Drich,

Here's the thing. Either you are right or, you are delusional. If we accept that it is extremely common that delusional people are incapable of recognizing their delusions for what they are then I am afraid you cannot be certain.

If you are certain then you are delusional as a non-delusional person would always have to make allowance for that possibility. This is not something you need to come back to me/us on. You need to question yourself. If the real answer is that you are absolutely certain then you should seek help.

(September 27, 2013 at 2:12 am)max-greece Wrote: Drich,

Here's the thing. Either you are right or, you are delusional. If we accept that it is extremely common that delusional people are incapable of recognizing their delusions for what they are then I am afraid you cannot be certain.

If you are certain then you are delusional as a non-delusional person would always have to make allowance for that possibility. This is not something you need to come back to me/us on. You need to question yourself. If the real answer is that you are absolutely certain then you should seek help.

So in your opinion High functioning members of society are often associeated with what you have idenitifed as 'delusion?'

Remember I am not the only person in the world to make these claims. Doctors, Lawyers, CEO's of massive companies, World leaders have all made the very same claims for the past 2000 years or so. Are they too delusional?

(September 27, 2013 at 2:48 am)Drich Wrote: Are they too delusional?

Affirmative.

Abso-fucking-lootly.

(September 27, 2013 at 2:48 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 27, 2013 at 2:12 am)max-greece Wrote: Drich,

Here's the thing. Either you are right or, you are delusional. If we accept that it is extremely common that delusional people are incapable of recognizing their delusions for what they are then I am afraid you cannot be certain.

If you are certain then you are delusional as a non-delusional person would always have to make allowance for that possibility. This is not something you need to come back to me/us on. You need to question yourself. If the real answer is that you are absolutely certain then you should seek help.

So in your opinion High functioning members of society are often associeated with what you have idenitifed as 'delusion?'

Remember I am not the only person in the world to make these claims. Doctors, Lawyers, CEO's of massive companies, World leaders have all made the very same claims for the past 2000 years or so. Are they too delusional?

Your belief is not the issue - its your certainty. No reasonable person can be that certain of something with such insubstantial proof. That you regard the proof as sufficient to justify your certainty is indicative of the level of your delusion.

However, you missed the point. I tried to make it clear - this was not to elicit a response from you, just think about it. You have no need to justify yourself to me or anyone else other than to yourself.

You are free to decide you are right and move on. I just want you to ask the question of yourself.

And no - you are not unique in your delusions.

(September 27, 2013 at 2:48 am)Drich Wrote: So in your opinion High functioning members of society are often associeated with what you have idenitifed as 'delusion?'

Remember I am not the only person in the world to make these claims. Doctors, Lawyers, CEO's of massive companies, World leaders have all made the very same claims for the past 2000 years or so. Are they too delusional?

Well... yeah. I mean, fundamentally, holding that claim to be true makes them wrong, and there's nothing inherently... um... wrong with that, assuming you correct your claims when evidence comes to light that shows you that you're wrong.

You cross into the territory of delusion when you continue to hold onto your belief despite this new evidence. When you try to fit your disproven belief into the new evidence without looking to see if it actually conforms to it. That's what makes a delusion, and no amount of appeal to popularity is going to change that.

Let me ask you, aside from popularity, what makes your arguments here for creationism any different from the arguments of the flat earth society, in terms of evidence and, more importantly, in terms of where those arguments originated from? Why are they called apologetics? What apology could one even demand from a claim that is true, and so evidently true that such smart people as world leaders and doctors hold it?

Could it be because the claim doesn't match reality as we know it, and apologetics really act as a way to dodge around this issue rather than facing it head on?

It's the difference between science's "this theory is wrong, here's what the new information tells us," and religion's "the new information is wrong, because this is how our theory fits into it."

You have stated that your ministry and belief relies wholly on the fact of a/s/k. If your faith is so strong why do you keep avoiding my posts?

How many knocks will it take to equal an ask(with evidence please)?

Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must seek in luke 11.
Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must knock in luke 11.
I have already followed the instructions on asking in luke 11 and no holy spirit.

(September 27, 2013 at 3:31 am)Waratah Wrote: How many knocks will it take to equal an ask(with evidence please)?

Couldn't resist.

(September 27, 2013 at 2:10 am)Esquilax Wrote: Which still doesn't really answer my question: why wouldn't god just bestow souls onto all the evolved humans?

God created Adam potentially millions of years before evolved man came on the scene. Maybe God wanted someone like Adam to share creation with.

Quote:Given the ridiculously small breeding population of ensouled humans in your account, isn't it more than likely that soulless humans are wandering around today, potentially more numerous than ensouled ones? What happens to those guys?

The Flood is the great bottle neck that eliminated all soulless humans. Maybe soulless man was the reason though his capsity of tremoundous wickedness God caused the great flood. No soul/No consciencous.)

Quote:Which is the same source material that young earth creationists use to disagree with you entirely;

Actually they don't. YEC's theology is loosly based on a Catholic dortrine of orginal sin, not the bible itself.

Quote: I'm asking what, in that account, would you use to privilege your claim here above theirs?

I simply Speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where it is silent. Got to remember biblically the only think I am saying is that there is not time line in the bible between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3. Catholic doctrine mandates these events were less than a generation (aprox 30 years apart) Some insist that Genesis 3 happened on day 8 of creation.. Again With no time line All of Evolution can fit, thus answering quite a few other questions in the creation account.

I'm not saying they happened, just that it is now possiable something like that could happen which again answers a lot of questions.

Quote:I'm really more interested in what's actually true, or at least what you think is true, in this case. Do you think this account is the case, or are you just speculating?

Again completely speculating... When people use to ask me what I thought was true about the orgins of the world I would say I know what the bible says, and I know what evolution says (Which is a whole lot more than any of you give me credit for) But I'm not sure what happened. No one does, and it is ok to say I don't know what happened..
Then one day I got tired of not knowing so I prayed about it, and one day while answering one of your/don't remember who exactly questions All of this was just down loaded instantly.. I just started typing and it came so quickly I had to read everything I had written in order to understand it all myself. I was writing and did not even know all that I was saying. After I read it I was like whoa, holy crap where did all of that come from? Then I started to look stuff up. After a week or two I posted it under it's own thread title, and a week later on a Christian site. Then it has been discussed 2 more times in different threads here and at least 2 other times on two other Christian sites. A doctor in theology has looked at it, and there is some research going behind this theory on a high academic level to biblically 'proof'/clean it up. All in all there are over 1500 different posts and or emails concerning this topic, and to date outside of the demand for absolute proof the atheist want, and the charges of undefined heresy from YEC's, this theory has held water and been unchanged or unchallenged in almost a year and 1/2 time.

Quote:Whoa, hold on: you don't know what's written in the bible is true until you can demonstrate it. Working like this is just leading the evidence to your assumed conclusion, which... well, it ain't great.

Do you not remember my whole soapbox on dinosaur fossils? Mainly the stegosaurus? The absolutes you hold to as absolutes are empty shadows. Honestly question and scrutinize what you believe look at all of it like you would look at the bible and you will find yourself in the boat I was in. "I know what the bible says and I know what science says, and I know the truth, but I don't know what happened at the start of time. No one but God can know that.. Then where does that leave you? With what God has endorsed, and a fossile record plus anywhere from 1 to a dozen other possiable theories all designed to explain the fossile record and our orgins.

Quote:Oh, we absolutely could have proof for your claim here, though! Just find where the garden of eden is supposed to be.

It's under the sands of the desert of Iraq The tigres river was one of the orginal rivers that helped define it.

Remember after the Fall God put a angel at it's gate with a flaming sword. that no man may enter it again. That sword is the flaming heat of the desert that now covers what was once the garden. Which also explains the massive oil deposit under the sands of what was once the Garden.

Quote:Given that nothing died there,

Only Adam and Eve were immortal as per the tree of life, what makes you think nothing else died there? Matter of fact I specifically say that Adam and Eve knew what death was, even if the did not know the difference between sin and evil. As Per the warning God gave them not to eat of the tree of knowledge. (He said they would die, if they did not know what death was IE nothing ever died, then what good would God's warning have been?)

Quote: what you're proposing is that there's a place on the earth that's quite large, where the fossil record just stops: nothing dies and nothing evolves, so what you'd find is a point devoid of fossils up until the fall, wherein modern man already existed.

...Kinda like the Oil fields of the Middle east? Which are the largest oil deposits on the planet aside from what some speculate are beneath the ocean's floors. Which also proove that at somepoint in the History of the planet there was a massive organic life there that had been there for millions and millions if not billions of years, which now there is little to no evidence for.

Quote: You find that, and bam: you've got some physical evidence to count toward your idea.

See what happens when you simply tell me what your looking for in the way of 'evidence?' Now if you could just define what 'proof of God' would look like to you then maybe we'll get to have sunday brunch together one day.

---

(September 27, 2013 at 3:31 am)Waratah Wrote: You have stated that your ministry and belief relies wholly on the fact of a/s/k. If your faith is so strong why do you keep avoiding my posts?

How many knocks will it take to equal an ask(with evidence please)?

Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must seek in luke 11.
Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must knock in luke 11.
I have already followed the instructions on asking in luke 11 and no holy spirit.

I have avoided you posts because Not everyone can play on the same level, so as a curtouesy I turned the other cheek, even after I pointed out you have made an assertion that Seek and knock are not apart of the parable Christ Himself explains in Luke 11, when I showed you Jesus clearly mentions it on page. I asked you to either contextually validate your statement or change it to fit everything Christ says in luke 11. Your only response is to pretend that Christ did not say we must Seek and knock, and then pretend that I am hiding from you?!?!

When if fact I have pointed out a fatal flaw in your exegesis of Luke 11. If you will not answer my challenge to you to fix or contextually validate your assertion, then why oh why should I give you any more of my time, other than to point out that you are a fool that doesn't know what he is doing/talking about, or despite the evidence otherwise hope that I don't know what I am doing or talking about. whatever the reason you choose for yourself that still makes you a fool.

If you want to play, then it will be by my rules. My rules dictate that your exegesis/explaination of scripture must account for ALL of what Christ says do in Luke 11 He explains the parable and says we must Ask, Seek, and Knock, not just ask like you said. If you want to continue to cherry pick and ignore what the bible says then I have nothing more to say.

It's as simple as that.

Luke 11:
9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

Do you see it now? Or do you need to me to help you make yourself look more foolish?

---

(September 27, 2013 at 2:59 am)max-greece Wrote:

(September 27, 2013 at 2:48 am)Drich Wrote: So in your opinion High functioning members of society are often associeated with what you have idenitifed as 'delusion?'

Remember I am not the only person in the world to make these claims. Doctors, Lawyers, CEO's of massive companies, World leaders have all made the very same claims for the past 2000 years or so. Are they too delusional?

Your belief is not the issue - its your certainty. No reasonable person can be that certain of something with such insubstantial proof. That you regard the proof as sufficient to justify your certainty is indicative of the level of your delusion.

However, you missed the point. I tried to make it clear - this was not to elicit a response from you, just think about it. You have no need to justify yourself to me or anyone else other than to yourself.

You are free to decide you are right and move on. I just want you to ask the question of yourself.

And no - you are not unique in your delusions.

Maybe you want to think on that alittle bit.

2% of the world does not believe in any kind of God. That means the rest of us are 'delusional.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rel...opulations

You know when a man says or in this case 2% of men say the rest of the world is crazy.. It means the 2% minority has changed the definition of 'crazy' so as to justify their behavior to themselves...

Have you ever read "I am Ledgend?" Not talking about thw will smith movie, I'm talking about reading the book. The movie changed the ending of the Book. In the Book Nevel (W.Smith character) was the last remaining member of what we know to be as humanity, and the monster/zombie/vampires was what Humanity had become. from nevel's perspective the Monster Zomb/vamps took over the world and it was up to him to find a cure so he grabed a few during the day to test on them, and smashed up big nests of them near where he lived.

From the perspective of the Monster/Zomb/Vamps Nevel/Will Was the Monster! Why? Because He came while they slept stole their children, killed entire families, experimented on them and all manner of terriable things... That is what made Him 'ledgend!' He had become the boogyman, but in his mind's eye did not see the transformation, because he was holding onto what he thought was moral and right. All the while humanity had changed.

I say all of that to say that in the sub culture you have surrounded yourself with, the 'norm' is to identify anything and everything that does not fit the sub culture's 'norm' is to be identified as in this case 'delusional.' Which should have you question if 1/3 of those who believe in God represent Christianity, and this third also includes high functioning members of society, than can 'delusion' really be a viable diagnosis?

Or are you as Will Smith/Nevel who lives on the fringes of society striking at trying to establish or maintain what you want 'normal' to be?

(September 27, 2013 at 3:36 am)Drich Wrote: 2% of the world does not believe in any kind of God. That means the rest of us are 'delusional.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rel...opulations

You know when a man says or in this case 2% of men say the rest of the world is crazy.. It means the 2% minority has changed the definition of 'crazy' so as to justify their behavior to themselves...

Why can't you read a table?

From your link:

1.1Billion / 7billion ~ 15% of the world's population.
A bit far from your paltry 2%, wouldn't you say?