/me is still grinning like an idiot.

Reincarnation



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Well I can explain the whole God knowing the multuiple paths you may take thing(although I don't think God would choose to know - I can still validate). Its still all math.

consider this
X > (Y * Z) > (Z * Z)

We can conclude that Y is greater than Z yet less than X. That gives us an effective range aka the possible paths you may take.

Lets make Z = 12

X > (Y * 12) > (12 * 12)
X > (Y * 12) > 144

Now lets make X = 3(X * X)

3(X * X) > (Y * 12) > 144
3(12 *12) > (Y * 12) > 144
432 > Y * 12 > 144
36 > Y > 12

We know that Y is greater than 12 but less than 36. We know all possibilities. You can CHOOSE anything greater than 12 but less than 36. Lets way for arguement that Y is our "free will" aka all possible choices. Notice that if I changed the value(or possible values ) of Y or Z then I change the possible values of Y. You could say that X and Z are both independent free will vaiables of other people. Therefore what you choose with your free will affects what others even CAN choose with theirs.

Now since you know what Y can be, have you negated the choice in Y?

As for asking why God would "create paths to hell," (if there is a hell - who knows?) - who said God created those paths?! You and me, we created those paths. We create our own path and shape the paths of others. That is the whole point. THAT IS FREE WILL.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Jackalope wrote:Nat, The basics of reincarnation are that all souls are recycled and we've been here before.

i know the basics and a great deal in depth how it is supposed to work.

im just saying that its hard for me to fully realize-accept that this happens, the same way i cant fully realize that there IS a God or not.





:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

Quote:

Now lets make X = 3(X * X)

3(X * X) > (Y * 12) > 144
3(12 *12) > (Y * 12) > 144

There is a flaw in your math, sir. In the 3(x^2) where did x=12? No where in your original variable assignment did you mention x=12.

Now going back to your original formula:

X > (Y * Z) > (Z * Z)

Let x=1 and continue to use your z=12...

1 > 12Y > 144 = FALSE

Kardain wrote:

Quote:

Now lets make X = 3(X * X)

3(X * X) > (Y * 12) > 144
3(12 *12) > (Y * 12) > 144

There is a flaw in your math, sir. In the 3(x^2) where did x=12? No where in your original variable assignment did you mention x=12.

Now going back to your original formula:

X > (Y * Z) > (Z * Z)

Let x=1 and continue to use your z=12...

1 > 12Y > 144 = FALSE

Well I did make a stupid error(maybe I should have proofread ), but not the one you pointed out. I did not assign X=12. I did assign Z=12. However, I later assigned x = 3(X * X) which was an oops. I meant x = 3(Z * Z). My bad. Now that works out better.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

BK3K I think 2+3=cat is still the best fomula to use.

As for reincarnation? ( shrug ) Dunno but its still cool to look into. As are the different books that were left out of the bible.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Just be careful. Remember that the books that were left out, were left out for a reason. IE: the Gospel of Thomas has obvious edits and tampering done to it. If you know something about linguistics you should be able to catch the fake parts.

PAX

Hahahaha wrote:Just be careful. Remember that the books that were left out, were left out for a reason. IE: the Gospel of Thomas has obvious edits and tampering done to it. If you know something about linguistics you should be able to catch the fake parts.

PAX

actually that is incorrect.

in many cases things get left out because of logistics. meaning not all the books were able to equally spread over the land. so some were more dominant than others. along with severe christian pursecution and christian text being destroyed any chance possible etc...


u have NO way of know what is real and fake.

and the majority of the book of thomas has more credibility than the tons of portions of the bible written WAAAAAY after the time of christ.





:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

a majority of the New Testament was written well after the death of Christ. if I remember correctly, 13 books were "left out" of the New Testament, including the only book written by a woman, Ruth.
it's a lot of stories, fables, and heresay. not first hand knowledge. proving anything in the New Testament is extremely difficult, because there's just not enough rock-solid evidence to support it as a whole. there's bits and pieces, but not enough to paint a solid picture.


Desert Tuners

“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”

I beg to differ. The books of the new testament were written after the crusifixion of Christ yes, but they are said to have been completed by 100AD, the bulk by 70AD.

You can definately tell were there are changes in the text, you have to know what to look for. It's subtle, but each author has their own style and you can tell when the style changes. A good look at style would be to compair the new testament books, each is distinct. When you can see the changes there, go on and read the non-cannon books. For example, if you read the book of Matthew you will see that he had a Jewish upbringing, it is obvious in his writing style and the text itself. He includes the bloodline of Mary in his writings. Only a Jewish author would do that as the female bloodline is important in Jewish custom, but was not in the gentiles custom at the time. Luke does not bother with the Jewish customs in his book.

Those are just examples but it'll give you the idea.

It's like reading Tolkien's "Book of Lost Tales", about 2/3s of the way through, the book changes in style and you can tell. It's because his son Chris finished the book after JRR had died.

PAX

Z24 FReQ (Jarett) wrote:a majority of the New Testament was written well after the death of Christ. if I remember correctly, 13 books were "left out" of the New Testament, including the only book written by a woman, Ruth.
it's a lot of stories, fables, and heresay. not first hand knowledge. proving anything in the New Testament is extremely difficult, because there's just not enough rock-solid evidence to support it as a whole. there's bits and pieces, but not enough to paint a solid picture.

The book of Mary.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Hahahaha wrote:I beg to differ. The books of the new testament were written after the crusifixion of Christ yes, but they are said to have been completed by 100AD, the bulk by 70AD.

You can definately tell were there are changes in the text, you have to know what to look for. It's subtle, but each author has their own style and you can tell when the style changes. A good look at style would be to compair the new testament books, each is distinct. When you can see the changes there, go on and read the non-cannon books. For example, if you read the book of Matthew you will see that he had a Jewish upbringing, it is obvious in his writing style and the text itself. He includes the bloodline of Mary in his writings. Only a Jewish author would do that as the female bloodline is important in Jewish custom, but was not in the gentiles custom at the time. Luke does not bother with the Jewish customs in his book.

Those are just examples but it'll give you the idea.

It's like reading Tolkien's "Book of Lost Tales", about 2/3s of the way through, the book changes in style and you can tell. It's because his son Chris finished the book after JRR had died.

PAX

i disagree

first of all there is talk and reason to question all the authors. firstly that is was EXTREMELY common for writers of this time to use fake names because of severe christian persacution. so mathew mark luke and john could be 1 or maybe 2 people using different names. you just dont know.

then the way word was spread was through copies of these writings. the people who made copies of these writings often times did could not read or write. so all they were doing was copying the way a symbol looked basically. then also you have things written into the margins as people are copying. then when it gets to the next person that person thinks the stuff in the margin was supposed to be in the main text and it gets assimilated.

then you have to take into consideration that there are no documents of non-jesus followers that document his "miracles" - that i know of


also while saying the new testament books were completed by 75-100 ad doesnt seem to far from christ. however it is VERY long.

if you consider then, the average lifespan was at most 30 or so that means the books were completed by people who are 3+ generations removed from the actual teaching and events of christ.

could i accurately write volumes of books about my great great great grandfather by listening to "tales" that have been passed down for at least 3+ generations of children? yes i could. would it be anywhere near accurate as to who my great great great grandfather was? probably not, and the stories would im SURE only be good perfect ones. and since he is my great great grandfather i would be compelled while im writing these novels to leave out any details that were not flattering to him or maybe add in some that would seem characteristic of who i believe he was.







:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

Quote:

then you have to take into consideration that there are no documents of non-jesus followers that document his "miracles" - that i know of

Well anyone who would be qualified to document his miracles who have had to have been there. Now don't you think that anyone who would have witnessed one of his miracles would be (from there on out) one of his followers? Kinda hard then for "non-Jesus followers" to document his miracles, huh?




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

There is the pagan Roman author (historian) Josephus who documented many of the events surrounding Jesus' time in Jerusalem.

It is known that many of the books were written by people close to the appostles and not the men themselves. They were very old at the time of the writing, but not dead. Matthew did write his own book, but it is though that there were something like 30 authors of the new testatment, 3 are thought to have been women.

The thing is the apostles had backgrounds and the writings align to those backgrounds. IE: the very Jewish style of matthew fits his Jewish heritage, same goes for Paul (born Saul). Because the styles fit the author it is thought that some were dictated, as they know the Author was not the apostle by the writing style, they also know they were involved because of the content.

The 22 books of the New Testament also fit a fomula (Kabalic). The 44 Books of the Old testament are broken into two 22 book sections as well. The rejected books are said to have failed the "test of cannon" where they are translated by many different people and the outcomes compaired. If all the translations do not have the same overall meaning, the book was not "cannon" and therefore not included.

That is not to say the books that where left out are useless, just that more skeptisism is required while reading them. There are things in them that cannot be trusted as much as the books that were included.

PAX