To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: In fact, the Greek Army preferred gay soldiers...
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > News discussions > General Science News
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Derek1148
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 28 2008, 12:52 PM)
My opinion of the religion known as christianity is so low that I find bloodthirsty paganism to be more morally upright. Literally. The Asatrumen (See wiki entry for Asatru if you're not familiar) I know have consistantly displayed more moral rigidity, less hypocrisy and dishonesty, and more intelligence than the "Christians."

Hey BDW,

Don't hold back. Tell me how you really feel.
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 28 2008, 08:49 AM)
Hey BDW,

Don't hold back. Tell me how you really feel.

laugh.gif
Are you being sarcastic or do you really want me to say more on the subject?
soundhertz
QUOTE
Christ gave love as the reason to follow the laws of God not just the requirement of obedience.


A good surface intellect that does not contain depth of wisdom is a dangerous thing, for self and that self's neophytes. Wisdom involves, among other things, a working memory of all major tenets.
There is no requirement of obedience to those who have been given free will; this is a nonsequitur. In Spiritual philosophy, unlike religious dogma, God is not conflicted.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Christ gave love as the reason to follow the laws of God not just the requirement of obedience.


A good surface intellect that does not contain depth of wisdom is a dangerous thing, for self and that self's neophytes. Wisdom involves, among other things, a working memory of all major tenets.
There is no requirement of obedience to those who have been given free will; this is a nonsequitur. In Spiritual philosophy, unlike religious dogma, God is not conflicted.

Any action that is against the intent of God can never produce positive physical results.

It is precisely because so many actions that *are* against the intent of God produce positive physical results, that religion has such a hard time keeping it's flocks on the straight and narrow. Hence confessionals, which are for Catholics directly. In Spiritual philosophy, as well as religious doctrine, the world is the world of man, not of God. Hence the coming of Christ, hence the future promise "Thy will be done on earth..." Do you think that all of the products you can buy to enhance your body's physical appeal, to facilitate adultery, does not produce a positive physical result? There are countless people who have been horrible to others in their lives, and were beautiful and healthy, focused time and money on their beauty health and meanness, and died beautiful, healthy, and mean. The entire idea that this is NOT the world of God, a crucial point, is lost on you if you believe your above quote. What you should have said is "Any action that is against the intent of God can never produce positive spiritual results." You might think it's a small mistake; I assure you it isn't. Were this math, all your subsequent equations based on this premise would be wrong. And undoubtedly your idea is wrong because of other misperceptions that preceded it.
QUOTE
The delay between immoral actions and negative results is one of the intents and gifts of God.

No. Many immoral actions meet their consequence immediately, others never do. "You reap what you sow". "What goes around comes around". "It all comes out in the wash". "Everything has an equal and opposite reaction", "Do unto others..." In science, it's Natural Law, and works every time. Put into philosophy, it's karma, and it's speculative and not time-relevant. This could only be the intention and gift of a discriminating God.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The delay between immoral actions and negative results is one of the intents and gifts of God.

No. Many immoral actions meet their consequence immediately, others never do. "You reap what you sow". "What goes around comes around". "It all comes out in the wash". "Everything has an equal and opposite reaction", "Do unto others..." In science, it's Natural Law, and works every time. Put into philosophy, it's karma, and it's speculative and not time-relevant. This could only be the intention and gift of a discriminating God.
Even if the incorrect moral action is taken in good conscience and no sin resulted for the person, there is still the damage to natural law and that must be corrected here and now.

I could write a chapter on this one. I'll save everyone the tedium...
QUOTE
The best trick that the devil has is to use a lesser good and produce a greater evil.

No, that's not even close to the best trick...wink.gif
Derek1148
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 28 2008, 05:46 PM)

A good surface intellect that does not contain depth of wisdom is a dangerous thing, for self and that self's neophytes. Wisdom involves, among other things, a working memory of all major tenets.
There is no requirement of obedience to those who have been given free will; this is a nonsequitur. In Spiritual philosophy, unlike religious dogma, God is not conflicted.


It is precisely because so many actions that *are* against the intent of God produce positive physical results, that religion has such a hard time keeping it's flocks on the straight and narrow. Hence confessionals, which are for Catholics directly. In Spiritual philosophy, as well as religious doctrine, the world is the world of man, not of God. Hence the coming of Christ, hence the future promise "Thy will be done on earth..." Do you think that all of the products you can buy to enhance your body's physical appeal, to facilitate adultery, does not produce a positive physical result? There are countless people who have been horrible to others in their lives, and were beautiful and healthy, focused time and money on their beauty health and meanness, and died beautiful, healthy, and mean. The entire idea that this is NOT the world of God, a crucial point, is lost on you if you believe your above quote. What you should have said is "Any action that is against the intent of God can never produce positive spiritual results." You might think it's a small mistake; I assure you it isn't. Were this math, all your subsequent equations based on this premise would be wrong. And undoubtedly your idea is wrong because of other misperceptions that preceded it.

No. Many immoral actions meet their consequence immediately, others never do. "You reap what you sow". "What goes around comes around". "It all comes out in the wash". "Everything has an equal and opposite reaction", "Do unto others..." In science, it's Natural Law, and works every time. Put into philosophy, it's karma, and it's speculative and not time-relevant. This could only be the intention and gift of a discriminating God.

I could write a chapter on this one. I'll save everyone the tedium...

No, that's not even close to the best trick...wink.gif

People want to believe. Because if we accept reality then there is no purpose for all of this. The good we do goes unrewarded and the evil unpunished. But that is the truth. We do good or evil based on choice (nothing more).
BigDumbWeirdo
"The Reward of a thing well done is to have done it." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
Then there's the conscience: Human beings have evolved to feel good when they do something moral.
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" -Baudelaire
Gorgeous
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 28 2008, 06:35 PM)
People want to believe. Because if we accept reality then there is no purpose for all of this. The good we do goes unrewarded and the evil unpunished. But that is the truth. We do good or evil based on choice (nothing more).

'Rewarded' good is not Good, it is reward. This breeds greed, selfishness and addiction to such things.

Are you only 'good' if you are rewarded for being so? Or are you just fishing for a 'poz'? biggrin.gif


'Purpose' is something people must find from within themselves. Uniqueness is one non-elitist possibility. We all have the opportunity to view existence from a unique perspective, and this is 'purpose' of a Cosmological scale. There is something Real to 'believe' in (truly, to experience). Why do people want more than this? Ah yes, we've already mentioned that...greed and selfishness.




g.
Derek1148
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Apr 28 2008, 07:15 PM)
'Rewarded' good is not Good...

Why?
Gorgeous
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 28 2008, 07:36 PM)
Why?

QUOTE
This breeds greed, selfishness and addiction to such things.




g.
soundhertz
QUOTE
Because if we accept reality then there is no purpose for all of this.


Careful. You might be pontificating. The practical - minded are not necessarily gifted with prescience. We know very little, and more of physics than of mind. That which would satisfy the criteria to be deemed godly may exist, in spite of mythology. "God" may be a work in process. The fact that such method/mind could exist, yet easily enough remain elusive - this gives rise to hope by giving hope legitimacy, because in *actual reality*, we only know what we know, not what we think, and we're young, very young.

Sapo
There you go again. making good sense! Maybe you should be fitted for a new hat? wub.gif (sorry, what a sickly little emotie for the purpose) laugh.gif
Derek1148
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Apr 28 2008, 07:15 PM)
'Rewarded' good is not Good, it is reward.

"Punished" evil is not Evil, it is punishment."?
gmilam
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Apr 28 2008, 02:15 PM)
'Rewarded' good is not Good, it is reward. This breeds greed, selfishness and addiction to such things.

It may still be good for the recipient of the deed even if the benefactor did it for the wrong reasons.
Gorgeous
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 28 2008, 10:58 PM)
"Punished" evil is not Evil, it is punishment."?

I agree.




g.
Gorgeous
QUOTE (gmilam+Apr 28 2008, 11:12 PM)
It may still be good for the recipient of the deed even if the benefactor did it for the wrong reasons.

It is still 'reward', and prolificates more 'wrong' reasoning.



g.
tlocity
Newguy
QUOTE
I won't waste my time trying to debate you anymore
thank you

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I won't waste my time trying to debate you anymore
thank you

Spare me your next token response


There is no debate with you. I know you do not realize that all you present is opinion. Christ knew that without a physical presence on earth everyone would be like you. How do you explain the number of people like you that claim to speak through the Holy Spirit and yet you all differ on what you see.

Christ established only one Church. It may be a surprise to you but you are a member of this one Church. It is true that you deny yourself full membership but you should thank God that the one true Church does not deny you. I know that you will see only what you want to see but.

Matthew
Chapter 16
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20

Christ would not establish anything that would bring the confusion that you have.


tlocity
BigDumbWeirdo you and newguy must go to the same church.

Let me take this real slow for you. We have what is called GPS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
here is the problem with time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positi...stem#Relativity

As you can see if you are able to understand this, the clocks on the GPS satellites must be adjusted due to velocity and gravity. The correction required agrees with SR. The clock adjustment is required because the clocks of a moving object tick at a slower rate then the clocks that are not moving.

If the clocks on the satellite were not adjusted for the difference, they would run slower then the clocks on earth. The longer a clock is in orbit the farther back in time they would indicate. At any time, the satellite may be brought back to earth and the clocks would continue to show that same difference they had when the satellite was in orbit.

Now you have two clocks side by side in the same frame and both show different times. Which one is correct?

Here is another test.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...tiv/airtim.html

As you can see the time indicated on the moving clock was different then the non-moving clock. When the two clocks were brought back together which was the correct real time?

I am surprised that you know nothing of these examples.



soundhertz
QUOTE
Maybe you should be fitted for a new hat? wub.gif (sorry, what a sickly little emotie for the purpose) laugh.gif


dear god!i'll take some...
tlocity
Soundhertz
QUOTE
A good surface intellect that does not contain depth of wisdom is a dangerous thing, for self and that self's neophytes. Wisdom involves, among other things, a working memory of all major tenets.
There is no requirement of obedience to those who have been given free will; this is a nonsequitur. In Spiritual philosophy, unlike religious dogma, God is not conflicted.


Wisdom is a gift from God and has many attributes. Wisdom does not mean that you can not make mistakes of be wrong. Wisdom can help you avoid mistakes but more important, wisdom helps you know when you have made a mistake.

I am not talking about absolute obedience. I am talking about the obedience to the word of God for those that made the freewill choice to follow the One God. In the Old Testament, it was not well understood that love should be the reason. Many times God gave physical reasons to follow His word.


You are not considering the total results of good or evil actions. A person may break a window and get away with it. If you look at that only from the personal short-term point of view of the person that broke the window, you would say that they got away with it. From a total point of view, there was a real physical loss. For the person that loss stays with them and must be accounted for either here or after death. This is where the idea of purgatory fits in. It is also possible for the physical loss to be made up for by others.

The fact that Godís will does not reign over the physical world because of the intent of the greater good that freewill choice provides for choosing for or against God, does not say that the design and natural order are not in effect. There is a connection between the physical and spiritual. The freedom that allows evil to exist in the physical world must be allowed for the greater intent of Godís design but all things of Godís design must still balance to the good. For the unrepented sins that are committed eternal hell is the only balance.

As I said it was in Godís mercy, that sin does not have immediate physical results. Godís mercy is not a requirement and there may be immediate physical results.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
A good surface intellect that does not contain depth of wisdom is a dangerous thing, for self and that self's neophytes. Wisdom involves, among other things, a working memory of all major tenets.
There is no requirement of obedience to those who have been given free will; this is a nonsequitur. In Spiritual philosophy, unlike religious dogma, God is not conflicted.


Wisdom is a gift from God and has many attributes. Wisdom does not mean that you can not make mistakes of be wrong. Wisdom can help you avoid mistakes but more important, wisdom helps you know when you have made a mistake.

I am not talking about absolute obedience. I am talking about the obedience to the word of God for those that made the freewill choice to follow the One God. In the Old Testament, it was not well understood that love should be the reason. Many times God gave physical reasons to follow His word.


You are not considering the total results of good or evil actions. A person may break a window and get away with it. If you look at that only from the personal short-term point of view of the person that broke the window, you would say that they got away with it. From a total point of view, there was a real physical loss. For the person that loss stays with them and must be accounted for either here or after death. This is where the idea of purgatory fits in. It is also possible for the physical loss to be made up for by others.

The fact that Godís will does not reign over the physical world because of the intent of the greater good that freewill choice provides for choosing for or against God, does not say that the design and natural order are not in effect. There is a connection between the physical and spiritual. The freedom that allows evil to exist in the physical world must be allowed for the greater intent of Godís design but all things of Godís design must still balance to the good. For the unrepented sins that are committed eternal hell is the only balance.

As I said it was in Godís mercy, that sin does not have immediate physical results. Godís mercy is not a requirement and there may be immediate physical results.

No, that's not even close to the best trick
You may be right but I see much of the evil being not much of a trick.



newguy
QUOTE (tlocity+)
There is no debate with you. I know you do not realize that all you present is opinion.


Actually, as everyone who is familiar with my posting history can easily attest, all that I present is SCRIPTURE. You know, that "written word" that thoroughly refutes every stinking thing that you and your hideous cult, the Roman Catholic church, adore.

QUOTE (tlocity+)
Christ knew that without a physical presence on earth everyone would be like you.


Actually, Christ knew that without a SPIRITUAL PRESENCE ON EARTH, THE HOLY SPIRIT, everyone would be as corrupt and deceitful as you.

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye shall see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith to him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."(John 14:16-26)

"But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."(John 16:5-15)

QUOTE (tlocity+)
How do you explain the number of people like you that claim to speak through the Holy Spirit and yet you all differ on what you see.


First of all, you're lying(Gee, what a surprise...) when you say "you all differ on what you see". There are large numbers of people who are in complete agreement in regard to many different topics. If you have a specific disagreement in mind, then name it.

QUOTE (tlocity+)
Christ established only one Church.


Ah, playtime is over, ignoramus. Like your equally ignorant Roman Catholic apologist friend, deadbeat, you know nothing about either Christ or His church. Abel believed in Christ. So did Abraham, Moses, David and a whole host of others...LONG BEFORE your cult ever reared its ugly head. Would you care to engage in a scriptural debate about this?

QUOTE (tlocity+)
It may be a surprise to you but you are a member of this one Church.


I'm not only NOT a member of your cult, but I'll continue to fight against it with every fiber of my being as long as there is breath in my body.

QUOTE (tlocity+)
It is true that you deny yourself full membership but you should thank God that the one true Church does not deny you.


I thank God for the Holy Spirit...the One Who revealed to me(and many others before me) a long time ago that your cult is the very anti-Christ power of scripture.

QUOTE (tlocity+)
I know that you will see only what you want to see but.

Matthew
Chapter 16
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20

Christ would not establish anything that would bring the confusion that you have.


And what "confusion" might that be? I'm doing just fine.

"Is Peter the Rock?"

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/rock.html

killtestcom

KillTest. The safer,easier way to pass any IT exam. And help You to get IT CERT.
Derek1148
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 28 2008, 10:34 PM)

Careful. You might be pontificating. The practical - minded are not necessarily gifted with prescience. We know very little, and more of physics than of mind. That which would satisfy the criteria to be deemed godly may exist, in spite of mythology. "God" may be a work in process. The fact that such method/mind could exist, yet easily enough remain elusive - this gives rise to hope by giving hope legitimacy, because in *actual reality*, we only know what we know, not what we think, and we're young, very young.

Hey,

I could be wrong. Just basing my opinion on empirical evidence.
Derek1148
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 28 2008, 10:34 PM)
...we only know what we know, not what we think, and we're young, very young.

By the way, that is kind of poetic.
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (tlocity+Apr 28 2008, 07:36 PM)
BigDumbWeirdo you and newguy must go to the same church.

...

Your dishonesty is staggering. Really and truly. You and I both know damn well that claim you made against which I argued was not that time dillation occurs, but that two objects with different proper time cannot interact. To sit here and link to wiki articles and hyperphysics as if I argued against time dillation is dishonest in the extreme. Seriously! How do you sleep at night? Do you confess this dishonesty to your priest? Do you think you can do whatever you want, then confess and still be a good catholic? I'm not a catholic, but I'm positive that's not the case you dishonest crank! Let me make this crystal clear to you:
TIME DILATION REALLY HAPPENS AND I NEVER CLAIMED IT DIDN'T. YOU IMPLIED SEVERAL TIMES THAT TWO CLOCKS WITH DIFFERENT PROPER TIME COULD NOT INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER. I ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE SOME MATH TO SHOW THIS POSTULATE. YOU CLAIMED IT WAS AN OBSERVATION. I POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS NOT AND LINKED YOU TO A SERIES OF WIKI ARTICLES THAT DEAL WITH THE SUBJECTS RELEVANT TO OUR ARGUMENT. YOU LINKED TO A WIKI ARTICLE AND A HYPERPHYSICS ARTICLE AND CLAIMED I WAS ARGUING AGAINST THE EXISTANCE OF TIME DILATION. I EXPLICITLY STATED THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE AND POINTED OUT YOUR DISHONESTY IN SETTING UP SUCH AN OBVIOUS STRAW MAN IN LARGE TEXT AND ALL CAPS SO YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ANY TROUBLE NOTICING IT.
soundhertz
QUOTE
I could be wrong. Just basing my opinion on empirical evidence.


Apologies, 'pontificate' sounds condescending, which wasn't intended.
tlocity
BigDumbWeirdo As I stated before I donít think you are able to work in this area. I gave you a simple observation and pointed out the simple resolution of the problem. I have no idea what you are reading into the observation.

You still have not resolved the problem with the observation. If you need more help let me know.
tlocity
Newguy the words in Matthew are very clear. Why do you try and parse out what is clear?
newguy
QUOTE (tlocity+)
Newguy the words in Matthew are very clear. Why do you try and parse out what is clear?


tlocity: Yes, the words in Matthew are very clear...EXCEPT to people like you who have trouble "seeing".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parse

Main Entry: 1parse
Pronunciation: \ˈpšrs, chiefly British ˈpšrz\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): parsed; pars∑ing
Etymology: Latin pars orationis part of speech
Date: circa 1553

transitive verb
1 a: to resolve (as a sentence) into component parts of speech and describe them grammatically b: to describe grammatically by stating the part of speech and explaining the inflection and syntactical relationships
2: to examine in a minute way : analyze critically <having trouble parsingÖexplanations for dwindling market shares ó R. S. Anson>
intransitive verb
1: to give a grammatical description of a word or a group of words
2: to admit of being parsed


Not only does YOUR position("See"? I told you that I was doing just fine...) have grammatical problems, you also neglected to mention that Jesus called Peter "Satan" only moments after the partial quote that you previously posted. You love to chop things up, don't you? Perhaps I'll give you a call next winter when I need some firewood, okay? Now, if you're trying to convince me that SATAN is the head of the Roman Catholic church, then we have no argument. Additionally, as the article that I linked to clearly shows, it is GOD Who is consistently referred to as "the Rock" throughout scripture. Gets you right there, doesn't it? Since the author of the article cited primarily Old Testament scriptures, I'll be nice enough to provide you with some New Testament scriptures as well. Here goes:

"Moreover, brethren, I would not they ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."(I Corinthians 10:1-4)

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."(I Corinthians 3:11)

"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."(Matthew 22:42-44)

Jesus Christ is "the stone which the builders rejected"(originally spoken of in Psalm 118:22).

Jesus Christ is "the stone"(NOT your pagan cult) on which self-humbling people must fall in order to be saved.

Jesus Christ is "the stone" Who will ultimately crush the proud and grind them to powder.

Jesus Christ is "the head of the corner" or "the chief corner stone".

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unot an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."(Ephesians 2:19-22)

Peter(you've heard of Peter, haven't you?) plainly stated that Jesus Christ is the "chief corner stone":

"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall no be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."(I Peter 2:2-8)

It is THE LORD Who is "the living stone"...

It is THE LORD Who is "the chief corner stone"...

It is THE LORD Who is "the stone which the builders disallowed"...

It is THE LORD Who is "the head of the corner"...

It is THE LORD Who is "the stone of stumbling"...

It is THE LORD Who is "the rock of offence"...

So says PETER(quoting from Psalm 118:22, Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah 28:16).

The Old Testament and New Testament are BOTH in total agreement...

JESUS CHRIST is "the Rock" upon Whom God's true church is built.

Game over.

You lose.
BigDumbWeirdo
newguy, would you be so kind as to do me a favor, and in the process help demonstrate Tlocity's dishonesty?
Would you review the recent series of posts between us in this thread and aswer the following questions?

Have I claimed that time dilation does not occur as Tlocity has implied?
Have I provided a clear description of my position (that time dilation DOES occur, and that two objects with different proper time CAN interact with each other.) previously?
Do Tlocity's posts not indicate that his claim is that objects with different time cannot interact?

I would understand if you're not familiar enough with special and general relativity to answer that last question, but I think it's worth a shot, considering that if the answer to those three questions is "yes" to each, then it would demonstrate that Tlocity is patently incapable of honesty in debate. If you dont' wish to do so, I also understand, and I will ask one of the actual scientists on this site to review this thread and answer those question.

I asked you first because I know you would try to be objective, and because you have no cause to be biased, considering that our last interaction was a rather heated argument, and you are currently involved in an argument with Tlocity, as well.

Thank you in advance.
Ron
Hi All,
I'll jump in with my understanding of this 'misunderstanding'.
The question as stated by Tlocity:

"If SR is about real time then you need to explain how anything moving at a faster velocity then another object remains in the present time. SR states that as an object moves faster time slows down. If real time slows down then the faster moving object would slip into the past of the slower moving object and disappear from the present."

is a very straight forward Galilean understanding of space-time, where, as I have understood his responses, BDW is describing Einstein-Minkowski space-time.

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIG.../lightcone.html

I was under the impression that we have adopted Einstein-Minkowski space-time as more accurate.
I hope this page link helps,
Peace,
Ron
newguy
QUOTE (BDW+)
newguy, would you be so kind as to do me a favor, and in the process help demonstrate Tlocity's dishonesty?
Would you review the recent series of posts between us in this thread and aswer the following questions?


BDW: In light of Ron's recent contribution, I'll wait to see if there is an HONEST misunderstanding between the two of you before reviewing your dialogue with tlocity. I hope that is okay with you...I'm working from home today, preparing for possibly the 6 most hectic days of my work-year, so I'm a little strapped on time right now. However, as I said, if Ron's post doesn't clear up your dispute, then I will review your dialogue with tlocity when I have a little more time available to me. Take care.
Leonides
yeah, Achilles, the great Greek soldier and hero was a bi-sexual and had strong gay leanings
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (Ron+Apr 30 2008, 09:55 AM)
The question as stated by Tlocity:

"If SR is about real time then you need to explain how anything moving at a faster velocity then another object remains in the present time. SR states that as an object moves faster time slows down. If real time slows down then the faster moving object would slip into the past of the slower moving object and disappear from the present."

is a very straight forward Galilean understanding of space-time, where, as I have understood his responses, BDW is describing Einstein-Minkowski space-time.

That is the crux of it. That explains my earlier reference to this "observation" Tlocity is claiming to existing onyl in Sci-Fi. Star Trek fans will likely recall the two part "Arrow of Time" Episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. In it, there are a race of aliens who remain invisible and incorporeal due to being "displaced" a few seconds in time. This was one of the most frustrating episodes for me, because it displayed a clear lack of understanding of relativity.
Suppose your proper time was displaced from mine by 1 second, and our translations through time was identical. What I percieved as "now" would be 1 second behind what you percieved as "now" resulting in my observation of your "current" position being the same as your observation of your position 1 second ago. Even in Galilean space-time, one way interaction (from me to you) is possible. Interaction the other way (from you to me) would be impossible in Galilean space-time, due to the fact that I would not have appeared yet in your "now" ever, considering that I am always 1 second behind you. HOWEVER, you would have memories of my position during your past, which would result in an enormous paradox.
Tlocity is implying that these two objects cannot interact at all , which is patently not true. If it was true, it would be impossible for a person driving a vehicle to rear-end another vehicle, since those two vehicles have a slightly different proper time than each other. This "observation" as Tlocity claims it would prevent ANY two objects whose translation through space-time was not IDENTICAL from interacting, and since two objects whose translation through space-time is identical would very rarely get the chance to interact, the universe as we know it would not have formed! Tlocity is apparently completely unaware of concepts such as the relativity of simultaneity. Yet her persists in claiming over and over again that this is not conjecture on his part, but rather an "observation" despite not providing any reference to when or where this has been observed, not providing any math to demonstrate this in principle and me explaining that this is not so. He has also directly claimed that I have claimed or implied that time dilation does not occur, which I have not done, at any point.
I am left with only three possible conclusions regarding Tlocity's misunderstanding.
1: He is incapable of using logic to deduce that if his conjecture were correct, that it would prohibit interaction between any two objects whose translation through space-time were not identical, which is a bit of logic so simple that one must conclude that he is totally incapable of logic.
2: That he is intentionally attempting to portray my argument as one against the existence of time dilation, and has refused to apply deductive logic to his own conjecture to determine it's falsity.
3: That he is not reading anything I write, instead assuming that I am arguing against time dilation, and has refused to apply deductive logic to his own conjecture to determine it's falsity.
If 2 or 3 is correct, then the two choices left to me are:
1: He knows that deductive logic would falsify his conjecture and thus refuses to do so.
2: He does not know this, and refuses to do so for another, unknown reason.

Since of the three original choices I have, the first is patently false (owing to his ability to use a computer, a skill which requires logical thought) I must assume the second or third, and then assume one of the next set of postulates. In any of those four combinations, dishonesty is a requirement. To purposefully refuse to read my posts and instead assume to know what I mean is dishonest, as is any attempt to intentionally portray my argument as something it is not. Either of the second postulates is equally dishonest, as they consist of either pure dishonesty or willful ignorance.
Yet despite all this clear dishonesty, he claims to be a "Christian."
I would stake my life on the conjecture that Christ as described in the bible would NEVER engage in such deceit.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youíll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.