Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 24, 2018 at 11:56 am (This post was last modified: March 24, 2018 at 12:27 pm by He lives.)
(March 24, 2018 at 10:45 am)Whateverist Wrote:
(March 24, 2018 at 10:18 am)He lives Wrote: Abiogenesis is not a viable theory. It is made up of several hypothesis and they can not all be right.
Abiogenesis is no more a "theory" than is god-did-it. Both are assumptions. We assume that eventually a reasonable theory regarding the manner in which inorganic chemistry crossed the barrier into the organic variety will emerge. You on the other just assume that god did it and have no expectation of ever understanding how. You're fine with going without a theory forever since you assume human beings just aren't up to it.
That is not true. I do have expectations that it will indeed be proven that there is a spirit and that the body without the spirit is dead. People who have NDEs have described the silver cord mentioned in the Bible.
(March 24, 2018 at 6:41 am)Succubus Wrote:
(March 24, 2018 at 12:03 am)He lives Wrote: Here is very good evidence of out of body NDE.
Aaaaand once again changing the topic in mid flight.
(March 24, 2018 at 12:45 am)He lives Wrote: You like to pretend that you are not gullible yet you believe that abiogenesis is a viable hypothesis.
And once again with the switch.
There are many topics related to ID and abiogenesis, so what?
(March 24, 2018 at 10:49 am)Khemikal Wrote:
(March 24, 2018 at 10:18 am)He lives Wrote: Abiogenesis is not a viable theory. It is made up of several hypothesis and they can not all be right.
Tell that to magic book. Correct me if I'm wrong..but it does say that djinn made life where once there was none..does it not?
Mud, was it, and magic breath?
Just because you can not understand the science behind life is no reason to believe it is magic. Neither is the spirit magic, it is the life of the body.
(March 24, 2018 at 11:03 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Why did it start before brain death? Let's focus on that. The link provided explains how she might have described the instruments used.
Edit: we can look into other aspects in detail, too... but let's address them one at a time.
There was a person involved in an automobile accident and had a NDE. His spirit left the body just before the accident happened. Some people have reported that they can leave their body at will (astral projection). In fact most NDEs are accounts of the spirit leaving the body before the body dies.
(March 24, 2018 at 11:13 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Don't answer that !!!
You're promoting SATAN !!!!
God is the God of the living which includes Moses and Abraham:
(New Testament | Matthew 22:31 - 33)
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 24, 2018 at 12:29 pm
(March 24, 2018 at 10:18 am)He lives Wrote:
(March 24, 2018 at 12:47 am)drfuzzy Wrote: Nope. Peer-reviewed evidence in reputable journals only will suffice. Any yahoo can make videos to post to YouTube -- I have a cousin who made one at 7 years of age.
YouTube, Wikipedia, biased webpages and propaganda media sources will never be considered as evidence by anyone who honors scientific method.
Quote:
Quote:He's a Zombie: "You didn't watch the video either, that is why you don't have a viable explanation to share and no comment on who made the video."
OF COURSE I DIDN'T WATCH THE VIDEO. I'm an academic. YouTube videos are not evidence. I follow academic standards regarding what is accepted as research. If you submit YouTube videos as research, if you submit information from biased websites, or Wiki-anything, your project gets an automatic fail. If you do this more than once you get thrown out of the program.
I gave you a very clear list of what is required to be actually accepted as proof of your claims, and you haven't presented anything yet. Until you provide some real research, the only proper response to any of your claims is derision and pity.
Post #695: All you have to do is provide links to 3 solid, peer-reviewed, scientific studies that prove that a soul exists, and that clearly demonstrate the soul exiting the human body (electric fields? magnetic measurements? a stable, measurable loss of mass?). And of course, they must contain solid proof that this - exudate - clearly contains the consciousness of the newly-deceased, so - the soul has to speak for itself after physical death - somehow, enough to be recorded as audio or video. And, obviously, this has to have been verified by 3 very different scientific teams in 3 different locations with three different subjects, recorded using multiple recording devices, with all three teams getting the same results.
(March 24, 2018 at 12:57 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:
No it's not! It's evidence of clairvoyance!
Btw, Pam Reynolds was fully conscious when she had her OBE and NDE. Nothing to do with death. (Reference, HERE)
Finally someone who actually watched the video. However Pam Reynolds was not fully conscious when her spirit left her body. In fact her eyes were taped shut and she was clinically dead:
(March 24, 2018 at 1:05 am)drfuzzy Wrote: You buddy Francis Crick published his support of abiogenesis.
Quote:He believed in abiogenesis as many do. However abiogenesis is a belief, so is flat earth a belief.
(March 24, 2018 at 5:33 am)Tizheruk Wrote:
Or he's not falling for it i don't blame him these videos are shit evidence
and that evidence is not your video's . And there's nothing to refute
Or more likely because there is nothing their
Because it is a viable theory unlike NDE bunkum . Thus one not guible for believing it. Regardless of your quote mining. And pulling bullshit statistics out of your rectum .
Abiogenesis is not a viable theory. It is made up of several hypothesis and they can not all be right.
Francis Crick was an atheist and a scientist who published that abiogenesis was a viable theory in 1993. You have shown repeatedly that you have no clue what "theory" means, but that is to be expected from an uneducated person who lives in a fantasy world.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 24, 2018 at 12:39 pm
Mucking about with NDEs and OOBEs is CLEARLY forbidden.
"There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 24, 2018 at 12:43 pm
Now the Pam Reynolds story has lost all coherence. It was an OBE that had nothing to do with her brain death-- or it did have something to do with it??--it could have happened either way?? What exactly does her simulated brain death have to with it it, then?
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 24, 2018 at 1:08 pm
He Lives, check this video out. It might help you see where we are coming from. (It comes highly recommended by Cyberman/Stimbo.) I really, really like this video, and I really, really would appreciate if you watched it.
And just in case my endorsement isn't enough... check out this rave review:
(December 25, 2017 at 5:59 pm)Banned Wrote: A really good video, thanks.
It confirms what I thought. It's the great humanistic pill that nearly all will swallow...
It counts on two things, that the human mind is the ultimate criterion for knowledge and understanding, and that society will determine what clear thinking is.
It also finishes beautifuly with the ideaology of the "collective future."
Wow, thanks for that, I'll be sharing it right away with people who know what the future holds.
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 24, 2018 at 2:17 pm (This post was last modified: March 24, 2018 at 2:19 pm by Whateverist.)
(March 24, 2018 at 11:56 am)He lives Wrote:
(March 24, 2018 at 10:45 am)Whateverist Wrote: Abiogenesis is no more a "theory" than is god-did-it. Both are assumptions. We assume that eventually a reasonable theory regarding the manner in which inorganic chemistry crossed the barrier into the organic variety will emerge. You on the other just assume that god did it and have no expectation of ever understanding how. You're fine with going without a theory forever since you assume human beings just aren't up to it.
That is not true. I do have expectations that it will indeed be proven that there is a spirit and that the body without the spirit is dead. People who have NDEs have described the silver cord mentioned in the Bible.
I suppose it would be asking too much for you to understand the difference between getting confirmation for your god-did-it assumption after you die versus having a thorough explanation for just how God created organic chemistry from inorganic chemistry (because whether you realize it or not, all the organic chemical components of life rely on the underlying relationships between inorganic compounds). Just knowing that god-did-it is not an explanation and therefore is no theory at all.
