The Deist concept of God and Creation

Originally Posted by BoyntonStu

Do you include the possibility that "reincarnation" is an undefined expression based on word creation and not on factual data?


BoyntonStu

If you would like to see my signature that the SJ censors deleted, email me privately.

The more I study the origin of words the better I understand why people believe in strange things.

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by PJT04

The more I study the origin of words the better I understand why people believe in strange things.

BRAVO! BRAVO! That is my major Philosophy.

Run, don't walk, and buy Stuart Chase, The Tyranny of Words, 1936, available used on the net for about 15 bucks.

I guarantee that his book can change your life.


Words that people accept are what their reality is all about.

Notice how 'experts' invent words to disconnect themselves from ordinary folks and to keep them feeling uneducated and off balance?

Can you say, "Transubstantiation"?

How about "Resurrection"?

Or, even simpler, "God"?


Other than putting letters together to form words, what do we have besides the words themselves? Just, blah, blah, and blah a word just as sensible as the original. Do you believe in Blah? (Read Stuart Chase, substituting blah is his idea)


BoyntonStu

Why does SJ delete my signature questions? PM me to learn.

Originally Posted by BoyntonStu

Do you include the possibility that "reincarnation" is an undefined expression based on word creation and not on factual data?

I have found a certain amount of rather convincing factual data regarding reincarnation - Dr. Ian Stevenson, for one, has compiled a great many case histories over several decades:

http://www.childpastlives.org/stevenson.htm
By collecting thousands of cases of children who spontaneously (without hypnosis) remember a past life, Dr. Ian Stevenson offers convincing scientific evidence, if not proof, for reincarnation.

In each case of children’s past life memory, Dr. Stevenson methodically documents the child's statements. Then he identifies the deceased person the child remembers being, and verifies the facts of the deceased person's life that match the child's memory. He even matches birthmarks and birth defects to wounds and scars on the deceased, verified by medical records. His strict methods systematically rule out all possible "normal" explanations for the child’s memories.

Dr. Stevenson has devoted the last forty years to the scientific documentation of past life memories of children from all over the world. He has over 3000 cases in his files. Many people, including skeptics and scholars, agree that these cases offer the best evidence yet for reincarnation.

The Afterlife Experiments, by Dr. Gary Weiss is also an excellent book. Weiss did his best to conduct controlled experiments using self-proclaimed psychics like John Edward and George Anderson, and the results were startling.

Purely scientific proof for reincarnation does not really exist because this concept is nearly impossible to prove using the scientific method. I can't think of any controlled experiment that would conclusively and repeatedly prove or disprove reincarnation other than an interview process with those who claim to recall past lives, and that has already been done. Several well documented cases do exist. One either believes these people and the supporting data or not. Had I not had psychic experiences myself, I probably wouldn't believe their accounts either. Because of my own experiences, I believe that a realm of consciousness does exist beyond our individual physical forms and biological existence.

http://www.oberf.org/ (Out of Body Experience Research Foundation)

Webster's New World Dictionary defines INCARNATE as "in human form" ... but I recall "carne" as the latin word meaning "flesh" or "meat" (the root word of carnivore) - so, to be "incarnate" should mean to be "in the flesh" - which is exactly what I meant when using the word 'reincarnation' - I meant to "be in the flesh" another time, or to be in the flesh again because of the prefix "re".

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Heidi Guedel

PJT04 wrote (concerning his post immediately above):


Actually, I believe it's SO relevant that they don't want to address it! What can they say???



and take a look at this, too...

http://www.deism.org/frames.htm

--
Well, as my title above says, I do think that it takes time for one pondering to come to an intimate knowledge of the revealed truth: it *IS* seed, and seed has to germinate, take root, break the surface and then seek the sun.

I too am in the process of adjusting my thinking of what I was taught and learned in my younger days. it takes time.

History, as we are all aware, is subject to revisionism; no longer is the history written only by the victor, but also by the Incrementalist who is focused on a victory that is far in the future, perhaps past their lifetime.

They had a vision and we, the body of christ, missed it totally to do what Abba told us to do.

They have almost succeeded and just now (since the 1990s) are we being to respond and answer and say, "NO, we're not going that way!"


And I note with some amazement that some of the plans of Incrementalists have been going on for centuries and those who learned of it refused to believe. wow!

Self-deceit is the most dangerous of sins.

[ntellect]

To Stu and PJT04:

I don't believe I attempted to "mix" science and religion or for that matter mixing words. Well, at least that wasn't my intentions. So if somehow my words insinuated that, my bad. If you have read my other post in this forum, you would know that I clearly understand that science and religion are two distinctly separate entities. I do think that they both are "attempting" to tell a "similar" story, which is creation but obviously they both use different methods.

As far as words go, well when man mixes other languages to get one language, mistranslates and misinterprets other languages and scriptures, then don't forget to throw in man's lies, beliefs and ego, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why there is so much confusion.

One last note to Stu. I'll have to find the "concrete" proof for you but I thought "generally speaking", science taught that all life not only produces energy but is energy itself. Kind of the same thing religion says about the soul. I guess that's why I believe it's called an EKG can detect energy/electricity being produced in the body but obviously that's science.

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by ntellect

To Stu and PJT04:



One last note to Stu. I'll have to find the "concrete" proof for you but I thought "generally speaking", science taught that all life not only produces energy but is energy itself. Kind of the same thing religion says about the soul. I guess that's why I believe it's called an EKG can detect energy/electricity being produced in the body but obviously that's science.

"Generally speaking" is like "common sense", and it is usually incorrect.

I prefer to study for "uncommon sense" because I have found that the 'many' are not as informed as the 'few'.


Example: Pennsylvania "Dutch". Ever hear that term?

Generally speaking, from which European country did the Pennsylvania Dutch folks come from? Hint: The many are wrong!

stU

[ntellect]

Originally Posted by BoyntonStu

"Generally speaking" is like "common sense", and it is usually incorrect.

I prefer to study for "uncommon sense" because I have found that the 'many' are not as informed as the 'few'.


Example: Pennsylvania "Dutch". Ever hear that term?

Generally speaking, from which European country did the Pennsylvania Dutch folks come from? Hint: The many are wrong!

stU

It seems everything is a judgment with some. Isn't "generally speaking" or "common sense" something that might possibly vary from person to person? What you deem as common sense for you might not be the same for me or the next person. So does that make anyone wrong in that respect?

[BoyntonStu]

Originally Posted by ntellect

It seems everything is a judgment with some. Isn't "generally speaking" or "common sense" something that might possibly vary from person to person? What you deem as common sense for you might not be the same for me or the next person. So does that make anyone wrong in that respect?

I agree. Why then did you choose to use the term in your argument supporting your belief?


stU

[ntellect]

Originally Posted by BoyntonStu

I agree. Why then did you choose to use the term in your argument supporting your belief?


stU

Hey, I think we agree that everything is confusing enough as it is. With that being said, I confuse myself over all the confusion all the time. LOL

Originally Posted by ntellect

To Stu and PJT04:
I do think that they both are "attempting" to tell a "similar" story, which is creation but obviously they both use different methods.

You seem to "believe" in creation and you think the scientific method is trying to explain it like religions do.
If you really understood what science was all about you would know that it only attempts to explain the physical world. There's no assumption of creation or a creator until enough facts are found.