breath though...

[newnature]

new algorithm,

Me:

You:

So that'll be a "no" then. I have no reason to "hate" the bible (though it's fair to say that I hate some behaviours of those who look to it to justify their awfulness, but that's a different matter). The question you just ran away from though was whether or not you could demonstrate this "God" of yours without recourse to circular reasoning. Just spitting the dummy in response is avoidance, and it does you no credit. 

Try again.

God is doing something different today, this is the age of grace. There will be no demonstrating God in this age of Grace. God made it quite clear what he is doing today.