Deep thinking

[Waterfall]

Hello everybody

I have some questions for atheist and theist.

Why do atheist put children into the world?

Nobody wants to be born without legs. Nobody wants a terrible disease. Nobody wants to be murdered.

But all these things happens in this world.

If atheist say that there isn't anything after death, then they are undermining there own ability to put children into the world, because there is nobody (intelligent) who wants to be born into that kind of world.

Have atheist thought about that?

I don´t think Christopher Hitchens (R.I.P.) or Richard Dawkins have thought about that...

Now (some) theist also have a problem, because why do they put children into the world, if God is sending them to a eternal hell?

I think the christian worldview is very strange, because if I put 10 children into the world, then God will send 9 of them to a eternal hell.

Very strange and not a good reason for me to put 10 children into the world.

Maybe I only should put one child into the world...but then I won't be doing Gods will...because God needs 10 children...because 9 have to go to a eternal hell...because that is what the good book say...well...what shall I do?

If I only put 1 child into the world then I destroy this book...because this book is based on me putting many children into the world.

Isn't it?

In fact we could blow the world apart today and the book would have failed completely...but why should we blow the world apart...just to prove a point.

That would be insane...but then again...we are going to die anyway...so why not go out whit a big bang...and stop the madness on earth.

Why do we keep on putting children into the world? Don´t we know the price for that action? How many children will suffer? Are we willing to pay the price for a day more on earth? Who are selling life? Who are buying life?

Do you wanner be born into a world where there is no heaven...where there is no place to put your dead parents? Your dead wife/hosbond...Your dead children...Your dead friends...Yourself.

Don´t we have a good reason to talk about a soul?

Maybe people like Putin don´t have a good reason to talk about a soul...maybe a soul is a scaring thought for them...because they have a lot to answar for.

So there are also a good reason not to talk about a soul...

But here we all should remember that God have a great plan for us all.

Maybe Putin haven´t heard about the great plan...justice...compassion...understanding...forgivenes...love...development...reincarnation.

Lets talk about reincarnation...because I don´t think we have got this right...are the soul created? How many souls are there? How many bodies are there? Are there more souls than bodies?

Now we are back to some kind of strange thinking...because every time there is created a body...then a soul have to fall down from heaven...and so we are in control of that fall...because we can stop putting bodies into the world.

Do the soul fall down from heaven or do it chose to come down from heaven or do it start from earth and then is on a road to heaven? Or? Where did Jesus come from? Heaven? Where did Hitler come from? Hell?

A thought on all this helltalk...because if God (the almighty) have empty the hellworld for resident, then why are we still talking about a hell? Maybe there was a hellworld at one point in time? Maybe it is gone now? Maybe Satan have turn around? Maybe Satan is asking for forgivenes? How great is God?

Who created the human body? Why don´t animals have a soul? When did God connect a soul to the human body? And why? What is the good news? That we have got it all roung? What is the real story about life on earth? Where do we come from? Where are we going? What should we tell our children? See you in heaven? Who is writting the story on earth?

Together we can change the world...but how? What are we going to teach our children? Be a good son/daughter? Well...maybe we should be a good father/mother first?

What kind of world are we putting children into?

Lets say I put 3 women and 6 men on the planet...then I have created a problem for them, because what are they going to do? 1 women and 2 men...is that aloud? What shall they do?

Just thinking out loud...

Here at the end of all this thinking I have to say that my english aint to good, so I hope you will bear with me on this.

And merry christmas to you all

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 80 by Waterfall]



[center]Atheism isn't about sex.[/center]

How will atheist survive without having babies...are they gonna steal our babies

Yeah, so true if we don't breed, we might die out.
However, theists sometimes become atheists.

So, there is an endless supply of new "recruits".
I was one of them, once upon a time.

Are you gonna teach your children that life has nothing to do with having babies or sex...are you gonna turn your children into monks?

Why would you think that?

I´m just trying to see what life is about for an atheist...

Well, atheists don't have a manual on how to raise their kids, and as far as I know, there are no "atheist monks" ... but who knows?

The world is a very big place.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 77 by Waterfall]




[center]The psychic says it, so it's true[/center]

Maybe you are reading me wrong?

That's entirely possible.
Sorry if I did.

I think you said that you believe what the psychic says because... "why shouldn't it?"

Why not or why shouldn´t it...is there a difference?

Not very much, no.

If I say I have a million dollars in my pocket, and you ask for evidence, would you be convinced by :


"Why not?"

Or

"Why shouldn't it?"


If you think my bank manager would be much impressed by that kind of reasoning, I suggest you make a plea for me. I could use a million bucks.

But semantically, I don't seem much difference in meaning between "why not" and "why shouldn't it".

Why don´t you ask...that sounds interesting? Lets hear what the book claims about the universe?

Because when I want to learn about astronomy, I don't usually waste my time with psychics.

The central sun is not visible.

Oh, so that's how we know it's there?
By not being able to see it?

Or is it that the psychic can't be wrong?

The point or idea is that everything are in a circuit...with the central sun as it center...the whole universe is circling around this central sun...Gods kingdom/heaven.

Sounds "heavenly".
Now what?

Why should it not be so? That is just a positive attitude in my eyes...

Does that attitude makes me blind?

The universe is as it is...I just point to this idea...maybe the universe looks like that?

How would we know? It is said that one of the 4 mothersuns (the system where we are located), could be observed from earth...but again...how would we know if it is the mothersun?

I don´t know how to verify a universe like that...but maybe an astronomer do? Wouldn´t that be nice?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 82 by Waterfall]




[center]Other than what the psychic said, do you have any reason to believe this hypothesis?[/center]

Why should it not be so? That is just a positive attitude in my eyes...

Does that attitude makes me blind?

Yep.

Your overly "positive" attitude means that you will have a hard time telling the difference between what people can imagine and what is really out there.

Anytime we let our feelings control what we think is true, we open ourselves to being blind to what is actually out there. But, by all means, believe anything that you like.

The universe is as it is...I just point to this idea...maybe the universe looks like that?

Maybe Santa too.

I don´t know how to verify a universe like that...but maybe an astronomer do? Wouldn´t that be nice?

I'll wait for them to find out before I get too excited.

[Divine Insight]

With regard to a list...then it is very short...don´t say no to heaven...

Ok, should I take from your position here that there is absolutely nothing I need to do to say "yes" to heaven beyond not saying "no"?

According to you, your list is very short. Just don't say no to heaven.

Fine, then can you explain to me what I would need to do to say "no" to heaven?

This is extremely important because as far as I am aware I have not said "no" to heaven. In fact, I have no way of even knowing if a heaven exists. How can I possibly have said "no" to something I'm not even aware exists?

You'll need to be more specific. Because if simply not saying "no" to heaven means that I have automatically said "yes", then as far as I can see I've already said "yes" by not saying "no". (according to your criteria offered thus far).

You haven't even listed a "Belief in Heaven" as being required to say yes or no.

So I'm still in limbo here. According to what you've offered thus far I must be saying "Yes" to heaven simply because I'm not saying "No". Because according to you not saying no is sufficient for an automatic "Yes'.

So according to your criteria I'm currently saying "Yes" to heaven even though I have no reason to believe that it exists, simply because I haven't said "No".

So according to your criteria my destiny to heaven is already established simply because I have not said "No" to heaven.

Is this correct

I'm just trying to understand your theology.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 82 by Waterfall]




[center]Other than what the psychic said, do you have any reason to believe this hypothesis?[/center]

Why should it not be so? That is just a positive attitude in my eyes...

Does that attitude makes me blind?

Yep.

Your overly "positive" attitude means that you will have a hard time telling the difference between what people can imagine and what is really out there.

Anytime we let our feelings control what we think is true, we open ourselves to being blind to what is actually out there. But, by all means, believe anything that you like.

The universe is as it is...I just point to this idea...maybe the universe looks like that?

Maybe Santa too.

I don´t know how to verify a universe like that...but maybe an astronomer do? Wouldn´t that be nice?

I'll wait for them to find out before I get too excited.

Are you saying this idea has been investigated? Or is known by them? They are talking about a big bang, so...

In the visuel model below I don´t see any expansion...

http://vandrermotlyset.net/Om%20univers ... l%204.html

If this model is true...are they then looking at things the wrong way? Missing the big picture?

[Divine Insight]

By the way Waterfall, the book you keep pointing to was written at least some time after 1908. Yet it claims to be revealing the true teaching of Jesus why it claim have been distorted for centuries.

In 1908 a medium was contacted by intelligences from the spiritual world. The reason was that the transcendental world wished to make humanity acquainted with some facts regarding their origin, their relation to God and the battle between Light and Darkness - good and evil. The wish was also to inform about the true teachings of Christ freed from centuries of additions and distortions, as well as making known some of the divine laws which apply to all living beings in the universe.

So in order to believe what this book claims we must also believe that both God and Jesus are extremely inept in getting their message across to humanity. The original God evidently failed miserably during the time of the Old Testament. And Jesus evidently failed miserably almost instantaneously. Even before the Gospel rumors about him were even written. Because according to the book you keep pointing to the Gospel rumors themselves have been ineffective and distorted for at least centuries.

What happens to all those people who were given misinformation for centuries? And how could God and Jesus have been such ineffective klutzes?

Not only that, but if the distortion of these divine messages is so immediate after the message has been revealed then it's been over a century since this medium had been given his or her revelation.

Given the extreme incompetence of this God to keep his messages in tact for even a decade, why should anyone trust a message that is already over a century old?

According to this book you have pointed to you can't trust this God to do anything right or keep anything in order including his own messages to mankind.

In fact, if this book you are pointing to came from God he hasn't even been effective in making it well-known to the masses. My "Christians" are still relying on the distorted message of the Gospel rumors of Christ.

Most people never even heard of this book you're pointing to. I certainly never heard of it until you brought it up in this thread. Why is God so ineffective in getting his messages out to the masses in a timely manner? Especially if they are even the least bit important to know? And if they aren't important to know then why does even both with them at all?

Seriously, these are all quite valid questions don't you think?

I'm not asking these questions to give you a hard time. I'm asking them because they are valid questions to ask. Why should anyone think that a supposedly omnipotent God is so inept at communicating with the objects of his own creation. Especially if these communications are important?

The Catholic Church has set up a system that would have been perfect for any truly omnipotent God to clearly communicate with mankind. The Catholic Church assigned as single human being to be the official spokesperson for God (i.e. the Catholic Pope). All God would have had to do is actually SPEAK to the Popes and tell them what he wants them to do and say.

If that would have happened then all Popes would be in perfect agreement with each other, they would have known with divine omniscience when there were corrupt priests in the church and they could have had them expelled. The Catholic Church could have been kept divinely pristine from its very conception.

Clearly that hasn't happened. And this brings into question the very notion that some omnipotent God has any interest in communicating with mankind. If such a God wanted to do that he missed the greatest opportunity humans have ever offered him by constructing the Catholic Papacy.

It certainly wouldn't be the fault of the Catholic Church that God refuses to commune with their Popes. Also God could not even argue that they didn't at least TRY! Humans clearly did their part by constructing the Catholic Papacy. If God refused to use the Papacy then God is the one who rejected humans, not the other way around.

There are just countless problems with the idea that there exists an omnipotent God "out there somewhere" who is TRYING HARD to communicate with humans but FAILING MISERABLY every time he tries.

That's an oxymoron.

The book you are pointing to would be a pathetically feeble attempt to commune effectively with humans. Think about it.

[Waterfall]

With regard to a list...then it is very short...don´t say no to heaven...

Ok, should I take from your position here that there is absolutely nothing I need to do to say "yes" to heaven beyond not saying "no"?

According to you, your list is very short. Just don't say no to heaven.

Fine, then can you explain to me what I would need to do to say "no" to heaven?

This is extremely important because as far as I am aware I have not said "no" to heaven. In fact, I have no way of even knowing if a heaven exists. How can I possibly have said "no" to something I'm not even aware exists?

You'll need to be more specific. Because if simply not saying "no" to heaven means that I have automatically said "yes", then as far as I can see I've already said "yes" by not saying "no". (according to your criteria offered thus far).

You haven't even listed a "Belief in Heaven" as being required to say yes or no.

So I'm still in limbo here. According to what you've offered thus far I must be saying "Yes" to heaven simply because I'm not saying "No". Because according to you not saying no is sufficient for an automatic "Yes'.

So according to your criteria I'm currently saying "Yes" to heaven even though I have no reason to believe that it exists, simply because I haven't said "No".

So according to your criteria my destiny to heaven is already established simply because I have not said "No" to heaven.

Is this correct

I'm just trying to understand your theology.

Lets say we are in heaven and we leave heaven...go down to earth...then we are on our way back to heaven...we are on a journey to heaven...now...if there are many heavens...before we get to heaven...and if we have to develop our spirit through reincarnation...then you can say...the journey to heaven is to hard...you can say...no more incarnations...annihilate me...you can say no to heaven...its not worse the trouble...

My child can´t say why I have put her into the world...that is not for her to say...but I know why...and I know that she can leave the home...go out in the world...get lost in the world...be stock in a place...that she can change...that she can forget...and all that...

If I then send her a letter...don´t do those things...come home...then she can say no or yes...but someday she will return...when all her friends has said yes...what should she else do...be there by herself...alone.

I think the story in the bible about the lost son is better, so...

But that is my understanding.

So we can say that everybody has said yes to heaven...if things are like that...nobody are forced to continue there journey to heaven...and the better we make life here on earth...the easier it becomes for everybody to say yes...

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 85 by Waterfall]



[center]
Other than what the psychic said, do you have any reason to believe this hypothesis?
Part Two: Astronomers don't use psychics.[/center]

Are you saying this idea has been investigated? Or is known by them? They are talking about a big bang, so...

I don't think that astronomers get their ideas from psychics.

[Divine Insight]

Lets say we are in heaven and we leave heaven...go down to earth...then we are on our way back to heaven...we are on a journey to heaven...now...if there are many heavens...before we get to heaven...and if we have to develop our spirit through reincarnation...then you can say...the journey to heaven is to hard...you can say...no more incarnations...annihilate me...you can say no to heaven...its not worse the trouble...

My child can´t say why I have put her into the world...that is not for her to say...but I know why...and I know that she can leave the home...go out in the world...get lost in the world...be stock in a place...that she can change...that she can forget...and all that...

If I then send her a letter...don´t do those things...come home...then she can say no or yes...but someday she will return...when all her friends has said yes...what should she else do...be there by herself...alone.

I think the story in the bible about the lost son is better, so...

But that is my understanding.

So we can say that everybody has said yes to heaven...if things are like that...nobody are forced to continue there journey to heaven...and the better we make life here on earth...the easier it becomes for everybody to say yes...

It seems to me then, that according to what you've just described, the ONLY people who are saying "no" to heaven are those who commit suicide. Everyone else is evidently saying "yes".

Is this correct?

Since I haven't committed suicide I must be saying "yes" to heaven.

And apparently I have already said "no" on behave of the many children I have "murdered" before they were ever born by choosing not to procreate.

[Waterfall]

By the way Waterfall, the book you keep pointing to was written at least some time after 1908. Yet it claims to be revealing the true teaching of Jesus why it claim have been distorted for centuries.

In 1908 a medium was contacted by intelligences from the spiritual world. The reason was that the transcendental world wished to make humanity acquainted with some facts regarding their origin, their relation to God and the battle between Light and Darkness - good and evil. The wish was also to inform about the true teachings of Christ freed from centuries of additions and distortions, as well as making known some of the divine laws which apply to all living beings in the universe.

So in order to believe what this book claims we must also believe that both God and Jesus are extremely inept in getting their message across to humanity. The original God evidently failed miserably during the time of the Old Testament. And Jesus evidently failed miserably almost instantaneously. Even before the Gospel rumors about him were even written. Because according to the book you keep pointing to the Gospel rumors themselves have been ineffective and distorted for at least centuries.

What happens to all those people who were given misinformation for centuries? And how could God and Jesus have been such ineffective klutzes?

Not only that, but if the distortion of these divine messages is so immediate after the message has been revealed then it's been over a century since this medium had been given his or her revelation.

Given the extreme incompetence of this God to keep his messages in tact for even a decade, why should anyone trust a message that is already over a century old?

According to this book you have pointed to you can't trust this God to do anything right or keep anything in order including his own messages to mankind.

In fact, if this book you are pointing to came from God he hasn't even been effective in making it well-known to the masses. My "Christians" are still relying on the distorted message of the Gospel rumors of Christ.

Most people never even heard of this book you're pointing to. I certainly never heard of it until you brought it up in this thread. Why is God so ineffective in getting his messages out to the masses in a timely manner? Especially if they are even the least bit important to know? And if they aren't important to know then why does even both with them at all?

Seriously, these are all quite valid questions don't you think?

I'm not asking these questions to give you a hard time. I'm asking them because they are valid questions to ask. Why should anyone think that a supposedly omnipotent God is so inept at communicating with the objects of his own creation. Especially if these communications are important?

The Catholic Church has set up a system that would have been perfect for any truly omnipotent God to clearly communicate with mankind. The Catholic Church assigned as single human being to be the official spokesperson for God (i.e. the Catholic Pope). All God would have had to do is actually SPEAK to the Popes and tell them what he wants them to do and say.

If that would have happened then all Popes would be in perfect agreement with each other, they would have known with divine omniscience when there were corrupt priests in the church and they could have had them expelled. The Catholic Church could have been kept divinely pristine from its very conception.

Clearly that hasn't happened. And this brings into question the very notion that some omnipotent God has any interest in communicating with mankind. If such a God wanted to do that he missed the greatest opportunity humans have ever offered him by constructing the Catholic Papacy.

It certainly wouldn't be the fault of the Catholic Church that God refuses to commune with their Popes. Also God could not even argue that they didn't at least TRY! Humans clearly did their part by constructing the Catholic Papacy. If God refused to use the Papacy then God is the one who rejected humans, not the other way around.

There are just countless problems with the idea that there exists an omnipotent God "out there somewhere" who is TRYING HARD to communicate with humans but FAILING MISERABLY every time he tries.

That's an oxymoron.

The book you are pointing to would be a pathetically feeble attempt to commune effectively with humans. Think about it.

You would have to read the (whole) book to understand it. In this book it is told that the devil has been the main reason for all our problems. Can God prevent you from lying? Or making up stories? You are free to do what you want...to understand things as you want.

Take this...

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-a28.htm

I will highlight this...

But when they were come unto the place they rolled away the stone and they laid upon the ground the white linen which had been spread upon the body of Jesus. Then they bore his body unto a distant corner of the garden and buried it in the earth. And they covered the place with branches, that none should see what they had done.
When they had accomplished this the dawn began to break, and they hastened back unto the tomb so as to return the stone to its place before the entrance.
But when they reached the place, Joseph heard a faint and distantvoice that said: "Brother, why did you this?" And when he turned he saw the insubstantial form of the radiant figure of Jesus. And in great fear he fell unto the ground.
But when the old servant hastened to help his master, behold, he stood before the man whose body he had lately buried in the earth. And great fear and terror came upon him, and he fled from the garden.
When Joseph awoke to his senses the vision was gone, and he was alone. But he heard a distant voice which said: "Return the body of Jesus unto the place whence you took it; for should you not do this, then will your evil act bring much confusion upon mankind."
But the Elder, the Servant of Darkness, stood at his side. And Darkness descended upon Joseph, while his heart was filled with fear, so that he dared not go back unto that place where he had laid the body of Jesus.
And he fled out of the garden unto his house.

Should our actions not have consequences?

Who are to blame?

Or what about this...

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-a29.htm

I will highlight this...

And in the following days Jesus was seen in diverse places by many; some saw him on the roads near Jerusalem, others saw him on the Mount of Olives, where he was wont to linger; some saw him at Bethesda, yea, he was even seen by the Sea of Galilee, and many had heard him speak.
But it was the same with these visions as with the visions of the angels that the women had seen at the tomb. Many false words were spoken of the resurrection of Jesus, for only few are entirely truthful.

And this...

The many reports of the Nazarene also reached Joseph of Arimathea.
And again the distant voice sounded unto him. And it spoke: "Go unto the Council and tell of that which you did; for you know that the spirit of Jesus lives; for you know that his body is dead, and you know where it is to be found."
But Joseph dared not reveal his evil deed, for he feared to lose his dignity, feared to lose his esteem.
And he remained silent.
Thus was it on account of the doubter and murderer Joseph of Arimathea that the false belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth spread abroad among the people.

What are God to do?

Would you like a world where God interven all the time...ding dong...you have just had a bad tought...ding dong...another bad tought...ding dong...why do you wanner kill your wife...ding dong...lets have a talk about life...ding dong...don´t you know what this will cost you...ding dong...what do the Bible say? Or the Qur'an?

Will we ever learn something if God interven all the time?

With regard to why this book is not more widespread...then I can tell you that the danish church got this book back when it was released in 1920 ( I think it was 70 people of the church who got it), but the church didn´t do anything...not a word from them...or there was a pastor who was interested...he ask a lot of questions...and gave away some copies of the book to a few people he thought could have joy of reading it...but nothing was said from the church side...just silence...

And we know what happent thereafter...2 worldwar...maybe this book could have prevented that...

Let me point to this again...

http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-o17.htm

And highlight this...

All warfare is against God's Will and is in conflict with the laws of the Light, and it benefits neither one nor the other warring nation to call upon God's assistance as supreme war lord; any supplication to God to bless the armaments or to bless the armies, so that under His leadership they may gain victory over their opponents, is therefore a blasphemous prayer.
Any conception of God as war lord or war leader must be rooted out, since all bloodshed, all destruction, all subversion is completely irreconcilable with the nature of God. Again and again God has sought to lead human beings to a complete understanding of love for their neighbours and respect for all that belongs to them. Time and again ever since the dawn of history God's emissaries have proclaimed to human beings: "You shall not kill, nor take by force, nor rob, nor plunder!" But so far the appeal has been in vain, human beings have not yet been able to free themselves from the primal urge of brutish self-assertion through violence to the detriment of their fellow human beings. So long as the individual members of the nations of the world do not unite and strive toward mutual peace and forbearance, so long as human beings cannot with complete faith in God's Fatherliness and Justice place everything in His hand and with trust submit to His leadership, so long as the will of the many is not one with His Will, so long can bloodshed, violence and war not cease, and so long can the hope for peace not be victorious on Earth.
Human beings must overcome the influence of Darkness, overcome hatred, curses, envy and lust for power through belief in God's existence and by trusting His guidance, rather than through prayers for help to crush their enemies and opponents by acts of violence for God never hears and never answers such prayers.
If it could be conceived that an entire people were united in complete trust in God and in the absolute certitude that no evil arising from ambitious, envious or rapacious neighbours could befall them, then even the most evil of designs would fall to the ground, since it would be lost on so unanimous and complete a faith. But where can such a people be found? Humanity is still in its infancy, and centuries or millennia may pass before full understanding of such an unshakeable relationship of trust between God and human beings can be attained.

Has God done nothing? There was a lot of bad people incarnated at that time...