So then, it is better, in your opinion, to reason than to love? (Since you placed reason at the 'top of the list'.)
Yes you do pick on people. The way you're attacking Duke right now is a good example of that. You need to learn to let people have their beliefs and their own opinions. If you don't like what they say - then don't read it, just move on. You most certainly are not a god who decides what people will and will not believe. That is up to each individual to decide for themselves. You think people who are spiritual are stupid idiots. You think you have a higher and superior form of knowledge. You place too much importance on what you think nature is saying to you - and not enough attention to what your spiritual mind is saying.
It's nice to see you quoting scripture.
I am a perfectly nice human being, perfectly me; willing to discuss and debate and reason with anyone who will. I do not nitpick posts like you do, while avoiding the real questions. I even try to be humorous - even if I only amuse myself.
Your avid anti-Christian attitude destroys any answer you might give anyway (maybe in the same way that you view Duke's posts...you don't like the cross and the Bible verses, etc.) - so unless you can somehow remove this 'attitude' - your message will be distorted and assumed to contain inaccurate information - since all personal attacks are inaccurate and inappropriate. Purposely messing up the message in hopes that you'll relate to your method of post formation.
QUOTE
Does EVERY 'unbeliever' in 'your' god' "pick on people for sport"?
Is this what you meant to say? If so, then no.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Does EVERY 'unbeliever' in 'your' god' "pick on people for sport"? |
Is this what you meant to say? If so, then no.
"If my 'god' is so 'obvious' and 'good' for society, why after 6000yrs of this 'god' propaganda have not ALL PEOPLES come to the same 'adoring' view of your 'god'?
You have a god?
Seriously, I believe God already knew this - because the Bible does say that the road is narrow. But it is your choice to make of your own free will. If you want what he offers, then take it. If you don't, then don't.
I have an adoring view of God because I am born again. This means I have received the Holy Spirit. It is a personal transformation that has been experienced by billions and billions of people through the ages. The road has always been narrow though. It is said that many are called, but few are chosen. What this means to me is that God can call on you, RC, but if you do not accept the call, then you are not chosen.
If you are not open and willing - how can you be saved? I'm not talking about sin, suffering, evil, hate, etc. I'm talking about a loving relationship with your Maker. This does not mean you have to give up your science. On the contrary, it means your science will take on a whole new meaning - it will become more beautiful and more meaningful.
I want to maintain my belief in God, but I also want to understand science. This may require a few changes in some of my beliefs.
You may want the reverse. You want your science, but you also want to understand spiritual matters.
I can't turn you into a Christian (not that I think you want to be one - I'm just trying to answer your question). This is between you and God - with the same rules for everybody.
No hate here either, only reasoning,
QUOTE (amok+Jan 4 2006, 07:26 AM)
Hey, i stated the obvious because honestly, some people need to be told the obvious 
I think messenger finds offence to 'to reason' because maybe their version is 'to perceive'?
- Amok
I think you may have something there...for what else could explain it?
I think messenger finds offence to 'to reason' because maybe their version is 'to perceive'?
- Amok
I think you may have something there...for what else could explain it?
QUOTE
So then, it is better, in your opinion, to reason than to love? (Since you placed reason at the 'top of the list'.)
If that is not nitpicking then i do not know what is. And by the given reasoning that would invalidate your entire post.
deep stuff.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So then, it is better, in your opinion, to reason than to love? (Since you placed reason at the 'top of the list'.) |
If that is not nitpicking then i do not know what is. And by the given reasoning that would invalidate your entire post.
deep stuff.
your message will be distorted and assumed to contain inaccurate information - since all personal attacks are inaccurate and inappropriate. Purposely messing up the message in hopes that you'll relate to your method of post formation.
Exactly as stated above. And no, not all personal attacks are inaccurate. They may be inappropriate, but most have a kernel of truth.
- Amok
QUOTE
Exactly as stated above. And no, not all personal attacks are inaccurate. They may be inappropriate, but most have a kernel of truth.
And so thus is your argument invalidated.
The kernel of truth in my "So then, it is better, in your opinion, to reason than to love? (Since you placed reason at the 'top of the list'.)" comment is that I was repeating what RC stated - he is the one who specifically desired that 'reason' should be at the top of the list. This, after I pointed out to him that he chose reason above love, he did it again in his very next post.
I post page after page of legitimate questions and debate - and you come back with a two liner diner nitpick attack. No Elvis stamp for you.
Oh well, blah blah blah, yada yada yada. Same difference.
I'm not disgruntled or anything - I just find it so amusing to see the types of people that come here to post nothing but personal nitpicky attacks - and then when it's thrown right back at ya - ya have a fit.
Bye,
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Ask yourself: "If my 'god' is so 'obvious' and 'good' for society, why after 6000yrs of this 'god' propaganda have not ALL PEOPLES come to the same 'adoring' view of your 'god'?
QUOTE (Messenger+)
"If my 'god' is so 'obvious' and 'good' for society, why after 6000yrs of this 'god' propaganda have not ALL PEOPLES come to the same 'adoring' view of your 'god'?
You have a god?
Messenger: Not to pick sides, but merely to make a point. RealityCheck told you to "Ask yourself" a question about your "god". When quoting him, you omitted the "Ask yourself" and made it sound like(whether intentionally or accidentally) he was talking about his "god". You even asked: "You have a god?" Do you see that? This is something that JerryDuke is skilled at. Could this possibly be one of the reasons that RealityCheck makes the following type accusation of you?
I hear ya. I thought about that after I signed off yesterday - I couldn't figure out why he would say that.
I apoligize for misunderstanding you RC.
I would also like to ask if i misunderstood your comment, RC, about the seven wonders.
Did you originally mean to just add 'to reason' - or did you mean to make reason the top priority?
If you simply meant to add 'to reason' to the list, say at number 8 - then I apoligize again for misunderstanding you.
But if you meant to boost 'reason' above all the others - then I understood you correctly the first time, in which case I would disagree with your placement.
No biggie deal to me - I just want to set the record straight.
Thanks,
Lets think about now. Statistics say there there are approximately 2.1 billion christians right now, and about half of those are catholic. Now, I have witnessed on this forum several self professing christians call other self professing christians devil worshippers. Also that catholics are not christians, and that most other christians are not christians. Now if any of this is even partially true, I doubt billions and billions of people have experienced being born again. And if that is true, then all of these sects of christianity can all experience being born again. I never like the arguement that "such and such a number of people believe, so its true".
You have a god?
Messenger: Not to pick sides, but merely to make a point. RealityCheck told you to "Ask yourself" a question about your "god". When quoting him, you omitted the "Ask yourself" and made it sound like(whether intentionally or accidentally) he was talking about his "god". You even asked: "You have a god?" Do you see that? This is something that JerryDuke is skilled at. Could this possibly be one of the reasons that RealityCheck makes the following type accusation of you?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
You have given a perfect demonstration of why you are a clueless twister and evader.
People, myself included, generally don't like it when their own words are "misquoted" or "chopped" and then used against them. I realize that this wasn't necessarily the "intentional" case in what I just referenced, but do you see how one might be offended by it and suspicious of it? Like I said, I'm not picking sides, but merely hoping to make a point.
People, myself included, generally don't like it when their own words are "misquoted" or "chopped" and then used against them. I realize that this wasn't necessarily the "intentional" case in what I just referenced, but do you see how one might be offended by it and suspicious of it? Like I said, I'm not picking sides, but merely hoping to make a point.
QUOTE
RealityCheck told you to "Ask yourself" a question about your "god". When quoting him, you omitted the "Ask yourself" and made it sound like(whether intentionally or accidentally) he was talking about his "god". You even asked: "You have a god?" Do you see that?
I hear ya. I thought about that after I signed off yesterday - I couldn't figure out why he would say that.
I apoligize for misunderstanding you RC.
I would also like to ask if i misunderstood your comment, RC, about the seven wonders.
Did you originally mean to just add 'to reason' - or did you mean to make reason the top priority?
If you simply meant to add 'to reason' to the list, say at number 8 - then I apoligize again for misunderstanding you.
But if you meant to boost 'reason' above all the others - then I understood you correctly the first time, in which case I would disagree with your placement.
No biggie deal to me - I just want to set the record straight.
Thanks,
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 4 2006, 07:05 AM)
Messenger:
Did you just call me Messenger?
To borrow a phrase from Gmilam....
OK, who are you and what did you do with NewGuy?
(it's good, it is very good - just leave him there. I like this one much better.)
Thank you, thank you very much.
(no Elvis stamp for you yet. wait and see we will.)
Did you just call me Messenger?
To borrow a phrase from Gmilam....
OK, who are you and what did you do with NewGuy?
(it's good, it is very good - just leave him there. I like this one much better.)
Thank you, thank you very much.
(no Elvis stamp for you yet. wait and see we will.)
QUOTE
I have an adoring view of God because I am born again. This means I have received the Holy Spirit. It is a personal transformation that has been experienced by billions and billions of people through the ages. The road has always been narrow though. It is said that many are called, but few are chosen. What this means to me is that God can call on you, RC, but if you do not accept the call, then you are not chosen.
Lets think about now. Statistics say there there are approximately 2.1 billion christians right now, and about half of those are catholic. Now, I have witnessed on this forum several self professing christians call other self professing christians devil worshippers. Also that catholics are not christians, and that most other christians are not christians. Now if any of this is even partially true, I doubt billions and billions of people have experienced being born again. And if that is true, then all of these sects of christianity can all experience being born again. I never like the arguement that "such and such a number of people believe, so its true".
Steveo: Since I'm obviously one of the people(probably the "head honcho") that you're referring to, I thought I'd just make this quick observation. In all fairness to Messenger, he did say "billions and billions through the ages". "Through the ages" are the operative words there. It might interest you to know that there are several places in the Bible where it is prophesied that "in the last days" there would be more false converts than ever before. I know that people have claimed that we are "in the last days" many times throughout church history, but the point that I am making is that things are prophesied to GET WORSE, NOT BETTER, as far as false converts are concerned as the return of Christ draws near. That might not be of any genuine interest to you, but I thought that it was worthy of mention so that you know that I'm not necessarily "way off"(Biblically speaking, at least) when I make such claims about false converts. Have a good one.
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 4 2006, 07:31 AM)
RC, .So then, it is better, in your opinion, to reason than to love? (Since you placed reason at the 'top of the list'.)
What did you not understand about "...without REASON there is UN-reason (and hence insanity and/or stupidity)...and hence, all else is illusion/delusion"? As for "love", this is many things to many people, and the only thing that gives ALL of such things MEANING is REASON...as UN-reasoning people will UN-reasoningly fall in 'love' with mass murderers, their teacher, 'cult leaders' and all sorts of 'imaginary' and 'manufactured' (celebrity, religious etc.) characters/idols...and because in such cases they DO so AGAINST ALL REASON, such "love episodes" usually are DESTRUCTIVE and end UNHAPPILY for all concerned.
What did you not understand about "...without REASON there is UN-reason (and hence insanity and/or stupidity)...and hence, all else is illusion/delusion"? As for "love", this is many things to many people, and the only thing that gives ALL of such things MEANING is REASON...as UN-reasoning people will UN-reasoningly fall in 'love' with mass murderers, their teacher, 'cult leaders' and all sorts of 'imaginary' and 'manufactured' (celebrity, religious etc.) characters/idols...and because in such cases they DO so AGAINST ALL REASON, such "love episodes" usually are DESTRUCTIVE and end UNHAPPILY for all concerned.
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 4 2006, 07:31 AM)
Yes you do pick on people. The way you're attacking Duke right now is a good example of that. You need to learn to let people have their beliefs and their own opinions. If you don't like what they say - then don't read it, just move on. You most certainly are not a god who decides what people will and will not believe. That is up to each individual to decide for themselves. You think people who are spiritual are stupid idiots. You think you have a higher and superior form of knowledge. You place too much importance on what you think nature is saying to you - and not enough attention to what your spiritual mind is saying.
I do not "attack"....I merely logically/scientifically/substantively point out the WHERE and the WHY certain posters and their posts are mistaken/dishonest/dangerous etc. As my posting record shows, I do the SAME in YOUR case and Jerry Duke's case as I do for ANYONE ELSE here and in other physorg forums....and do so out of a DUTY to OBJECTIVE TRUTH...whatever the subject matter. And as to the reason/duty in YOUR and Jerry's particular cases, the following perspective regarding your activities here should indicate where I'm coming from: I see you and Jerry as just as dangerous to society (and its children) as the local neighbourhood drug-pushers. They peddle their destructive and anti-productive wares openly hoping citizens will be too lazy/irresponsible to act. Well, in your and Jerry's case, the destructive/counterproductive 'drug' is WILFUL STUPIDITY and WELL-MEANING but nevertheless COUNTER-SOCIAL PROPAGANDA. In both the local drug-pusher and your/jerry's cases, "I" for one am determined by my self-developed principles and practices to do my duty and confront and expose such "pushers". No personal "agenda" or "unreasoning malice" involved in my actions...just duty and responsible citizenry/parenthood. And where do you get off accusing me of playing god? YOU and your dishonest ID/CS mates wish to tell US what 'science' WILL or WILL NOT be!...and would destroy humanity's only LUCID self-correcting MEME/METHOD for facing the extreme REALITY challenges into the indefinite future (by the way; look up "meme" and you will understand why REASON is the ONLY preventative/cure for destructive/counter-productive 'beliefs/ideas/insanities' etc which the mind is prey to IF ONE DOES NOT REASON). Surprisingly enough, though not gregarious to extreme, and though I choose my friends and my 'memes' with great discretion, I am probably one of the most empathetic/sympathetic and 'useful' friend anyone of the many people whom I have helped could have had at the time of their trouble/need...for it was "I" whom those family/friends/employers turned to when all other avenues were 'impossible'...and you know why?...because they knew I had the different/independent REASONING/KNOWLEDGEABLE perspective/ability to "see" the REAL crux of the problem and proceed to apply REASON and KNOWLEDGE towards the solution which had escaped other people/consultants. You only know me through my posts against UN-reason and Propaganda...you do not know me at all as probably the most kind and understanding person you will probably ever meet in your life....mainly because my 'kindness and understanding' HAS PRACTICAL BENEFITS FOR ALL THOSE CONCERNED....and not just of the "well-meaning and wishful-thinking" BUT UTTERLY USELESS AND COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE varieties that is so COMMON but so INEFFECTIVE IN THE LONG TERM. So I recommend you hold off on the opinions regarding my motives/personality etc...because as usual, you work from incomplete information/comprehension...things that your repeated "questions" and "twisting" demonstrate to a "T".
I do not "attack"....I merely logically/scientifically/substantively point out the WHERE and the WHY certain posters and their posts are mistaken/dishonest/dangerous etc. As my posting record shows, I do the SAME in YOUR case and Jerry Duke's case as I do for ANYONE ELSE here and in other physorg forums....and do so out of a DUTY to OBJECTIVE TRUTH...whatever the subject matter. And as to the reason/duty in YOUR and Jerry's particular cases, the following perspective regarding your activities here should indicate where I'm coming from: I see you and Jerry as just as dangerous to society (and its children) as the local neighbourhood drug-pushers. They peddle their destructive and anti-productive wares openly hoping citizens will be too lazy/irresponsible to act. Well, in your and Jerry's case, the destructive/counterproductive 'drug' is WILFUL STUPIDITY and WELL-MEANING but nevertheless COUNTER-SOCIAL PROPAGANDA. In both the local drug-pusher and your/jerry's cases, "I" for one am determined by my self-developed principles and practices to do my duty and confront and expose such "pushers". No personal "agenda" or "unreasoning malice" involved in my actions...just duty and responsible citizenry/parenthood. And where do you get off accusing me of playing god? YOU and your dishonest ID/CS mates wish to tell US what 'science' WILL or WILL NOT be!...and would destroy humanity's only LUCID self-correcting MEME/METHOD for facing the extreme REALITY challenges into the indefinite future (by the way; look up "meme" and you will understand why REASON is the ONLY preventative/cure for destructive/counter-productive 'beliefs/ideas/insanities' etc which the mind is prey to IF ONE DOES NOT REASON). Surprisingly enough, though not gregarious to extreme, and though I choose my friends and my 'memes' with great discretion, I am probably one of the most empathetic/sympathetic and 'useful' friend anyone of the many people whom I have helped could have had at the time of their trouble/need...for it was "I" whom those family/friends/employers turned to when all other avenues were 'impossible'...and you know why?...because they knew I had the different/independent REASONING/KNOWLEDGEABLE perspective/ability to "see" the REAL crux of the problem and proceed to apply REASON and KNOWLEDGE towards the solution which had escaped other people/consultants. You only know me through my posts against UN-reason and Propaganda...you do not know me at all as probably the most kind and understanding person you will probably ever meet in your life....mainly because my 'kindness and understanding' HAS PRACTICAL BENEFITS FOR ALL THOSE CONCERNED....and not just of the "well-meaning and wishful-thinking" BUT UTTERLY USELESS AND COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE varieties that is so COMMON but so INEFFECTIVE IN THE LONG TERM. So I recommend you hold off on the opinions regarding my motives/personality etc...because as usual, you work from incomplete information/comprehension...things that your repeated "questions" and "twisting" demonstrate to a "T".
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 4 2006, 07:31 AM)
It's nice to see you quoting scripture.
I am a perfectly nice human being, perfectly me; willing to discuss and debate and reason with anyone who will. I do not nitpick posts like you do, while avoiding the real questions. I even try to be humorous - even if I only amuse myself.
See how your inane "small victories" observations bring an otherwise SERIOUS debate in to the realm of "farce" and "dishonesty"? I did NOT quote scripture...I quoted YOUR quote of scripture...see the difference? And as for your 'willingness' to 'debate'...you are hypocritical and dishonest in that above all things. You KNOW no science methods/knowledge/facts to speak of, and so cannot properly comprehend what is being said to you in that vein; you ACCEPT no reasonable objective evidence because blind belief "memes" filter out any inconvenient realities; you came here with the INTENT to ignore and dismiss Evolution because you " don't agree/believe in it"; you accept the bible/scriptures as the be all and end all of science, history, truth and reality (against ample evidence to the contrary, of which some such has been PROVIDED BY YOURSELF in some instances); you support these perjurious ID/CSers who lie to their 'god' and to our courts; and the list can go on..... So don't ask me to accept your bona fides in anything you do here unless you are prepared to genuinely remedy these telling deficiencies on your part.
I am a perfectly nice human being, perfectly me; willing to discuss and debate and reason with anyone who will. I do not nitpick posts like you do, while avoiding the real questions. I even try to be humorous - even if I only amuse myself.
See how your inane "small victories" observations bring an otherwise SERIOUS debate in to the realm of "farce" and "dishonesty"? I did NOT quote scripture...I quoted YOUR quote of scripture...see the difference? And as for your 'willingness' to 'debate'...you are hypocritical and dishonest in that above all things. You KNOW no science methods/knowledge/facts to speak of, and so cannot properly comprehend what is being said to you in that vein; you ACCEPT no reasonable objective evidence because blind belief "memes" filter out any inconvenient realities; you came here with the INTENT to ignore and dismiss Evolution because you " don't agree/believe in it"; you accept the bible/scriptures as the be all and end all of science, history, truth and reality (against ample evidence to the contrary, of which some such has been PROVIDED BY YOURSELF in some instances); you support these perjurious ID/CSers who lie to their 'god' and to our courts; and the list can go on..... So don't ask me to accept your bona fides in anything you do here unless you are prepared to genuinely remedy these telling deficiencies on your part.
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 4 2006, 07:31 AM)
Your avid anti-Christian attitude destroys any answer you might give anyway (maybe in the same way that you view Duke's posts...you don't like the cross and the Bible verses, etc.) - so unless you can somehow remove this 'attitude' - your message will be distorted and assumed to contain inaccurate information - since all personal attacks are inaccurate and inappropriate. Purposely messing up the message in hopes that you'll relate to your method of post formation.
My attitude/answers are supported by evidence here in these forums or in the scientific/religious literature. As such, any assertions on my part may be scrutinised accordingly and an opinion formed as to their appropriateness/efficacy. I ask nothing more and nothing less from any intelligent, unbiased, reasoning person. However, it is obvious that not ALL here are intelligent and/or unbiased and/or reasoning people....and I venture to suggest that it is THESE few who would suggest such a thing as you have suggested about MY postings. The difference between me and Jerry has been that I speak from supportable/logical position, he does not. Chalk and cheese. Please do not mistake these two again in future.
My attitude/answers are supported by evidence here in these forums or in the scientific/religious literature. As such, any assertions on my part may be scrutinised accordingly and an opinion formed as to their appropriateness/efficacy. I ask nothing more and nothing less from any intelligent, unbiased, reasoning person. However, it is obvious that not ALL here are intelligent and/or unbiased and/or reasoning people....and I venture to suggest that it is THESE few who would suggest such a thing as you have suggested about MY postings. The difference between me and Jerry has been that I speak from supportable/logical position, he does not. Chalk and cheese. Please do not mistake these two again in future.
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 4 2006, 07:31 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Does EVERY 'unbeliever' in 'your' god' "pick on people for sport"?
Is this what you meant to say? If so, then no.
Then why should you assume "I" do so. Can you not see that DOING ONE'S DUTY can ALSO involve ENJOYMENT/FUN on the part of the one discharging such responsibilities to the benefit of ALL reasoning beings?
Is this what you meant to say? If so, then no.
Then why should you assume "I" do so. Can you not see that DOING ONE'S DUTY can ALSO involve ENJOYMENT/FUN on the part of the one discharging such responsibilities to the benefit of ALL reasoning beings?
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 4 2006, 07:31 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Ask yourself: "If my 'god' is so 'obvious' and 'good' for society, why after 6000yrs of this 'god' propaganda have not ALL PEOPLES come to the same 'adoring' view of your 'god'?
You have a god?
Seriously, I believe God already knew this - because the Bible does say that the road is narrow. But it is your choice to make of your own free will. If you want what he offers, then take it. If you don't, then don't.
I have an adoring view of God because I am born again. This means I have received the Holy Spirit. It is a personal transformation that has been experienced by billions and billions of people through the ages. The road has always been narrow though. It is said that many are called, but few are chosen. What this means to me is that God can call on you, RC, but if you do not accept the call, then you are not chosen.
If you are not open and willing - how can you be saved? I'm not talking about sin, suffering, evil, hate, etc. I'm talking about a loving relationship with your Maker. This does not mean you have to give up your science. On the contrary, it means your science will take on a whole new meaning - it will become more beautiful and more meaningful.
I want to maintain my belief in God, but I also want to understand science. This may require a few changes in some of my beliefs.
You may want the reverse. You want your science, but you also want to understand spiritual matters.
I can't turn you into a Christian (not that I think you want to be one - I'm just trying to answer your question). This is between you and God - with the same rules for everybody.
No hate here either, only reasoning,
RELIGION and FREE WILL are mutually exclusive concepts; only SPIRITUALITY and FREE WILL can co-exist in the same mind. All this talk of 'being saved and saving' are UNNECESSARY to personal fulfilment in BOTH the spiritual and physical senses. All else is prone to error, abuse and failure in the end. The universe is wondrous enough for those who see it through REASONING as well as SPIRITUAL "eyes". One does not preclude the other...so no controversy' exists in fact...which is why your "pronouncements/solutions" and well-meaning wishful thinking IS NOT RELEVANT or NEEDED...things were that way BEFORE you and your ID/CS mates 'pretended' to god and the courts that they weren't. Which is why no one in their right minds will EVER 'buy' your 'solution' to a 'manufactured' problem that exist only in the minds of 'schizophrenic' christians who will insist on misinterpreting the 'method/intent' of their own scriptures. And FYI, I was born and raised as Catholic; but from age nine (9) I saw the obvious illogic/unreasoning in that activity/belief------and soon thereafter in many other superstitions/cults/religions which also I made a point of researching......as well as law, sciences, languages, governments, history, technology, social/justice structures etc etc etc...so my attitude/opinions are probably just about as BALANCED and UNBIASED as any human being’s could be, I think....which is why I do not resort to humorous and inane distractions when discussing IMPORTANT matters...be they spiritual or physical.
*******************
I hear ya. I thought about that after I signed off yesterday - I couldn't figure out why he would say that.
I apoligize for misunderstanding you RC.
I would also like to ask if i misunderstood your comment, RC, about the seven wonders.
Did you originally mean to just add 'to reason' - or did you mean to make reason the top priority?
If you simply meant to add 'to reason' to the list, say at number 8 - then I apoligize again for misunderstanding you.
But if you meant to boost 'reason' above all the others - then I understood you correctly the first time, in which case I would disagree with your placement.
No biggie deal to me - I just want to set the record straight.
Thanks,
Messenger.
Apology accepted re "ask yourself" omission.
Regarding the "wonders": I merely wished originally to point out that without REASON there is only bedlam and profound ignorance. And what could come of any of those other 'actions' if they are based on insanity and ignorance? The 'paramount' nature of "to reason" is a matter of logical precedence to ANYTHING 'GOOD' being possible AT ALL in the long term regardless of which OTHER 'wonder' is involved. I hope you see that I meant no disrespect to or diminution of any other item PER SE....I merely treat "to reason" as a NECESSARY PRECONDITION (condition No. 1, if you will) for any other action to have the chance to be positive, good and fruitful in the end. Nothing else implied. That I hope will set the record straight as well. OK?
Good luck in all else except your stated current objective of confusing spiritual life/functions/institutions with scientific life/functions/institutions. Sincerely, your understanding but otherwise perforce critical, friend,
RealityCheck.
.
You have a god?
Seriously, I believe God already knew this - because the Bible does say that the road is narrow. But it is your choice to make of your own free will. If you want what he offers, then take it. If you don't, then don't.
I have an adoring view of God because I am born again. This means I have received the Holy Spirit. It is a personal transformation that has been experienced by billions and billions of people through the ages. The road has always been narrow though. It is said that many are called, but few are chosen. What this means to me is that God can call on you, RC, but if you do not accept the call, then you are not chosen.
If you are not open and willing - how can you be saved? I'm not talking about sin, suffering, evil, hate, etc. I'm talking about a loving relationship with your Maker. This does not mean you have to give up your science. On the contrary, it means your science will take on a whole new meaning - it will become more beautiful and more meaningful.
I want to maintain my belief in God, but I also want to understand science. This may require a few changes in some of my beliefs.
You may want the reverse. You want your science, but you also want to understand spiritual matters.
I can't turn you into a Christian (not that I think you want to be one - I'm just trying to answer your question). This is between you and God - with the same rules for everybody.
No hate here either, only reasoning,
RELIGION and FREE WILL are mutually exclusive concepts; only SPIRITUALITY and FREE WILL can co-exist in the same mind. All this talk of 'being saved and saving' are UNNECESSARY to personal fulfilment in BOTH the spiritual and physical senses. All else is prone to error, abuse and failure in the end. The universe is wondrous enough for those who see it through REASONING as well as SPIRITUAL "eyes". One does not preclude the other...so no controversy' exists in fact...which is why your "pronouncements/solutions" and well-meaning wishful thinking IS NOT RELEVANT or NEEDED...things were that way BEFORE you and your ID/CS mates 'pretended' to god and the courts that they weren't. Which is why no one in their right minds will EVER 'buy' your 'solution' to a 'manufactured' problem that exist only in the minds of 'schizophrenic' christians who will insist on misinterpreting the 'method/intent' of their own scriptures. And FYI, I was born and raised as Catholic; but from age nine (9) I saw the obvious illogic/unreasoning in that activity/belief------and soon thereafter in many other superstitions/cults/religions which also I made a point of researching......as well as law, sciences, languages, governments, history, technology, social/justice structures etc etc etc...so my attitude/opinions are probably just about as BALANCED and UNBIASED as any human being’s could be, I think....which is why I do not resort to humorous and inane distractions when discussing IMPORTANT matters...be they spiritual or physical.
*******************
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 4 2006, 08:54 PM)
QUOTE
RealityCheck told you to "Ask yourself" a question about your "god". When quoting him, you omitted the "Ask yourself" and made it sound like(whether intentionally or accidentally) he was talking about his "god". You even asked: "You have a god?" Do you see that?
I hear ya. I thought about that after I signed off yesterday - I couldn't figure out why he would say that.
I apoligize for misunderstanding you RC.
I would also like to ask if i misunderstood your comment, RC, about the seven wonders.
Did you originally mean to just add 'to reason' - or did you mean to make reason the top priority?
If you simply meant to add 'to reason' to the list, say at number 8 - then I apoligize again for misunderstanding you.
But if you meant to boost 'reason' above all the others - then I understood you correctly the first time, in which case I would disagree with your placement.
No biggie deal to me - I just want to set the record straight.
Thanks,
Messenger.
Apology accepted re "ask yourself" omission.
Regarding the "wonders": I merely wished originally to point out that without REASON there is only bedlam and profound ignorance. And what could come of any of those other 'actions' if they are based on insanity and ignorance? The 'paramount' nature of "to reason" is a matter of logical precedence to ANYTHING 'GOOD' being possible AT ALL in the long term regardless of which OTHER 'wonder' is involved. I hope you see that I meant no disrespect to or diminution of any other item PER SE....I merely treat "to reason" as a NECESSARY PRECONDITION (condition No. 1, if you will) for any other action to have the chance to be positive, good and fruitful in the end. Nothing else implied. That I hope will set the record straight as well. OK?
Good luck in all else except your stated current objective of confusing spiritual life/functions/institutions with scientific life/functions/institutions. Sincerely, your understanding but otherwise perforce critical, friend,
RealityCheck.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
RELIGION and FREE WILL are mutually exclusive concepts; only SPIRITUALITY and FREE WILL can co-exist in the same mind.
RealityCheck: I'm assuming that when you say that religion and free will are mutually exclusive concepts, you are saying that religion and free will are "incompatible". Is this correct(I'm sorry for asking, but the word "exclusive" does have more than one meaning and I've misread people before)? If so, then how would you personally differentiate religion from spirituality? I'm not trying to be funny, I'm seriously interested in your viewpoint. Personally, I've never had a problem with religion/spirituality and free will. I've always viewed my relationship with God as a sort of spiritual marriage covenant(please, no homosexual comments, you know what I mean). It, like my natural marriage to my wife, is a covenant that I entered into of my own free will and continue in of my same own free will. I can "opt out" of either covenant at any time, although I never will. It was expected, in both cases, that certain "adjustments/restrictions" would normally follow the said covenant. In the case of my wife, I put away intimate relationships with all other women("intimate" has more than one meaning...I trust you know what I mean). In the case of God, I put away intimate relationships with all "other gods". I personally don't see why so many people have a problem with this religion/spirituality and free will thing. Others have commented on it on different threads and I'm assuming(I could be wrong) that you're referencing it in a similar way to how they referenced it. They seemed to view it as some sort of "slavery". It seems to me that the factor of LOVE is being overlooked. Although there are billions of other women currently on this planet, my heart is towards one, my wife(again, you know what I mean). At the same time, although there are "gods aplenty", my heart is towards one. Why do so many people seem to view this as some sort of "slavery"? I'm curious as to your thoughts on this, if I'm even "reading you" right. I do have another question for you on the topic of "reason, insanity and ignorance", but I'll hold off on that one until another time. It's been a really hectic day here. Two children are a whole new ballgame. That's not a complaint, just an observation. I love them both, dearly. Talk to you later.
RealityCheck: I'm assuming that when you say that religion and free will are mutually exclusive concepts, you are saying that religion and free will are "incompatible". Is this correct(I'm sorry for asking, but the word "exclusive" does have more than one meaning and I've misread people before)? If so, then how would you personally differentiate religion from spirituality? I'm not trying to be funny, I'm seriously interested in your viewpoint. Personally, I've never had a problem with religion/spirituality and free will. I've always viewed my relationship with God as a sort of spiritual marriage covenant(please, no homosexual comments, you know what I mean). It, like my natural marriage to my wife, is a covenant that I entered into of my own free will and continue in of my same own free will. I can "opt out" of either covenant at any time, although I never will. It was expected, in both cases, that certain "adjustments/restrictions" would normally follow the said covenant. In the case of my wife, I put away intimate relationships with all other women("intimate" has more than one meaning...I trust you know what I mean). In the case of God, I put away intimate relationships with all "other gods". I personally don't see why so many people have a problem with this religion/spirituality and free will thing. Others have commented on it on different threads and I'm assuming(I could be wrong) that you're referencing it in a similar way to how they referenced it. They seemed to view it as some sort of "slavery". It seems to me that the factor of LOVE is being overlooked. Although there are billions of other women currently on this planet, my heart is towards one, my wife(again, you know what I mean). At the same time, although there are "gods aplenty", my heart is towards one. Why do so many people seem to view this as some sort of "slavery"? I'm curious as to your thoughts on this, if I'm even "reading you" right. I do have another question for you on the topic of "reason, insanity and ignorance", but I'll hold off on that one until another time. It's been a really hectic day here. Two children are a whole new ballgame. That's not a complaint, just an observation. I love them both, dearly. Talk to you later.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 31 2005, 03:20 AM)
... another virgin so that he can seed her like Mary was seeded so that he can father himself! ...
(The True Furqan 8:3)
(The True Furqan 8:3)
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Jan 5 2006, 11:01 AM)
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 31 2005, 03:20 AM)
... another virgin so that he can seed her like Mary was seeded so that he can father himself! ...
(The True Furqan 8:3)
Well, that clears that up.
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners
(The True Furqan 8:3)
Well, that clears that up.
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinnersQUOTE (Laidback+Jan 4 2006, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Jan 3 2006, 06:07 PM)
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 30 2005, 12:50 AM)
... Everything is at the mercy of "Time" if it is to exist! ...
Except God.
Wrong! everything that exists is symbiotic to time. ...
Are you claiming to have complete knowledge of everything that exists? You obviously do not know the Saviour, Jesus Christ. I trust Jesus Christ to tell me the truth about time because I know him, I know that he is trustworthy, and I know that he is the Creator of all things, including you.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58)
The Holy Bible
How to be SavedCreation Proof
Except God.
Wrong! everything that exists is symbiotic to time. ...
Are you claiming to have complete knowledge of everything that exists? You obviously do not know the Saviour, Jesus Christ. I trust Jesus Christ to tell me the truth about time because I know him, I know that he is trustworthy, and I know that he is the Creator of all things, including you.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58)
The Holy Bible
How to be SavedCreation Proof
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Jan 5 2006, 01:01 PM)
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 31 2005, 03:20 AM)
... another virgin so that he can seed her like Mary was seeded so that he can father himself! ...
(The True Furqan 8:3)
Your religious quote is not applicable. “We” are not claiming that the xian god took a partner. He just needed a female he could use to procreate with. I guess a divine version of a one-night-stand.
At least this time He did not disguise Himself as a Swan or a Bull.
At least this time He did not disguise Himself as a Swan or a Bull.
Now, I have witnessed on this forum several self professing christians call other self professing christians devil worshippers.
and
Since the Catholic Church is the only True and Rightfull Church of Christ, all other religions are Heretics and Satan Worshippers. It says so itself in the Bible. Jezus himself said so when he appointed Petrus as Founding Stone for the Church.
Of course there are and were mistakes made by Humans in the name of the Catholic Church, but the basic Dogma of the catholic Church has always been one that was loving, instead of the hatred and blind Ignorance spread by alot of these so called Christians.
Head honcho maybe, but Messenger, Jerry, Dad1, and Soloved when he was around have all made these claims. I know Messenger said through th ages....but if we look at this age I would wager a guess, using your definition of christian that of the 2.1 billion 'christians' in the world there would be less than 100 million christians in the world (half of 2.1 billion are catholic = not christian + from my personal experience probably only 1 in 10, or less 'christians' is Christian according to your definition) And every previous generation has been smaller in population. I would be surprised if the total equalled 1 billion, and suspect it would be much less. Anyways, thats just nit picking. I never suspected you were way off base biblically speaking.....its been my experience that you are not way off base.
Also, it should also be considered that in the past many people were unable to read the bible for different reasons, and had to trust the church officials for their christian teachings, so if the church officials were manipulating the masses, these people were not christian, not for lack of trying, but for being unlucky.
Head honcho maybe, but Messenger, Jerry, Dad1, and Soloved when he was around have all made these claims. I know Messenger said through th ages....but if we look at this age I would wager a guess, using your definition of christian that of the 2.1 billion 'christians' in the world there would be less than 100 million christians in the world (half of 2.1 billion are catholic = not christian + from my personal experience probably only 1 in 10, or less 'christians' is Christian according to your definition) And every previous generation has been smaller in population. I would be surprised if the total equalled 1 billion, and suspect it would be much less. Anyways, thats just nit picking. I never suspected you were way off base biblically speaking.....its been my experience that you are not way off base.
Also, it should also be considered that in the past many people were unable to read the bible for different reasons, and had to trust the church officials for their christian teachings, so if the church officials were manipulating the masses, these people were not christian, not for lack of trying, but for being unlucky.
Since the Catholic Church is the only True and Rightfull Church of Christ, all other religions are Heretics and Satan Worshippers. It says so itself in the Bible. Jezus himself said so when he appointed Petrus as Founding Stone for the Church.
Of course there are and were mistakes made by Humans in the name of the Catholic Church, but the basic Dogma of the catholic Church has always been one that was loving, instead of the hatred and blind Ignorance spread by alot of these so called Christians.
Uh oh....just waiting for it hehe.
Newguy, I think the comparisons to slavery with being religious have to do with freely choosing to have gods will and not your own. Its sort of a weird thing wouldn't you say? I want to say catch 22, but not quite sure if that fits right now....I am very tired at the moment, didn't sleep well lastnight (about 2-3 hours only). At any rate I hope you can see how some consider religion illogical in this respect.
I think it was Ben Franklin who said "Those who are willing to give up freedom and liberty for momentary security deserve neither liberty nor free will".
So I imagine it is some people's opinion that giving up your free will to serve god's will for the security of heaven means you do not deserve your free will at all.
(The True Furqan 8:3)
Your religious quote is not applicable. “We” are not claiming that the xian god took a partner. He just needed a female he could use to procreate with. I guess a divine version of a one-night-stand.
QUOTE
Your religious quote is not applicable. “We” are not claiming that the xian god took a partner. He just needed a female he could use to procreate with. I guess a divine version of a one-night-stand.
At least this time He did not disguise Himself as a Swan or a Bull.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your religious quote is not applicable. “We” are not claiming that the xian god took a partner. He just needed a female he could use to procreate with. I guess a divine version of a one-night-stand. |
At least this time He did not disguise Himself as a Swan or a Bull.
Now, I have witnessed on this forum several self professing christians call other self professing christians devil worshippers.
and
QUOTE
It might interest you to know that there are several places in the Bible where it is prophesied that "in the last days" there would be more false converts than ever before.
Since the Catholic Church is the only True and Rightfull Church of Christ, all other religions are Heretics and Satan Worshippers. It says so itself in the Bible. Jezus himself said so when he appointed Petrus as Founding Stone for the Church.
Of course there are and were mistakes made by Humans in the name of the Catholic Church, but the basic Dogma of the catholic Church has always been one that was loving, instead of the hatred and blind Ignorance spread by alot of these so called Christians.
QUOTE
Steveo: Since I'm obviously one of the people(probably the "head honcho") that you're referring to, I thought I'd just make this quick observation. In all fairness to Messenger, he did say "billions and billions through the ages". "Through the ages" are the operative words there. It might interest you to know that there are several places in the Bible where it is prophesied that "in the last days" there would be more false converts than ever before. I know that people have claimed that we are "in the last days" many times throughout church history, but the point that I am making is that things are prophesied to GET WORSE, NOT BETTER, as far as false converts are concerned as the return of Christ draws near. That might not be of any genuine interest to you, but I thought that it was worthy of mention so that you know that I'm not necessarily "way off"(Biblically speaking, at least) when I make such claims about false converts. Have a good one.
Head honcho maybe, but Messenger, Jerry, Dad1, and Soloved when he was around have all made these claims. I know Messenger said through th ages....but if we look at this age I would wager a guess, using your definition of christian that of the 2.1 billion 'christians' in the world there would be less than 100 million christians in the world (half of 2.1 billion are catholic = not christian + from my personal experience probably only 1 in 10, or less 'christians' is Christian according to your definition) And every previous generation has been smaller in population. I would be surprised if the total equalled 1 billion, and suspect it would be much less. Anyways, thats just nit picking. I never suspected you were way off base biblically speaking.....its been my experience that you are not way off base.
Also, it should also be considered that in the past many people were unable to read the bible for different reasons, and had to trust the church officials for their christian teachings, so if the church officials were manipulating the masses, these people were not christian, not for lack of trying, but for being unlucky.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Steveo: Since I'm obviously one of the people(probably the "head honcho") that you're referring to, I thought I'd just make this quick observation. In all fairness to Messenger, he did say "billions and billions through the ages". "Through the ages" are the operative words there. It might interest you to know that there are several places in the Bible where it is prophesied that "in the last days" there would be more false converts than ever before. I know that people have claimed that we are "in the last days" many times throughout church history, but the point that I am making is that things are prophesied to GET WORSE, NOT BETTER, as far as false converts are concerned as the return of Christ draws near. That might not be of any genuine interest to you, but I thought that it was worthy of mention so that you know that I'm not necessarily "way off"(Biblically speaking, at least) when I make such claims about false converts. Have a good one. |
Head honcho maybe, but Messenger, Jerry, Dad1, and Soloved when he was around have all made these claims. I know Messenger said through th ages....but if we look at this age I would wager a guess, using your definition of christian that of the 2.1 billion 'christians' in the world there would be less than 100 million christians in the world (half of 2.1 billion are catholic = not christian + from my personal experience probably only 1 in 10, or less 'christians' is Christian according to your definition) And every previous generation has been smaller in population. I would be surprised if the total equalled 1 billion, and suspect it would be much less. Anyways, thats just nit picking. I never suspected you were way off base biblically speaking.....its been my experience that you are not way off base.
Also, it should also be considered that in the past many people were unable to read the bible for different reasons, and had to trust the church officials for their christian teachings, so if the church officials were manipulating the masses, these people were not christian, not for lack of trying, but for being unlucky.
Since the Catholic Church is the only True and Rightfull Church of Christ, all other religions are Heretics and Satan Worshippers. It says so itself in the Bible. Jezus himself said so when he appointed Petrus as Founding Stone for the Church.
Of course there are and were mistakes made by Humans in the name of the Catholic Church, but the basic Dogma of the catholic Church has always been one that was loving, instead of the hatred and blind Ignorance spread by alot of these so called Christians.
Uh oh....just waiting for it hehe.
Newguy, I think the comparisons to slavery with being religious have to do with freely choosing to have gods will and not your own. Its sort of a weird thing wouldn't you say? I want to say catch 22, but not quite sure if that fits right now....I am very tired at the moment, didn't sleep well lastnight (about 2-3 hours only). At any rate I hope you can see how some consider religion illogical in this respect.
I think it was Ben Franklin who said "Those who are willing to give up freedom and liberty for momentary security deserve neither liberty nor free will".
So I imagine it is some people's opinion that giving up your free will to serve god's will for the security of heaven means you do not deserve your free will at all.
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Jan 5 2006, 05:01 PM)
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 31 2005, 03:20 AM)
... another virgin so that he can seed her like Mary was seeded so that he can father himself! ...
(The True Furqan 8:3)
Religious text stated A virgin was Seeded!
That is rape!
No ifs No butts!
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners
(The True Furqan 8:3)
Religious text stated A virgin was Seeded!
That is rape!
No ifs No butts!
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Jan 5 2006, 05:24 PM)
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinnersQUOTE (Laidback+Jan 4 2006, 12:08 AM)
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Jan 3 2006, 06:07 PM)
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 30 2005, 12:50 AM)
... Everything is at the mercy of "Time" if it is to exist! ...
Except God.
Wrong! everything that exists is symbiotic to time. ...
Are you claiming to have complete knowledge of everything that exists? You obviously do not know the Saviour, Jesus Christ. I trust Jesus Christ to tell me the truth about time because I know him, I know that he is trustworthy, and I know that he is the Creator of all things, including you.
Damn Straight!
If anything is to exist and or happen TIME is a must!
Your feeble God needs time for it to exist!
Without time everything is stagnant! and therefore does not exist.
Hence the SYMBIOTIC forces.
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias, and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
(Matthew 16:13-18)
NewGuy,
I have to ask why in the cosmos would you quote the most inaccurate book ever written!???? I have to question how could my children at the age of 9 come to reason of the absurdness of the Bible, and yet at your age persist with conviction as if it consists of facts.
Surely you are aware if a book has such obvious inaccuracies all the material must be suspect!
My guess is the brainwashing doesn't allow you to read it objectively..
Religious Parents? YES?
Having expressed the above may I ask if you need me to point out what a load of crap the bible is?
I am more than happy to point out problematic areas if you choose to disband foolishness, of course this would mean your intellect would need to progress away from a simpletons mind, which leads to the question are you as capable as a nine year olds reasoning?
My guess would be indeed you are!
Except God.
Wrong! everything that exists is symbiotic to time. ...
Are you claiming to have complete knowledge of everything that exists? You obviously do not know the Saviour, Jesus Christ. I trust Jesus Christ to tell me the truth about time because I know him, I know that he is trustworthy, and I know that he is the Creator of all things, including you.
Damn Straight!
If anything is to exist and or happen TIME is a must!
Your feeble God needs time for it to exist!
Without time everything is stagnant! and therefore does not exist.
Hence the SYMBIOTIC forces.
QUOTE (J. Wensveen+)
Since the Catholic Church is the only True and Rightfull Church of Christ, all other religions are Heretics and Satan Worshippers. It says so itself in the Bible. Jezus himself said so when he appointed Petrus as Founding Stone for the Church.
Of course there are and were mistakes made by Humans in the name of the Catholic Church, but the basic Dogma of the catholic Church has always been one that was loving, instead of the hatred and blind Ignorance spread by alot of these so called Christians.
J. Wensveen: Long time, no hear. Can't honestly say that I've missed you. Still up to your uninformed heresies, I see. The only thing that the Bible has to say about the Catholic Church(Vatican/Pope) is that it is antichrist. I'll prove that one of these days when I have the time. Jesus NEVER appointed Peter as the founding stone for the church. Don't you ever feel the least bit convicted when you lie? Oh, that's right. Your "father" is "the father of lies", isn't he?
"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."(I Corinthians 3:11)
That's NOT the first time that I posted this scripture for you, J. Wensveen. When will you get it? Never? That's what I thought. It's NOT that hard to grasp, now is it? Jesus Christ is the foundation...NOT Peter or any other man. Your pagan Roman Catholic Church, skilled as they are at "twisting" the scriptures, put their own "spin" on this portion of scripture:
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias, and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
(Matthew 16:13-18)
Peter received a Divine revelation that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is "the rock"(Jesus Christ) that the church was going to be built upon. Prior to this encounter, it was Jesus Himself who changed Simon's name to Cephas(the Aramaic equivalent of Peter). Let's see what Peter's/Cephas' name means.
"He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."(John 1:41-42)
"Peter" or "Cephas" means "a stone". Christ is the Rock upon which other "stones" were to be laid. PETER HIMSELF TAUGHT THIS!
"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be that 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 a spiritual house, 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 Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not 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)
Jesus Christ is the "chief corner stone", the "stone which the builders disallowed", the "head of the corner", a "stone of stumbling" and a "rock of offence". Peter is NONE of these. He is merely a "lively stone" who is built upon the CHIEF CORNERSTONE OF CHRIST! Got it? No? Didn't think so. Well, maybe PETER will get through to you this time.
"Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."(Acts 4:8-12)
Did you get it that time? No? Didn't think so. Maybe Jesus can help you.
"Therefore whosover heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."(Matthew 7:24-25)
You said that the Catholic Church is the only true and rightful Church of Christ. You are totally wrong. Salvation is NOT found in any church and certainly NOT the Roman Catholic church. Salvation is found in Christ. He was "the Rock" long before Peter or any church came on the scene.
"Moreover, brethren, I would not that 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)
Jesus was "the Rock" way back during the Exodus and He is "the Rock" today. Worship your antichrist Pope(means Papa or Father) all you like. I'll stick with Jesus. My Father is in heaven. Later, heretic.
"For who is God save our Lord? or who is a rock save our God?"(Psalm 18:31)
P.S. Why don't you just send the Pope to my house? After I'm done knocking that silly "fish head mitre" that he got from the pagan "god" Dagon(they worshipped the sun and when it set in their rivers at night they thought it became a fish so their "priests" wore "fish head mitres") off his head with a snowball, I'll sit him down and teach him a thing or two. Deal?
Of course there are and were mistakes made by Humans in the name of the Catholic Church, but the basic Dogma of the catholic Church has always been one that was loving, instead of the hatred and blind Ignorance spread by alot of these so called Christians.
J. Wensveen: Long time, no hear. Can't honestly say that I've missed you. Still up to your uninformed heresies, I see. The only thing that the Bible has to say about the Catholic Church(Vatican/Pope) is that it is antichrist. I'll prove that one of these days when I have the time. Jesus NEVER appointed Peter as the founding stone for the church. Don't you ever feel the least bit convicted when you lie? Oh, that's right. Your "father" is "the father of lies", isn't he?
"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."(I Corinthians 3:11)
That's NOT the first time that I posted this scripture for you, J. Wensveen. When will you get it? Never? That's what I thought. It's NOT that hard to grasp, now is it? Jesus Christ is the foundation...NOT Peter or any other man. Your pagan Roman Catholic Church, skilled as they are at "twisting" the scriptures, put their own "spin" on this portion of scripture:
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias, and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
(Matthew 16:13-18)
Peter received a Divine revelation that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is "the rock"(Jesus Christ) that the church was going to be built upon. Prior to this encounter, it was Jesus Himself who changed Simon's name to Cephas(the Aramaic equivalent of Peter). Let's see what Peter's/Cephas' name means.
"He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."(John 1:41-42)
"Peter" or "Cephas" means "a stone". Christ is the Rock upon which other "stones" were to be laid. PETER HIMSELF TAUGHT THIS!
"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be that 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 a spiritual house, 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 Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not 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)
Jesus Christ is the "chief corner stone", the "stone which the builders disallowed", the "head of the corner", a "stone of stumbling" and a "rock of offence". Peter is NONE of these. He is merely a "lively stone" who is built upon the CHIEF CORNERSTONE OF CHRIST! Got it? No? Didn't think so. Well, maybe PETER will get through to you this time.
"Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."(Acts 4:8-12)
Did you get it that time? No? Didn't think so. Maybe Jesus can help you.
"Therefore whosover heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."(Matthew 7:24-25)
You said that the Catholic Church is the only true and rightful Church of Christ. You are totally wrong. Salvation is NOT found in any church and certainly NOT the Roman Catholic church. Salvation is found in Christ. He was "the Rock" long before Peter or any church came on the scene.
"Moreover, brethren, I would not that 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)
Jesus was "the Rock" way back during the Exodus and He is "the Rock" today. Worship your antichrist Pope(means Papa or Father) all you like. I'll stick with Jesus. My Father is in heaven. Later, heretic.
"For who is God save our Lord? or who is a rock save our God?"(Psalm 18:31)
P.S. Why don't you just send the Pope to my house? After I'm done knocking that silly "fish head mitre" that he got from the pagan "god" Dagon(they worshipped the sun and when it set in their rivers at night they thought it became a fish so their "priests" wore "fish head mitres") off his head with a snowball, I'll sit him down and teach him a thing or two. Deal?
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 6 2006, 02:33 AM)
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias, and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
(Matthew 16:13-18)
NewGuy,
I have to ask why in the cosmos would you quote the most inaccurate book ever written!???? I have to question how could my children at the age of 9 come to reason of the absurdness of the Bible, and yet at your age persist with conviction as if it consists of facts.
Surely you are aware if a book has such obvious inaccuracies all the material must be suspect!
My guess is the brainwashing doesn't allow you to read it objectively..
Religious Parents? YES?
Having expressed the above may I ask if you need me to point out what a load of crap the bible is?
I am more than happy to point out problematic areas if you choose to disband foolishness, of course this would mean your intellect would need to progress away from a simpletons mind, which leads to the question are you as capable as a nine year olds reasoning?
My guess would be indeed you are!
Laidback: The Bible is NOT the most inaccurate book ever written. It only seems that way to spiritually dead people. The Bible is an instruction manual that tells one how they can truly be reconciled unto God through Jesus Christ. This is a reality to me. You can insult my intelligence all you'd like. It won't change reality one bit. Have a good one.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 5 2006, 03:12 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
RELIGION and FREE WILL are mutually exclusive concepts; only SPIRITUALITY and FREE WILL can co-exist in the same mind.
RealityCheck: I'm assuming that when you say that religion and free will are mutually exclusive concepts, you are saying that religion and free will are "incompatible". Is this correct(I'm sorry for asking, but the word "exclusive" does have more than one meaning and I've misread people before)? If so, then how would you personally differentiate religion from spirituality? I'm not trying to be funny, I'm seriously interested in your viewpoint. Personally, I've never had a problem with religion/spirituality and free will. I've always viewed my relationship with God as a sort of spiritual marriage covenant(please, no homosexual comments, you know what I mean). It, like my natural marriage to my wife, is a covenant that I entered into of my own free will and continue in of my same own free will. I can "opt out" of either covenant at any time, although I never will. It was expected, in both cases, that certain "adjustments/restrictions" would normally follow the said covenant. In the case of my wife, I put away intimate relationships with all other women("intimate" has more than one meaning...I trust you know what I mean). In the case of God, I put away intimate relationships with all "other gods". I personally don't see why so many people have a problem with this religion/spirituality and free will thing. Others have commented on it on different threads and I'm assuming(I could be wrong) that you're referencing it in a similar way to how they referenced it. They seemed to view it as some sort of "slavery". It seems to me that the factor of LOVE is being overlooked. Although there are billions of other women currently on this planet, my heart is towards one, my wife(again, you know what I mean). At the same time, although there are "gods aplenty", my heart is towards one. Why do so many people seem to view this as some sort of "slavery"? I'm curious as to your thoughts on this, if I'm even "reading you" right. I do have another question for you on the topic of "reason, insanity and ignorance", but I'll hold off on that one until another time. It's been a really hectic day here. Two children are a whole new ballgame. That's not a complaint, just an observation. I love them both, dearly. Talk to you later.
Hi newguy!
Sorry for the delay in getting to this. Much to do elsewhere as well, hehehe. A brief answer will have to do, I'm afraid.
I'll start by referring you to some well-known phenomena succinctly encapsulated in the terms "Complexity & Emergent Behaviour" and "The WHOLE is GREATER than the SUM of its PARTS".
The first applies to the BRAIN where the number and complexity of neuronal connections give rise to 'emergent' properties which are not possible in much less "critical mass" of arrangement/interconnections of 'grey matter'.
The second applies to the MIND, in that the 'awareness' and 'abstraction capability' produced to give the "sense of SELF" and "OTHER" (or non-self) is a direct result of the ABSTRACT INTERACTIONS BEHIND (rather than because of the brain 'emotive construction below') that 'mind sense' and 'abstraction'.
It is because of these INTANGIBLE OUTCOMES from the LIFE complexity which we have attained as HUMANS that allows us to CONTEMPLATE MORE THAN THE BASICS OF THAT LIFE. Which is demonstrated by the 'abstract need' OR SPIRITUAL YEARNING of any human freed from ever-pressing constraints of subsistence/survival-level activity; sufficiently so as to be able to spend the time/mind in the pursuit of such IMAGINATIVE/SPIRITUAL 'knowledge'...whatever that intangible 'knowledge' may turn out to be or 'called' by us humans.
As to RELIGION and FREE WILL, they are mutually exclusive because to have 'religion/superstition' requires strict adherence to tenets/rituals etc IN CONCERT with OTHERS in some HEIRARCHICAL STRUCTURE not conducive to personal truthseeking. Whereas SPIRITUALITY and FREE WILL are NECESSARY CONCOMITANTS in the personal process of truth seeking, since no-one else nor other requirements are necessarily needed or imposed in such a combined spiritual & physical investigation of life, self & universe in general.
BUT (Mess/SoLoved please note) IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT, WITHOUT "REASON", NO HUMAN ACTIVITY, WHETHER SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL IN NATURE, CAN COME TO ANY LASTING GOOD..as it will be prey to unfettered insanity and profound ignorance of both self and the universal reality. That's all the time I have for now. But I hope you get my drift. Ciao.
RC.
.
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."
(I John 3:7-10)
The devil was once an angel in heaven right? So did this angel sin from the beginning? To me that seems like a contradiction since the devil was once an angel, but now its said that the devil sinned since the beginning.
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."
(I John 3:7-10)
The devil was once an angel in heaven right? So did this angel sin from the beginning? To me that seems like a contradiction since the devil was once an angel, but now its said that the devil sinned since the beginning.
Steveo: There are times in scripture when God not only speaks to an individual, but He also speaks to the "spirit" that is "inspiring" the individual. One such case would be as follows.
"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."(Matthew 16:21-23)
Obviously, Jesus wasn't suggesting that Peter was Satan. Peter was being "inspired" by Satan at that moment, though. This conversation, by the way, happened only moments after Jesus supposedly, according to J. Wensveen, named Peter the first Pope. Some Pope, huh? Anyhow, the point I'm making is that you can learn something about the character of Satan by observing those that he "inspires". Having said this, please consider this portion of scripture from the Old Testament in which God not only speaks to a man, but also reveals some things about the "spirit" that was "inspiring" him.
"Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."
(Ezekiel 28:11-17)
Although this lamentation is aimed towards the king of Tyrus, it is obvious that more than just a man is being addressed. God speaks to "the anointed cherub that covereth". A "cherub" is an angel and not one of those little babies with their behinds showing that you see depicted in some artwork. This is not just an anointed cherub, but an anointed cherub "that covereth". This term is pretty significant. In the times of Moses, God instructed Moses to build a tabernacle here on earth that was a "type" of the true tabernacle in heaven. One of the pieces of furniture in this earthly tabernacle was what is known as "the ark of the covenant". The ark of the covenant had a mercy seat upon it with two cherubim that "covered" it. If this is a type of the throne of God in heaven, then one could believe that there are two cherubim that "cover" God's throne. It is quite possible that, prior to his "fall", Lucifer or Satan was one of the two cherubim that "covered" God's throne. Some of the things that led to his "downfall" are listed in this portion of scripture that we just read. "Thy heart was lifted up because of thy beauty." This speaks of vanity or pride. "The midst of thee was filled with violence". Jesus said that Satan is a murderer. One phrase of vital significance to me is "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness". Satan has much wisdom. It is corrupted wisdom, though. I personally am convinced, regardless of how much ridicule I take for saying this, that Satan greatly "inspires" the thoughts and actions of mankind with his corrupted wisdom. In any case, the scriptures do say of this cherub, "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." This cherub, whom I believe to be Lucifer or Satan, was initially created perfect. He later on chose to sin. When we read "for the devil sinneth from the beginning", I would suggest to you that this simply means that sin originated or had its "beginning" with the devil. Consequently, all those who follow him down this path are "children of the devil". Hope this helps.
P.S. If you tell me your hat size, I'll see if I can get you one of those "fish head mitres". The Roman Catholic church isn't pagan, my butt.
RELIGION and FREE WILL are mutually exclusive concepts; only SPIRITUALITY and FREE WILL can co-exist in the same mind. All this talk of 'being saved and saving' are UNNECESSARY to personal fulfilment in BOTH the spiritual and physical senses.
And of course, if God is omniscient, how can there be free will? If God already knows what I'm going to select from the menu for dinner, what 'choice' do I really have in the matter?
Thank you Dr. Heisenberg, is all I can say.
Then there is still no free will, even with the Uncertainty principle. There are no choices, but each outcome would have a probability, but still no free will. Just percieved free will.
RELIGION and FREE WILL are mutually exclusive concepts; only SPIRITUALITY and FREE WILL can co-exist in the same mind. All this talk of 'being saved and saving' are UNNECESSARY to personal fulfilment in BOTH the spiritual and physical senses.
And of course, if God is omniscient, how can there be free will? If God already knows what I'm going to select from the menu for dinner, what 'choice' do I really have in the matter?
Thank you Dr. Heisenberg, is all I can say.
Hi birdan.
Hehehe...and who was it (Mess ?SoLoved? dadl?) that maintained 'god' effectively "knows" our thoughts, desires, wishes, choices etc before we do?
hehehe.
RealityCheck: I'm assuming that when you say that religion and free will are mutually exclusive concepts, you are saying that religion and free will are "incompatible". Is this correct(I'm sorry for asking, but the word "exclusive" does have more than one meaning and I've misread people before)? If so, then how would you personally differentiate religion from spirituality? I'm not trying to be funny, I'm seriously interested in your viewpoint. Personally, I've never had a problem with religion/spirituality and free will. I've always viewed my relationship with God as a sort of spiritual marriage covenant(please, no homosexual comments, you know what I mean). It, like my natural marriage to my wife, is a covenant that I entered into of my own free will and continue in of my same own free will. I can "opt out" of either covenant at any time, although I never will. It was expected, in both cases, that certain "adjustments/restrictions" would normally follow the said covenant. In the case of my wife, I put away intimate relationships with all other women("intimate" has more than one meaning...I trust you know what I mean). In the case of God, I put away intimate relationships with all "other gods". I personally don't see why so many people have a problem with this religion/spirituality and free will thing. Others have commented on it on different threads and I'm assuming(I could be wrong) that you're referencing it in a similar way to how they referenced it. They seemed to view it as some sort of "slavery". It seems to me that the factor of LOVE is being overlooked. Although there are billions of other women currently on this planet, my heart is towards one, my wife(again, you know what I mean). At the same time, although there are "gods aplenty", my heart is towards one. Why do so many people seem to view this as some sort of "slavery"? I'm curious as to your thoughts on this, if I'm even "reading you" right. I do have another question for you on the topic of "reason, insanity and ignorance", but I'll hold off on that one until another time. It's been a really hectic day here. Two children are a whole new ballgame. That's not a complaint, just an observation. I love them both, dearly. Talk to you later.
Hi newguy!
Sorry for the delay in getting to this. Much to do elsewhere as well, hehehe. A brief answer will have to do, I'm afraid.
I'll start by referring you to some well-known phenomena succinctly encapsulated in the terms "Complexity & Emergent Behaviour" and "The WHOLE is GREATER than the SUM of its PARTS".
The first applies to the BRAIN where the number and complexity of neuronal connections give rise to 'emergent' properties which are not possible in much less "critical mass" of arrangement/interconnections of 'grey matter'.
The second applies to the MIND, in that the 'awareness' and 'abstraction capability' produced to give the "sense of SELF" and "OTHER" (or non-self) is a direct result of the ABSTRACT INTERACTIONS BEHIND (rather than because of the brain 'emotive construction below') that 'mind sense' and 'abstraction'.
It is because of these INTANGIBLE OUTCOMES from the LIFE complexity which we have attained as HUMANS that allows us to CONTEMPLATE MORE THAN THE BASICS OF THAT LIFE. Which is demonstrated by the 'abstract need' OR SPIRITUAL YEARNING of any human freed from ever-pressing constraints of subsistence/survival-level activity; sufficiently so as to be able to spend the time/mind in the pursuit of such IMAGINATIVE/SPIRITUAL 'knowledge'...whatever that intangible 'knowledge' may turn out to be or 'called' by us humans.
As to RELIGION and FREE WILL, they are mutually exclusive because to have 'religion/superstition' requires strict adherence to tenets/rituals etc IN CONCERT with OTHERS in some HEIRARCHICAL STRUCTURE not conducive to personal truthseeking. Whereas SPIRITUALITY and FREE WILL are NECESSARY CONCOMITANTS in the personal process of truth seeking, since no-one else nor other requirements are necessarily needed or imposed in such a combined spiritual & physical investigation of life, self & universe in general.
BUT (Mess/SoLoved please note) IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT, WITHOUT "REASON", NO HUMAN ACTIVITY, WHETHER SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL IN NATURE, CAN COME TO ANY LASTING GOOD..as it will be prey to unfettered insanity and profound ignorance of both self and the universal reality. That's all the time I have for now. But I hope you get my drift. Ciao.
RC.
.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 6 2006, 03:12 AM)
The Bible is NOT the most inaccurate book ever written. It only seems that way to spiritually dead people. The Bible is an instruction manual that tells one how they can truly be reconciled unto God through Jesus Christ.
The bible is FULL of contradictions and can easily be used to PROVE or DISPROVE any argument! We are ALL God's children BUT Jesus was his ONLY SON??? The very foundation of the New Testament is obviously corrupt! Not just because of the content; but mainly because of the COMPILER'S INTENTIONS! Was reconciling unto God through Jesus Christ 'their' TRUE intention? Or was it politically motivated? If politics were the dominant reason behind the crucifiction; then why not the bible too?
If Killing him didn't silence his message; then perhaps twisting his message around and using it to their advantage would! If the bible was overflowing with food for the soul; then surely 'spiritually dead people' would find a FEAST instead of inaccuracies??
The bible is FULL of contradictions and can easily be used to PROVE or DISPROVE any argument! We are ALL God's children BUT Jesus was his ONLY SON??? The very foundation of the New Testament is obviously corrupt! Not just because of the content; but mainly because of the COMPILER'S INTENTIONS! Was reconciling unto God through Jesus Christ 'their' TRUE intention? Or was it politically motivated? If politics were the dominant reason behind the crucifiction; then why not the bible too?
If Killing him didn't silence his message; then perhaps twisting his message around and using it to their advantage would! If the bible was overflowing with food for the soul; then surely 'spiritually dead people' would find a FEAST instead of inaccuracies??
QUOTE (3ohm+Jan 6 2006, 06:41 AM)
... surely 'spiritually dead people' would find a FEAST instead of inaccuracies??
Dead people do not eat. They are eaten. Spiritually dead people are eaten by devils.
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. (II Corinthians 4:3-7)
Anyone who is a Christian can resist the devil with God's help.
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. (I Peter 5:8-9)
The Holy BibleHow to be SavedCreation Proof
Dead people do not eat. They are eaten. Spiritually dead people are eaten by devils.
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. (II Corinthians 4:3-7)
Anyone who is a Christian can resist the devil with God's help.
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. (I Peter 5:8-9)
The Holy Bible
How to be SavedCreation Proof
QUOTE (3ohm+)
The bible is FULL of contradictions and can easily be used to PROVE or DISPROVE any argument! We are ALL God's children BUT Jesus was his ONLY SON??? The very foundation of the New Testament is obviously corrupt! Not just because of the content; but mainly because of the COMPILER'S INTENTIONS! Was reconciling unto God through Jesus Christ 'their' TRUE intention? Or was it politically motivated? If politics were the dominant reason behind the crucifiction; then why not the bible too?
If Killing him didn't silence his message; then perhaps twisting his message around and using it to their advantage would! If the bible was overflowing with food for the soul; then surely 'spiritually dead people' would find a FEAST instead of inaccuracies??
3ohm: You must have me confused with someone else. I NEVER said that "we are ALL God's children". NEVER. I've seen other people post such statements, but I NEVER have.
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."
(I John 3:7-10)
That is but one of several verses that differentiate between "the children of God" and "the children of the devil". That is what I believe and I've plainly stated such from the time that I first joined this forum. There are plenty of people on this forum who don't share this view, but I trust that they will acknowledge that this is what I've always stated.
Additionally, and PLEASE pay close attention here, NOWHERE does the Bible state that Jesus was God's "ONLY SON". NOWHERE(Well, actually, in most of the corrupt "new versions" the word "begotten" has been deliberately omitted). The Bible states that Jesus is God's "only BEGOTTEN Son". There is a world of difference there. Although the term "begotten" is applied to natural fathers having offspring, there is CLEARLY a different application of this term when used in connection with Jesus Christ. PLEASE, if just for the sake of understanding, consider these following portions of scripture.
"1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them is his sore displeasure. 6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."(Psalm 2:1-7)
The first 6 verses of this Psalm prophesied of how God was going to send "his anointed" or "his Christ"(see Acts 4:26) into the world and how He was going to be rejected and killed by the people. Just so you see that this is NOT my own personal interpretation, I'll show you where the Bible interprets this portion of scripture for us. Peter and John had just been threatened and commanded not to teach anymore in the name of Jesus.
"And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them. And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."(Acts 4:23-28)
You will notice that they used part of Psalm 2 as their prayer and gave the interpretation of the first part of this Psalm. The rulers, the Gentiles and the people of Israel gathered together and crucified God's Christ. Now let's go back and read Psalm 2:7 in light of this.
"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."(Psalm 2:7)
It was after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, when God raised Him from the dead, that Jesus Christ was "begotten". That is what is meant by "this day". To show you, once again, that this is not my own private interpretation, consider the following scriptures.
"Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you that feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."(Acts 13:26-33)
There you have it. God fulfilled His promise when He raised Jesus from the dead. It was "this day" that Jesus was "begotten from the dead".
"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth."(Revelation 1:5)
So, you see(unless you willingly "shut your eyes"), contrary to your FALSE assertion, there is absolutely NO CONTRADICTION there. It is simply your lack of understanding that gives you that FALSE impression. Hope this helps.
If Killing him didn't silence his message; then perhaps twisting his message around and using it to their advantage would! If the bible was overflowing with food for the soul; then surely 'spiritually dead people' would find a FEAST instead of inaccuracies??
3ohm: You must have me confused with someone else. I NEVER said that "we are ALL God's children". NEVER. I've seen other people post such statements, but I NEVER have.
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."
(I John 3:7-10)
That is but one of several verses that differentiate between "the children of God" and "the children of the devil". That is what I believe and I've plainly stated such from the time that I first joined this forum. There are plenty of people on this forum who don't share this view, but I trust that they will acknowledge that this is what I've always stated.
Additionally, and PLEASE pay close attention here, NOWHERE does the Bible state that Jesus was God's "ONLY SON". NOWHERE(Well, actually, in most of the corrupt "new versions" the word "begotten" has been deliberately omitted). The Bible states that Jesus is God's "only BEGOTTEN Son". There is a world of difference there. Although the term "begotten" is applied to natural fathers having offspring, there is CLEARLY a different application of this term when used in connection with Jesus Christ. PLEASE, if just for the sake of understanding, consider these following portions of scripture.
"1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them is his sore displeasure. 6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."(Psalm 2:1-7)
The first 6 verses of this Psalm prophesied of how God was going to send "his anointed" or "his Christ"(see Acts 4:26) into the world and how He was going to be rejected and killed by the people. Just so you see that this is NOT my own personal interpretation, I'll show you where the Bible interprets this portion of scripture for us. Peter and John had just been threatened and commanded not to teach anymore in the name of Jesus.
"And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them. And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."(Acts 4:23-28)
You will notice that they used part of Psalm 2 as their prayer and gave the interpretation of the first part of this Psalm. The rulers, the Gentiles and the people of Israel gathered together and crucified God's Christ. Now let's go back and read Psalm 2:7 in light of this.
"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."(Psalm 2:7)
It was after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, when God raised Him from the dead, that Jesus Christ was "begotten". That is what is meant by "this day". To show you, once again, that this is not my own private interpretation, consider the following scriptures.
"Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you that feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."(Acts 13:26-33)
There you have it. God fulfilled His promise when He raised Jesus from the dead. It was "this day" that Jesus was "begotten from the dead".
"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth."(Revelation 1:5)
So, you see(unless you willingly "shut your eyes"), contrary to your FALSE assertion, there is absolutely NO CONTRADICTION there. It is simply your lack of understanding that gives you that FALSE impression. Hope this helps.
QUOTE
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."
(I John 3:7-10)
The devil was once an angel in heaven right? So did this angel sin from the beginning? To me that seems like a contradiction since the devil was once an angel, but now its said that the devil sinned since the beginning.
Ooops. I accidentally posted this before I was done editing. My full response follows. Sorry.
QUOTE (Steveo+Jan 6 2006, 04:23 PM)
QUOTE
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."
(I John 3:7-10)
The devil was once an angel in heaven right? So did this angel sin from the beginning? To me that seems like a contradiction since the devil was once an angel, but now its said that the devil sinned since the beginning.
Steveo: There are times in scripture when God not only speaks to an individual, but He also speaks to the "spirit" that is "inspiring" the individual. One such case would be as follows.
"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."(Matthew 16:21-23)
Obviously, Jesus wasn't suggesting that Peter was Satan. Peter was being "inspired" by Satan at that moment, though. This conversation, by the way, happened only moments after Jesus supposedly, according to J. Wensveen, named Peter the first Pope. Some Pope, huh? Anyhow, the point I'm making is that you can learn something about the character of Satan by observing those that he "inspires". Having said this, please consider this portion of scripture from the Old Testament in which God not only speaks to a man, but also reveals some things about the "spirit" that was "inspiring" him.
"Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."
(Ezekiel 28:11-17)
Although this lamentation is aimed towards the king of Tyrus, it is obvious that more than just a man is being addressed. God speaks to "the anointed cherub that covereth". A "cherub" is an angel and not one of those little babies with their behinds showing that you see depicted in some artwork. This is not just an anointed cherub, but an anointed cherub "that covereth". This term is pretty significant. In the times of Moses, God instructed Moses to build a tabernacle here on earth that was a "type" of the true tabernacle in heaven. One of the pieces of furniture in this earthly tabernacle was what is known as "the ark of the covenant". The ark of the covenant had a mercy seat upon it with two cherubim that "covered" it. If this is a type of the throne of God in heaven, then one could believe that there are two cherubim that "cover" God's throne. It is quite possible that, prior to his "fall", Lucifer or Satan was one of the two cherubim that "covered" God's throne. Some of the things that led to his "downfall" are listed in this portion of scripture that we just read. "Thy heart was lifted up because of thy beauty." This speaks of vanity or pride. "The midst of thee was filled with violence". Jesus said that Satan is a murderer. One phrase of vital significance to me is "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness". Satan has much wisdom. It is corrupted wisdom, though. I personally am convinced, regardless of how much ridicule I take for saying this, that Satan greatly "inspires" the thoughts and actions of mankind with his corrupted wisdom. In any case, the scriptures do say of this cherub, "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." This cherub, whom I believe to be Lucifer or Satan, was initially created perfect. He later on chose to sin. When we read "for the devil sinneth from the beginning", I would suggest to you that this simply means that sin originated or had its "beginning" with the devil. Consequently, all those who follow him down this path are "children of the devil". Hope this helps.
P.S. If you tell me your hat size, I'll see if I can get you one of those "fish head mitres". The Roman Catholic church isn't pagan, my butt.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 5 2006, 02:06 AM)
RELIGION and FREE WILL are mutually exclusive concepts; only SPIRITUALITY and FREE WILL can co-exist in the same mind. All this talk of 'being saved and saving' are UNNECESSARY to personal fulfilment in BOTH the spiritual and physical senses.
And of course, if God is omniscient, how can there be free will? If God already knows what I'm going to select from the menu for dinner, what 'choice' do I really have in the matter?
Thank you Dr. Heisenberg, is all I can say.
QUOTE
And of course, if God is omniscient, how can there be free will? If God already knows what I'm going to select from the menu for dinner, what 'choice' do I really have in the matter?
Thank you Dr. Heisenberg, is all I can say.
Thank you Dr. Heisenberg, is all I can say.
Then there is still no free will, even with the Uncertainty principle. There are no choices, but each outcome would have a probability, but still no free will. Just percieved free will.
birdan/Steveo: I totally disagree with both of you. What a surprise, eh? If I was to take my 2 year old(soon to be 3) out to a restaurant for lunch right now, I could almost guarantee what she would order. That means, in your minds, that she has no "free will"? That's utter nonsense. I wouldn't "force her" what to order, but I could be pretty sure what it would be and I only have limited knowledge(No arguments there, eh?). Just because an omniscient God knows what decisions we will make doesn't mean that they are not OUR DECISIONS to make. He doesn't hold a knife to our throat, now does He? Of course not. Regarding Steveo's "uncertainy principle"(if I'm understanding him right), are you suggesting that if my daughter wanted to order a grilled cheese sandwich and it wasn't on the menu, then she doesn't have "free will"? Is that basically what you're saying? She would just have to then make another "choice", wouldn't she? This definition of "free will"(if, as I said, I'm understanding him right) does not seem to be the same complaint that I've received from others regarding "free will" and God. Anyhow, I've gotta run.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Newguy, you definately did not understand me correctly. Thats ok, since I was speaking purely on scientific terms. Dr. Heisenberg was one of the orginal contributers to what is known as the 'new quantum mechanics'. His contribute was very large. At the same time he published a paper about mechanics called Matrix Mechanics (because it relied heavily on linear algebra and the use of matrices) and Irwin Schrodinger wrote a paper which postulated 'Schrodinger's Equation'. It was later found that these theories were the same, just in completely different mathematical forms. Anyways, enough of this history, what we were specifically refering to is called the uncertainty principle. What it says is that the uncertainty in position multplyed by the uncertainty in momentum is always greater than or equal to plancks constant (hbar not h) divided by 2. Or expressed mathematically as dxdp>=h/2 (where d is supposed to mean delta, the little triangle, as its normally seen, and h is h bar).
Now a bit more history about physics. Everyone has heard of Issac Newton, and his laws of motion. A philosophical arguement from his laws is that given enough information (i.e. the initial position and momentum of everything in the universe) the 'evolution' of the universe can be predicted exactly, which eliminates the concept of free will all together.
But what Dr. Hiesenberg told us through the uncertainty principle, (I am saying very crudely) is that we can never have this perfect information. That with any gain in accuracy in measurement of position, you will lose accuracy in the momentum. This only effects very small things, such as atoms, electrons, protons, etc...and is not obserable on the macroscopic scale. So what this, and other aspects of quantum mechanics (the probabilistic nature of it) is that we can not predict the future exactly no matter how much we know. There are many ways to interpret this philosphically. You could say that this is our free will, or you could say, as I did, that even though we can't predict what happens, we do not truly have free will. There are other ways to interpret this too.......I was talking purely on the scientific level, and my overall world views of free will are different than my scientific views of free will. So before you go trying to shoot down my ideas remember that is only scientific philosophy we were discussing.
Now a bit more history about physics. Everyone has heard of Issac Newton, and his laws of motion. A philosophical arguement from his laws is that given enough information (i.e. the initial position and momentum of everything in the universe) the 'evolution' of the universe can be predicted exactly, which eliminates the concept of free will all together.
But what Dr. Hiesenberg told us through the uncertainty principle, (I am saying very crudely) is that we can never have this perfect information. That with any gain in accuracy in measurement of position, you will lose accuracy in the momentum. This only effects very small things, such as atoms, electrons, protons, etc...and is not obserable on the macroscopic scale. So what this, and other aspects of quantum mechanics (the probabilistic nature of it) is that we can not predict the future exactly no matter how much we know. There are many ways to interpret this philosphically. You could say that this is our free will, or you could say, as I did, that even though we can't predict what happens, we do not truly have free will. There are other ways to interpret this too.......I was talking purely on the scientific level, and my overall world views of free will are different than my scientific views of free will. So before you go trying to shoot down my ideas remember that is only scientific philosophy we were discussing.
QUOTE (birdan+Jan 6 2006, 05:45 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 5 2006, 02:06 AM)
RELIGION and FREE WILL are mutually exclusive concepts; only SPIRITUALITY and FREE WILL can co-exist in the same mind. All this talk of 'being saved and saving' are UNNECESSARY to personal fulfilment in BOTH the spiritual and physical senses.
And of course, if God is omniscient, how can there be free will? If God already knows what I'm going to select from the menu for dinner, what 'choice' do I really have in the matter?
Thank you Dr. Heisenberg, is all I can say.
Hi birdan.
Hehehe...and who was it (Mess ?SoLoved? dadl?) that maintained 'god' effectively "knows" our thoughts, desires, wishes, choices etc before we do?
hehehe.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 6 2006, 06:30 PM)
birdan/Steveo: I totally disagree with both of you. What a surprise, eh? If I was to take my 2 year old(soon to be 3) out to a restaurant for lunch right now, I could almost guarantee what she would order. That means, in your minds, that she has no "free will"? That's utter nonsense. I wouldn't "force her" what to order, but I could be pretty sure what it would be and I only have limited knowledge(No arguments there, eh?). Just because an omniscient God knows what decisions we will make doesn't mean that they are not OUR DECISIONS to make. He doesn't hold a knife to our throat, now does He? Of course not. Regarding Steveo's "uncertainy principle"(if I'm understanding him right), are you suggesting that if my daughter wanted to order a grilled cheese sandwich and it wasn't on the menu, then she doesn't have "free will"? Is that basically what you're saying? She would just have to then make another "choice", wouldn't she? This definition of "free will"(if, as I said, I'm understanding him right) does not seem to be the same complaint that I've received from others regarding "free will" and God. Anyhow, I've gotta run.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Hi newguy.
I think the point is ALSO that: if 'god' knew what a BAD individual's 'choices' would be, then why all this surprise/anger/punishment etc. against EVERYONE AROUND THEM (like innocent children etc); why not PRE-EMPTIVE/SELECTIVE 'smiting' against such INDIVIDUAL CASES of 'disobedience' etc. And wouldn't it also imply that 'chance' has a lot to do with good/bad/saved etc.? Ciao.
RC.
.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Hi newguy.
I think the point is ALSO that: if 'god' knew what a BAD individual's 'choices' would be, then why all this surprise/anger/punishment etc. against EVERYONE AROUND THEM (like innocent children etc); why not PRE-EMPTIVE/SELECTIVE 'smiting' against such INDIVIDUAL CASES of 'disobedience' etc. And wouldn't it also imply that 'chance' has a lot to do with good/bad/saved etc.? Ciao.
RC.
.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 6 2006, 06:30 PM)
birdan/Steveo: I totally disagree with both of you. What a surprise, eh? If I was to take my 2 year old(soon to be 3) out to a restaurant for lunch right now, I could almost guarantee what she would order. That means, in your minds, that she has no "free will"? That's utter nonsense. I wouldn't "force her" what to order, but I could be pretty sure what it would be and I only have limited knowledge(No arguments there, eh?). Just because an omniscient God knows what decisions we will make doesn't mean that they are not OUR DECISIONS to make. He doesn't hold a knife to our throat, now does He? Of course not. Regarding Steveo's "uncertainy principle"(if I'm understanding him right), are you suggesting that if my daughter wanted to order a grilled cheese sandwich and it wasn't on the menu, then she doesn't have "free will"? Is that basically what you're saying? She would just have to then make another "choice", wouldn't she? This definition of "free will"(if, as I said, I'm understanding him right) does not seem to be the same complaint that I've received from others regarding "free will" and God. Anyhow, I've gotta run.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Now let me get this straight - this is PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums
How can you not know Heisenberg???
Don't get me wrong - possibly you could "blow me out of the water" on theology...
But this isn't a Theology forum. It's a Physics forum. I am Gob-smacked.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Now let me get this straight - this is PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums
How can you not know Heisenberg???
Don't get me wrong - possibly you could "blow me out of the water" on theology...
But this isn't a Theology forum. It's a Physics forum. I am Gob-smacked.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 6 2006, 03:12 AM)
Laidback: The Bible is NOT the most inaccurate book ever written. It only seems that way to spiritually dead people. The Bible is an instruction manual that tells one how they can truly be reconciled unto God through Jesus Christ. This is a reality to me. You can insult my intelligence all you'd like. It won't change reality one bit. Have a good one.
Actually the way I see it is you have the same intelligence as anybody else, its just that your reasoning is restricted to twisted facts, well to me it seems that way.
Heres a hint of how Intelligent Your Intelligent designer is...
We exist in a Universe with many observed facts that points to other facts that agree with each other..
Let me address a scenario where if I was an all powerful and all KNOWING creator..
And I was to avail to ALL humankind my wisdom based on observed facts.
As a Wise Creator I would know that our solar system needs the sun to ignite and spew forth mass for it to create the solar planets and in particular our cooling Planet "Earth" In fact our Star or Sun would have to exist first as the planets orbits are not possible without it, so thats two points where the bible or your so called creator has failed!
Another point, As a Wise all knowing creator I would know a body of water would need energy for it to be in liquid form as it so happens throughout the universe - where ever there is lacking energy via some Star or sun "Darkness" H2o is in solid form commonly known as ICE, I would also be aware what happens to H2o in a liquid state if extra energy interacted with it, like a Sun Igniting! "claimed sun created" just think of all that extra energy and the tepertures involved!
Having read the above primary or state school science let us read the first few lines of the bible.
Note how current physics or current state of the universe is not complying to claimed creators creations, in fact it seems your God is describing some other realm more to that of la la land!
so on reading the first few lines we have an enormous ammount of data that proves that your God is False!, and therefore the claimed gods words are all NULL and Void! because claimed creations dont describe facts as they really are!
Actually the way I see it is you have the same intelligence as anybody else, its just that your reasoning is restricted to twisted facts, well to me it seems that way.
Heres a hint of how Intelligent Your Intelligent designer is...
We exist in a Universe with many observed facts that points to other facts that agree with each other..
Let me address a scenario where if I was an all powerful and all KNOWING creator..
And I was to avail to ALL humankind my wisdom based on observed facts.
As a Wise Creator I would know that our solar system needs the sun to ignite and spew forth mass for it to create the solar planets and in particular our cooling Planet "Earth" In fact our Star or Sun would have to exist first as the planets orbits are not possible without it, so thats two points where the bible or your so called creator has failed!
Another point, As a Wise all knowing creator I would know a body of water would need energy for it to be in liquid form as it so happens throughout the universe - where ever there is lacking energy via some Star or sun "Darkness" H2o is in solid form commonly known as ICE, I would also be aware what happens to H2o in a liquid state if extra energy interacted with it, like a Sun Igniting! "claimed sun created" just think of all that extra energy and the tepertures involved!
Having read the above primary or state school science let us read the first few lines of the bible.
QUOTE
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.
God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light!
God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day
Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.
God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light!
God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day
Note how current physics or current state of the universe is not complying to claimed creators creations, in fact it seems your God is describing some other realm more to that of la la land!
so on reading the first few lines we have an enormous ammount of data that proves that your God is False!, and therefore the claimed gods words are all NULL and Void! because claimed creations dont describe facts as they really are!
Heisenberg is pulled over for speeding:
"Do you know how fast you were going?" the police officer asks, incredulously.
"No," replies Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I am!"
"Do you know how fast you were going?" the police officer asks, incredulously.
"No," replies Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I am!"
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 6 2006, 06:30 PM)
birdan/Steveo: I totally disagree with both of you. What a surprise, eh? If I was to take my 2 year old(soon to be 3) out to a restaurant for lunch right now, I could almost guarantee what she would order. That means, in your minds, that she has no "free will"? That's utter nonsense. I wouldn't "force her" what to order, but I could be pretty sure what it would be and I only have limited knowledge(No arguments there, eh?). Just because an omniscient God knows what decisions we will make doesn't mean that they are not OUR DECISIONS to make. He doesn't hold a knife to our throat, now does He? Of course not. Regarding Steveo's "uncertainy principle"(if I'm understanding him right), are you suggesting that if my daughter wanted to order a grilled cheese sandwich and it wasn't on the menu, then she doesn't have "free will"? Is that basically what you're saying? She would just have to then make another "choice", wouldn't she? This definition of "free will"(if, as I said, I'm understanding him right) does not seem to be the same complaint that I've received from others regarding "free will" and God. Anyhow, I've gotta run.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
What you fail to see is that if a plan is being worked to - it needs the WHOLE plan to go acording to plan! suggesting free will can not come into it..
Any free willed change by those that are part of the plan means the Plan will never work! Change the script by an actors free will and events wont make sense!
More evidence the biblical gawd is false!
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
What you fail to see is that if a plan is being worked to - it needs the WHOLE plan to go acording to plan! suggesting free will can not come into it..
Any free willed change by those that are part of the plan means the Plan will never work! Change the script by an actors free will and events wont make sense!
More evidence the biblical gawd is false!
QUOTE (Steveo+)
There are other ways to interpret this too.......I was talking purely on the scientific level, and my overall world views of free will are different than my scientific views of free will. So before you go trying to shoot down my ideas remember that is only scientific philosophy we were discussing.
Steveo: In all fairness to me, I did mention twice in my very short post that I wasn't sure if I was understanding you correctly. I hardly think that constitutes "trying to shoot down your ideas". I wasn't even sure what "your ideas" were. In addition, how was I to know that you were "talking purely on the scientific level"? You quoted a post from birdan in which he was talking about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner. That doesn't sound too scientific to me. Granted, he did also make mention of Dr. Heisenberg and I plainly admitted that I didn't know who the heck he was. So how then was I to know that you were making reference to him when I didn't even know who he was? Anyhow, we've had plenty of "head on collisions" in the past. This was a minor "fender bender" at best. Later.
Steveo: In all fairness to me, I did mention twice in my very short post that I wasn't sure if I was understanding you correctly. I hardly think that constitutes "trying to shoot down your ideas". I wasn't even sure what "your ideas" were. In addition, how was I to know that you were "talking purely on the scientific level"? You quoted a post from birdan in which he was talking about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner. That doesn't sound too scientific to me. Granted, he did also make mention of Dr. Heisenberg and I plainly admitted that I didn't know who the heck he was. So how then was I to know that you were making reference to him when I didn't even know who he was? Anyhow, we've had plenty of "head on collisions" in the past. This was a minor "fender bender" at best. Later.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 6 2006, 11:46 PM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 6 2006, 06:30 PM)
birdan/Steveo: I totally disagree with both of you. What a surprise, eh? If I was to take my 2 year old(soon to be 3) out to a restaurant for lunch right now, I could almost guarantee what she would order. That means, in your minds, that she has no "free will"? That's utter nonsense. I wouldn't "force her" what to order, but I could be pretty sure what it would be and I only have limited knowledge(No arguments there, eh?). Just because an omniscient God knows what decisions we will make doesn't mean that they are not OUR DECISIONS to make. He doesn't hold a knife to our throat, now does He? Of course not. Regarding Steveo's "uncertainy principle"(if I'm understanding him right), are you suggesting that if my daughter wanted to order a grilled cheese sandwich and it wasn't on the menu, then she doesn't have "free will"? Is that basically what you're saying? She would just have to then make another "choice", wouldn't she? This definition of "free will"(if, as I said, I'm understanding him right) does not seem to be the same complaint that I've received from others regarding "free will" and God. Anyhow, I've gotta run.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Hi newguy.
I think the point is ALSO that: if 'god' knew what a BAD individual's 'choices' would be, then why all this surprise/anger/punishment etc. against EVERYONE AROUND THEM (like innocent children etc); why not PRE-EMPTIVE/SELECTIVE 'smiting' against such INDIVIDUAL CASES of 'disobedience' etc. And wouldn't it also imply that 'chance' has a lot to do with good/bad/saved etc.? Ciao.
RC.
.
RealityCheck: Wow. I never thought birdan's statement about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner and my response to it would generate so many posts. First of all, who ever said that God was "surprised" by anything? Certainly not me. Additionally, in the case of an omniscient God, wouldn't he know what the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out like? Would he have to wait for a "corrupt tree" to bring forth all of its "corrupt fruit" before cutting it down? There are plenty of Biblical examples of God separating the righteous from the wicked, you know. I'm not sure what you meant by the "chance" part of your post, so I'll hold off on that part for now.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Hi newguy.
I think the point is ALSO that: if 'god' knew what a BAD individual's 'choices' would be, then why all this surprise/anger/punishment etc. against EVERYONE AROUND THEM (like innocent children etc); why not PRE-EMPTIVE/SELECTIVE 'smiting' against such INDIVIDUAL CASES of 'disobedience' etc. And wouldn't it also imply that 'chance' has a lot to do with good/bad/saved etc.? Ciao.
RC.
.
RealityCheck: Wow. I never thought birdan's statement about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner and my response to it would generate so many posts. First of all, who ever said that God was "surprised" by anything? Certainly not me. Additionally, in the case of an omniscient God, wouldn't he know what the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out like? Would he have to wait for a "corrupt tree" to bring forth all of its "corrupt fruit" before cutting it down? There are plenty of Biblical examples of God separating the righteous from the wicked, you know. I'm not sure what you meant by the "chance" part of your post, so I'll hold off on that part for now.
QUOTE (swimmer+Jan 7 2006, 01:10 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 6 2006, 06:30 PM)
birdan/Steveo: I totally disagree with both of you. What a surprise, eh? If I was to take my 2 year old(soon to be 3) out to a restaurant for lunch right now, I could almost guarantee what she would order. That means, in your minds, that she has no "free will"? That's utter nonsense. I wouldn't "force her" what to order, but I could be pretty sure what it would be and I only have limited knowledge(No arguments there, eh?). Just because an omniscient God knows what decisions we will make doesn't mean that they are not OUR DECISIONS to make. He doesn't hold a knife to our throat, now does He? Of course not. Regarding Steveo's "uncertainy principle"(if I'm understanding him right), are you suggesting that if my daughter wanted to order a grilled cheese sandwich and it wasn't on the menu, then she doesn't have "free will"? Is that basically what you're saying? She would just have to then make another "choice", wouldn't she? This definition of "free will"(if, as I said, I'm understanding him right) does not seem to be the same complaint that I've received from others regarding "free will" and God. Anyhow, I've gotta run.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Now let me get this straight - this is PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums
How can you not know Heisenberg???
Don't get me wrong - possibly you could "blow me out of the water" on theology...
But this isn't a Theology forum. It's a Physics forum. I am Gob-smacked.
swimmer: The PhysOrgForum has many subdivisions. You are currently posting in one entitled: "Intelligent Design = Creationist MYTHOLOGY, not Science!" Does it surprise you that the debaters on one side of this discussion actually refer to God? I could probably rattle off some names from the Bible that you've never heard, as apparently even you have allowed for. Additionally, as I explained to you recently in another post, some of the debaters on this forum have been involved in ongoing dialogue with me for as long as 5 months. I don't mean to sound offensive, but it might benefit you to click on peoples' usernames from time to time to learn a little background info. This might help to alleviate some of the surprise surrounding what some of us discuss. Have a good one.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Now let me get this straight - this is PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums
How can you not know Heisenberg???
Don't get me wrong - possibly you could "blow me out of the water" on theology...
But this isn't a Theology forum. It's a Physics forum. I am Gob-smacked.
swimmer: The PhysOrgForum has many subdivisions. You are currently posting in one entitled: "Intelligent Design = Creationist MYTHOLOGY, not Science!" Does it surprise you that the debaters on one side of this discussion actually refer to God? I could probably rattle off some names from the Bible that you've never heard, as apparently even you have allowed for. Additionally, as I explained to you recently in another post, some of the debaters on this forum have been involved in ongoing dialogue with me for as long as 5 months. I don't mean to sound offensive, but it might benefit you to click on peoples' usernames from time to time to learn a little background info. This might help to alleviate some of the surprise surrounding what some of us discuss. Have a good one.
QUOTE (Laidback+)
As a Wise Creator I would know that our solar system needs the sun to ignite and spew forth mass for it to create the solar planets and in particular our cooling Planet "Earth".
Laidback: Who says that the Sun had to ignite and spew forth mass to create the planets? Who says that the planets were created in this way at all? You can suggest that all you'd like, but let's see some proof of this. And, O Great Wise Creator, where did the Sun come from? Tell me that. This ought to be good. And don't give me the patented chicken-@ss answer that that is a question for the biogenesis people. Since you're such a Wise Creator, you tell me. Thanks.
Laidback: Who says that the Sun had to ignite and spew forth mass to create the planets? Who says that the planets were created in this way at all? You can suggest that all you'd like, but let's see some proof of this. And, O Great Wise Creator, where did the Sun come from? Tell me that. This ought to be good. And don't give me the patented chicken-@ss answer that that is a question for the biogenesis people. Since you're such a Wise Creator, you tell me. Thanks.
QUOTE (Laidback+Jan 7 2006, 01:50 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 6 2006, 06:30 PM)
birdan/Steveo: I totally disagree with both of you. What a surprise, eh? If I was to take my 2 year old(soon to be 3) out to a restaurant for lunch right now, I could almost guarantee what she would order. That means, in your minds, that she has no "free will"? That's utter nonsense. I wouldn't "force her" what to order, but I could be pretty sure what it would be and I only have limited knowledge(No arguments there, eh?). Just because an omniscient God knows what decisions we will make doesn't mean that they are not OUR DECISIONS to make. He doesn't hold a knife to our throat, now does He? Of course not. Regarding Steveo's "uncertainy principle"(if I'm understanding him right), are you suggesting that if my daughter wanted to order a grilled cheese sandwich and it wasn't on the menu, then she doesn't have "free will"? Is that basically what you're saying? She would just have to then make another "choice", wouldn't she? This definition of "free will"(if, as I said, I'm understanding him right) does not seem to be the same complaint that I've received from others regarding "free will" and God. Anyhow, I've gotta run.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
What you fail to see is that if a plan is being worked to - it needs the WHOLE plan to go acording to plan! suggesting free will can not come into it..
Any free willed change by those that are part of the plan means the Plan will never work! Change the script by an actors free will and events wont make sense!
More evidence the biblical gawd is false!
Laidback: Would you like some mustard and cheese to go with your bologna? Man's "free will" will never thwart God's plan. One of many possible Biblical examples of this would be Pharaoh. Pharaoh hated God of his own "free will", as do many of you(that ought to generate a lot of fan mail). God still used Pharaoh for His purposes.
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. As yet exaltest thou thyself against my people, that thou wilt not let them go?"(Exodus 9:13-17)
Although Pharaoh hated God of his own "free will", God raised him up to a place of prominence and still received glory out of Pharaoh's life. God knows the end from the beginning. Nothing you or I "freely will" to do will stop His eternal plan. He's not "surprised" by anything.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
What you fail to see is that if a plan is being worked to - it needs the WHOLE plan to go acording to plan! suggesting free will can not come into it..
Any free willed change by those that are part of the plan means the Plan will never work! Change the script by an actors free will and events wont make sense!
More evidence the biblical gawd is false!
Laidback: Would you like some mustard and cheese to go with your bologna? Man's "free will" will never thwart God's plan. One of many possible Biblical examples of this would be Pharaoh. Pharaoh hated God of his own "free will", as do many of you(that ought to generate a lot of fan mail). God still used Pharaoh for His purposes.
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. As yet exaltest thou thyself against my people, that thou wilt not let them go?"(Exodus 9:13-17)
Although Pharaoh hated God of his own "free will", God raised him up to a place of prominence and still received glory out of Pharaoh's life. God knows the end from the beginning. Nothing you or I "freely will" to do will stop His eternal plan. He's not "surprised" by anything.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 02:02 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 6 2006, 11:46 PM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 6 2006, 06:30 PM)
birdan/Steveo: I totally disagree with both of you. What a surprise, eh? If I was to take my 2 year old(soon to be 3) out to a restaurant for lunch right now, I could almost guarantee what she would order. That means, in your minds, that she has no "free will"? That's utter nonsense. I wouldn't "force her" what to order, but I could be pretty sure what it would be and I only have limited knowledge(No arguments there, eh?). Just because an omniscient God knows what decisions we will make doesn't mean that they are not OUR DECISIONS to make. He doesn't hold a knife to our throat, now does He? Of course not. Regarding Steveo's "uncertainy principle"(if I'm understanding him right), are you suggesting that if my daughter wanted to order a grilled cheese sandwich and it wasn't on the menu, then she doesn't have "free will"? Is that basically what you're saying? She would just have to then make another "choice", wouldn't she? This definition of "free will"(if, as I said, I'm understanding him right) does not seem to be the same complaint that I've received from others regarding "free will" and God. Anyhow, I've gotta run.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Hi newguy.
I think the point is ALSO that: if 'god' knew what a BAD individual's 'choices' would be, then why all this surprise/anger/punishment etc. against EVERYONE AROUND THEM (like innocent children etc); why not PRE-EMPTIVE/SELECTIVE 'smiting' against such INDIVIDUAL CASES of 'disobedience' etc. And wouldn't it also imply that 'chance' has a lot to do with good/bad/saved etc.? Ciao.
RC.
.
RealityCheck: Wow. I never thought birdan's statement about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner and my response to it would generate so many posts. First of all, who ever said that God was "surprised" by anything? Certainly not me. Additionally, in the case of an omniscient God, wouldn't he know what the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out like? Would he have to wait for a "corrupt tree" to bring forth all of its "corrupt fruit" before cutting it down? There are plenty of Biblical examples of God separating the righteous from the wicked, you know. I'm not sure what you meant by the "chance" part of your post, so I'll hold off on that part for now.
Hi newguy.
Does a worldwide flood where EVERYONE IS KILLED OFF except for all on the ark sound like 'separating' the good from the bad? And since ALL children have YET to be 'mature' and 'free-thinking' enough to REALLY KNOW evil from a hole in the ground, where does this leave all the 'collateral damage' to children from 'god'-visited floods, and other 'natural' catastrophes like vulcanic eruptions and meteor strikes and earthquakes etc. And the 'chance' factor is evident in almost all aspects of 'hearing the word' and/or being 'saved' by a bona-fide 'priest' etc etc....as well as in one child living and another dying simply because they were born to different parents/societies/times/places etc etc...and don't tell me 'god' PLACED those children to be born so because they were GOING to be good OR evil....as then it would NOT allow for change of mind according to chance and free will LATER IN LIFE (if they had survived to adulthood). You see where I'm coming from on the 'randomness' of it all? I think I brought this aspect up some time ago but you were overloaded with work/family matters so I didn't pursue the matter at the time. Ciao, mate!
RC.
.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Hi newguy.
I think the point is ALSO that: if 'god' knew what a BAD individual's 'choices' would be, then why all this surprise/anger/punishment etc. against EVERYONE AROUND THEM (like innocent children etc); why not PRE-EMPTIVE/SELECTIVE 'smiting' against such INDIVIDUAL CASES of 'disobedience' etc. And wouldn't it also imply that 'chance' has a lot to do with good/bad/saved etc.? Ciao.
RC.
.
RealityCheck: Wow. I never thought birdan's statement about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner and my response to it would generate so many posts. First of all, who ever said that God was "surprised" by anything? Certainly not me. Additionally, in the case of an omniscient God, wouldn't he know what the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out like? Would he have to wait for a "corrupt tree" to bring forth all of its "corrupt fruit" before cutting it down? There are plenty of Biblical examples of God separating the righteous from the wicked, you know. I'm not sure what you meant by the "chance" part of your post, so I'll hold off on that part for now.
Hi newguy.
Does a worldwide flood where EVERYONE IS KILLED OFF except for all on the ark sound like 'separating' the good from the bad? And since ALL children have YET to be 'mature' and 'free-thinking' enough to REALLY KNOW evil from a hole in the ground, where does this leave all the 'collateral damage' to children from 'god'-visited floods, and other 'natural' catastrophes like vulcanic eruptions and meteor strikes and earthquakes etc. And the 'chance' factor is evident in almost all aspects of 'hearing the word' and/or being 'saved' by a bona-fide 'priest' etc etc....as well as in one child living and another dying simply because they were born to different parents/societies/times/places etc etc...and don't tell me 'god' PLACED those children to be born so because they were GOING to be good OR evil....as then it would NOT allow for change of mind according to chance and free will LATER IN LIFE (if they had survived to adulthood). You see where I'm coming from on the 'randomness' of it all? I think I brought this aspect up some time ago but you were overloaded with work/family matters so I didn't pursue the matter at the time. Ciao, mate!
RC.
.
newguy....as to the "surprised" aspect: 'god' certainly took it hard when the 'adam-and-eve-and-the-serpent' event took place...otherwise why all the melodramatic overkill reaction to it? All that was needed was a 'fatherly' reprimand and 'reprogramminf' of the 'experiment' and voila'!...forgiveness and a second chance after their 'transgression'. Otherwise it was PLANNED and not surprising that they would behave so...in which case they were PROGRAMMED?PRE-DESTINED to act so...which makes a mockery of free will etc. You see what I meant? Ciao.
RC.
.
RC.
.
Omnipotence + Omniscience + Omnipresence.
Nasty combination, to know what is going to happen, what the consequences are, having the power to stop it and still doing nothing to prevent it from happening.
That all because there is free will?
The Culling?
Wasn't it some parable told by Jesus Christ that was used to teach people about the culling, that the Caf was not separated from the corn and and the weeds not from the fields and burned Before the Harvest? All this says is that God decided to never do a culling before judgment day, and if God decided that, who is Mankind to make that decision for him.
There is only one important live forming rule in the message from the Bible, Do not unto others what you do not want onto yourself.
Oh, and Jesus was not God's first son. read Genesis again if you believe what it says. About God's sons (plural) walking the earth and mating with the daughters of Mankind, creating those so called "Giants". Which resulted in Noah's flood, since Noah was the cleanest genetic line of mankind, the rest was tainted and was therefore destroyed.
Nasty combination, to know what is going to happen, what the consequences are, having the power to stop it and still doing nothing to prevent it from happening.
That all because there is free will?
The Culling?
Wasn't it some parable told by Jesus Christ that was used to teach people about the culling, that the Caf was not separated from the corn and and the weeds not from the fields and burned Before the Harvest? All this says is that God decided to never do a culling before judgment day, and if God decided that, who is Mankind to make that decision for him.
There is only one important live forming rule in the message from the Bible, Do not unto others what you do not want onto yourself.
Oh, and Jesus was not God's first son. read Genesis again if you believe what it says. About God's sons (plural) walking the earth and mating with the daughters of Mankind, creating those so called "Giants". Which resulted in Noah's flood, since Noah was the cleanest genetic line of mankind, the rest was tainted and was therefore destroyed.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 02:13 AM)
QUOTE (swimmer+Jan 7 2006, 01:10 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 6 2006, 06:30 PM)
birdan/Steveo: I totally disagree with both of you. What a surprise, eh? If I was to take my 2 year old(soon to be 3) out to a restaurant for lunch right now, I could almost guarantee what she would order. That means, in your minds, that she has no "free will"? That's utter nonsense. I wouldn't "force her" what to order, but I could be pretty sure what it would be and I only have limited knowledge(No arguments there, eh?). Just because an omniscient God knows what decisions we will make doesn't mean that they are not OUR DECISIONS to make. He doesn't hold a knife to our throat, now does He? Of course not. Regarding Steveo's "uncertainy principle"(if I'm understanding him right), are you suggesting that if my daughter wanted to order a grilled cheese sandwich and it wasn't on the menu, then she doesn't have "free will"? Is that basically what you're saying? She would just have to then make another "choice", wouldn't she? This definition of "free will"(if, as I said, I'm understanding him right) does not seem to be the same complaint that I've received from others regarding "free will" and God. Anyhow, I've gotta run.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Now let me get this straight - this is PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums
How can you not know Heisenberg???
Don't get me wrong - possibly you could "blow me out of the water" on theology...
But this isn't a Theology forum. It's a Physics forum. I am Gob-smacked.
swimmer: The PhysOrgForum has many subdivisions. You are currently posting in one entitled: "Intelligent Design = Creationist MYTHOLOGY, not Science!" Does it surprise you that the debaters on one side of this discussion actually refer to God? I could probably rattle off some names from the Bible that you've never heard, as apparently even you have allowed for. Additionally, as I explained to you recently in another post, some of the debaters on this forum have been involved in ongoing dialogue with me for as long as 5 months. I don't mean to sound offensive, but it might benefit you to click on peoples' usernames from time to time to learn a little background info. This might help to alleviate some of the surprise surrounding what some of us discuss. Have a good one.
Here we have a perfect example of why I suspect it's going to be futile to get through to some of you creationists. You refuse to see the point someone is making and reinterpret it to suite your own prejudices.
I never objected or showed any surprise that you should raise the issue of GOD in our "creationism/ID vs Science" debate.
I was only "gobsmacked" that someone on a Physics forum should be unaware of Heisenberg.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Now let me get this straight - this is PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums
How can you not know Heisenberg???
Don't get me wrong - possibly you could "blow me out of the water" on theology...
But this isn't a Theology forum. It's a Physics forum. I am Gob-smacked.
swimmer: The PhysOrgForum has many subdivisions. You are currently posting in one entitled: "Intelligent Design = Creationist MYTHOLOGY, not Science!" Does it surprise you that the debaters on one side of this discussion actually refer to God? I could probably rattle off some names from the Bible that you've never heard, as apparently even you have allowed for. Additionally, as I explained to you recently in another post, some of the debaters on this forum have been involved in ongoing dialogue with me for as long as 5 months. I don't mean to sound offensive, but it might benefit you to click on peoples' usernames from time to time to learn a little background info. This might help to alleviate some of the surprise surrounding what some of us discuss. Have a good one.
Here we have a perfect example of why I suspect it's going to be futile to get through to some of you creationists. You refuse to see the point someone is making and reinterpret it to suite your own prejudices.
I never objected or showed any surprise that you should raise the issue of GOD in our "creationism/ID vs Science" debate.
I was only "gobsmacked" that someone on a Physics forum should be unaware of Heisenberg.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jan 7 2006, 01:34 AM)
Heisenberg is pulled over for speeding:
"Do you know how fast you were going?" the police officer asks, incredulously.
"No," replies Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I am!"
LOL 
I like it.
...but would the cop have been able to pull him over for speeding? Would he have known where Werner was?
"Do you know how fast you were going?" the police officer asks, incredulously.
"No," replies Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I am!"
LOL
I like it.
...but would the cop have been able to pull him over for speeding? Would he have known where Werner was?
QUOTE (gmilam+Jan 7 2006, 01:34 AM)
Heisenberg is pulled over for speeding:
"Do you know how fast you were going?" the police officer asks, incredulously.
"No," replies Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I am!"
But Heisenberg later had to give up driving. Everytime he looked at his speedometer, he got lost.
"Do you know how fast you were going?" the police officer asks, incredulously.
"No," replies Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I am!"
But Heisenberg later had to give up driving. Everytime he looked at his speedometer, he got lost.
QUOTE (birdan+Jan 7 2006, 04:19 AM)
QUOTE (gmilam+Jan 7 2006, 01:34 AM)
Heisenberg is pulled over for speeding:
"Do you know how fast you were going?" the police officer asks, incredulously.
"No," replies Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I am!"
But Heisenberg later had to give up driving. Everytime he looked at his speedometer, he got lost.
Yeah - I get that with my GPS!
"Do you know how fast you were going?" the police officer asks, incredulously.
"No," replies Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I am!"
But Heisenberg later had to give up driving. Everytime he looked at his speedometer, he got lost.
Yeah - I get that with my GPS!
QUOTE (swimmer+Jan 7 2006, 04:06 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 02:13 AM)
QUOTE (swimmer+Jan 7 2006, 01:10 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 6 2006, 06:30 PM)
birdan/Steveo: I totally disagree with both of you. What a surprise, eh? If I was to take my 2 year old(soon to be 3) out to a restaurant for lunch right now, I could almost guarantee what she would order. That means, in your minds, that she has no "free will"? That's utter nonsense. I wouldn't "force her" what to order, but I could be pretty sure what it would be and I only have limited knowledge(No arguments there, eh?). Just because an omniscient God knows what decisions we will make doesn't mean that they are not OUR DECISIONS to make. He doesn't hold a knife to our throat, now does He? Of course not. Regarding Steveo's "uncertainy principle"(if I'm understanding him right), are you suggesting that if my daughter wanted to order a grilled cheese sandwich and it wasn't on the menu, then she doesn't have "free will"? Is that basically what you're saying? She would just have to then make another "choice", wouldn't she? This definition of "free will"(if, as I said, I'm understanding him right) does not seem to be the same complaint that I've received from others regarding "free will" and God. Anyhow, I've gotta run.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Now let me get this straight - this is PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums
How can you not know Heisenberg???
Don't get me wrong - possibly you could "blow me out of the water" on theology...
But this isn't a Theology forum. It's a Physics forum. I am Gob-smacked.
swimmer: The PhysOrgForum has many subdivisions. You are currently posting in one entitled: "Intelligent Design = Creationist MYTHOLOGY, not Science!" Does it surprise you that the debaters on one side of this discussion actually refer to God? I could probably rattle off some names from the Bible that you've never heard, as apparently even you have allowed for. Additionally, as I explained to you recently in another post, some of the debaters on this forum have been involved in ongoing dialogue with me for as long as 5 months. I don't mean to sound offensive, but it might benefit you to click on peoples' usernames from time to time to learn a little background info. This might help to alleviate some of the surprise surrounding what some of us discuss. Have a good one.
Here we have a perfect example of why I suspect it's going to be futile to get through to some of you creationists. You refuse to see the point someone is making and reinterpret it to suite your own prejudices.
I never objected or showed any surprise that you should raise the issue of GOD in our "creationism/ID vs Science" debate.
I was only "gobsmacked" that someone on a Physics forum should be unaware of Heisenberg.
swimmer: As they say: "Save the drama for your mama." You never objected or showed any surprise that I should raise the issue of God? Then why did you say "But this isn't a Theology forum. It's a Physics forum."? And, by the way, don't flatter yourself. You don't need to "get through" to me. I'm doing just fine without you. So are all the people that I've helped over the years through Jesus Christ. Thanks, anyway.
P.S. Who the heck is Dr. Heisenberg?
Now let me get this straight - this is PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums
How can you not know Heisenberg???
Don't get me wrong - possibly you could "blow me out of the water" on theology...
But this isn't a Theology forum. It's a Physics forum. I am Gob-smacked.
swimmer: The PhysOrgForum has many subdivisions. You are currently posting in one entitled: "Intelligent Design = Creationist MYTHOLOGY, not Science!" Does it surprise you that the debaters on one side of this discussion actually refer to God? I could probably rattle off some names from the Bible that you've never heard, as apparently even you have allowed for. Additionally, as I explained to you recently in another post, some of the debaters on this forum have been involved in ongoing dialogue with me for as long as 5 months. I don't mean to sound offensive, but it might benefit you to click on peoples' usernames from time to time to learn a little background info. This might help to alleviate some of the surprise surrounding what some of us discuss. Have a good one.
Here we have a perfect example of why I suspect it's going to be futile to get through to some of you creationists. You refuse to see the point someone is making and reinterpret it to suite your own prejudices.
I never objected or showed any surprise that you should raise the issue of GOD in our "creationism/ID vs Science" debate.
I was only "gobsmacked" that someone on a Physics forum should be unaware of Heisenberg.
swimmer: As they say: "Save the drama for your mama." You never objected or showed any surprise that I should raise the issue of God? Then why did you say "But this isn't a Theology forum. It's a Physics forum."? And, by the way, don't flatter yourself. You don't need to "get through" to me. I'm doing just fine without you. So are all the people that I've helped over the years through Jesus Christ. Thanks, anyway.
QUOTE (swimmer+Jan 7 2006, 04:14 AM)
QUOTE (gmilam+Jan 7 2006, 01:34 AM)
Heisenberg is pulled over for speeding:
"Do you know how fast you were going?" the police officer asks, incredulously.
"No," replies Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I am!"
LOL
I like it.
...but would the cop have been able to pull him over for speeding? Would he have known where Werner was?
Hehehehe. Two separate and distinct SERIAL measurements. the first determined 'speed(ing)'; the second determined 'position'. Will that do, swimmer? hehehe.
RealityCheck: Wow. I never thought birdan's statement about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner and my response to it would generate so many posts. First of all, who ever said that God was "surprised" by anything? Certainly not me. Additionally, in the case of an omniscient God, wouldn't he know what the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out like? Would he have to wait for a "corrupt tree" to bring forth all of its "corrupt fruit" before cutting it down? There are plenty of Biblical examples of God separating the righteous from the wicked, you know. I'm not sure what you meant by the "chance" part of your post, so I'll hold off on that part for now.
Newguy,
Your example of the children is exactly my point. If God already knew how the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out, then they had no free will over their outcome, did they? It was, as they say, pre-destined. And pre-destination equals zero free will. In this example, the children didn't even have the opportunity to go through the motions.
If I make a choice about anything, and the outcome of that choice is already known beforehand (by an omniscient God), then I really had no choice at all, since it was pre-determined. If God already knows I'm going to order the salmon off the menu, then regardless of my thought processes while looking at the menu (which errantly seem to me to be an exercise of free will), I'm going to have salmon sitting in front of me for dinner.
If God already knows exactly, to the smallest detail, how my day is going to turn out tomorrow, what choices do I have over tomorrow's events? It may appear to me that I am exercising free will and making choices throughout the day, but if the day is already "written", then I'm just (to use RC's analogy) following the script.
I never objected or showed any surprise that you should raise the issue of GOD in our "creationism/ID vs Science" debate.
I was only "gobsmacked" that someone on a Physics forum should be unaware of Heisenberg.
swimmer: As they say: "Save the drama for your mama." You never objected or showed any surprise that I should raise the issue of God? Then why did you say "But this isn't a Theology forum. It's a Physics forum."? And, by the way, don't flatter yourself. You don't need to "get through" to me. I'm doing just fine without you. So are all the people that I've helped over the years through Jesus Christ. Thanks, anyway.
Duh - because I was acknowledging that you are fairly expert in matters theological and I am not.
[In fact you could fill a multi volume encylopaedia with what I don't know - but hey - you do your best ]
I don't expect people in the general population to know who Werner Heisenberg was or his achievements.
I just expected it of people on a Physics forum.
It'd be like posting on a Theology forum and not knowing who Saul was.
...anyway, I'm off to Damascus...
...but before I do, I had to smile at your "You don't need to "get through" to me. I'm doing just fine without you." .
I'm sure you are - specially re anything I have to say - but strive to keep at least some of your mind open to new possibilities.
... and yes I'm sure you are a wonderful person.
RealityCheck: Wow. I never thought birdan's statement about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner and my response to it would generate so many posts. First of all, who ever said that God was "surprised" by anything? Certainly not me. Additionally, in the case of an omniscient God, wouldn't he know what the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out like? Would he have to wait for a "corrupt tree" to bring forth all of its "corrupt fruit" before cutting it down? There are plenty of Biblical examples of God separating the righteous from the wicked, you know. I'm not sure what you meant by the "chance" part of your post, so I'll hold off on that part for now.
Newguy,
Your example of the children is exactly my point. If God already knew how the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out, then they had no free will over their outcome, did they? It was, as they say, pre-destined. And pre-destination equals zero free will. In this example, the children didn't even have the opportunity to go through the motions.
If I make a choice about anything, and the outcome of that choice is already known beforehand (by an omniscient God), then I really had no choice at all, since it was pre-determined. If God already knows I'm going to order the salmon off the menu, then regardless of my thought processes while looking at the menu (which errantly seem to me to be an exercise of free will), I'm going to have salmon sitting in front of me for dinner.
If God already knows exactly, to the smallest detail, how my day is going to turn out tomorrow, what choices do I have over tomorrow's events? It may appear to me that I am exercising free will and making choices throughout the day, but if the day is already "written", then I'm just (to use RC's analogy) following the script.
birdan: Although I understand what you're saying, I totally disagree with your conclusions. "Foreknowledge" and "predestination" are both Biblical terms, just in case you weren't aware of that. I have discussed these terms with people many times over the years. Even if you think that the account of Noah's ark is just a myth, please allow me to use it for the sake of illustration. God told Noah to build an ark. He "foreknew" that the flood waters were coming. He also "foreknew" that the ark was "predestined" to rise above the flood waters and eventually find its resting place somewhere on the mountains of Ararat. The ark was "predestined" or its final "destiny"(atop the mountains) was "predetermined". At the same time, however, God invited EVERYONE to get aboard the ark. They "chose" of their own "free will" to either accept or decline this invitation and were therefore justifiably accountable for their "choices". Just because God "foreknew" who would accept or who would decline does not mean that they themselves were not invited and didn't make their "choices". They weren't "preprogrammed" robots. What you're describing sounds frightening close to what Messenger used to preach on this forum at one time...That God is willing that none should perish, so no one will. All will bow one day, some will just go "kicking and screaming". At that time, I used to tell him that this sounded like some sort of "shotgun wedding". There was no "free will" involved. This is not the case with God. In essence, using the wedding analogy, Jesus bowed the heavens(a man often bends the knee when proposing to the woman he loves) and asked us to enter into a spiritual marriage covenant with Him. We have the "choice" of saying "yes/I do" or "no/I don't"(many on this forum have obviously said "no" for a variety of reasons). Just because He "foreknows" what our "choices" will be, doesn't mean that He made the "choices" for us. What you're implying also sounds frighteningly close to Calvinism which states that God "predestines" some to heaven and others to hell without any "choice" whatsoever on the part of the individual. That is a lie. Jesus Christ was crucified for the sins of the world and "predestined" to rise from the dead and ascend to His Father in heaven. God invites us all to be found "in Christ" so that we can be "raised up together with Him". In His "foreknowledge", God knows what "choices" we will make, but the "choices" are still ours, nevertheless. Whatever you "choose", you'll be held accountable for it one day. God is not "forcing" you to do anything against your own "free will". Jesus said it best:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
(Matthew 23:37)
God's "will" was to gather the people. Their "will" was not to come. I don't know how else to say it. If you still disagree, then I'll just throw my hands up in the air. I sincerely hope this helps.
RealityCheck: Wow. I never thought birdan's statement about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner and my response to it would generate so many posts. First of all, who ever said that God was "surprised" by anything? Certainly not me. Additionally, in the case of an omniscient God, wouldn't he know what the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out like? Would he have to wait for a "corrupt tree" to bring forth all of its "corrupt fruit" before cutting it down? There are plenty of Biblical examples of God separating the righteous from the wicked, you know. I'm not sure what you meant by the "chance" part of your post, so I'll hold off on that part for now.
Newguy,
Your example of the children is exactly my point. If God already knew how the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out, then they had no free will over their outcome, did they? It was, as they say, pre-destined. And pre-destination equals zero free will. In this example, the children didn't even have the opportunity to go through the motions.
If I make a choice about anything, and the outcome of that choice is already known beforehand (by an omniscient God), then I really had no choice at all, since it was pre-determined. If God already knows I'm going to order the salmon off the menu, then regardless of my thought processes while looking at the menu (which errantly seem to me to be an exercise of free will), I'm going to have salmon sitting in front of me for dinner.
If God already knows exactly, to the smallest detail, how my day is going to turn out tomorrow, what choices do I have over tomorrow's events? It may appear to me that I am exercising free will and making choices throughout the day, but if the day is already "written", then I'm just (to use RC's analogy) following the script.
birdan: Although I understand what you're saying, I totally disagree with your conclusions. "Foreknowledge" and "predestination" are both Biblical terms, just in case you weren't aware of that. I have discussed these terms with people many times over the years. Even if you think that the account of Noah's ark is just a myth, please allow me to use it for the sake of illustration. God told Noah to build an ark. He "foreknew" that the flood waters were coming. He also "foreknew" that the ark was "predestined" to rise above the flood waters and eventually find its resting place somewhere on the mountains of Ararat. The ark was "predestined" or its final "destiny"(atop the mountains) was "predetermined". At the same time, however, God invited EVERYONE to get aboard the ark. They "chose" of their own "free will" to either accept or decline this invitation and were therefore justifiably accountable for their "choices". Just because God "foreknew" who would accept or who would decline does not mean that they themselves were not invited and didn't make their "choices". They weren't "preprogrammed" robots. What you're describing sounds frightening close to what Messenger used to preach on this forum at one time...That God is willing that none should perish, so no one will. All will bow one day, some will just go "kicking and screaming". At that time, I used to tell him that this sounded like some sort of "shotgun wedding". There was no "free will" involved. This is not the case with God. In essence, using the wedding analogy, Jesus bowed the heavens(a man often bends the knee when proposing to the woman he loves) and asked us to enter into a spiritual marriage covenant with Him. We have the "choice" of saying "yes/I do" or "no/I don't"(many on this forum have obviously said "no" for a variety of reasons). Just because He "foreknows" what our "choices" will be, doesn't mean that He made the "choices" for us. What you're implying also sounds frighteningly close to Calvinism which states that God "predestines" some to heaven and others to hell without any "choice" whatsoever on the part of the individual. That is a lie. Jesus Christ was crucified for the sins of the world and "predestined" to rise from the dead and ascend to His Father in heaven. God invites us all to be found "in Christ" so that we can be "raised up together with Him". In His "foreknowledge", God knows what "choices" we will make, but the "choices" are still ours, nevertheless. Whatever you "choose", you'll be held accountable for it one day. God is not "forcing" you to do anything against your own "free will". Jesus said it best:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
(Matthew 23:37)
God's "will" was to gather the people. Their "will" was not to come. I don't know how else to say it. If you still disagree, then I'll just throw my hands up in the air. I sincerely hope this helps.
Newguy,
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree and shelve this topic. I don't think that God "inviting" everyone onto the ark while knowing exactly who was going to be on the ark gave anyone a choice in the matter. If I ask a question and already know what the answer is, it's called a rhetorical question and is not a real question per se.
No free will expressed or implied here. I would have to ask, why not save a whole lot of time and effort and just cut down all the trees in the very beginning and send all of us off to heaven or hell? My mental 'constitution' is such that I can't just 'throw my hands up in the air'; I have to keep digging until I can make 'sense' (in a logical sort of way) out of things. And I do agree with you that the concept is frighteningly close to Calvinism and predestination.
But thanks for your replies.
"Do you know how fast you were going?" the police officer asks, incredulously.
"No," replies Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I am!"
LOL
I like it.
...but would the cop have been able to pull him over for speeding? Would he have known where Werner was?
Hehehehe. Two separate and distinct SERIAL measurements. the first determined 'speed(ing)'; the second determined 'position'. Will that do, swimmer? hehehe.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 02:02 AM)
RealityCheck: Wow. I never thought birdan's statement about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner and my response to it would generate so many posts. First of all, who ever said that God was "surprised" by anything? Certainly not me. Additionally, in the case of an omniscient God, wouldn't he know what the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out like? Would he have to wait for a "corrupt tree" to bring forth all of its "corrupt fruit" before cutting it down? There are plenty of Biblical examples of God separating the righteous from the wicked, you know. I'm not sure what you meant by the "chance" part of your post, so I'll hold off on that part for now.
Newguy,
Your example of the children is exactly my point. If God already knew how the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out, then they had no free will over their outcome, did they? It was, as they say, pre-destined. And pre-destination equals zero free will. In this example, the children didn't even have the opportunity to go through the motions.
If I make a choice about anything, and the outcome of that choice is already known beforehand (by an omniscient God), then I really had no choice at all, since it was pre-determined. If God already knows I'm going to order the salmon off the menu, then regardless of my thought processes while looking at the menu (which errantly seem to me to be an exercise of free will), I'm going to have salmon sitting in front of me for dinner.
If God already knows exactly, to the smallest detail, how my day is going to turn out tomorrow, what choices do I have over tomorrow's events? It may appear to me that I am exercising free will and making choices throughout the day, but if the day is already "written", then I'm just (to use RC's analogy) following the script.
Tsk, tsk.
No one took mercy on the chap who didn't who Dr. Heisenberg was. Just for kicks, I will elucidate a mite.
Dr. Heisenberg is/was Werner Heisenberg, one of the very intelligent German physicists at the time quantum mechanics were being formulated, in approximately 1925.
He derived the Uncertainty Princple which bears his name. That Principle yields the fact that at the quantum level, you can determine either the position or the velocity of a particle to an arbitrary closeness, but you can cannot know both to a high accuracy. I don't remember the precise limit of accuracy equation, but it can surely be found via Google.
The uncertainty arose from the effect of the energy which would impinge of the particle in order to make the measurement. When I took quantum mechanics courses in 1951, the Uncertainy Principle was taught as a limit to measurement limitation.
Subsequently, the concept led to the theory of Vacuum Energy which states that there is a constant flux of virtual particles being created and annihilated way down in the roots of reality. A brilliant Czeck(sp?) physicist named Casimir produced an analysis which determined the magnitude of the Vacuum Energy which has susequently been measured.
Oh well, it's time to go to bed. Goodnight, all.
No one took mercy on the chap who didn't who Dr. Heisenberg was. Just for kicks, I will elucidate a mite.
Dr. Heisenberg is/was Werner Heisenberg, one of the very intelligent German physicists at the time quantum mechanics were being formulated, in approximately 1925.
He derived the Uncertainty Princple which bears his name. That Principle yields the fact that at the quantum level, you can determine either the position or the velocity of a particle to an arbitrary closeness, but you can cannot know both to a high accuracy. I don't remember the precise limit of accuracy equation, but it can surely be found via Google.
The uncertainty arose from the effect of the energy which would impinge of the particle in order to make the measurement. When I took quantum mechanics courses in 1951, the Uncertainy Principle was taught as a limit to measurement limitation.
Subsequently, the concept led to the theory of Vacuum Energy which states that there is a constant flux of virtual particles being created and annihilated way down in the roots of reality. A brilliant Czeck(sp?) physicist named Casimir produced an analysis which determined the magnitude of the Vacuum Energy which has susequently been measured.
Oh well, it's time to go to bed. Goodnight, all.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 04:29 AM)
QUOTE (swimmer+)
I never objected or showed any surprise that you should raise the issue of GOD in our "creationism/ID vs Science" debate.
I was only "gobsmacked" that someone on a Physics forum should be unaware of Heisenberg.
swimmer: As they say: "Save the drama for your mama." You never objected or showed any surprise that I should raise the issue of God? Then why did you say "But this isn't a Theology forum. It's a Physics forum."? And, by the way, don't flatter yourself. You don't need to "get through" to me. I'm doing just fine without you. So are all the people that I've helped over the years through Jesus Christ. Thanks, anyway.
Duh - because I was acknowledging that you are fairly expert in matters theological and I am not.
[In fact you could fill a multi volume encylopaedia with what I don't know - but hey - you do your best
]I don't expect people in the general population to know who Werner Heisenberg was or his achievements.
I just expected it of people on a Physics forum.
It'd be like posting on a Theology forum and not knowing who Saul was.
...anyway, I'm off to Damascus...
...but before I do, I had to smile at your "You don't need to "get through" to me. I'm doing just fine without you." .
I'm sure you are - specially re anything I have to say - but strive to keep at least some of your mind open to new possibilities.
... and yes I'm sure you are a wonderful person.
QUOTE (CactusCritter+Jan 7 2006, 07:23 AM)
Tsk, tsk.
No one took mercy on the chap who didn't who Dr. Heisenberg was. Just for kicks, I will elucidate a mite.
Dr. Heisenberg is/was Werner Heisenberg, one of the very intelligent German physicists at the time quantum mechanics were being formulated, in approximately 1925.
He derived the Uncertainty Princple which bears his name. That Principle yields the fact that at the quantum level, you can determine either the position or the velocity of a particle to an arbitrary closeness, but you can cannot know both to a high accuracy. I don't remember the precise limit of accuracy equation, but it can surely be found via Google.
The uncertainty arose from the effect of the energy which would impinge of the particle in order to make the measurement. When I took quantum mechanics courses in 1951, the Uncertainy Principle was taught as a limit to measurement limitation.
Subsequently, the concept led to the theory of Vacuum Energy which states that there is a constant flux of virtual particles being created and annihilated way down in the roots of reality. A brilliant Czeck(sp?) physicist named Casimir produced an analysis which determined the magnitude of the Vacuum Energy which has susequently been measured.
Oh well, it's time to go to bed. Goodnight, all.
CactusCritter: Thanks. Your age is showing. I mean that in a positive sense. You notified me via email quite some time ago as to your age. As usual, your posts are full of respectful dialogue. Even though we may never agree on a whole host of topics, the tone of your posts is admirable. Keep up the good work.
No one took mercy on the chap who didn't who Dr. Heisenberg was. Just for kicks, I will elucidate a mite.
Dr. Heisenberg is/was Werner Heisenberg, one of the very intelligent German physicists at the time quantum mechanics were being formulated, in approximately 1925.
He derived the Uncertainty Princple which bears his name. That Principle yields the fact that at the quantum level, you can determine either the position or the velocity of a particle to an arbitrary closeness, but you can cannot know both to a high accuracy. I don't remember the precise limit of accuracy equation, but it can surely be found via Google.
The uncertainty arose from the effect of the energy which would impinge of the particle in order to make the measurement. When I took quantum mechanics courses in 1951, the Uncertainy Principle was taught as a limit to measurement limitation.
Subsequently, the concept led to the theory of Vacuum Energy which states that there is a constant flux of virtual particles being created and annihilated way down in the roots of reality. A brilliant Czeck(sp?) physicist named Casimir produced an analysis which determined the magnitude of the Vacuum Energy which has susequently been measured.
Oh well, it's time to go to bed. Goodnight, all.
CactusCritter: Thanks. Your age is showing. I mean that in a positive sense. You notified me via email quite some time ago as to your age. As usual, your posts are full of respectful dialogue. Even though we may never agree on a whole host of topics, the tone of your posts is admirable. Keep up the good work.
QUOTE (birdan+Jan 7 2006, 04:46 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 02:02 AM)
RealityCheck: Wow. I never thought birdan's statement about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner and my response to it would generate so many posts. First of all, who ever said that God was "surprised" by anything? Certainly not me. Additionally, in the case of an omniscient God, wouldn't he know what the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out like? Would he have to wait for a "corrupt tree" to bring forth all of its "corrupt fruit" before cutting it down? There are plenty of Biblical examples of God separating the righteous from the wicked, you know. I'm not sure what you meant by the "chance" part of your post, so I'll hold off on that part for now.
Newguy,
Your example of the children is exactly my point. If God already knew how the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out, then they had no free will over their outcome, did they? It was, as they say, pre-destined. And pre-destination equals zero free will. In this example, the children didn't even have the opportunity to go through the motions.
If I make a choice about anything, and the outcome of that choice is already known beforehand (by an omniscient God), then I really had no choice at all, since it was pre-determined. If God already knows I'm going to order the salmon off the menu, then regardless of my thought processes while looking at the menu (which errantly seem to me to be an exercise of free will), I'm going to have salmon sitting in front of me for dinner.
If God already knows exactly, to the smallest detail, how my day is going to turn out tomorrow, what choices do I have over tomorrow's events? It may appear to me that I am exercising free will and making choices throughout the day, but if the day is already "written", then I'm just (to use RC's analogy) following the script.
birdan: Although I understand what you're saying, I totally disagree with your conclusions. "Foreknowledge" and "predestination" are both Biblical terms, just in case you weren't aware of that. I have discussed these terms with people many times over the years. Even if you think that the account of Noah's ark is just a myth, please allow me to use it for the sake of illustration. God told Noah to build an ark. He "foreknew" that the flood waters were coming. He also "foreknew" that the ark was "predestined" to rise above the flood waters and eventually find its resting place somewhere on the mountains of Ararat. The ark was "predestined" or its final "destiny"(atop the mountains) was "predetermined". At the same time, however, God invited EVERYONE to get aboard the ark. They "chose" of their own "free will" to either accept or decline this invitation and were therefore justifiably accountable for their "choices". Just because God "foreknew" who would accept or who would decline does not mean that they themselves were not invited and didn't make their "choices". They weren't "preprogrammed" robots. What you're describing sounds frightening close to what Messenger used to preach on this forum at one time...That God is willing that none should perish, so no one will. All will bow one day, some will just go "kicking and screaming". At that time, I used to tell him that this sounded like some sort of "shotgun wedding". There was no "free will" involved. This is not the case with God. In essence, using the wedding analogy, Jesus bowed the heavens(a man often bends the knee when proposing to the woman he loves) and asked us to enter into a spiritual marriage covenant with Him. We have the "choice" of saying "yes/I do" or "no/I don't"(many on this forum have obviously said "no" for a variety of reasons). Just because He "foreknows" what our "choices" will be, doesn't mean that He made the "choices" for us. What you're implying also sounds frighteningly close to Calvinism which states that God "predestines" some to heaven and others to hell without any "choice" whatsoever on the part of the individual. That is a lie. Jesus Christ was crucified for the sins of the world and "predestined" to rise from the dead and ascend to His Father in heaven. God invites us all to be found "in Christ" so that we can be "raised up together with Him". In His "foreknowledge", God knows what "choices" we will make, but the "choices" are still ours, nevertheless. Whatever you "choose", you'll be held accountable for it one day. God is not "forcing" you to do anything against your own "free will". Jesus said it best:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
(Matthew 23:37)
God's "will" was to gather the people. Their "will" was not to come. I don't know how else to say it. If you still disagree, then I'll just throw my hands up in the air. I sincerely hope this helps.
QUOTE (swimmer+)
...anyway, I'm off to Damascus...
swimmer: That's good. Please do get back to me after you've encountered Jesus. Until then...
swimmer: That's good. Please do get back to me after you've encountered Jesus. Until then...
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 02:02 AM)
Wow. I never thought birdan's statement about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner and my response to it would generate so many posts. First of all, who ever said that God was "surprised" by anything? Certainly not me. Additionally, in the case of an omniscient God, wouldn't he know what the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out like? Would he have to wait for a "corrupt tree" to bring forth all of its "corrupt fruit" before cutting it down? There are plenty of Biblical examples of God separating the righteous from the wicked, you know. I'm not sure what you meant by the "chance" part of your post, so I'll hold off on that part for now.
Imagine that an innocent child was killed by a criminal. You say God knows that this innocent child is going to become and he let the crime to happen to prevent it.
Then this child could go to heaven (and will be probably martyr), because the child haven't done any sins until the moment of crime.
Yet, the criminal, who is a tool in the God's hands, will go to hell, because he did a murder.
Is this fair? Why the killer didn't have same fate and go to heaven instead to hell?
It God fair?
Imagine that an innocent child was killed by a criminal. You say God knows that this innocent child is going to become and he let the crime to happen to prevent it.
Then this child could go to heaven (and will be probably martyr), because the child haven't done any sins until the moment of crime.
Yet, the criminal, who is a tool in the God's hands, will go to hell, because he did a murder.
Is this fair? Why the killer didn't have same fate and go to heaven instead to hell?
It God fair?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2006, 03:55 AM)
newguy....as to the "surprised" aspect: 'god' certainly took it hard when the 'adam-and-eve-and-the-serpent' event took place...otherwise why all the melodramatic overkill reaction to it? All that was needed was a 'fatherly' reprimand and 'reprogramminf' of the 'experiment' and voila'!...forgiveness and a second chance after their 'transgression'. Otherwise it was PLANNED and not surprising that they would behave so...in which case they were PROGRAMMED?PRE-DESTINED to act so...which makes a mockery of free will etc. You see what I meant? Ciao.
RC.
.
RealityCheck: As I said in the past, God was NOT the least bit "surprised". The scriptures plainly declare that Jesus Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(Revelation 13:8) God "foreknew" that man would "willingly" disobey Him and He had in place a means by which man could find forgiveness and genuine reconciliation before they even transgressed. Man would have to "willingly" desire this forgiveness and reconciliation, though. God will NOT force Himself on anyone. It's NOT that difficult a concept, you know. Quite frankly, I think that many on this forum and many in this world will go to great lengths to shirk their own accountability. If you(collectively) don't believe the account, then fine. That's a "choice" that you are certainly "free" to make based upon "reason" or whatever else. But it is simply "your choice". That's the point.
RC.
.
RealityCheck: As I said in the past, God was NOT the least bit "surprised". The scriptures plainly declare that Jesus Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(Revelation 13:8) God "foreknew" that man would "willingly" disobey Him and He had in place a means by which man could find forgiveness and genuine reconciliation before they even transgressed. Man would have to "willingly" desire this forgiveness and reconciliation, though. God will NOT force Himself on anyone. It's NOT that difficult a concept, you know. Quite frankly, I think that many on this forum and many in this world will go to great lengths to shirk their own accountability. If you(collectively) don't believe the account, then fine. That's a "choice" that you are certainly "free" to make based upon "reason" or whatever else. But it is simply "your choice". That's the point.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 02:20 PM)
QUOTE (birdan+Jan 7 2006, 04:46 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 02:02 AM)
RealityCheck: Wow. I never thought birdan's statement about God knowing what he was going to order for dinner and my response to it would generate so many posts. First of all, who ever said that God was "surprised" by anything? Certainly not me. Additionally, in the case of an omniscient God, wouldn't he know what the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out like? Would he have to wait for a "corrupt tree" to bring forth all of its "corrupt fruit" before cutting it down? There are plenty of Biblical examples of God separating the righteous from the wicked, you know. I'm not sure what you meant by the "chance" part of your post, so I'll hold off on that part for now.
Newguy,
Your example of the children is exactly my point. If God already knew how the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out, then they had no free will over their outcome, did they? It was, as they say, pre-destined. And pre-destination equals zero free will. In this example, the children didn't even have the opportunity to go through the motions.
If I make a choice about anything, and the outcome of that choice is already known beforehand (by an omniscient God), then I really had no choice at all, since it was pre-determined. If God already knows I'm going to order the salmon off the menu, then regardless of my thought processes while looking at the menu (which errantly seem to me to be an exercise of free will), I'm going to have salmon sitting in front of me for dinner.
If God already knows exactly, to the smallest detail, how my day is going to turn out tomorrow, what choices do I have over tomorrow's events? It may appear to me that I am exercising free will and making choices throughout the day, but if the day is already "written", then I'm just (to use RC's analogy) following the script.
birdan: Although I understand what you're saying, I totally disagree with your conclusions. "Foreknowledge" and "predestination" are both Biblical terms, just in case you weren't aware of that. I have discussed these terms with people many times over the years. Even if you think that the account of Noah's ark is just a myth, please allow me to use it for the sake of illustration. God told Noah to build an ark. He "foreknew" that the flood waters were coming. He also "foreknew" that the ark was "predestined" to rise above the flood waters and eventually find its resting place somewhere on the mountains of Ararat. The ark was "predestined" or its final "destiny"(atop the mountains) was "predetermined". At the same time, however, God invited EVERYONE to get aboard the ark. They "chose" of their own "free will" to either accept or decline this invitation and were therefore justifiably accountable for their "choices". Just because God "foreknew" who would accept or who would decline does not mean that they themselves were not invited and didn't make their "choices". They weren't "preprogrammed" robots. What you're describing sounds frightening close to what Messenger used to preach on this forum at one time...That God is willing that none should perish, so no one will. All will bow one day, some will just go "kicking and screaming". At that time, I used to tell him that this sounded like some sort of "shotgun wedding". There was no "free will" involved. This is not the case with God. In essence, using the wedding analogy, Jesus bowed the heavens(a man often bends the knee when proposing to the woman he loves) and asked us to enter into a spiritual marriage covenant with Him. We have the "choice" of saying "yes/I do" or "no/I don't"(many on this forum have obviously said "no" for a variety of reasons). Just because He "foreknows" what our "choices" will be, doesn't mean that He made the "choices" for us. What you're implying also sounds frighteningly close to Calvinism which states that God "predestines" some to heaven and others to hell without any "choice" whatsoever on the part of the individual. That is a lie. Jesus Christ was crucified for the sins of the world and "predestined" to rise from the dead and ascend to His Father in heaven. God invites us all to be found "in Christ" so that we can be "raised up together with Him". In His "foreknowledge", God knows what "choices" we will make, but the "choices" are still ours, nevertheless. Whatever you "choose", you'll be held accountable for it one day. God is not "forcing" you to do anything against your own "free will". Jesus said it best:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
(Matthew 23:37)
God's "will" was to gather the people. Their "will" was not to come. I don't know how else to say it. If you still disagree, then I'll just throw my hands up in the air. I sincerely hope this helps.
Newguy,
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree and shelve this topic. I don't think that God "inviting" everyone onto the ark while knowing exactly who was going to be on the ark gave anyone a choice in the matter. If I ask a question and already know what the answer is, it's called a rhetorical question and is not a real question per se.
QUOTE
Additionally, in the case of an omniscient God, wouldn't he know what the so-called "innocent children" were going to turn out like? Would he have to wait for a "corrupt tree" to bring forth all of its "corrupt fruit" before cutting it down? There are plenty of Biblical examples of God separating the righteous from the wicked, you know.
No free will expressed or implied here. I would have to ask, why not save a whole lot of time and effort and just cut down all the trees in the very beginning and send all of us off to heaven or hell? My mental 'constitution' is such that I can't just 'throw my hands up in the air'; I have to keep digging until I can make 'sense' (in a logical sort of way) out of things. And I do agree with you that the concept is frighteningly close to Calvinism and predestination.
But thanks for your replies.
birdan: You're right. My "throw my hands up in the air" statement was a bit premature. I'll dialogue with you further on this, but it will have to wait until later. I'm on my way out for most of the day. Until then...
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 03:20 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2006, 03:55 AM)
newguy....as to the "surprised" aspect: 'god' certainly took it hard when the 'adam-and-eve-and-the-serpent' event took place...otherwise why all the melodramatic overkill reaction to it? All that was needed was a 'fatherly' reprimand and 'reprogramminf' of the 'experiment' and voila'!...forgiveness and a second chance after their 'transgression'. Otherwise it was PLANNED and not surprising that they would behave so...in which case they were PROGRAMMED?PRE-DESTINED to act so...which makes a mockery of free will etc. You see what I meant? Ciao.
RC.
.
RealityCheck: As I said in the past, God was NOT the least bit "surprised". The scriptures plainly declare that Jesus Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(Revelation 13:8) God "foreknew" that man would "willingly" disobey Him and He had in place a means by which man could find forgiveness and genuine reconciliation before they even transgressed. Man would have to "willingly" desire this forgiveness and reconciliation, though. God will NOT force Himself on anyone. It's NOT that difficult a concept, you know. Quite frankly, I think that many on this forum and many in this world will go to great lengths to shirk their own accountability. If you(collectively) don't believe the account, then fine. That's a "choice" that you are certainly "free" to make based upon "reason" or whatever else. But it is simply "your choice". That's the point.
Hi newguy!
'God' was 'grieved' when 'he' saw that 'his' creation was wicked and so visited Noah's flood to kill off everything (except you know who etc). Why be 'grieved' when 'he' supposedly already 'knew' how his creation was going to go?...unless 'he' had 'expected better things' from his creation? That's what I meant by "why the 'surprise'"?
And if we all DO have 'free will', does that mean that Jesus on the cross could well have REFUSED to say "why hast thou forsaken me", as 'prophesied'?...and instead have said "go to h*ll, you b*st*rd!...you DON't exist after all! Was ANYTHING ELSE even a remote possibility?...or is the 'script' FIXED for all time past/present/future? These are the things that bug the heck out of discussions re free will in religion. Ciao.
RC.
.
RC.
.
RealityCheck: As I said in the past, God was NOT the least bit "surprised". The scriptures plainly declare that Jesus Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(Revelation 13:8) God "foreknew" that man would "willingly" disobey Him and He had in place a means by which man could find forgiveness and genuine reconciliation before they even transgressed. Man would have to "willingly" desire this forgiveness and reconciliation, though. God will NOT force Himself on anyone. It's NOT that difficult a concept, you know. Quite frankly, I think that many on this forum and many in this world will go to great lengths to shirk their own accountability. If you(collectively) don't believe the account, then fine. That's a "choice" that you are certainly "free" to make based upon "reason" or whatever else. But it is simply "your choice". That's the point.
Hi newguy!
'God' was 'grieved' when 'he' saw that 'his' creation was wicked and so visited Noah's flood to kill off everything (except you know who etc). Why be 'grieved' when 'he' supposedly already 'knew' how his creation was going to go?...unless 'he' had 'expected better things' from his creation? That's what I meant by "why the 'surprise'"?
And if we all DO have 'free will', does that mean that Jesus on the cross could well have REFUSED to say "why hast thou forsaken me", as 'prophesied'?...and instead have said "go to h*ll, you b*st*rd!...you DON't exist after all! Was ANYTHING ELSE even a remote possibility?...or is the 'script' FIXED for all time past/present/future? These are the things that bug the heck out of discussions re free will in religion. Ciao.
RC.
.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 02:21 AM)
QUOTE (Laidback+)
As a Wise Creator I would know that our solar system needs the sun to ignite and spew forth mass for it to create the solar planets and in particular our cooling Planet "Earth".
Laidback: Who says that the Sun had to ignite and spew forth mass to create the planets? Who says that the planets were created in this way at all? You can suggest that all you'd like, but let's see some proof of this. And, O Great Wise Creator, where did the Sun come from? Tell me that. This ought to be good. And don't give me the patented chicken-@ss answer that that is a question for the biogenesis people. Since you're such a Wise Creator, you tell me. Thanks.
First let me clarify my statement with respects to me being a creator..
The first thing is what ever I create, I should fully understand it and how it is going to exist.. Ie from what components are needed, how it is assembled all its functions and as a result I should be able to describe all of its functions from the moment it is created up to its demise where it ceases to function as intended..
If we transpose this analogy the creator of the Universe should be able to describe intimately everything that exists, but sadly this is grossly lacking, suggesting Your God a false one!
Let me now address our observations of the cosmos where we have the capacity to see Suns that are on the verge of ignition, elsewhere we have the capacity to observe already new born stars and the resulting planets still needing to form where some already have taken form while other systems have only the debre..
Throughout our universe systems such as ours are created as they are destroyed only to form new Stars and continue the cycle of energy exchanges..
For the most I can appreciate why many individuals question how can one state our own solar system has the same nature, but if one studies the cosmos long enough, the conclusion is hard to dismiss in where our cooling planets are not out of the ordinary..
Having stated this what more is there to say than a Proton is a positive charge, an electron is a negative charge, an atom is an atom an element is an element, a molecule is a molecule and a cell can be assembled with these, as an organ with these cells, and a biological system can be assembled with previously mentioned, populations can be assembled with these biological systems, we have many a like things as there are blades of grass, that behave and follow laws of Physics.
I don't know if you noticed but all things alike are following certain Rules, it is what defines them as what they are, and Galaxies, Stars, Planets and their respective moons all follow the basic same Rules, Our Planet is not an exception, as it is nowhere near the center of the universe as your god proclaimed! why its not even near the center of a galaxy or the center of a cluster of Galaxies!
To which I ask what evidence has your god provided that conforms to our universe?
I base my views on the most likely, and the most likely is gained from observations, thus far all I have observed of your god is hearsay.
Laidback: Who says that the Sun had to ignite and spew forth mass to create the planets? Who says that the planets were created in this way at all? You can suggest that all you'd like, but let's see some proof of this. And, O Great Wise Creator, where did the Sun come from? Tell me that. This ought to be good. And don't give me the patented chicken-@ss answer that that is a question for the biogenesis people. Since you're such a Wise Creator, you tell me. Thanks.
First let me clarify my statement with respects to me being a creator..
The first thing is what ever I create, I should fully understand it and how it is going to exist.. Ie from what components are needed, how it is assembled all its functions and as a result I should be able to describe all of its functions from the moment it is created up to its demise where it ceases to function as intended..
If we transpose this analogy the creator of the Universe should be able to describe intimately everything that exists, but sadly this is grossly lacking, suggesting Your God a false one!
Let me now address our observations of the cosmos where we have the capacity to see Suns that are on the verge of ignition, elsewhere we have the capacity to observe already new born stars and the resulting planets still needing to form where some already have taken form while other systems have only the debre..
Throughout our universe systems such as ours are created as they are destroyed only to form new Stars and continue the cycle of energy exchanges..
For the most I can appreciate why many individuals question how can one state our own solar system has the same nature, but if one studies the cosmos long enough, the conclusion is hard to dismiss in where our cooling planets are not out of the ordinary..
Having stated this what more is there to say than a Proton is a positive charge, an electron is a negative charge, an atom is an atom an element is an element, a molecule is a molecule and a cell can be assembled with these, as an organ with these cells, and a biological system can be assembled with previously mentioned, populations can be assembled with these biological systems, we have many a like things as there are blades of grass, that behave and follow laws of Physics.
I don't know if you noticed but all things alike are following certain Rules, it is what defines them as what they are, and Galaxies, Stars, Planets and their respective moons all follow the basic same Rules, Our Planet is not an exception, as it is nowhere near the center of the universe as your god proclaimed! why its not even near the center of a galaxy or the center of a cluster of Galaxies!
To which I ask what evidence has your god provided that conforms to our universe?
I base my views on the most likely, and the most likely is gained from observations, thus far all I have observed of your god is hearsay.
Laidback: One quick question. People keep stating that God said that the earth is the center of the universe. What scripture/scriptures are you referencing for this? Thanks.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 9 2006, 12:45 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 03:20 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2006, 03:55 AM)
newguy....as to the "surprised" aspect: 'god' certainly took it hard when the 'adam-and-eve-and-the-serpent' event took place...otherwise why all the melodramatic overkill reaction to it? All that was needed was a 'fatherly' reprimand and 'reprogramminf' of the 'experiment' and voila'!...forgiveness and a second chance after their 'transgression'. Otherwise it was PLANNED and not surprising that they would behave so...in which case they were PROGRAMMED?PRE-DESTINED to act so...which makes a mockery of free will etc. You see what I meant? Ciao.
RC.
.
RealityCheck: As I said in the past, God was NOT the least bit "surprised". The scriptures plainly declare that Jesus Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(Revelation 13:8) God "foreknew" that man would "willingly" disobey Him and He had in place a means by which man could find forgiveness and genuine reconciliation before they even transgressed. Man would have to "willingly" desire this forgiveness and reconciliation, though. God will NOT force Himself on anyone. It's NOT that difficult a concept, you know. Quite frankly, I think that many on this forum and many in this world will go to great lengths to shirk their own accountability. If you(collectively) don't believe the account, then fine. That's a "choice" that you are certainly "free" to make based upon "reason" or whatever else. But it is simply "your choice". That's the point.
Hi newguy!
'God' was 'grieved' when 'he' saw that 'his' creation was wicked and so visited Noah's flood to kill off everything (except you know who etc). Why be 'grieved' when 'he' supposedly already 'knew' how his creation was going to go?...unless 'he' had 'expected better things' from his creation? That's what I meant by "why the 'surprise'"?
.
RealityCheck: Not to nitpick, but your "surprise" shifted from its original location of the garden of Eden to the days of Noah. In either case, just because you know how something is going to turn out, doesn't mean that you can't be grieved by it. I know that this is a base analogy, but I trust that I'm not the only one who has ever seen a TV show or movie for the second or third time and still felt plenty of emotion although the outcome of the show/movie was already known. Ever had that happen to you? Honestly? Well, this is of much greater importance than a scripted show/movie full of actors and actresses. This involves the souls of men.
RC.
.
RealityCheck: As I said in the past, God was NOT the least bit "surprised". The scriptures plainly declare that Jesus Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(Revelation 13:8) God "foreknew" that man would "willingly" disobey Him and He had in place a means by which man could find forgiveness and genuine reconciliation before they even transgressed. Man would have to "willingly" desire this forgiveness and reconciliation, though. God will NOT force Himself on anyone. It's NOT that difficult a concept, you know. Quite frankly, I think that many on this forum and many in this world will go to great lengths to shirk their own accountability. If you(collectively) don't believe the account, then fine. That's a "choice" that you are certainly "free" to make based upon "reason" or whatever else. But it is simply "your choice". That's the point.
Hi newguy!
'God' was 'grieved' when 'he' saw that 'his' creation was wicked and so visited Noah's flood to kill off everything (except you know who etc). Why be 'grieved' when 'he' supposedly already 'knew' how his creation was going to go?...unless 'he' had 'expected better things' from his creation? That's what I meant by "why the 'surprise'"?
.
RealityCheck: Not to nitpick, but your "surprise" shifted from its original location of the garden of Eden to the days of Noah. In either case, just because you know how something is going to turn out, doesn't mean that you can't be grieved by it. I know that this is a base analogy, but I trust that I'm not the only one who has ever seen a TV show or movie for the second or third time and still felt plenty of emotion although the outcome of the show/movie was already known. Ever had that happen to you? Honestly? Well, this is of much greater importance than a scripted show/movie full of actors and actresses. This involves the souls of men.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
And if we all DO have 'free will', does that mean that Jesus on the cross could well have REFUSED to say "why hast thou forsaken me", as 'prophesied'?...and instead have said "go to h*ll, you b*st*rd!...you DON't exist after all! Was ANYTHING ELSE even a remote possibility?...or is the 'script' FIXED for all time past/present/future? These are the things that bug the heck out of discussions re free will in religion. Ciao.
Believe it or not, I'm very glad that you asked this question. This is the heart of the matter. Why would Jesus want to say "go to h*ll, you b*st*rd"? He knew God, as do others. To those who genuinely know Him, this would be the furthest thought from their minds. Jesus chose to be "forsaken" on the cross that we might be reconciled unto God. Why does that upset so many people? It is the greatest sign of selfless love ever displayed. Have a good one.
Believe it or not, I'm very glad that you asked this question. This is the heart of the matter. Why would Jesus want to say "go to h*ll, you b*st*rd"? He knew God, as do others. To those who genuinely know Him, this would be the furthest thought from their minds. Jesus chose to be "forsaken" on the cross that we might be reconciled unto God. Why does that upset so many people? It is the greatest sign of selfless love ever displayed. Have a good one.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 9 2006, 02:58 AM)
One quick question. People keep stating that God said that the earth is the center of the universe. What scripture/scriptures are you referencing for this? Thanks.
Hi newguy,
here is a quotation from Wikipedia:
You can read the whole article about Galileo and his trial here.
As you can see, the church believed that the Earth is the center of the universe. They even get people on trial, if they don't agree.
Hi newguy,
here is a quotation from Wikipedia:
QUOTE
Psalms 93 and 104, and Ecclesiastes 1:5 speak of the motion of celestial bodies and the suspended position of the earth.
You can read the whole article about Galileo and his trial here.
As you can see, the church believed that the Earth is the center of the universe. They even get people on trial, if they don't agree.
Upisoft: Thanks. I'll do the required reading and then get back to you when I'm able. Thanks again.
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 9 2006, 02:58 AM)
Laidback: One quick question. People keep stating that God said that the earth is the center of the universe. What scripture/scriptures are you referencing for this? Thanks.
Good point!
For the life of me I don't know where I received this information from, my guess is before the bible went to print, they omitted reference of the sun, moon and stars moving over the earth, and I guess we need to reference an unrevised bible, one of those Latin or Hebrew ones before it was mass printed!
Good point!
For the life of me I don't know where I received this information from, my guess is before the bible went to print, they omitted reference of the sun, moon and stars moving over the earth, and I guess we need to reference an unrevised bible, one of those Latin or Hebrew ones before it was mass printed!
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 9 2006, 03:10 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 9 2006, 12:45 AM)
QUOTE (newguy+Jan 7 2006, 03:20 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2006, 03:55 AM)
newguy....as to the "surprised" aspect: 'god' certainly took it hard when the 'adam-and-eve-and-the-serpent' event took place...otherwise why all the melodramatic overkill reaction to it? All that was needed was a 'fatherly' reprimand and 'reprogramminf' of the 'experiment' and voila'!...forgiveness and a second chance after their 'transgression'. Otherwise it was PLANNED and not surprising that they would behave so...in which case they were PROGRAMMED?PRE-DESTINED to act so...which makes a mockery of free will etc. You see what I meant? Ciao.
RC.
.
RealityCheck: As I said in the past, God was NOT the least bit "surprised". The scriptures plainly declare that Jesus Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(Revelation 13:8) God "foreknew" that man would "willingly" disobey Him and He had in place a means by which man could find forgiveness and genuine reconciliation before they even transgressed. Man would have to "willingly" desire this forgiveness and reconciliation, though. God will NOT force Himself on anyone. It's NOT that difficult a concept, you know. Quite frankly, I think that many on this forum and many in this world will go to great lengths to shirk their own accountability. If you(collectively) don't believe the account, then fine. That's a "choice" that you are certainly "free" to make based upon "reason" or whatever else. But it is simply "your choice". That's the point.
Hi newguy!
'God' was 'grieved' when 'he' saw that 'his' creation was wicked and so visited Noah's flood to kill off everything (except you know who etc). Why be 'grieved' when 'he' supposedly already 'knew' how his creation was going to go?...unless 'he' had 'expected better things' from his creation? That's what I meant by "why the 'surprise'"?
.
RealityCheck: Not to nitpick, but your "surprise" shifted from its original location of the garden of Eden to the days of Noah. In either case, just because you know how something is going to turn out, doesn't mean that you can't be grieved by it. I know that this is a base analogy, but I trust that I'm not the only one who has ever seen a TV show or movie for the second or third time and still felt plenty of emotion although the outcome of the show/movie was already known. Ever had that happen to you? Honestly? Well, this is of much greater importance than a scripted show/movie full of actors and actresses. This involves the souls of men.
RC.
.
RealityCheck: As I said in the past, God was NOT the least bit "surprised". The scriptures plainly declare that Jesus Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."(Revelation 13:8) God "foreknew" that man would "willingly" disobey Him and He had in place a means by which man could find forgiveness and genuine reconciliation before they even transgressed. Man would have to "willingly" desire this forgiveness and reconciliation, though. God will NOT force Himself on anyone. It's NOT that difficult a concept, you know. Quite frankly, I think that many on this forum and many in this world will go to great lengths to shirk their own accountability. If you(collectively) don't believe the account, then fine. That's a "choice" that you are certainly "free" to make based upon "reason" or whatever else. But it is simply "your choice". That's the point.
Hi newguy!
'God' was 'grieved' when 'he' saw that 'his' creation was wicked and so visited Noah's flood to kill off everything (except you know who etc). Why be 'grieved' when 'he' supposedly already 'knew' how his creation was going to go?...unless 'he' had 'expected better things' from his creation? That's what I meant by "why the 'surprise'"?
.
RealityCheck: Not to nitpick, but your "surprise" shifted from its original location of the garden of Eden to the days of Noah. In either case, just because you know how something is going to turn out, doesn't mean that you can't be grieved by it. I know that this is a base analogy, but I trust that I'm not the only one who has ever seen a TV show or movie for the second or third time and still felt plenty of emotion although the outcome of the show/movie was already known. Ever had that happen to you? Honestly? Well, this is of much greater importance than a scripted show/movie full of actors and actresses. This involves the souls of men.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
And if we all DO have 'free will', does that mean that Jesus on the cross could well have REFUSED to say "why hast thou forsaken me", as 'prophesied'?...and instead have said "go to h*ll, you b*st*rd!...you DON't exist after all! Was ANYTHING ELSE even a remote possibility?...or is the 'script' FIXED for all time past/present/future? These are the things that bug the heck out of discussions re free will in religion. Ciao.
Believe it or not, I'm very glad that you asked this question. This is the heart of the matter. Why would Jesus want to say "go to h*ll, you b*st*rd"? He knew God, as do others. To those who genuinely know Him, this would be the furthest thought from their minds. Jesus chose to be "forsaken" on the cross that we might be reconciled unto God. Why does that upset so many people? It is the greatest sign of selfless love ever displayed. Have a good one.
Hi newguy.
If Jesus 'knew' and 'was of' god, then it was hardly a 'sacrifice', was it? I mean, can you imagine the 'son of god' DYING FOR REAL and FOREVER (as it were)?...so really, Jesus/God had 'nothing at stake' except an 'experience'....whereas a 'real' HUMAN (MORTAL) BEING who dies for someone else IS truly sacrificing their "ALL" for someone else. No comparison, really.
About that 'grieving': It didn't stop 'god' from wiping out EVERYONE (men, women, children and other life forms) on the face of the Earth (except you know who). So no 'surprise', plenty of 'grieving', but NO 'discrimination' when it comes to terminating the 'experiment' which 'he' KNEW would fail first time out. Sorry, but all this 'literal biblical' stuff doesn't sound very consistent to me when it is treated AS 'literal'.
But that's only my view of these things.
RC.
.
Believe it or not, I'm very glad that you asked this question. This is the heart of the matter. Why would Jesus want to say "go to h*ll, you b*st*rd"? He knew God, as do others. To those who genuinely know Him, this would be the furthest thought from their minds. Jesus chose to be "forsaken" on the cross that we might be reconciled unto God. Why does that upset so many people? It is the greatest sign of selfless love ever displayed. Have a good one.
Hi newguy.
If Jesus 'knew' and 'was of' god, then it was hardly a 'sacrifice', was it? I mean, can you imagine the 'son of god' DYING FOR REAL and FOREVER (as it were)?...so really, Jesus/God had 'nothing at stake' except an 'experience'....whereas a 'real' HUMAN (MORTAL) BEING who dies for someone else IS truly sacrificing their "ALL" for someone else. No comparison, really.
About that 'grieving': It didn't stop 'god' from wiping out EVERYONE (men, women, children and other life forms) on the face of the Earth (except you know who). So no 'surprise', plenty of 'grieving', but NO 'discrimination' when it comes to terminating the 'experiment' which 'he' KNEW would fail first time out. Sorry, but all this 'literal biblical' stuff doesn't sound very consistent to me when it is treated AS 'literal'.
But that's only my view of these things.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
If Jesus 'knew' and 'was of' god, then it was hardly a 'sacrifice', was it? I mean, can you imagine the 'son of god' DYING FOR REAL and FOREVER (as it were)?...so really, Jesus/God had 'nothing at stake' except an 'experience'....whereas a 'real' HUMAN (MORTAL) BEING who dies for someone else IS truly sacrificing their "ALL" for someone else. No comparison, really.
RealityCheck: Jesus, Who had glory with the Father before the world was(John 17:5), left the glories of heaven and came to earth in the form of a man. After a sinless life of doing nothing but good, on the cross, Jesus willingly became a "scapegoat". Ever taken the blame for someone else's mistakes/crimes? Probably. Willingly? Possibly. To the point where you would willingly allow others to pluck off your beard, spit in your face, rip open your back with a scourge, violently smash a crown a thorns down upon your head with a reed, hammer spikes into your feet and hands while nailing you to a cross and finally allowing a spear to be thrust into your side? Lost you there, huh? And would you willingly allow this to be done by the ungrateful, spiteful, insidiously proud, blaspheming and murderous work of your own hands? Didn't think so. Well, Jesus did. I, for one, appreciate it. Obviously, you and others don't. As I've said before, your "choice". As far as your "HUMAN (MORTAL) BEINGS" are concerned, death is NOT the end for any of them.
"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."(John 5:28-29)
Now, I fully understand that what I just quoted may and most likely will be discarded by you and others as just myth/superstition/empty words. Fine. Once again, your "choice". However, at the same time, to those of us who know Christ, these are more than just mere words. That is the point. Knowing Christ, we can take Him at His word because He's proven Himself to be true time and time and time again. He will prove Himself to any who but so desire. And I'm not talking about your "challenge" to some sort of "street fight". I'm talking about the proof of genuinely being reconciled to God through repentance and faith in Christ.
I posted it last time, but the Uncertainty Principle (for position/momentum) is
dxdp>=(hbar)/2 (read as delta x times delta p is greater than or equal to hbar divided by two.
Its interesting to note that the position momentum uncertainty principle is just the most commonly known of many uncertainty principles. Another one that is fairly commonly knowng is the time energy uncertainty principle. There is actually a generalized uncertainty relation where you can get an uncertainty relation for any 2 non commutable observables. I can't remember the exact equation (I have it in a textbook at home, so if anyone is curious tell me and I will look it up, or try googling it, that might work too.) I am pretty sure it has to do with the derivative of the commutator of those two observables, but I can't remember what the derivative is with respect to. If you don't know much math all of what I said will sound very foreign to you, but don't worry, quantum mechanics is very sophistocated mathematically, and very abstract. My physics professor who taught me my first QM course said (as I am sure many a physics professor has said), that all physicists can do quantum mechanics, but none truly understand it. The quantum world is so weird compared to what we experience. A lot of it seems very counter intuitive, but, as far as I know, no experiment has ever shown it to be wrong, and predictions from Quantum field theory have been shown to be accurate to like 13 decimal places or so. AMAZING!!!
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."
(I John 3:7-10)
The devil was once an angel in heaven right? So did this angel sin from the beginning? To me that seems like a contradiction since the devil was once an angel, but now its said that the devil sinned since the beginning.
The fact that the devil sinned from the beginning is confirmed by other verses in the Bible.
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. (John 8:43-45)
Satan fomented rebellion against God in heaven so that angels fell. This indicates that he was in heaven until he was cast out, but not necessarily that he was an angel himself. Satan does like to masquerade as an angel of light to seduce human beings. People who follow the devil also like to pretend to be righteous.
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (II Corinthians 11:13-15)
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. (Revelation 12:7-12)
The truth about the devil may contradict private interpretations of the Bible, but it agrees with the plan of Salvation that God has for his people. Human beings were created to inherit everlasting abundant life in heaven with God. The devil was created to humble those who would rebel against God. There is no permanent place for the devil in heaven, but he serves a useful purpose in dealing with human sin. He is like a spiritual garbage disposal. If human beings choose to be permanently aligned with Satan rather than with Jesus Christ, hell fire will be their final abode.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (Matthew 25:41)
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. (Isaiah 54:16)
What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. (Romans 9:22-26)
The Holy BibleHow to be SavedCreation Proof
Isnt being a scapegoat a form of deception?
sinless?
RealityCheck: Jesus, Who had glory with the Father before the world was(John 17:5), left the glories of heaven and came to earth in the form of a man. After a sinless life of doing nothing but good, on the cross, Jesus willingly became a "scapegoat". Ever taken the blame for someone else's mistakes/crimes? Probably. Willingly? Possibly. To the point where you would willingly allow others to pluck off your beard, spit in your face, rip open your back with a scourge, violently smash a crown a thorns down upon your head with a reed, hammer spikes into your feet and hands while nailing you to a cross and finally allowing a spear to be thrust into your side? Lost you there, huh? And would you willingly allow this to be done by the ungrateful, spiteful, insidiously proud, blaspheming and murderous work of your own hands? Didn't think so. Well, Jesus did. I, for one, appreciate it. Obviously, you and others don't. As I've said before, your "choice". As far as your "HUMAN (MORTAL) BEINGS" are concerned, death is NOT the end for any of them.
"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."(John 5:28-29)
Now, I fully understand that what I just quoted may and most likely will be discarded by you and others as just myth/superstition/empty words. Fine. Once again, your "choice". However, at the same time, to those of us who know Christ, these are more than just mere words. That is the point. Knowing Christ, we can take Him at His word because He's proven Himself to be true time and time and time again. He will prove Himself to any who but so desire. And I'm not talking about your "challenge" to some sort of "street fight". I'm talking about the proof of genuinely being reconciled to God through repentance and faith in Christ.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
About that 'grieving': It didn't stop 'god' from wiping out EVERYONE (men, women, children and other life forms) on the face of the Earth (except you know who). So no 'surprise', plenty of 'grieving', but NO 'discrimination' when it comes to terminating the 'experiment' which 'he' KNEW would fail first time out. Sorry, but all this 'literal biblical' stuff doesn't sound very consistent to me when it is treated AS 'literal'.
Out of curiosity, and this is a sincere question, what do you think about the "justice system" in either your native Australia or over here in the United States? Any possible(definite) "corruption" aside, is "justice" wrong in your eyes? I'm genuinely curious. Should an earthly "judge" be completely void of any inner emotion while meting out justice? Should God? Talk to you later.
Out of curiosity, and this is a sincere question, what do you think about the "justice system" in either your native Australia or over here in the United States? Any possible(definite) "corruption" aside, is "justice" wrong in your eyes? I'm genuinely curious. Should an earthly "judge" be completely void of any inner emotion while meting out justice? Should God? Talk to you later.
QUOTE
No one took mercy on the chap who didn't who Dr. Heisenberg was. Just for kicks, I will elucidate a mite.
Dr. Heisenberg is/was Werner Heisenberg, one of the very intelligent German physicists at the time quantum mechanics were being formulated, in approximately 1925.
He derived the Uncertainty Princple which bears his name. That Principle yields the fact that at the quantum level, you can determine either the position or the velocity of a particle to an arbitrary closeness, but you can cannot know both to a high accuracy. I don't remember the precise limit of accuracy equation, but it can surely be found via Google.
The uncertainty arose from the effect of the energy which would impinge of the particle in order to make the measurement. When I took quantum mechanics courses in 1951, the Uncertainy Principle was taught as a limit to measurement limitation.
Subsequently, the concept led to the theory of Vacuum Energy which states that there is a constant flux of virtual particles being created and annihilated way down in the roots of reality. A brilliant Czeck(sp?) physicist named Casimir produced an analysis which determined the magnitude of the Vacuum Energy which has susequently been measured.
Oh well, it's time to go to bed. Goodnight, all.
Dr. Heisenberg is/was Werner Heisenberg, one of the very intelligent German physicists at the time quantum mechanics were being formulated, in approximately 1925.
He derived the Uncertainty Princple which bears his name. That Principle yields the fact that at the quantum level, you can determine either the position or the velocity of a particle to an arbitrary closeness, but you can cannot know both to a high accuracy. I don't remember the precise limit of accuracy equation, but it can surely be found via Google.
The uncertainty arose from the effect of the energy which would impinge of the particle in order to make the measurement. When I took quantum mechanics courses in 1951, the Uncertainy Principle was taught as a limit to measurement limitation.
Subsequently, the concept led to the theory of Vacuum Energy which states that there is a constant flux of virtual particles being created and annihilated way down in the roots of reality. A brilliant Czeck(sp?) physicist named Casimir produced an analysis which determined the magnitude of the Vacuum Energy which has susequently been measured.
Oh well, it's time to go to bed. Goodnight, all.
I posted it last time, but the Uncertainty Principle (for position/momentum) is
dxdp>=(hbar)/2 (read as delta x times delta p is greater than or equal to hbar divided by two.
Its interesting to note that the position momentum uncertainty principle is just the most commonly known of many uncertainty principles. Another one that is fairly commonly knowng is the time energy uncertainty principle. There is actually a generalized uncertainty relation where you can get an uncertainty relation for any 2 non commutable observables. I can't remember the exact equation (I have it in a textbook at home, so if anyone is curious tell me and I will look it up, or try googling it, that might work too.) I am pretty sure it has to do with the derivative of the commutator of those two observables, but I can't remember what the derivative is with respect to. If you don't know much math all of what I said will sound very foreign to you, but don't worry, quantum mechanics is very sophistocated mathematically, and very abstract. My physics professor who taught me my first QM course said (as I am sure many a physics professor has said), that all physicists can do quantum mechanics, but none truly understand it. The quantum world is so weird compared to what we experience. A lot of it seems very counter intuitive, but, as far as I know, no experiment has ever shown it to be wrong, and predictions from Quantum field theory have been shown to be accurate to like 13 decimal places or so. AMAZING!!!
QUOTE (Steveo+Jan 6 2006, 04:23 PM)
QUOTE
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."
(I John 3:7-10)
The devil was once an angel in heaven right? So did this angel sin from the beginning? To me that seems like a contradiction since the devil was once an angel, but now its said that the devil sinned since the beginning.
The fact that the devil sinned from the beginning is confirmed by other verses in the Bible.
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. (John 8:43-45)
Satan fomented rebellion against God in heaven so that angels fell. This indicates that he was in heaven until he was cast out, but not necessarily that he was an angel himself. Satan does like to masquerade as an angel of light to seduce human beings. People who follow the devil also like to pretend to be righteous.
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (II Corinthians 11:13-15)
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. (Revelation 12:7-12)
The truth about the devil may contradict private interpretations of the Bible, but it agrees with the plan of Salvation that God has for his people. Human beings were created to inherit everlasting abundant life in heaven with God. The devil was created to humble those who would rebel against God. There is no permanent place for the devil in heaven, but he serves a useful purpose in dealing with human sin. He is like a spiritual garbage disposal. If human beings choose to be permanently aligned with Satan rather than with Jesus Christ, hell fire will be their final abode.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (Matthew 25:41)
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. (Isaiah 54:16)
What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. (Romans 9:22-26)
The Holy Bible
How to be SavedCreation Proof
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2006, 03:55 AM)
... forgiveness and a second chance after their 'transgression'. ...
Are you willing to accept the forgiveness of God?
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (Colossians 1:13-14)
The Holy BibleHow to be SavedCreation Proof
Are you willing to accept the forgiveness of God?
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (Colossians 1:13-14)
The Holy Bible
How to be SavedCreation Proof
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Jan 9 2006, 02:39 PM)
Are you willing to accept the forgiveness of God?
Does one need to accept forgiveness?
Am I not forgiven otherwise?
Does one need to accept forgiveness?
Am I not forgiven otherwise?
QUOTE
After a sinless life of doing nothing but good, on the cross, Jesus willingly became a "scapegoat". Ever taken the blame for someone else's mistakes/crimes?
Isnt being a scapegoat a form of deception?
sinless?
Hi Laidback.
Please edit your last post as it incorrectly attributes newguy's words to me in the second "quote" area. Thanks.
RC.
.
Please edit your last post as it incorrectly attributes newguy's words to me in the second "quote" area. Thanks.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Jan 9 2006, 08:39 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2006, 03:55 AM)
... forgiveness and a second chance after their 'transgression'. ...
Are you willing to accept the forgiveness of God?
Hi Jerry.
Unlike yourself, I don't believe there IS a 'god' such as you 'believe' in...so your above question is irrelevant and immaterial in my particular case.
But it DOES beg the more relevant question in YOUR case: "Have YOU been 'forgiven' by your 'god' yet? Is this forgiveness-seeking the real reason why you feel the need to annoy others, so that you may be 'forgiven' your 'sins'?....if so, it seems a bit selfish of you to 'earn' your god's forgiveness at the expense of spreading ignorance and superstition and annoying people while you're at it. Is such 'selfishness' OK with your 'god'?
And I noticed you MISSED the POINT that if YOU, Jerry Duke, could be 'forgiven', then WHY NOT 'Adam & Eve', heh? Your 'god' is apparently a 'god' of 'Selective Hypocrisy'...discerning when it comes to you and adam/eve, nut NOT discerning when it comes to wiping out everything (except Noah etc) off the face of the planet in his 'flood'.
It is inconsistencies such as these that urge me to say: If you are addressing any of my comments in future, please put more substance and reason in your own comments than you have seen fit to put in this instance. Thanks.
RC.
.
Are you willing to accept the forgiveness of God?
Hi Jerry.
Unlike yourself, I don't believe there IS a 'god' such as you 'believe' in...so your above question is irrelevant and immaterial in my particular case.
But it DOES beg the more relevant question in YOUR case: "Have YOU been 'forgiven' by your 'god' yet? Is this forgiveness-seeking the real reason why you feel the need to annoy others, so that you may be 'forgiven' your 'sins'?....if so, it seems a bit selfish of you to 'earn' your god's forgiveness at the expense of spreading ignorance and superstition and annoying people while you're at it. Is such 'selfishness' OK with your 'god'?
And I noticed you MISSED the POINT that if YOU, Jerry Duke, could be 'forgiven', then WHY NOT 'Adam & Eve', heh? Your 'god' is apparently a 'god' of 'Selective Hypocrisy'...discerning when it comes to you and adam/eve, nut NOT discerning when it comes to wiping out everything (except Noah etc) off the face of the planet in his 'flood'.
It is inconsistencies such as these that urge me to say: If you are addressing any of my comments in future, please put more substance and reason in your own comments than you have seen fit to put in this instance. Thanks.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 10 2006, 12:57 AM)
Hi Laidback.
Please edit your last post as it incorrectly attributes newguy's words to me in the second "quote" area. Thanks.
RC.
.
Ewps! <groveling on my knees> Sorry bout that RC
Please edit your last post as it incorrectly attributes newguy's words to me in the second "quote" area. Thanks.
RC.
.
Ewps!
<groveling on my knees> Sorry bout that RC QUOTE (gmilam+Jan 9 2006, 03:43 PM)
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Jan 9 2006, 02:39 PM)
Are you willing to accept the forgiveness of God?
Does one need to accept forgiveness?
Am I not forgiven otherwise?
This is not a facetious question. There are people in my life who have done me wrong. I have forgiven them. Some of them know it and others I have not seen for many years... But in my mind they are forgiven, whether they know about it and accept it or not.
Does one need to accept forgiveness?
Am I not forgiven otherwise?
This is not a facetious question. There are people in my life who have done me wrong. I have forgiven them. Some of them know it and others I have not seen for many years... But in my mind they are forgiven, whether they know about it and accept it or not.
QUOTE (Laidback+Jan 10 2006, 01:26 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 10 2006, 12:57 AM)
Hi Laidback.
Please edit your last post as it incorrectly attributes newguy's words to me in the second "quote" area. Thanks.
RC.
.
Ewps! <groveling on my knees> Sorry bout that RC
Relax, mate! I'm neither a 'religious' person nor a 'god' itself, so I do not demand 'grovelling' in others; but merely courteous and reasoned interaction.
And no need of apology in cases of unintended mishaps, heh? Thanks for complying so promptly, though. Ciao.
RC.
.
Please edit your last post as it incorrectly attributes newguy's words to me in the second "quote" area. Thanks.
RC.
.
Ewps!
<groveling on my knees> Sorry bout that RC Relax, mate! I'm neither a 'religious' person nor a 'god' itself, so I do not demand 'grovelling' in others; but merely courteous and reasoned interaction.
And no need of apology in cases of unintended mishaps, heh? Thanks for complying so promptly, though. Ciao.
RC.
.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jan 9 2006, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE (gmilam+Jan 9 2006, 03:43 PM)
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Jan 9 2006, 02:39 PM)
Are you willing to accept the forgiveness of God?
Does one need to accept forgiveness?
Am I not forgiven otherwise?
This is not a facetious question. There are people in my life who have done me wrong. I have forgiven them. Some of them know it and others I have not seen for many years... But in my mind they are forgiven, whether they know about it and accept it or not.
No. You only need to forgive them. It is completely irrelevant whether they accept your forgiveness. In order for they themselves to receive the forgiveness and heal themselves, they must accept that they need it.
God has forgiven you (and everyone), without our even knowing it. You receive the forgiveness when you realize that you need it.
Got it?
Does one need to accept forgiveness?
Am I not forgiven otherwise?
This is not a facetious question. There are people in my life who have done me wrong. I have forgiven them. Some of them know it and others I have not seen for many years... But in my mind they are forgiven, whether they know about it and accept it or not.
No. You only need to forgive them. It is completely irrelevant whether they accept your forgiveness. In order for they themselves to receive the forgiveness and heal themselves, they must accept that they need it.
God has forgiven you (and everyone), without our even knowing it. You receive the forgiveness when you realize that you need it.
Got it?
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 9 2006, 11:04 PM)
QUOTE (gmilam+Jan 9 2006, 07:36 PM)
QUOTE (gmilam+Jan 9 2006, 03:43 PM)
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Jan 9 2006, 02:39 PM)
Are you willing to accept the forgiveness of God?
Does one need to accept forgiveness?
Am I not forgiven otherwise?
This is not a facetious question. There are people in my life who have done me wrong. I have forgiven them. Some of them know it and others I have not seen for many years... But in my mind they are forgiven, whether they know about it and accept it or not.
No. You only need to forgive them. It is completely irrelevant whether they accept your forgiveness. In order for they themselves to receive the forgiveness and heal themselves, they must accept that they need it.
God has forgiven you (and everyone), without our even knowing it. You receive the forgiveness when you realize that you need it.
Got it?
Yup. I got it.
Just not sure Jerry does.
Does one need to accept forgiveness?
Am I not forgiven otherwise?
This is not a facetious question. There are people in my life who have done me wrong. I have forgiven them. Some of them know it and others I have not seen for many years... But in my mind they are forgiven, whether they know about it and accept it or not.
No. You only need to forgive them. It is completely irrelevant whether they accept your forgiveness. In order for they themselves to receive the forgiveness and heal themselves, they must accept that they need it.
God has forgiven you (and everyone), without our even knowing it. You receive the forgiveness when you realize that you need it.
Got it?
Yup. I got it.
Just not sure Jerry does.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 10 2006, 04:15 AM)
QUOTE (Laidback+Jan 10 2006, 01:26 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 10 2006, 12:57 AM)
Hi Laidback.
Please edit your last post as it incorrectly attributes newguy's words to me in the second "quote" area. Thanks.
RC.
.
Ewps! <groveling on my knees> Sorry bout that RC
Relax, mate! I'm neither a 'religious' person nor a 'god' itself, so I do not demand 'grovelling' in others; but merely courteous and reasoned interaction.
And no need of apology in cases of unintended mishaps, heh? Thanks for complying so promptly, though. Ciao.
RC.
.
Acknowledged RC.
Please edit your last post as it incorrectly attributes newguy's words to me in the second "quote" area. Thanks.
RC.
.
Ewps!
<groveling on my knees> Sorry bout that RC Relax, mate! I'm neither a 'religious' person nor a 'god' itself, so I do not demand 'grovelling' in others; but merely courteous and reasoned interaction.
And no need of apology in cases of unintended mishaps, heh? Thanks for complying so promptly, though. Ciao.
RC.
.
Acknowledged RC.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Dec 27 2005, 08:44 PM)
jduke
Where is the truck that you are going to use to carry the thousands of books already published and peer reviewed that show that evolution on Earth is a fact??? Evolutionists have validated the theory of evolution time and time again and, since you already know this your above quote is bearing false witness(lying), but you know that too, don't you???
Grumpy
Is it possible to get a half-page executive summary of the proof? Evolution is change, so how many changes are required for a specific mass of primordial chemicals to be transformed into a living protozoan and then into a biosystem containing human beings and all the plants and animals required to sustain human life and as we see them in their symbiotic funtionality on the earth? What are the odds, on average, of each of these changes occurring in nature without the aid of an intelligent designer? No opinions please, just verified facts with references to sources.
Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? (Job 38:33)
The Holy BibleHow to be SavedCreation ProofUniversal TV Repair
QUOTE
I'm very satisfied that fossil remains demonstrate the reality of the world-wide flood that occurred about 5,000 years ago. If there is evidence that proves Evolution is true, evolutionists should publish it. It would be foolish for me to spend time trying to prove that Evolution is true when the evolutionists have failed to do so.
Where is the truck that you are going to use to carry the thousands of books already published and peer reviewed that show that evolution on Earth is a fact??? Evolutionists have validated the theory of evolution time and time again and, since you already know this your above quote is bearing false witness(lying), but you know that too, don't you???
Grumpy
Is it possible to get a half-page executive summary of the proof? Evolution is change, so how many changes are required for a specific mass of primordial chemicals to be transformed into a living protozoan and then into a biosystem containing human beings and all the plants and animals required to sustain human life and as we see them in their symbiotic funtionality on the earth? What are the odds, on average, of each of these changes occurring in nature without the aid of an intelligent designer? No opinions please, just verified facts with references to sources.
Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? (Job 38:33)
The Holy Bible
How to be SavedCreation ProofUniversal TV Repair
QUOTE (Messenger+Jan 10 2006, 01:04 AM)
God has forgiven you (and everyone), without our even knowing it. You receive the forgiveness when you realize that you need it.
Got it?
This is false. According to most xians like Duke, Pat Robertson, and all, you must ASK for forgiveness on bended knee.
So which xian is right? Which xian claim is right? Pick your myth carefully.
Got it?
This is false. According to most xians like Duke, Pat Robertson, and all, you must ASK for forgiveness on bended knee.
So which xian is right? Which xian claim is right? Pick your myth carefully.
jduke
Half page??? For thousands of tons of fossil evidence??? Jerry, if you are really interested the evidence is there, easily found. It's not like you have to belong to a secret society or have a password or anything! In fact it is more work to avoid this info than to find it!
Since you asked so nicely I feel obligated to give you an answer, but my words will be inadequite to that task so I will use someone elses. Emphasis mine.
Half page??? For thousands of tons of fossil evidence??? Jerry, if you are really interested the evidence is there, easily found. It's not like you have to belong to a secret society or have a password or anything! In fact it is more work to avoid this info than to find it!
Since you asked so nicely I feel obligated to give you an answer, but my words will be inadequite to that task so I will use someone elses. Emphasis mine.
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
Professor Lewontin spent his life in the study of evolutionary biology. The facts he references have been supported by the tons of fossil evidence found by the scientists who looked. None of these people wasted their lives nor were they involved in any kind of conspiracy to delude the public. Many, if not the majority, are believers in God and are not questioning whether he created life but are trying to find out how he did it.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Is it possible to get a half-page executive summary of the proof? Evolution is change, so how many changes are required for a specific mass of primordial chemicals to be transformed into a living protozoan and then into a biosystem containing human beings and all the plants and animals required to sustain human life and as we see them in their symbiotic funtionality on the earth? What are the odds, on average, of each of these changes occurring in nature without the aid of an intelligent designer? No opinions please, just verified facts with references to sources.
Half page??? For thousands of tons of fossil evidence??? Jerry, if you are really interested the evidence is there, easily found. It's not like you have to belong to a secret society or have a password or anything! In fact it is more work to avoid this info than to find it!
Since you asked so nicely I feel obligated to give you an answer, but my words will be inadequite to that task so I will use someone elses. Emphasis mine.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is it possible to get a half-page executive summary of the proof? Evolution is change, so how many changes are required for a specific mass of primordial chemicals to be transformed into a living protozoan and then into a biosystem containing human beings and all the plants and animals required to sustain human life and as we see them in their symbiotic funtionality on the earth? What are the odds, on average, of each of these changes occurring in nature without the aid of an intelligent designer? No opinions please, just verified facts with references to sources. |
Half page??? For thousands of tons of fossil evidence??? Jerry, if you are really interested the evidence is there, easily found. It's not like you have to belong to a secret society or have a password or anything! In fact it is more work to avoid this info than to find it!
Since you asked so nicely I feel obligated to give you an answer, but my words will be inadequite to that task so I will use someone elses. Emphasis mine.
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
Professor Lewontin spent his life in the study of evolutionary biology. The facts he references have been supported by the tons of fossil evidence found by the scientists who looked. None of these people wasted their lives nor were they involved in any kind of conspiracy to delude the public. Many, if not the majority, are believers in God and are not questioning whether he created life but are trying to find out how he did it.
Grumpy
QUOTE (gmilam+Jan 10 2006, 01:36 AM)
QUOTE (gmilam+Jan 9 2006, 03:43 PM)