Jesus is not coming back. Not the way you may think.

a reply to: Raggedyman

originally posted by: iammrhappy86

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: iammrhappy86
a reply to: chr0naut

I'd say a fitting sentence would be to let the Earth decide for Herself of Man's Fate this time around.

Don't you think?

The Earth is a mechanical and physical system. It has no intellect or cognition of its own. It has no organs from which such capability could arise.

If that were so, then God Himself has no intellect or cognition of his own.
Lest His Son is considered an extension of himself.
As such, why wouldn't the Earth beget a daughter in Whom she can Dwell?

Is it so far fetched to believe it be so?

Does Man know All Things so as to rebuke such things without any doubt?

God is not dependent upon the existence of the physical universe. The physical universe is dependent upon the existence of God, it's Creator and sustainer.

And man does not know all things, but we do know some things.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: chr0naut

The Earth is a mechanical and physical system. It has no intellect or cognition of its own. It has no organs from which such capability could arise.

The earth is a biopshere. Made up of the totally of its parts including you and me. So in this sense it is not a mechanice system.

Just becuase you cannot see something does not make it unreal.

Maybe you should have a look at the connectivity of root systems in old growth forests for example and the mychorizzal networs that run through them. The trees have the ability to communicate across these networks, share medicine and nutrient and that is what we understand sofar. You know plants can fire neurons down their root systems into these networks. Whats going on here atm is anyones guess.

But your Cartesian mechanical view of the world died in Victorian times. You really need to catch up.

The Biosphere is a tiny skin of stuff on the surface of the planet. The interior of the planet is not conducive to life. Outside of the atmosphere, is the hard vacuum of space, also not conducive to life.

Tree roots and fungi do not evidence that they have cognitive capability.

I also never suggested that invisibility = unreality. The truth is, our vision is just one of our sensory organs and reality is not dependent upon our ability to sense it. The corollary is that we cannot state that something exists for a fact, if it is totally undetectable. That would be 'making things up'.

To anthropomorphize things that are not human, as you appear to have done, is also not rationally valid and leads to all sorts of errors (and dangers).

Life forms do evidence cognition but planets, considered in their entirety, are not life forms. Neither are stellar objects. To date, the only planet where we know there is life, is the Earth.

Since the Earth is just like all those other dead planets, and formed in a similar way to the other dead planets, except for the thin skin on the surface, it would be rather foolish to believe that it has the capability to be magically cognizant of itself.

This is compounded by the fact that we know the mechanisms that cognition arises from and the Earth, separate from the stuff on its surface, has none of those mechanisms.

a reply to: chr0naut

The Biosphere is a tiny skin of stuff on the surface of the planet. The interior of the planet is not conducive to life. Outside of the atmosphere, is the hard vacuum of space, also not conducive to life.

You limit youself with your own words.

No the biosphere can be seen as much bigger than that. Certainly I am sure you can understand that we fall within the heliosphere of Sol. That is a much bigger atmosphere. The suns are all connected up with Birkland currents creating a beatiful web of light / energy and probably a lot more. A larger ecological unit again.

If you want to exist in a dead mechanical universe then god for you. Thats your story. I wonder where your mechanical science will leave you when the implications of the observer in the world of quantum mechanics alters the state of reality. Matter is the epiphenomena of consciousness.

Expand your mind..

a reply to: chr0naut

God is not dependent upon the existence of the physical universe.

In most ancient culture God is not there what is worshipped for better words is the meta netu. That Egyptain of Kmt for the spirit that resides in the world.

Its funny we live in a culture where we think we are somehow separate from nature. We have also with this thought line separated ourselves in spirit too.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: iammrhappy86

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: iammrhappy86
a reply to: chr0naut

I'd say a fitting sentence would be to let the Earth decide for Herself of Man's Fate this time around.

Don't you think?

The Earth is a mechanical and physical system. It has no intellect or cognition of its own. It has no organs from which such capability could arise.

If that were so, then God Himself has no intellect or cognition of his own.
Lest His Son is considered an extension of himself.
As such, why wouldn't the Earth beget a daughter in Whom she can Dwell?

Is it so far fetched to believe it be so?

Does Man know All Things so as to rebuke such things without any doubt?

God is not dependent upon the existence of the physical universe. The physical universe is dependent upon the existence of God, it's Creator and sustainer.

And man does not know all things, but we do know some things.

I dareso say that He very much IS dependent upon us All; we are an extension of his Being on his Journey of Self-Discovery.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: chr0naut

The Biosphere is a tiny skin of stuff on the surface of the planet. The interior of the planet is not conducive to life. Outside of the atmosphere, is the hard vacuum of space, also not conducive to life.

You limit youself with your own words.

No the biosphere can be seen as much bigger than that. Certainly I am sure you can understand that we fall within the heliosphere of Sol. That is a much bigger atmosphere. The suns are all connected up with Birkland currents creating a beatiful web of light / energy and probably a lot more. A larger ecological unit again.

So you are suggesting that because there is a tenuous particle and energy flow out of a nuclear fusion device, that it is intelligent? That would be inferring something from almost nothing (quite literally).

If you want to exist in a dead mechanical universe then god for you. Thats your story. I wonder where your mechanical science will leave you when the implications of the observer in the world of quantum mechanics alters the state of reality. Matter is the epiphenomena of consciousness.

Expand your mind..

I said nothing about a "dead mechanical universe". By the same token, I'm not inferring something where it obviously isn't.

It appears that you cannot conceive of God as being anything different or greater than the universe.

Applying a bit of reasoning, if God created the universe, then God could not be caused by it. If the universe caused the existence of God, then God could not have created the universe. So, for God to be truly God, implies that God must be 'other' than a function of the universe, and by rational extension, anything in it.

originally posted by: iammrhappy86

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: iammrhappy86

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: iammrhappy86
a reply to: chr0naut

I'd say a fitting sentence would be to let the Earth decide for Herself of Man's Fate this time around.

Don't you think?

The Earth is a mechanical and physical system. It has no intellect or cognition of its own. It has no organs from which such capability could arise.

If that were so, then God Himself has no intellect or cognition of his own.
Lest His Son is considered an extension of himself.
As such, why wouldn't the Earth beget a daughter in Whom she can Dwell?

Is it so far fetched to believe it be so?

Does Man know All Things so as to rebuke such things without any doubt?

God is not dependent upon the existence of the physical universe. The physical universe is dependent upon the existence of God, it's Creator and sustainer.

And man does not know all things, but we do know some things.

I dareso say that He very much IS dependent upon us All; we are an extension of his Being on his Journey of Self-Discovery.

No, that is an impossibility and an inversion of causality.

God existed when we didn't. God existed when there was no universe. God is not dependent upon us or anything in the universe because God spent an infinity (actually an atemporality) of existence before anything else.

God is the only thing that is truly self-defining. God is the 'I Am' and absolutely everything else flows from there.

Also, God doesn't change, either. God is always the same, even before anything else was. God will always be the same. Atemporality (being outside of, and unconstrained by, time) requires that.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: chr0naut

God is not dependent upon the existence of the physical universe.

In most ancient culture God is not there what is worshipped for better words is the meta netu. That Egyptain of Kmt for the spirit that resides in the world.

Its funny we live in a culture where we think we are somehow separate from nature. We have also with this thought line separated ourselves in spirit too.

Ancient concepts of 'gods' were that they were just a higher order of being. The current monotheistic conception of God is that God is supreme, immortal, omniscient, omnipresent and atemporal. God also created everything else that exists. There is no bigger Kahuna.

God isn't some dog-boy stone statue. He's the real thing. The only one.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: iammrhappy86

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: iammrhappy86

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: iammrhappy86
a reply to: chr0naut

I'd say a fitting sentence would be to let the Earth decide for Herself of Man's Fate this time around.

Don't you think?

The Earth is a mechanical and physical system. It has no intellect or cognition of its own. It has no organs from which such capability could arise.

If that were so, then God Himself has no intellect or cognition of his own.
Lest His Son is considered an extension of himself.
As such, why wouldn't the Earth beget a daughter in Whom she can Dwell?

Is it so far fetched to believe it be so?

Does Man know All Things so as to rebuke such things without any doubt?

God is not dependent upon the existence of the physical universe. The physical universe is dependent upon the existence of God, it's Creator and sustainer.

And man does not know all things, but we do know some things.

I dareso say that He very much IS dependent upon us All; we are an extension of his Being on his Journey of Self-Discovery.

No, that is an impossibility and an inversion of causality.

God existed when we didn't. God existed when there was no universe. God is not dependent upon us or anything in the universe because God spent an infinity (actually an atemporality) of existence before anything else.

God is the only thing that is truly self-defining. God is the 'I Am' and absolutely everything else flows from there.

Also, God doesn't change, either. God is always the same, even before anything else was. God will always be the same. Atemporality (being outside of, and unconstrained by, time) requires that.

To Be Alone in Primordial Times... Must've been lonely.

originally posted by: iammrhappy86

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: iammrhappy86

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: iammrhappy86

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: iammrhappy86
a reply to: chr0naut

I'd say a fitting sentence would be to let the Earth decide for Herself of Man's Fate this time around.

Don't you think?

The Earth is a mechanical and physical system. It has no intellect or cognition of its own. It has no organs from which such capability could arise.

If that were so, then God Himself has no intellect or cognition of his own.
Lest His Son is considered an extension of himself.
As such, why wouldn't the Earth beget a daughter in Whom she can Dwell?

Is it so far fetched to believe it be so?

Does Man know All Things so as to rebuke such things without any doubt?

God is not dependent upon the existence of the physical universe. The physical universe is dependent upon the existence of God, it's Creator and sustainer.

And man does not know all things, but we do know some things.

I dareso say that He very much IS dependent upon us All; we are an extension of his Being on his Journey of Self-Discovery.

No, that is an impossibility and an inversion of causality.

God existed when we didn't. God existed when there was no universe. God is not dependent upon us or anything in the universe because God spent an infinity (actually an atemporality) of existence before anything else.

God is the only thing that is truly self-defining. God is the 'I Am' and absolutely everything else flows from there.

Also, God doesn't change, either. God is always the same, even before anything else was. God will always be the same. Atemporality (being outside of, and unconstrained by, time) requires that.

To Be Alone in Primordial Times... Must've been lonely.

Although God is one entity, there are multiple persons in the Godhead revealed in scripture. God was always and forever in a loving community. No loneliness.

And Primordial times means the 'prime ordinal' (or very first) of time. God must have existed prior to that.

The other thing is that it is likely that the universe itself will cease to exist. That would also leave God 'alone' for the infinities afterward.

Ultimate fate of the universe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, also, if we are "but a dream in the mind of God", then we can't assuage that type of loneliness for God because we don't really exist, except as a thought.

originally posted by: chr0naut
And, also, if we are "but a dream in the mind of God", then we can't assuage that type of loneliness for God because we don't really exist, except as a thought.

And what a thought!
Don't you think?
=P

originally posted by: iammrhappy86

originally posted by: chr0naut
And, also, if we are "but a dream in the mind of God", then we can't assuage that type of loneliness for God because we don't really exist, except as a thought.

And what a thought!
Don't you think?
=P

"What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals. And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? - The Bard.

a reply to: purplemer

I think you spilled your coffee, whatever, believe as you see fit

a reply to: Raggedyman

I did spill my coffee .

Happy days

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, his name won't be Jesus when he comes back for sure. I have only known one guy named Jesus legally, he lived on a houseboat in Sheboygan WI. he liked to go to the bar and have drinks and was a very nice guy, very honest too. I suppose if Jesus comes back he might smoke pot and drink beer like this guy did. After all, in the bible, Jesus says some call him a wine bibber and a glutton.

Well, that was in eighty one and he was older than I was by at least three years so Jesus would be ancient now and probably on Social Security unless someone crucified him or tossed him in prison for smoking pot.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, his name won't be Jesus when he comes back for sure. I have only known one guy named Jesus legally, he lived on a houseboat in Sheboygan WI. he liked to go to the bar and have drinks and was a very nice guy, very honest too. I suppose if Jesus comes back he might smoke pot and drink beer like this guy did. After all, in the bible, Jesus says some call him a wine bibber and a glutton.

Well, that was in eighty one and he was older than I was by at least three years so Jesus would be ancient now and probably on Social Security unless someone crucified him or tossed him in prison for smoking pot.

His name never was Jesus. They changed his name to Jesus way later. The very limited Hebrew sources we have confirm his name was Joshua, like pretty much all sources agree. Specifically Joshua Bin Pantera. However that was way late and the source speaks unflattering of him and his family.

Roman sources are non existent from his time but his apostles were influential in the soon recorded sources verifying the Apostles (their names are all wack too) and that the family in question was Mariam, Yakov, and Joshua (Yoshua).

Yes, it is pretty certain that the king of Kings, our Lord and Savior, is good ol' Josh! I think that's awesome lol

a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

HE Was NOT Joshua Ben Pantera, Pantera probably just roman propaganda and anti Christian lies was the son of a prostitute and a Roman soldier (Ben means son of) and was probably an insult used to smear the Christians - followers of the WAY they were not called Christians at that time and were mostly Jews until later, also his name was Yeshua and God's name is YE-HOVAH not Joshua or Jesus or Jehovah though Jesus and Jehovah are acceptable variants.

Yeshua HaMashiach. (Yeah-Shoo-Ah)

Yeshua the Messiah the Christ.

Here is a video of the EARLIEST and one of the most DENIED church sites in Christianity.

First Century that is the people whom KNEW Jesus, they built two alters one to the father and one to the son.


These Jewish people would NEVER have built an alter to a Roman Soldier and that Satanic Roman Propaganda was only invented over a hundred years or MORE later.

The Pagan Romans persecuted Christians as and Jews, Christians as a Jewish sect and mocked them.
en.wikipedia.org...

The STAR OF DAVID, The tail of the Fish a symbol of Christ AND the Menorah with a triangular base entwined.

So the Star of David may actually be a Christian - Christian Jewish Symbol, how many Jewish people today without knowing are actually descended from those JEWISH CHRISTIANS though there rabbi's rejected the lord for so long as was foretold that they would until his second coming, it is nearly time the angels are already beating there war drum's and the devils are damned to pay for what they have done as are there followers.


Also side not Pantera was a name used by a rock band and also the name of a 1970's sports car and old supercar famous for blowing it's engine which peculiarly was made of CAST IRON.

Other than early Roman anti Christian propaganda it had nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever.

The historian Flavius Joesphus called Jesus "The Egyptian Prophet." I think that's the best starting point if you're going to try to nail down (as it were) exactly who the Gospels were written about... kind of.

a reply to: chiefsmom

It's in the bible, but he didn't come back as an animal LOL

Today's 4 main systems of control of civilization are so corrupted they are beyond reform.
When Jesus returns at the front of his legions of angels he will wipe them out.

1)Political Systems
2)Industrial Commerce
3)False Religious Systems
4)The Military Complex

And we will start over, billions will die trying to protect the current systems by not submitting to the incoming theocracy.
And when it is all over we will have peace with Jesus ruling as King of his new Kingdom, there will be survivors but the percentage will be very low.