It starts off with two people. All the others are at the very least forbidden to procreate and will eventually die out. Agree ? Now, those two people have 12 children each month for at least.. lets say 15 years. At that point their oldest kids join in by having children with their siblings and/or their parents. Etc. Do you see any problems with the above ? Edit: the original two are not even alive after the 1000 years has gone by so the number can never be correct. Plus we have heavy HEAVY inbreeding on our hands.
No Lori, that is all religion. Christ born without sin Eternal life in the kingdom of christ. C'mon, give me a break. To say that is not religion and that your not religious is just plain dishonest.
the impression i get is that the trees are women and the fathers are 12 kings who will have 12,000 descendents each. and these humans will be immortal. this is some speculation on my part. this might not be a biological process at all, it might be metaphorical for something i have no comprehension of today.
listen j, you don't have to believe me, but i had no conception of this from a book or a preacher. i've come to understand this (somewhat) because of an experience that was spiritual in nature, and an experience and interpretation of such, that most people who are religious would want to burn me at the stake for. you'll see that when i tell you about the revelation.
Good, because I was getting worried there for a moment that it wouldn't have anything to do with the bible. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
if i'm not mistaken, i think what worries you is that it does. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, it's just that you claim god is interpreting scripture for you and I want to make sure the revelation is an interpretation of scripture. You know so we can look at it and compare notes.
Claims, particularly unreasonable claims, are not accepted without reason. Without sharing her evidence it must be assumed she is mistaken. Which is, in and of itself a problem. I don't think any atheist would be bothered by it just beign perspective. Buddhism is at its heart just a practice, a way of living. While people sometimes pile metaphysical claims on it, it doesn't actually have or need any particualar stance about such things as "gods." Xtianity is making claims about how reality is and naturally people concerned about how things are and truth expect such claims to be verifiable and when they aren't, there is disagreement with just accepting them out of hand. This is fundimentally different from buddhism which says things like, if you sit on your ass and learn to quite your thoughts you will have a quite mind.
I agree, but in this case the claim of evidence is that it is the experience. We don't have to believe her because the experience may not be acceptable evidence to us. But that doesn't mean that she is mistaken. I am sure that what she experienced was not god, but she apparently is not. Yep, that is where the rub is for me.
Why ? You mean as opposed to subjective truth ? Subjective truth is a misnomer and I use 'objective' to set it apart from that. The way you wrote it it looks like you want to include subjective and objective truth all in one. Let me rephrase: Truth can only be objective.
So he screwwed up royal the first time and we should let him try again? All Praise The Ancient of Daze
ok Ah, so that sentence has wrong in it. Ever xtian thinks they are the persecuted prophet.. No, you are just a loon. All Praise The Ancient Of Daze
the number 144,000 is gross, or the idea of 2 women having 12 babies a month between the 2 of them for 1000 years? that is a lot of amniotic fluid and umbilical chords. ew.
