Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles
Title: A Crucial Archaeological Dating Tool Is Wrong, And It Could Change History as We Know It
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/radioc ... egion-calibration-inaccuracies
Published: Jun 6, 2018
Author: MIKE MCRAE
Post Date: 2018-06-06 21:41:38 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 35381
Comments: 248
One of the most important dating tools used in archaeology may sometimes give misleading data, new study shows - and it could change whole historical timelines as a result. The discrepancy is due to significant fluctuations in the amount of carbon- 14 in the atmosphere, and it could force scientists to rethink how A comparison of radiocarbon ages across the Northern Hemisphere suggests we might have been a little too hasty in assuming how the isotope - also known as radiocarbon - diffuses, potentially shaking up controversial conversations on the timing of events in history. By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the annual growth rings of trees grown in southern Jordan, researchers have found some dating calculations on events in the Middle East – or, more accurately, the Levant – could be out by nearly 20 years. That may not seem like a huge deal, but in situations where a decade or two of discrepancy counts, radiocarbon dating could be misrepresenting important details. The science behind the dating method is fairly straightforward: nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere hit with cosmic radiation are converted into a type of carbon with eight neutrons. This carbon – which has an atomic mass of 14 – has a chance of losing that neutron to turn into a garden variety carbon isotope over a predictable amount of time. By comparing the two categories of carbon in organic remains, archaeologists can judge how recently the organism that left them last absorbed carbon-14 out of its environment. Over millennia the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere changes, meaning measurements need to be calibrated against a chart that takes the atmospheric concentration into account, such as INTCAL13. The current version of INTCAL13 is based on historical data from North America and Europe, and has a fairly broad resolution over thousands of years. Levels do happen to spike on a local and seasonal basis with changes in the carbon cycle, but carbon-14 is presumed to diffuse fast enough to ignore these tiny bumps. At least, that was the assumption until now. "We know from atmospheric measurements over the last 50 years that radiocarbon levels vary through the year, and we also know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the Northern Hemisphere," says archaeologist Sturt Manning from Cornell University. "So we wondered whether the radiocarbon levels relevant to dating organic material might also vary for different areas and whether this might affect archaeological dating." The tree rings were samples of Jordanian juniper that grew in the southern region of the Middle East between 1610 and 1940 CE. By counting the tree rings, the team were able to create a reasonably accurate timeline of annual changes in carbon-14 uptake for those centuries. Alarmingly, going by INTCAL13 alone, those same radiocarbon measurements would have provided dates that were older by an average of 19 years. The difference most likely comes down to changes in regional climates, such as warming conditions. Extrapolating the findings back to earlier periods, archaeologists attempting to pinpoint Iron Age or Biblical events down to a few years would no doubt have a serious need to question their calibrations. One controversial example is the dating of a single layer of archaeology at the Bronze and Iron Age city buried at Tel Rehov. Just a few decades of difference could help resolve an ongoing debate over the extent of Solomon's biblical kingdom, making findings like these more than a minor quibble in a politically contested part of the world. "Our work indicates that it's arguable their fundamental basis is faulty – they are using a calibration curve that is not accurate for this region," says Manning. Collecting additional data from different geographical areas and taking a closer look at historical climate trends could help sharpen calibration techniques, especially in hotly debated regions. For the time being, archaeologists covering history in the Levant are being advised to take their dates with a pinch of salt. This research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.they use ancient organic remains to measure the passing of time.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: redleghunter, jameson, buckeroo (#0)
Creationists were right all along. Just like I always knew and idiots still deny.
You still think the earth is 6,000 years old, retardo? I have proof and fossils from my front yard that prove otherwise. Crustaceans in limestone rock in Kentucky.
I take back my retardo comment. No offense.
I worry about you, stone. You have no objective evidence to assert your belief system. Even all the sequential "begats" in the Tanakh or otherwise called, "the Old Testament" ... as a sequential record of historical fact for the Jewish sheepherders, do not measure an accurate approach for when mankind's conscience awakened at the moment of "the Beginning." Get a fuckin' life.
I don't know that the Creationists are right, but I do know that the actual underlying pictoglyphic text of Genesis 1 is vastly more complex, and sophisticated, than the simple translations that sit atop it. There is a genius behind that text that is supernatural in its depth. The text itself, seen as it is, is more than a work of literature. It's a miracle.
Where is any direct internet link to the gobble-d-goop you just described?
Alarmingly, going by INTCAL13 alone, those same radiocarbon measurements would have provided dates that were older by an average of 19 years. The difference most likely comes down to changes in regional climates, such as warming conditions. Extrapolating the findings back to earlier periods, archaeologists attempting to pinpoint Iron Age or Biblical events down to a few years would no doubt have a serious need to question their calibrations. One controversial example is the dating of a single layer of archaeology at the Bronze and Iron Age city buried at Tel Rehov. Just a few decades of difference could help resolve an ongoing debate over the extent of Solomon's biblical kingdom, making findings like these more than a minor quibble in a politically contested part of the world. Hmmm...I see their assertions here but was unaware that anyone considered 19 years margin of error in carbon dating to be significant. No one ever considered it that accurate to begin with. Nor do they detail how they think a difference of 19 years would give us more meaningful info about the size and distribution of Solomon's kingdom. Or why that would have a modern geopolitical impact. Maybe there is something to this academic dispute but the article hasn't fleshed it out for the reader.
There isn't any. You have to do the work yourself.
Very interesting, but some commentators have difficulty in settling the century for biblical events so is this a big deal? The older the date the more likely carbon dating will be wrong. In fact, before testing archaeologists might be asked how old they think an object is, so the date given could be very subjective
Vicomte13: There isn't any. You have to do the work yourself. You are another liar, thief and sneaker of personal tyme as you described; how can I chase down your BULLSHIT without direct support? Go FUCK Yourself.
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Not really, I could direct you to the sources that will teach you the petroglyphs, and sources by which you can learn Hebrew, then you can apply the knowledge and do the work and see it for yourself. What does not exist is a ready-made, already-done source for this. If it exists, I have never found it. So if you want to see it, you have to do the work. Obviously given your wildly disproportionate rage at me you're not going to take my own work on the matter. (I never did anything to you to warrant such a foul-mouthed tirade. YOU'RE the one who comes to this Internet site and wastes his time, I don't drag you here against your will.)
LOL! You should hit the humor ping list for that one.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
That's why they call religions "faiths". Start demanding evidence and they all have to shut their doors and go out of business.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You say that but you cannot back it up. Lets play and see how dumb you can be at this subject (no you're not dumb at everything you are quite smart in some areas just not here.) You believe in the tooth fairy and evolution. You say things come from the spontaneous combustion of mud. Except that has never been witnessed or duplicated in the lab. The Bible says God created everything natural. That things reproduce after like kind. That is what you see in the world. Seeds make one thing they don't turn into something if you breathe the magic pixie dust of evilution. Ok so idiots believe in evolution. Just because you are a cripple doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Tell me brainica how the human nervous system evolved. You can't explain that or anything on this subject can you. You just hate God because you think he wont answer your prayers and heal your body. I put your ultra liberal Jameson like talking point out of business. You have nothing of substance you can add because you are out of your mind and believe that when princesses kiss frogs they turn into people. Frickin idiot at times.
Extrapolate it out Einstein. What is the percentage they are off. If they are off that much for a short time span. How much for a long time span. It is bullshit and only idiots who love their sin believe in the dating methods used. They have been debunked a hundred times over.
How old is the planet and how do you know? Oh you don't know and can't explain shit can you. Out of business.
If they are off that much for a short time span. How much for a long time span. I'm questioning whether 14C dating has ever been reliably considered to be dead-accurate to within 19 years. Apparently, this is a somewhat complex situation with various timelines constructed for the eras in which particular empires and kingdoms (including Solomon's) were in power and were then succeeded by another empire or kingdom. These become cumalative because of the way they are "stacked". So apparently they've tried to resolve some of the contradictions in the scant historical evidence by filling in the blanks via 14C dating methods. It seems this article is questioning the accuracy of that methodology. The general accuracy of the dating is not in question, more in how they apply it to questionable timeline scenarios such as the geographical extent of Solomon's kingdom and when certain areas of the periphery of his kingdom came under or passed from his control. So, if you think this tidbit is some move in science circles to entirely discredit the use of carbon dating, you just haven't read the article properly. In no way is anyone suggesting abandoning carbon dating as worthless. They're merely saying that it isn't accurate enough to try to date things within 19 years of an event in ancient times. Which is what we've known about the limits and fallibility of carbon dating for the last 50 years.
Sure but science doesn't date the earth's age by carbon dating. They use other means of providing an estimate.
The means used rely on radioactive decay, which is a function of "c". There are two things to note. First: radioactive decay rates are affected by the strength of solar output. We don't know why, but it has been observed in some experiments. Second:
Scientific American: That takes us to the end of this series of papers but not to the end of the story. As with so many good scientific puzzles, the question of the age of the earth resolves itself on more rigorous examination into distinct components. Do we mean the age of the solar system, or of the earth as a planet within it, or of the earth-moon system, or the time since formation of the earth’s metallic core, or the time since formation of the earliest solid crust? Such questions remain under active investigation, using as clues variations in isotopic distribution, or anomalies in mineral composition, that tell the story of the formation and decay of long-vanished short-lived isotopes. Isotopic ratios between stable isotopes both on the earth and in meteorites are coming under increasingly close scrutiny, to see what they can tell us about the ultimate sources of the very atoms that make up our planet. We can look forward to new answers—and new questions. That’s how science works. Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.
No,I don't. You say things come from the spontaneous combustion of mud. Well,smoke and flames come from spontaneous combustion,but water is,AFAIK,the only thing that makes mud explosive. The Bible says God created everything natural. That things reproduce after like kind. Which is it? Did God create them,or did they do their own recreating? Do you believe everything you read? That is what you see in the world. Seeds make one thing they don't turn into something if you breathe the magic pixie dust of evilution. Which side of this discussion are you taking? Ok so idiots believe in evolution. Some do,and some idiots believe everything their Shaman tells them,even stuff written by unknown authors. Just because you are a cripple doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Nor does it mean a God exists. Tell me brainica how the human nervous system evolved. You can't explain that or anything on this subject can you. Everything alive has a nervous system. Just because I can't explain it to you,or that people who can couldn't explain it to you at a level you can understand,doesn't mean some Holy Ghost living in clouds created it all. Why don't YOU tell ME who created God,since you know so much about this stuff? According to your own dogma,nothing just happens by accident,so splain it. You just hate God because you think he wont answer your prayers and heal your body. No,and I don't hate the Easter Bunny,Santa,or any other mythical personages. I DO have to admit I have a healthy helping of hatred for the religious charlatans that dedicate their lives to getting wealthy and powerful be fleecing their flocks,though. I put your ultra liberal Jameson like talking point out of business. You have nothing of substance you can add because you are out of your mind and believe that when princesses kiss frogs they turn into people. That sounds more like your beliefs than mine. Frickin idiot at times. You said it,not me.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I have no idea. Nor do I care because it is irrelevant. It IS older than 2,000 years,though.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Twinkle Twinkle little Star "What is a light year" - for 13.8 billion and final Jeopardy!
No, it's too SHORT. Carbon dating is only good back about 50,000 years. By that point, the C-14 is all gone. You need more stable, longer-lived radioactive isotopes, Uranium and the like, to measure oceans of time. 50,000 years is a pond. Dinosaurs are not dated by Carbon 14.
I agree it is much older than 2000 years recorded history goes back much further than that. It does matter though because if I'm right that means you're accountable to God. Hope you see the light Pete.
Twinkle twinkle the creation was made complete even the trees were already grown. I don't know if they had rings or not though.
Dinosaurs or indirectly dated using carbon 14. Assumption piled on assumption piles on assumption it's a circle jerk reasoning
Google what radiocarbon dated the Lava Rock from the Mount Saint Helens eruption.
So God blew up SN 2213-1745 and SN 1000+0216 as what... some sort of cosmic practical joke?
It does not matter very much. The timing of events just after and before, are affected the same way. So it will not change much.
He is trying to keep us on our toes. A real test of faith.
It's not just that. All of the Carbon 14 is gone after 50,000 years, so you can't use it to tell the difference between 51,000 and 500 million years old: zero is zero. Carbon dating no longer provides any information before 48,000 BC or so.
It does make the knowledge less than certain, I agree. The main problem is that all radioactive dating techniques rely upon an underlying assumption of a relatively uniform state of decay, which is fundamentally driven by "c". If c was faster in the past, the clock is not constant.
Carbon dating no longer provides any information before 48,000 BC or so. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this since it is not true. It is not zero C14 after 50,000 years at all. We have methods of carbon dating that go back as far as 75,000 years and we could develop it further if we wanted to. We just don't have any real need to do so as we have other isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.
That use carbon dating to "check their pet theory". The earth is exactly as old as the Bible says it is. Add up the begats and you have the age.
Your comment has fiction about the age of the earth in it. So it is not worth commenting on. You can believe God is a liar. I choose to believe the Bible is true.
We have methods of carbon dating that go back as far as 75,000 years and we could develop it further if we wanted to. We just don't have any real need to do so as we have other isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use. I keep repeating it because it is true. Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years, under presently observed conditions, and there isn't all that much of it to begin with. In living tissue, there is about 1 C-14 atom for every trillion Carbon atoms. One part per trillion, 1 C-14 atom for every 10 to the 12th Carbon atoms. That's a low concentration. Let's consider a human body. By weight, carbon makes up only 18.5% of the human body. So a 150 pound living man is composed of 27.75 pounds of carbon, 99% of that carbon is C-12, 1% is C-14. So, 2.775 times 10 to the negative 11th power pounds of C-14 atoms are in the living man, which is to say that there are 623,879,200,000,000,000 C-14 atoms in a living 150 pound man. Once he stops breathing and stops eating, there is no more C-14 being added. The half life is 5730. So, in 5730 years there will be 311,939,600,000,000,000 C-14 atoms left in his remains. Of course, if there are any remains, they will have been diluted by whatever is preserving them. In 11,460 years there will be 155,969,800,000,000,000 C-14 atoms left In 17,190 years there will be 77,984,900,000,000,000 C-14s left. In 22,920 years, there will be 38,992,450,000,000,000 C-14s left. In 28,650 years there will be 19,496,225,000,000,000 C-14s left. In 34,380 years there will be 9,748,112,500,000,000 C-14s left. In 40,110 years there will be 4,874,056,250,000,000 C-14s left. In 45,840 years there will be 2,437,028,125,000,000 C-14s left. In 51,610 years there will be 1,218,514,962,500,000 C-14s left. That isn't much left from the original same, less than two-tenths of one percent. And of course this assumes that one is carbon dating a whole, intact human corpse, a 150 pound sample. Radiocarbon dating is not done on 150 pound samples. The machines can't hold anything like that. The sample sizes used are 100 GRAM samples - THAT is what fits into the machines. So, let's take the remains of that 150 pound man and look at the actual sample size we can test. 150 pounds is 67200 grams. We're only going to be able to test .0014880952380952 of that sample. So, at the 51,610 year point, there are only 1,813,266,313,244 C-14 atoms left in the testable sample. That's small, but detectable. Go one cycle further, to 57,340 years, and the number of atoms in the total sample drops to the 902,633,156,622 range, which is quite a bit smaller than the US budget in dollars, and at the bare limits of our ability to detect. Using very long test times and super-sensitive equipment, that have been able to manage to extend Carbon-14 testing to 75,000 years. No farther. It is not hard to see why. At 63,070 years you've only got 453 billion C-14s left in your whole sample. At 68,800 years, you're down to 226.6 billion C-14s left. And at 74,530 years, you're down to 113.3 billion atoms, in a sample size of 5 septillion atoms, which is to say 1 part in 24 trillion. Our technology is not capable of reliably sorting that out. You can see, then, why C-14 cannot possibly be used to date dinosaurs. The last dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct 65 million years ago. Let's keep running our math. At 80,260 years, there are 56.65 billion C-14s left in our sample. At 85,990 years there are 28.325 billion C-14s left in our sample. We're already well below our threshold of detection, but they are there, at least theoretically. We cannot confirm this by direct observation, but we have to assume it is so. At 91,720 years where are 14.16 billion atoms left. At 97,450 years, 7.08 billion. At 103,180 years, 3.54 billion. Go back 57,300 more years, to 160,480 years, and you're down to 3.45 MILLION C-14s left. You're trying to find a single marked grain of sand on the California cost. Go back another 57,300 years, and you have 3376 Carbon 14 atoms left in your sample. Go back yet another 57,300 years, and there are 4 Carbon 14 atoms left. Four. How far back are we now? 275,080 years. Go back 5730 more years, and there are 2 C-14 Atoms left. Another 5730 years, and there is 1 left. By 291,570 years back, there are no C-14 atoms left in the sample. Zero. Null. Long before that point you passed any possibility of detection. That is why I "keep saying" that radio-carbon dating cannot be used to date the dinosaurs. There is NO Carbon 15 left from 65 million years ago. None. THEORETICALLY, in the whole world, there are a few atoms of it, maybe. To detect them would be like trying to find a aingle marked grain of sand randomly scattered on one of the world's beaches. Did I need to go through all of that? Yes, I think I did. There is a pugnacious attitude around here about many things. Sometimes you have to brute force down to zero to demonstrate the point. I will now reiterate it explicitly: ASSUMING that rates of radioactive decay are constant, and ASSUMING that the dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago, it is categorically impossible to use C-14 to date dinosaur bones. 65 million year old Carbon 14 does not exist. At all. It has all decayed. Only theoretically is there some left. This is not provable, because it is impossible to design a machine that is so sensitive. In any case, Carbon-14 us COMPLETELY useless for dating dinosaurs. There is NO USE WHATSOEVER for C-14. It isn't simply "impracticable", it is impossible, full stop. At 60 iterations, 343,800 years, the last C-14 atom in that 150 pound man's remains broke down. There is none left. Coal is said to be ancient vegetation. Assuming that is true, there is a reason it is used as the inert background substrate for C-14 dating. There is no detectable Carbon-14 in it. This is not because our machines are not sensitive enough. It is because all of the C-14 has decayed. That's why it is completely useless for dating dinosaur bones. And that's why I keep saying so: because it IS so. And also because the resistance here has been a little too fierce given the subject matter.
Nope. But it is not true, no matter how many keystrokes you expend.
Yes, it is true. It is impossible to date anything a few million years old with Carbon-14, because there's no Carbon-14 left in it. It has all decayed away. It isn't there. Back past 50,000 years; 75,000 years with herculean efforts at the edge of detectability, we do not have the equipment to detect it. But no equipment in the world can detect Carbon-14 in a dinosaur, because the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, and there is no Carbon-14 left on earth from that long ago, it has entirely decayed.
Correct me if I am wrong,but God didn't write the Bible. Mortal men wrote it.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The agenda-driven Fake Science Cult/Communitah based on wishful thinking has been manipulating sandbagging and striking evidence to the contrary. It is impossible for blood cells to survive "millions" of years, never mind several thousands. THIS SHOULD have been front page news but wasn't:
Q: When a secretary types/writes her boss's words, *who* is responsible for the transposed content/authorship, Pete? There are several verses within the Bible that could have been quoted, by several "men" -- they ALL say basically the same exact thing. Yes, I realize you'll merely remind me that even THAT verse and similar ones was "written by a mortal man" (inspired BY God). But that's the way The Almighty rolls. If you're interested, there WAS one instance that God was revealed to have physicality "written" something; A saying we are all familiar with: "The writing on the wall". What transpired was recorded in the Book of Daniel, Chapter 5, NIV: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+5&version=NIV King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his nobles and drank wine with them. While Belshazzar was drinking his wine, he gave orders to bring in the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar his father[a] had taken from the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines might drink from them. So they brought in the gold goblets that had been taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines drank from them. As they drank the wine, they praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone. Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall, near the lampstand in the royal palace. The king watched the hand as it wrote. His face turned pale and he was so frightened that his legs became weak and his knees were knocking... Daniel was summoned to interpret the writing for King Belshazzar: “This is the inscription that was written: mene, mene, tekel, parsin “Here is what these words mean: (Mene): God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. (Tekel): You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. (Peres): Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians... That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain."
Where did I say that? You keep going on about how dinosaurs can't be dated this way but I never said they could. Nice straw man.
"Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness," ~ 2 Timothy 3:16 Is that from the Old Testament,which is supposed to be the true word of Gawd,or the " New and Improved "NEW Testament",which is the updated true word of Gawd?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The first quote is ME. The second is from 2 Timothy 3:16, but as I said, there were many I could have used. Both Old and New Testament, penned by different "Gawd-inspired" authors. Pete, New Testament authors often quoted Old Testament authors. They dovetail with one other as The Book is one connected series of testimony, accounts, and stuff Gawd wants known. Jesus himself often quoted OT text, even the very first chapter, Genesis. Yes, Jesus did sorta "update" the Word...but because His Coming fulfilled prophecies and also thus changed (for instance) the blood sacrifice of lambs.
This is a really interesting point. It is a serious tremor that cracks the solidity of a theory. It's an aspect of the subject that creates its own logic tree.
That was my point all along: Carbon dating is useless for dinosaurs.
Well, thanks for those 10 posts to tell me that C14 dating is not used for dinosaurs when I never suggested that it was.
No problem.
It's an aspect of the subject that creates its own logic tree. It does crack that theory...Maybe even smashes it to bits. A Game-Changer. That "aspect of the subject" and "logic" lead straight to only one conclusion: The Great Flood was likely way it all went down in Genesis...and...occurred only several *thousands* of years ago. It's noted that dinosaurs, historically referred to in several ancient civilization texts as "great lizards" and "dragons" (also depicted in ancient paintings in both the Old and New World) indeed existed *at the same time as man*. This notion of course presents a dilemma for the high priests of science and its True Believers, shattering the Theory/Religion of Evolution at its foundation. It also forces the intellectually honest to re-calibrate and re-assess both "History" and Science" as taught in the past century and a half.
That "aspect of the subject" and "logic" lead straight to only one conclusion: The Great Flood was likely way it all went down in Genesis...and...occurred only several *thousands* of years ago. It's noted that dinosaurs, historically referred to in several ancient civilization texts as "great lizards" and "dragons" (also depicted in ancient paintings in both the Old and New World) indeed existed *at the same time as man*. This notion of course presents a dilemma for the high priests of science and its True Believers, shattering the Theory/Religion of Evolution at its foundation. It also forces the intellectually honest to re-calibrate and re-assess both "History" and Science" as taught in the past century and a half. It allows the possibility of those things, yes. On the other hand, it also opens the possibility that not all of the dinosaurs went extinct after the great meteor strike of 65 million years ago, that pockets of them remained alive, and continued to populate parts of the earth afterwards. Certainly other animals alive at the time still exist, and there is no particular reason to believe that EVERY dinosaur EVERYWHERE died off as the result of the meteor strike. Crocodiles and Alligators survived, why not some dinosaurs, here and there? Certainly some large mammals that survived the eons eventually perished as the conditions continued to change. Example: wooly mammoths and sabre- toothed tigers. They were not hunted to extinction by man. Hell, men today with planes, trucks and high-powered rifles haven't completely wiped out the elephants or the rhinos. Men with spears simply did not have the numbers or skill to wipe out a major elephant species. The mammoths died out because of climate change. The identical thing could well be true of the dinosaurs. Now, of course, this is heresy to those who have established that the dinosaurs "must" have ALL perished 65 million years ago. but there is no real imperative for that to be true. SOME may have lingered on here and there - turtles and crocks made it. There MIGHT still be something looking like armored fish of old deep down into the abysses of the sea. If we've got blood cells and connective tissue from inside dinosaur bones - and we do - that doesn't perforce mean that there was no evolution, or a worldwide flood. It could just mean that the meteor didn't get ALL the dinosaurs, that some soldiered on - indeed, that some of the dragon stories of legend are real encounters between humans and dinosaurs. Certainly the intact cells from within dinosaur bones would tend to indicate that. Of course, then again, the inside of bones that were encased in mud don't have much oxygen, and without the oxygen they may not have decayed. Certainly we have feathers and scales and other things that otherwise decay contained in amber, because of the hypoxic nature thereof. Who can say? All of these things are possible. For my part, they don't engage my emotions, because I'm not a sola scripturalist, so the truth or mere poetic nature of Genesis 1 doesn't bear on my religious beliefs pretty much at all. I would say that my basic ASSUMPTION is that God made the world, evolution is how he did it, and these dinosaur soft tissues we have means that all of the dinosaurs didn't die out 65 million years ago, that pockets of them survived, and that we have soft tissue because those particular dinosaurs died out more recently. This would fit the evidence as I see it. None of it has any bearing on what I think about God. It does mean that the Bible isn't a scientific text, but I never assumed it was. In a similar vein, not being a Sola Scripturalist, I think the only really authoritative parts of the Bible - the LAW as it were - are Jesus' commandments - what to do and what not to do. And I think that obedience or departure from those is what destermines the status during stages of the afterlife. I do think that what happens in the afterlife was revealed, by Jesus, and that there are elements of what he said that are corroborated by Near Death Experiences. Science and religion don't conflict in my mind. Of course Genesis 1 and Standard Theory conflict, but Genesis 1 is sacred poetry, not a science text. That's how I look at it. Your religious beliefs are differently configured, and anything that disturbs the absolute literal truth of any part of the Scriptures, as you read them, causes the whole thing to fall apart. The Scriptures are not the basis for my knowledge of God. They add some detail about what God wants, mainly through Jesus. Our religions are different. Yours does not bother me. I understand why you believe what you do. As long as you don't kill people I'm content to share the earth with you in peace, and we'll find out the details in the end, I reckon.
This is a really interesting point. It is a serious tremor that cracks the solidity of a theory. It's an aspect of the subject that creates its own logic tree. What about instances where mosquitoes are trapped in tree sap/amber? I don't even know enough to guess. I'm just asking.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I don't even know enough to guess. I'm just asking. I referred to that in my last post, when I talked about the bones in mud and compared it to the feathers and scales and such in amber. Where there is no oxygen, things may not break down. So it could be that these dinosaur soft tissues inside bones are simply the result of things being buried, encased in a certain way that deprived the tissues of some element vital for decay. Or it really could be that, year, these animals (a dinosaur is, after all, just an animal) died much more recently. That would mean that the orthodoxy about all of the dinosaurs going extinct at a certain time would not be true, but that's ok. It's not as though the death of the dinosaurs is a matter of religious importance to anybody on the scientific side of the house - at least it SHOULDN'T be. Dinosaurs are interesting. When, precisely, the last died out - if they all did - would be a simple matter of historical fact, not something that ought to provoke resistance as though theology were being violated. That it does merely demonstrates that some people have turned natural science into theology, and that's too bad.
A friend took his wife to The Ark, a relatively new display in northern Kentucky a couple of years ago. For whatever reason he was irate and turned off when one of the displays had a dinosaur in it. To this day I have no explanation for why he reacted that way. He's a regular Joe and I guess it may have had something to do with his religious background and upraising.
How were dinosaurs running around before Adam and Eve? Was there death before sin? Why do you believe the Earth is millions of years old?
That it does merely demonstrates that some people have turned natural science into theology, and that's too bad. You are more correct here.
They didn't. As has been mentioned here,there is no shortage of crocodiles,alligators,or lizards. Especially that nutty little "devil lizard" from somewhere south of the border that has a tail,runs standing up on his hind legs,and has a "hood" that extends around his head to make him look bigger. Evil-looking little booger.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Why do you believe in "Holy Spooks" who created everything because everything BUT THEM has to have been created?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
By that point, the C-14 is all gone. You need more stable, longer-lived radioactive isotopes, Uranium and the like, to measure oceans of time. 50,000 years is a pond. Dinosaurs are not dated by Carbon 14. Great thread by the way...The kind that can fork off into several directions. And has already. Yes, we can all agree that Carbon Dating works for approximately 50,000 years. HOWEVER...with respect to Carbon Dating the age of dinosaurs, scientists and paleontologists have run into a conundrum. Dinosaur bones cannot be Carbon Dated BUT the tissue can and *has* been Carbon Dated. Since now-famous paleontologist Mary Schweitzer accidentally dropped T-Rex bone into acid, dissolving the bone, leaving behind T Rex-Tissue, the flood-gates have been opened to a new paradigm. Several now innumerable discoveries of dinosaur ("65 million year") tissue samples have been determined to have *plenty* of C-14 left. Ruh-Roh. What's this prove? What can be concluded from this? Obviously that dinosaurs are NOT "millions" of years old. With a "half-life" of 5750 years there shouldn't be a sniff of C-14 in this tissue, should there? IF the establishment Scientific/Paleontological "Communitah" is wrong about its "settled science" of dating dinosaurs in the "millions" of years, then what other "settled science" is just...presumption or wishful thinking? And sure, in the context of "oceans of time" (like millions or billions of years), 50,000 years IS like a pond. IF there indeed *had* existed "millions or billions" of years on this planet, in this Universe. Problem again are still scientifically un-proven, inconsistent veracity and validity of the other mentioned dating methodologies.
Because it works. It contains only truth. Has never contradicted itself. Describes human nature. Explains why we wear clothes. Predicts a future cashless society that would have been impossible to implement when the words were written but in this day is entirely feasible with the technology we have. Talked about men going to space before it was possible. Said the world wasn't flat from the beginning. Says we reproduce after like kind which happens 100 percent of the time nothing in the history of the world has ever been observed to evolve, and there is zero evidence anything ever did. That is why so called scientists are still searching for a missing link. Because even if you wanted to you couldn't reproduce with an ape which you believe is your great great...........grandpa. Here have a 🍌.
Hmmm...I see their assertions here but was unaware that anyone considered 19 years margin of error in carbon dating to be significant. No one ever considered it that accurate to begin with. It seems it's significant only in terms of understanding the record of civilized history, and is not significant in terms of discrediting the method of carbon dating itself.
I liken the Genesis story of creation to poetry. And poetry can generally never be disproven.
I don't even know enough to guess. I'm just asking. Couldn't the amber itself be Carbon Dated? Where there is no oxygen, things may not break down. So it could be that these dinosaur soft tissues inside bones are simply the result of things being buried, encased in a certain way that deprived the tissues of some element vital for decay. No doubt -- the more hermetically sealed the tissue, the more preserved. MANY samples of viable dinosaur tissue material has been discovered (or rather "re-discovered"). Mary Schweitzer's accidental discovery is being replicated all over the world by many scientists. Similarly, Mummies thousands of years old have been found to have retained minute tissue material as well. It really could be that, year, these animals (a dinosaur is, after all, just an animal) died much more recently. That would mean that the orthodoxy about all of the dinosaurs going extinct at a certain time would not be true... THAT is THE ramification. It rocks the long-accepted orthodoxy of the age of dinosaurs. But it also moves the timeline way up....to something unfathomable, laughable even ten years ago -- that dinosaurs *might* have co-existed with man. It's not as though the death of the dinosaurs is a matter of religious importance to anybody on the scientific side of the house - at least it SHOULDN'T be. I shouldn't be an important factor in the Scientific Communitah but we know it can't help but be. Unfortunately like most institutions, "Science" has been corrupted by a political agenda. We should make a couple of distinctions here; Evolution is both a theory AND "religion". Like all religions, it relies on faith. So yes, the timing of AND reason for the death of dinosaurs IS important. Why? Exactly because the dinosaur tissue discovery reinforces the Genesis timeline and erases a large portion of timeline required for "Evolution". All many of us want is...the unadulterated truth of respective matters. We are tired of PTB hiding and masking political or scientific or historical truths/facts for agenda-sake.
Was there death before sin? Correct me if I'm wrong here, Vic... It seems Vic is on record here as considering Genesis as high-minded, perhaps even divinely-inspired "poetry" and not the Word of God. Ergo that would mean God's Timeline as narrated in Genesis (as well as "sin" and "death" not being in-effect until after Adam and Eve's Fall) would not be taken literally. For what it's worth, Jesus Himself pretty heavily quoted Genesis.
That's a speculative comment and cannot be proven. It's in fact a statement of a negative claim, that something is not possible, which they used to say about heavier-than-air machines flying. There are plenty of instances throughout scientific history where something that was believed impossible was later found to be possible via mechanisms that were not known or understood.
Obviously the person dictating the message. But in the case of the Bible, what evidence is there that God did the dictating? So the Bible is the "Word of God" because the Bible says it's the "Word of God"? That's circular evidence. If I wrote a story about God and included a passage where God claimed I was writing for him, would it make my story into a certified message from God? Some claim the Bible's validation of historical evidence is proof of divinity. But would that make an old newspaper report about the Titanic sinking the "Word of God"? There's a difference between accuracy and divinity.
That's a speculative comment and cannot be proven. It's in fact a statement of a negative claim, that something is not possible, which they used to say about heavier-than-air machines flying. I agree. My comment/assertion IS speculation because *I* cannot prove it. I can only project a very high likelihood. No, I can't "prove" certain things are "impossible" -- also true. But some things ARE impossible. The corollary that "NOTHING-IS-IMPOSSIBLE" can't be true. For instance, 0+0 /= 1+ That said, I think we can agree that there are such things as degrees of "probability/impossibility". If so, might there not be such things as "extremely high probability" upon scrutinizing indisputably proven facts? (unless we again run into the snag of defining "indisputable" because according to the Science-Communitah, "Evolution" is/was "indisputable", as is/was the age of the planet, the earth, and "Global Warming".) One fact with respect to "flying machines" is that at least the mechanics could be observed as to how creatures and objects do fly. So that analogy and degree of asserted "impossibility" may have been a matter of figuring out how to fly -- NOT imagining so. There are plenty of instances throughout scientific history where something that was believed impossible was later found to be possible via mechanisms that were not known or understood. I hear ya. Many many things. Fact. But when physics are involved, *some* things ARE "impossible". Hard mathematics doesn't lie; And sometimes Point "A" really *does* connect to Point "B".
There's speculation that the story of the "great flood" may have originated with the flooding of the Black Sea by a failed land bridge that separated it from the Mediterranean Sea, which seems occurred within time frame of ancient civilization. www.novinite.com/articles...enced+Deluge+-+Scientists Such a cataclismic event could well have been the story that was ancestral to the Biblical account. People do have a way of inventing explanations for things they do not understand, and the less they understand things, the more likely they are to chalk it up to the will of a divine entity. And the ancients understood very little about the world. Whether they were in fact referring to what we now call dinosaurs is speculation. Could they not have been referring to present day alligators & Komoto dragons and such?
All of which are, essentially, dinosaurs.
More accurately, if carbon-14 dating were to be recalibrated or revised in such a way as to show dinosaurs bones being much, much younger than it currently does, then that evidence would still need to be corroborated with other evidence showing they are the present age. The age of the dinosaur fossils is generally based on geological dating methods, and any carbon-14 revisions would not mean that a fossil encased in hardened stone dated by other methods to be millions of years to be automatically redated to a few thousand. In that example, if carbon-14 said such a bone was 5000 years old, but the geologic dating method said the stone was 70 million years old, the next task would be to find out which was right and which was wrong. Science is always in flux, by it's very nature. And just because new/revised carbon-14 understanding might make us change what we now believe about it would NOT mean that those revised understandings would then be firm science. Next year someone might come out and say, "Hey, when we said we were wrong about carbon-14 and decided dinosaur bones were just a few thousand years old, we were actually wrong about what we thought we were wrong about because of xyz, and so those bones are still likely to be much older than 50k years. Sorry for the confusion".
Obviously the person dictating the message. But in the case of the Bible, what evidence is there that God did the dictating? Those prophets and messengers who did the "dictating" themselves revealed it was God who was the author of their writings. Scripture is a "self-revelation" of God. The evidence? The spoken and written words of the prophets (divinely inspired) which were God's own account, His creation, angels, signs/wonders/miracles. There are also NO lies to be found in either the OT or NT. You might say the "evidence" and "proof" of The Almighty's authorship-through-man as well as authorship of His Creation is highly circumstantial. Does that mean it's "highly convincing"? Obviously not. Some will and faith is obviously involved. So the Bible is the "Word of God" because the Bible says it's the "Word of God"? That's circular evidence. If I wrote a story about God and included a passage where God claimed I was writing for him, would it make my story into a certified message from God? In other words, could YOU be chosen as an envoy, a "prophet" of God? Why not? Many Pastors minister the Word and truth every Sunday. Of course the words and messages of all Pastors and Ministers are examined and scrutinized in discernment as not the be led astray. Some claim the Bible's validation of historical evidence is proof of divinity. But would that make an old newspaper report about the Titanic sinking the "Word of God"? There's a difference between accuracy and divinity. I agree. That's why discernment of truth and word is crucial and why many who supposedly "teach the word" have been called "false prophets" (i.e. certain televangelists and Popes.)
Poetry was my term, not Vic's, though he's free to agree with me, of course. Though it's a claim that the Genesis timeline is "God's Timeline" as opposed to a timeline of man that is purported to be God's. If I were to nitpick about death existing before sin, the human body experiences cell death as a normal function of healthy human living. Hair, for example is dead tissue. If no death existed before sin, would this mean that before the fall, Adam and Eve either had no hair, or if they did, it was living tissue?
I have seen the messages and am thinking about my response. Religious passions are inflamed here, and I have a different viewpoint than all three of you so, given that this is not an area of passion for me, I have to think through the degree to which I'm willing to endure the inevitable hectoring when I say something contrary to somebody else's belief system. Given how unimportant the whole topic is in the big scheme of things (from my perspective), what is much more important to me is the degree to which I want to wade into a street fight over it. I think that I probably will, but I will have to very carefully craft my response.
To even have the discussion, we'd have to go through the definitions of God, life, spirit, sin, death and inspiration. That's just for starters. And because what I think departs from various orthodoxies on each point, I get a lot of abuse when I write on religion. When I speak of my own direct experiences with God, I get ridicule and scorn, that continues on afterwards. Essentially, I don't believe in the traditional Christian religion, or any other religion, and I don't believe in "Science", practiced as a modern religion either. The factual and logical errors of each are obvious to me, and they rule out belief. I have talked with God many times, and experienced major miracles, so I know that God is as a matter of empirical fact, such that I have to always include the reality of God in all scientific analysis or I cease to be a real scientist. Unlike many, I do not denigrate the ancient texts, and I think they were inspired by God. But I don't think "inspired" means what traditionalists think it means. Who really wants to know what I believe? Probably nobody, really. What you want is the opportunity to draw me into a discussion of religion, so you can hector me about the things you believe that I don't. What good is that? Honestly, what is the point? There is nothing more useless in this world than another man's religion. Yours are useless to me, and my own is useless to you. So why argue about it? If you really want to know my religious beliefs, we can take it to another thread and discuss it there. I certainly don't care what you believe, in precisely the same way I don't care what sex turns you on. Your religion is of no interest or use to me. I'm pretty sure the same is true in the other direction. If I'm wrong and you really, truly want to know what I believe and why, then start a thread with that as the topic, and I will go there and tell you. I'm not holding my breath. Nobody cares. Why would they?
Ok. That is all I need to know. You don't claim to be a follower of Christ or a Christian as it is called.
You simply cannot get the truth straight. I follow Christ. I do not follow him in the way that you do. I do not believe in the same hierarchy of authorities that you do. I do not have the same religion you do. I follow Christ. You follow Christ in a different way. And the way you do it looks to my eyes a lot like not following Christ at all. Your way is just A way. It is not THE way. Even in traditional Christianity, your way is a fringe element. The way I follow Christ is adequately respectful of a certain set of norms for me to not be thrown out of the Catholic Church. My actual beliefs about many things differ somewhat from Catholicism, but that doesn't matter to the rest of Catholics. To follow Christ, in my estimation, means to carefully read exactly what he said, to figure out what he meant by it, and then to do what he said. That is what it means: it means to keep his commandments. It does NOT mean to elevate a book to the status of God. It does NOT mean to insist on some faith alone versus works doctrine. It does NOT mean asserting all sorts of thing about a Trinity that Christ never taught. It doesn't even mean WORSHIPPING Christ. It means doing what Jesus said. Full stop. That's "following Christ". Whatever else you want to add to it is your religion. Catholics add a lot. I smile at it, perhaps genuflect to it, but don't confuse it with following Christ. The thing that strikes me most about your particular religion is that you DON'T follow Christ. You assert a bunch of things that are the opposite of Christ, but you very much worship that book of yours. And you just can't bear to speak directly to what I say. You always have to add a lie to it, to assert some additional thing I did not say and don't believe. You are not able to directly address the things I say. You always erect a straw man alongside it and hit that. Which means that you write vexatious things, but you're not really talking to ME at all, you're attacking a dummy that you've set up and CALLED me, but that isn't actually what I said or believe. To me, it's really quite dishonest of you to do this, but you love to call ME the liar. It's striking, really, how far off the path that Christ laid out that you are. That's your religion, and your religion does not to my eyes appear to be about following Christ. It's about setting up a dummy of Christ who is not very much like Christ, and then worshipping the dummy instead of listening to and following the man.
You're confusing. First you say your not a Christian. Then you say you are. There is only one path and that is the path laid out on the Bible, which you don't believe you said so. So you have your own custom religion. Let's call it viclizardo. You are a viclizardian.
Says the man who prays to a dead sinner. And ignores scripture and follows the tradition of a man (men)that has stolen Gods title of "holy father". MY shortcomings doesn't excuse your ignoring the plain teachings of the scriptures. Or your blasphemous words saying the bible isn't the whole word of I'd without error.
The first part of what you said is correct. However you are an idiot because the Bible says that the word of God was revealed to us in the Bible and that it is all from God and profitable for study and implementation. You're also delusional with the lizard bulshit talk everybody on the form thinks you're an idiot for it. Not one person buys that b******* probably not even your kids., Maybe you're mentally ill and actually believe that.
That is your religion and your belief. We do not have the same religion, and do not believe the same things.
I don't. I simply do not believe that the Scriptures are the final authority or revelation to mankind. The part of the Scriptures that matters is what Jesus said. The bible is not the complete word of God and is not without error. It never says that it is complete or without error. Your religion has made that up, and you believe it. That is called idolatry. Your view of the Bible turns it into an idol. My primary problem with you is that you profess Christ but you totally ignore him with regards to the poor. My secondary problem is the whole self-rightoeusness business. You can believe as you believe. God pulled me out of a lake and raised two animals from the dead in my presence, and talks to me sometimes. I'm sticking with him. You don't offer anything true, just superstition, idolatry, harsh politics and anger.
Jesus quoted Genesis and the old testament. He said all scripture is profitable. You reject most scripture. You ignore hundreds of things in scripture redleg has shown you. I don't give a shit what you believe. I'm just trying to understand why someone who claims to follow chriist dismisses what Christ said and dismisses what Christ said is profitable for you to know. You got bumped on the head and now you're brain damaged. Go tell some judge you appear for your delusion and see if they don't disbar your brain damaged ass.
Look asshole the Catholic Church is full of idoltry. You pray to a dead sinner. Your fake so called church where you worship a faggot loving pope now has removed the second commandment on idoltry. Ok asshole. Hey why don't you go give your shit to the poor dickwad. Also quit misrepresenting me you liar.
No he didn't brain damaged Vic. Even your wife doesn't believe that fairy tale. Quit repeating it in public before you end up in a mental institution.
You're a frickin idiot and lying again. Ignoring scripture and just being a general asshole. The conversation could have went different but you cchose to lie and insult from the beginning.
The problem you have is that you are raging like a Pharisee at actual miracles. I know God exists because he pulled me out of a lake, raised two dead animals in my presence, and talks to me sometimes. That's the basis for my religion: direct personal experience with God. Your purple-faced rage and accusation regarding these things is the voice of a jealous man. You do all of the things your idolatry requires, but God doesn't talk to you. And here's a guy who does not have your religion, and God heals him, shows him miracles, and talks to him. It is outrageous, to you. It makes perfect sense, of course: I'm listening to God, and you're listening to men. Why me? Apparently God loves me. Why not you? Because you have set up a religion of false hoops and idols, and God isn't going to reward you for it by jumping through hoops. I have no doubt at all that "everybody" on this forum thinks I'm an idiot for talking about the miracles I have experienced. That's your problem, isn't it? Because those things I have said are true. Rage away. You sound like a Pharisee to me. I have told the truth. That's why I believe in God. It is no skin off my nose that you don't believe it or think I'm an idiot. I know I am incredibly blessed. I also why these things have never happened to you - God isn't like how you believe him to be. Why would he reward false faith like yours? He hasn't. He doesn't. He's not going to. I was always prepared to take God as he is. You have set preconditions upon him. He rejects them, so you sit alone with your book and your fellow ranters. You laugh at me, but I have the greater prize, so your laughter sounds like the mosque to me. Your religion is a proselytizing idolatry: you need people to agree to buy your bullshit. But my religion is a personal relationship with God, who has shown me his power. I am writing because of that power, that's why I am alive. I am not urging you to join my religion. I haven't offered one. I've told you to open the gospels and read Jesus, and do what he said. Him. Not him and Paul and Peter and pastor Bob. That means care for the poor. It also means not calling people idiots. Your rage is misplaced.
Hey Brain damaged liar tell me my idoltry and superstition. This should be rich coming from a man who believes the faggot loving poop and rejects John, James, Ruth, Peter etc. You're a cult member. I will pray you leave the cult and your brain damaged is healed.
No you are delusional. Go tell your colleagues your delusion.
The basis for faith in God comes from hearing the word. Which you said you ignore what about ninert five percent of scripture. Not bumping your head and having a dream.
Liar. You ignore scripture and pray to Mary. Where did Jesus say to pray for a sinner. He didnt.
Scripture says to go out and spread the word. Another thing you don't do correctly.
You calling me a liar and the other lies you said do anger me. I don't like being lied about.
Project much? You listen to an old man who calls himself gods title of holy father. Who has so much wealth horded. You pray to a dead sinner who never heard one syllable of your so called prayers.
You need help. Go see someone about your brain damaged. Have your head scanned.
Elaborate head case.
Hey asshole you said god doesn't heal anyone. Then you say he heals you. Which is it you hypocrite asshole? You said the below deceiver. Why are you such a prick liar? Or are you just brain damaged and cannot see the hypocrisy and ollogic in your bizarre statement. You won't address this because your a litttle worm puss of a person. Christ does not treat Chrsitans' diabetes or cancer. He let's them bear that cross, die, and come to him. Similarly for starvation. Christ lets hundreds of millions of Christans starve to death. They bear their cross to the end and have their reward in the next life. Christ never promised health and happiness in this life - in fact, he promised that those things won't be found here. So you're right - I have absolutely no belief at all that Christ will reach down from heaven and protect Christians from any diseases, or marauding enemies, or starvation, or natural disaster - because he DOESN'T protect us from any of things, and never said he would. Our reward for staying true to him is found on the other side, in the afterlife, not HERE. If you have diabetes here, praying to Christ will keep you faithful to him to the end and win you the afterlife, but you're still going to lose your foot in THIS life, because Christ isn't going to lift a finger to protect you from the natural law, or from the marauding of other men. You have to help yourself in this life - Christ holds out the promise of happiness in the afterlife if, in the process of helping yourself in this one you don't do great evil, and you remember him and try to do what he said. That's the deal. That Christ substitutes for human government in this life is impiety. It is ignoring what he really said, and adding nonsense to it that he never said. Christ will not govern your country. He won't save you from malaria, or hurricanes, or earthquakes, or Nazis. He will have compassion on you, and receive your soul when they kill you, but he won't stop them from killing you, he won't drive off your diseases if you drink contaminated water, and he won't make hurricane Irma spare your life. He might on a one-off basis, but Christians at large get no pass, at all, from natural law. Christ's deal is not about here.
You have a terrible reading comprehension problem, and a terrible anger management problem. You read your book to tell you to go out proselytizing. The litany above is a classic example of this in action. It's why your religion is dying, and why God doesn't talk to you. The day will come that you die and have a life review. This will be part of it. You will be abashed, because at that moment you will realize that I was always telling you the truth. I would tell you truly that you represent God very badly. What could you learn from me? Primarily, care about the poor. Care about the weak. Not hate people for thinking differently from you, as long as they aren't oppressing and killing people. Once upon a time, your approach to religion ruled the day. The Catholic Church tortured and executed "heretics" and "witches". A messenger of God, Joan of Arc, was tried and burnt alive by the Catholic Church. The Lutherans burnt 50,000 witches. The Anglicans killed recusants and Catholics. The Presbyterians waged violent war on all who thought differently, and burnt 20,000 witches in a tiny little country. The Baptists upheld slavery, oppressed millions of blacks, and upheld racial segregation based on their read of the Bible. What a bunch of evil lunacy! All of it. I'll stick with the God who pulled me out of the lake and raised that mouse and that lizard from the dead, who flew the dove into my face to drive off the demon, and whose son embraced me. That's God. Your presentation of that God is horrific. Who could possibly be persuaded to follow your religion, based on rage and taunt? People just like you. Which is why your church has acted that way over history. Which is why people like me won't follow it now, and have stripped away all of its political power, and fenced it off, far, far away from the levers of political or judicial power. You do what you do. Part of that is rail at me. Your jealousy is palpable. Anyway, nothing to be done about it now. When you die, you will see. Then you'll finally get to know him. He's better than you make him out to be.
F*** you ass wipe.
You still never answered why God heals you but no one else did you ass wipe hypocrite.
What a nice Christian thing to say. Have you renewed your moderator license lately?
The asshole started attack8ng me from the start of the thread. What do you think of his delusional raising of mice and lizards from the dead. Head case.
If you say so. I avoid religion discussion threads for the most part. I haven't been to church/Mass in several months. Will I burn in Hades?
Christ does not treat Chrsitans' diabetes or cancer. He let's them bear that cross, die, and come to him. Similarly for starvation. Christ lets hundreds of millions of Christans starve to death. They bear their cross to the end and have their reward in the next life. Christ never promised health and happiness in this life - in fact, he promised that those things won't be found here. Are you so stupid you cannot see that these comments cannot both be true? That is why you are an asshole. You lie and puff yourself up. You really are that stupid aren't you. God doesnt' heal. God healed me. God doesn't heal. God healed me. Get your head out of your arrogant ass ok asshole.
No. In general, God does not seem to intervene, but sometimes he does. I haven't speculated as to why that may be so. I merely observe that it is so.
Changing your story buddy.
Nope. Simply stating the obvious truth. Lots of people have illnesses and infirmities, and many cry out to God for succor. Many don't appear to get it. Perhaps they get it on the other side. But some do. I did. Both of those things are true. Most don't. But some do. That's not changing a story, it's two parallel stories, both of which are true, with opposite results. God decides who lives when and who dies when, and of what, whom he saves from death in this life at one point (before killing him at some later point), and whom he sends into Paradise, whom he sends into Gehenna, who passes final judgment, when it comes, and who fails it. He does not explain himself fully. He does as he pleases. That's always been the story, and still is. It is both no and yes, at the same time, depending on God's choices at any given moment in time.
You're not telling the truth. You said the above also in that post of yours. And many other things to reinforce it. Just admit what you said was incorrect. Or keep spinning and digging.
Just admit what you said was incorrect. Or keep spinning and digging. I have always been telling the truth about these things. You either have a hard time with reading comprehension, or have a learning disability, or like to play at being a bad investigator or lawyer. In any case, we're not really discussing anything here it at all. You're trying to play a jejeune game of "gotcha" by showing me my past words, which I read, and don't see a contradiction. You don't seem to be able to grasp complexity. And so our conversation devolves, once again, into a said/didn't say back and forth, which is pointless. I don't concede anything, because you're essentially dredging up me saying the same things, in slightly different words and from different vantage points, going back years and years. You say that I am contradicting myself and lying, but I read what I wrote, and I see a remarkable consistency over the course of years and years. Do you know why that consistency is there? Because I'm writing from true memory. Liars have to be good at remembering things, and they fail, and they say different things at different times. But I don't do that. Sure, you can go back and find me going postal with anger and talking about napalming cities, or whatever - I don't pretend that I am a fine human being when I get filled with wrath. But when the discussion turns to God, what God has done, what God does - when a calm discussion is being had - I refer back to the miracles I have experienced, because they are the foundational points of my entire life, the most important things that ever happened to me, to moments where everything changed forever. And my recollection of them is clear, so what I say is consistent with that. Now, how I analyze what that means varies from time to time, depending on what is being discussed. The core meaning is that God is, God thinks, God controls nature. That's true. From those core facts, other things can be extrapolated by reason. I do that, and sometimes I change my mind about the implications of something. What does not change is the underlying fact set that drives what I say. That is what you directly assault when you call me a liar, when you mock me for the lizard, when you say I bumped my head. No, I am not lying. The lizard was dead and God brought it back to life. I did not bump my head, I broke my neck and was paralyzed and drowning. The demon was there, the dove flew into my face. God grabbed my face and my arm and talked to me. These are the core facts of my direct encounters with my creator. They are why I know God. When you attack me for those particular things, you are charging straight at facts, and you sound desperate, mean and crazy. You scream at me that I am a liar, when I am telling the truth. Any investigator who pulled up the last 17 years of my writing about these things, from in different places, would find a remarkable consistency - the sort of consistency that liars cannot maintain. I don't have to remember the lies I've told to make them consistent, because I'm reporting actual memories. So if asked off the cuff by a stranger in the dark, the stories I would tell would be the same as if one pulled any of the e-mails from the past 17 years. Slap me on a lie detector test for verification, and you will find the machine loves me, and the recounting is consistent. Now, my interpretations of what it all MEANS have varied, just as anybody's theology grows and changes with maturity. What does not change is the facts, because the facts are WHY I'm sure about what I believe. You attack me for the facts, and that's about the worst thing you can do, because you sound like a crazy, belligerent drunk, raging with anger, and I hear you, know I have been telling the truth all along, and judge your religion based on your willingness to try to scream and bully the truth into silence. It doesn't work, because I'm not the fool here, and I know it. I also know that all I have to do is to calmly repeat what happened to me and what I have seen, and you will hit the ceiling like a puppet on a string. Truth is, your religion COULD accomodate and englobe what happened to me, it DOES affirm basic things about Christianity. But you're so hellbent on attacking my "lies", that are actually true, that you reveal a fundamental insecurity at the heart of your faith. You have decided, through bad reasoning, that if what I am saying is true, that your religion would therefore be false, and because you don't believe that, "therefore" I must be lying. But I'm not.
You do said God doesn't heal in this life he does the opposite so that makes you a liar.
I have proof and fossils from my front yard that prove otherwise. Crustaceans in limestone rock in Kentucky. You need to get off of teh Donald's calender, and onto God's calender Fred.
I said that God healed me. I also said, as a general principle, that God doesn't heal people in this life. This does not make me a liar at all. I observed the general case, one that you yourself attested to at ferocious length, how God doesn't heal diabetes, doesn't prevent Christians from starving, etc. That is indeed the general case. But then I noted that God DID heal me of a fatal injury. Those two things are both true. There is no lie here. So, given those two things in juxtaposition, what one must say is that God almost never heals anybody, but that rarely, he does. Because that is the truth. You and I can both look around and see that he doesn't do it, generally. That's why these things are called miracle. But when I look in the mirror, I see a living man who would be dead but for a direct divine intervention, a major healing miracle. So I cannot state as an absolute prospect that God NEVER EVER heals people. God doesn't heal people, hardly ever, except when he does. That's a fact. There's no lie here. You throw the word "liar" around a lot. It's a pretty serious accusation, considering that lying is a mortal sin. Trouble is, you haven't "caught me in a lie" here. You're having trouble with reading comprehension. There is indeed a very dramatic tension between the two statements - and that's the point: a general rule, and a startling exception. How can you possibly even begin to understand that Bible in which you place all of your trust if such a simple literary device as I used throws you. Example: The Bible says that all Jerusalem went out to be baptized by John. But that is obviously not literally true. The Sanhedrin didn't. Pilate and the Romans didn't. The high priest didn't. The people who executed Jesus almost certainly didn't. If it were me having written that Biblical passage with the "all" in it, you would be screaming at me that I am a liar, because "all" is not literally true.
Your long winded swill doesn't change the fact you are lying. Liar.
You didn't say two things in your evil rant. You specifically said it doesn't happen it's the opposite. And you say I have reading comprehension problem liar.
Another lie liar. That is not what it says. Like the heretic Pope's who removed the second commandment for Catholic non thinkers you deceive leave out words in an attempt to change the meaning. None of your long wonder swill changes those FACTS.
www.novinite.com/articles...enced+Deluge+-+Scientists Such a cataclismic event could well have been the story that was ancestral to the Biblical account. People do have a way of inventing explanations for things they do not understand, and the less they understand things, the more likely they are to chalk it up to the will of a divine entity. And the ancients understood very little about the world. Interesting link, btw...thanks. The Black Sea geography and investigative dynamics are fascinating. Yes, I suppose the version of The Great Flood account could have been construed/explained by locals to have been a matter of the Black Sea over-flowing the strait of Bosporus and flooding the entire area/"world". Case was...that the Great Flood caused the Black Sea to over-flow. And the original location become inundated for flood waters. Coincidence that it occurred at about the same time as the Great Flood? Whether they were in fact referring to what we now call dinosaurs is speculation. Could they not have been referring to present day alligators & Komoto dragons and such? Although, yes, alligators and Komoto Dragon are "dinosaurs" (it's really just modern semantics, isn't it?), these "Dragons" seemed to be different physically, at least according to world-wide paintings and "legend". Sorta "dinosaur-like". It's the only documentation we have. Besides many recent findings and cases of dino-bone with still not-yet deteriorated tissue. That my friend seems to point to "thousands of years-old" deaths, not "millions" -- even virtual oxygen-deprived scenario.
Yup.
More accurately, if carbon-14 dating were to be recalibrated or revised in such a way as to show dinosaurs bones being much, much younger than it currently does, then that evidence would still need to be corroborated with other evidence showing they are the present age. The age of the dinosaur fossils is generally based on geological dating methods, and any carbon-14 revisions would not mean that a fossil encased in hardened stone dated by other methods to be millions of years to be automatically redated to a few thousand. In that example, if carbon-14 said such a bone was 5000 years old, but the geologic dating method said the stone was 70 million years old, the next task would be to find out which was right and which was wrong. Science is always in flux, by it's very nature. Bone/stone and tissue react differently to C-14 dating. Sure, science could "move the goalposts"... Right -- your suggestion to compare and contrast the C-14 vs other dating methods seems to be a no-brainer. Problem is, across the board all dating methods are consistently inconsistent. We've all seen and heard of kooky instances (akin to the example you posed) of recent material items have been "dated" as in the thousands or millions of years old. Since there are no obvious eyewitnesses documentation of history (other than ancient texts, Biblical, legend), we're still left with educated guesses and estimates (and wishful thinking whims of the agenda-driven). BUT fortunately new technology that can help us better measure, map and more refine our earth-forensic exams. Earth Science must abide by todays's physical law. But I think a major issue "flux"(especially in the case of C-14) is being affected by past changes in magnetic fields, radiation level, air pressure, and that whole cataclysmic event(s) of the Great Flood, evidence suggesting total planetary "do-over", a re-calibration of geography, climate/weather, DNA, etc -- which some theorize (some of which we can only theorize of course, but others -- like the plethora of past plant and animal life as well as MUCH larger specimens of ALL flora and fauna even in places like Antarctica IS proven science.) And just because new/revised carbon-14 understanding might make us change what we now believe about it would NOT mean that those revised understandings would then be firm science. Next year someone might come out and say, "Hey, when we said we were wrong about carbon-14 and decided dinosaur bones were just a few thousand years old, we were actually wrong about what we thought we were wrong about because of xyz, and so those bones are still likely to be much older than 50k years. Sorry for the confusion". Hmmm...That might be the honest thing to say/do. And actually garner across-the-board respect for amending fleshed-out scientific truths. But since the "Science" Communitah elites have become a hardened political-religious organization, its high priests never want to admit wrongs. Even in the case of "Global Warming" hoaxing. They see it as undermining *all* of its orthodoxy and portrayed infallibility of "Papal" Science. btw, ever read up on Antarctica recently? Seems some weird eerie stuff from past and present is being sandbagged. So you wonder in the end -- *IS* Science even interested prioritizing the truth of any given matter? Or, just advancing an agenda?
Pass the bong ;-) Ok, I get it (after a couple minutes...) The only option other than dictating to certain righteous men and Prophets His divine account of Beginning, Middle and End, many ask of this, "If God IS God, why couldn't He just show up and make a Big Announcement in person: "Ok everybody -- I want you to know THIS is how In-The-Beginning all went down; THIS is the deal with dinosaurs;THESE are my Rules For Getting Into Heaven (now that Adam and Eve blew it for you all), and "Here is a Tour of My Kingdom and Hell -- choose wisely"... BUT...He didn't. He chose for His own reason and purpose to challenge the course our respective mind, spirit, our heart take. And obviously, free will and faith. If I were to nitpick about death existing before sin, the human body experiences cell death as a normal function of healthy human living. Hair, for example is dead tissue. If no death existed before sin, would this mean that before the fall, Adam and Eve either had no hair, or if they did, it was living tissue? Hair isn't a "live being". Taking another angle, I would submit that what *would* indicate the "death" of hair might be either balding (dying hair follicles), the graying of hair and degradation of quality, i.e. thinning. Still another angle, if Adam and Eve were designed with absolute physical perfection, and the re-generation of all human tissue was forever, then how could hair be considered "dying"? Adam and Eve's DNA would have been perfect before The Fall.
Some of us are just riffin' thoughts, exchanging ideas. Ok, so we might not agree, but sometimes conversations and disagreements are just that. This wasn't an "inflamed" ping to you. Nor a hostile ping. I wasn't "hectoring" you, just restating and contrasting your position and belief on Genesis with those who believe that Genesis is also as much the inspired word of God and Authority as anything Jesus was recorded to say. One of my points with respect to Genesis is that...If Jesus Himself quoted it (and we know that you believe Jesus is Lord who came as God in the flesh), then the logical question is wondering how it can then be untrue or illegitimate a text? Or..."poetry"? Just saying. (you don't have to answer)
I guess that depends on defining the word of notion of "complete". And exactly what might fulfill its completion. If you believe there are errors in scripture, can you specify which verses they are? Are they verses that could be construed as ambiguous?
What's the lie? That the Bible says all Jerusalem went out to see John and be baptized. It does. Or that everybody did indeed go out? They didn't.
Fair enough.
When it comes to matters of God, it is much more complicated. To speak of God is to speak of matters of life and death, of all of one's wealth, all law, all politics, everything: what one believes about God, and the intensity with which one believes it, determines all of those things.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
Under the Newton model, there's really no reason for God to do this for the simple reason that our acamedic head knowledge is of about no importance. What is important is our own growth: The embellishment of virtues and overcoming of vices, so any understandings about the age of the universe or the exact mechanics of how we came to be are of no spiritual value to us.
I guess I was taking an issue with Stone's statement about there being no death before the fall. I should have pinged him. It was a challenge on the notion of "no death" in this context, as on a cellular level, it's hard to imagine there being no death in a perfect world. Even eating food involves digestion of plants & fruits, both of which were either alive when consumed or died prior to consumption, either of which involves death. So you say. Hair and fingernails that never die. Does it stop growing then? Honestly, this just doesn't work. At least for me.
You directed to Vic, but I'll answer. Passages that state God gets angry & jealous. To me it's wholly contradictory to other passages about him being all wise, all powerful, all knowing, all loving etc. I see those passages as "anthropomorphism", which is a literary technique of ascribing human characteristics to a non-human entity, in this case, God. When a respected leader tells his people that God is angry, it gives that leader great power to tell his people they must do some bidding, as people will act out of fear. So there is a very human political motive for ancients to propagate the idea that God can get angry, and it was certainly done in many, if not most or all other cultures throughout history.
I see those passages as "anthropomorphism", which is a literary technique of ascribing human characteristics to a non-human entity, in this case, God. I don't subscribe to the "contradictory" notion of God's "anger and jealousy"; It seems you've explained why Scripture describes this technique in your following quote of, "anthropomorphism". Doesn't any parent run that same gamut of emotion as they watch their child grow up? After all, we are just extensions of God the Father. We may even know beforehand that our child WILL fall, but the child must learn. Then we pick him up. God's "anger" and "jealousy"-- again, in human relate-able terms. Maybe this analogy works for you; Say your child has joined an evil, kooky cult and appears to be embracing it. One emotion might be repulsiveness, others anger, disappointment, and..."jealously" in the sense that you can't believe he/she would choose cultist-enslavement over freedom. Back to the language used in scripture -- Why wouldn't God explain language so we could understand it in "human" context? Somewhat analogous -- Germans and French both have words for things that don't exists for the English equivalent and vice versa. When a respected leader tells his people that God is angry, it gives that leader great power to tell his people they must do some bidding, as people will act out of fear. So there is a very human political motive for ancients to propagate the idea that God can get angry, and it was certainly done in many, if not most or all other cultures throughout history. I'm not sure how your interpretation of an interpretation is construed as scriptural "error". There IS such a thing as "righteous anger", no doubt. As far as any "bidding" that's done -- I assume from your perspective, "in the name of God" -- you're going to have to be more specific about just what "political motive" and action your refer to.
Yes, I construed that same statement as having supported Stone's "no-death-before-the Fall." Based on that claim, technology those plants Adam and Eve ate would have kept on living as they continued baring fruit, no? I agree -- it IS hard to imagine a world in which death is no more. But that's exactly what we re told was the world before the Fall...and within the Kingdom of God after the First Death. Hair and fingernails that never die. Does it stop growing then? Honestly, this just doesn't work. At least for me. Hair follicles wouldn't have died; neither would have nail beds. "Death" = End of Regeneration. Food for Thought: There is much evidence that Planet Earth pre-Flood was a MUCH different world. In that world, ALL living things grew to extreme size (perhaps because everything lived much longer.) The fossil record proves it. Scripture records also attest to a much longer human lifespan. For whatever reason(s) it seems the DNA of all life was re-calibrated after the Fall, then again, after the Great Flood. I appreciate your honesty. I can't obviously convince you of things that might not work for you or for things of which you have doubts. Sincere question: Do you apply the same sense of critical analysis and assessment of plausibility and authority for your current belief system?
To speak of God is to speak of matters of life and death, of all of one's wealth, all law, all politics, everything: what one believes about God, and the intensity with which one believes it, determines all of those things. I agree on all counts. God's Laws and faith are interwoven into all facets of life...or rather should be. Blessed are those whose "intensity" and hunger for faith and the word grows...before it's too late.
But God is all knowing, so he would believe it, and even anticipate it. So why would it result in divine "anger". Ah, but is not the Bible "truth"? Are you suggesting the Bible might convey an impression about God that is not, in fact, true, but somewhat short of that just so that we would "understand" something even though that which we then think we understand is, in fact, a misunderstanding? If you take the position that the English language, due to it's limitations, cannot possibly capture the meaning of God's divine Word, then what you basically end up doing is aligning with Vicombe's position, probably, that the Bible is, to an extent, imperfect. Political motives? That's easy. When you put the literal fear of God into a population, and are able to cast yourself as a spokesman for God, then you have strong control over those people. I understand it was Constantine that formally declared reincarnation a heresy. Certainly if people believe they only have one life to live, then they are much easier to control, as no one wants to go to hell for all eternity for disobeying the church, which became a partner to the state. Well, you may find this notion of God capable of being angry (even "wrathful") and jealous reasonable in spite of His also having infinite wisdom, love & knowledge, but I do not, and it's one element that, for me, favors the Newton model of at least the Old Testament depiction of God, if not the contemporary Christian depiction. Truly, under the Newton model, God has, in my opinion (if not outright objectively speaking) complete majesty. He has all of the wonders that Christianity claims he has, but without any of the shortcomings such as being capable of anger and jealousy. God is better complemented and revered as a higher standard than in the Judeo-Christian model. It's my contention that the old testament is a collection of ancient writings that, rather than being divinely inspired, are instead a collection of highly refined writings that are ascribed divine origin status. That ascription has taken on a life of its own in the form of both the Jewish faith as well as, of course, the Christian faith which is an extension of it. Under the Newton model, everything works perfectly, frankly, in terms of divine love and patience, and our purpose. Christianity simply doesn't work perfectly, which which I'm sure you'll strongly disagree. But the bottom line is, under the Newton model, no one is left behind with the possible exception of those who choose to be left behind. And under Christianity, people can go to hell for all eternity because someone never shared the gospel with them when they had the chance to. On it's face.... that's a point scored for the Newton model.
You and I can both look around and see that he doesn't do it, generally. That's why these things are called miracle. But when I look in the mirror, I see a living man who would be dead but for a direct divine intervention, a major healing miracle. For what it's worth, I've always believe you and your your divine healing. You're right in your assessment and definition of "miracle". And also to further examine God's Plan for you. That said, your healing, of extension-of-life may also be construed as a analogous example of Jesus' healings, serving to remind you/us of lives that can and will be "healed" Forever. Maybe one of your "missions" in this life has been to spread your story of divine healing. Maybe some are too shy or fearing ridicule of their own "miracles"....OR battles with demonic entities. Many individual spiritual battles (and victories) are waged. (Few speak about them, perhaps because of reactions you elicit.)
As I do yours. Again, we're both in identical boats, though not the same one, of course. I believe I do, yes. Absolutely.
I'm obviously using *my* interpretation of language and sense of emotion as a descriptor. His "divine anger" -- the best I could describe it again is as a parent who sees a child willfully following a self-destructive course instead of a "sensible" course, despite *our* doing everything we could to make that course easy, safer, most rewarding, and the obvious best option. Yes, even though God has divine knowledge of what *will* happen, He can, has, and will continue to be "angry" with mankind for the eventual willful self-destruction. *We should be reminded that *some* things shall remain "mysteries" according to Scripture, so mankind is NEVER going to receive nor find ALL the answers to this Universe OR of God's Purpose. If you take the position that the English language, due to it's limitations, cannot possibly capture the meaning of God's divine Word, then what you basically end up doing is aligning with Vicombe's position, probably, that the Bible is, to an extent, imperfect. I'd submit that many have and do indeed understand what God is saying. For them, The Word IS "perfect". It's a matter of tuning into the "right" frequency. This may explain why others "read the Bible cover-to-cover" yet still don't or can't understand it (or mis-understand) what God is saying. If one's heart and spirit isn't "open" to accepting the frequency at which God speaks/communicates, then no, one will not understand Him. (some DO so partially, then grow in understanding as the walls/blockage dissolve.) Ping, I gave you *my* off the cuff interpretation/explanation for the limitations of some who have problems grasping The Almighty's meanings or conveyances. When you put the literal fear of God into a population, and are able to cast yourself as a spokesman for God, then you have strong control over those people. I understand it was Constantine that formally declared reincarnation a heresy. Certainly if people believe they only have one life to live, then they are much easier to control, as no one wants to go to hell for all eternity for disobeying the church, which became a partner to the state. Is conveying the Word of God as a disciple/"spokesman" a matter of "leadership" OR coercion (as you infer)? Faith in God and heeding His Laws are all still a matter of Free Will, are they not? Jesus Christ and his disciples never coerced others into being Believers. And neither do legit "spokesmen" or Pastors who spread the Gospel and remind and lead the flock down the "narrow road". With respect to "one life to live" (in this current physical shell anyway), is a notion and physical state is exactly what the entire Judeo-Christian faith is predicated upon, based on God's own Word. Whether you or anyone takes that word and authority to heart is a matter of Free Will -- yours, mine, everyone's. With respect to Constantine...NOT who I'd consider a "Christian" leader. "Fear of the Lord" is a GOOD thing. It is the start of all "wisdom". All a matter of personal opinion of course; yours and my Free Will to seek the truth then choose our respective path. I fully understand and accept the context of The Almighty's language and find no inconsistencies or weakness in his conveyance and intent. Though the Newton model respects certain facets of OT text and law, it seems unable to grasp the subtleties of God's language, reason, purpose and law in OT text, bending misinterpretation and context as a result. (my impression of course.) Then again so does Roman Catholicism to a substantial degree. Again, I don't see these traits of God as "shortcomings"; They are totally relate-able and understandable -- yes, even of The Almighty. I've explained the context of God's "jealousy"; His anger is a *righteous* anger akin to watching your children become willfully disobedient simply out of spite or because of selfishness. And most of all, His Anger (as in the case of ANY loving parent) is a response to knowing some of His children will die as a result of their willful ignorance, selfishness, and...yes, even contempt of a Father who does his best to guide and discipline them. Q: Is it possible that the testimony of Newton's subjects (on which the entire Newton model is obviously based) *could* be contaminated by nefarious spiritual beings and methodical deception? The Newton model works on some respects...As a loving forgiving parent. But maybe the "patience" is too much of a good thing. After all, how many time can a parent be expected to see Johnny harm and almost kill himself before being disciplined? Before learning his lesson? The Newton model may be akin to the parent who won't ever tell Johnny that driving close to the cliff might result in his car going over the cliff and sure death. The main problem with the Newton model is...Consequences -- are are none. There is no personal responsibility, no justice, no real resolution or Finish Line. No Heaven and no Hell. No such thing as "sin"; No real such thing as "Forever". And ALWAYS a second, third fourth, infinity of "chances" to "get it right". I don't know how that makes any sense and by what universal "justice" that works (and of course, by whose "Authority") Justice necessitates that some are NOT rewarded for their willful (keyword here) disobedience, blindness, arrogance, sin, AND contempt of The Father. Reward are merit-based; Obedience is rewarded. The Reward for Eternal Life is but from Grace. The Afterlife is Forever. Better be sure because there is no second chance. (I'm sorry I must cut this short...)
Maybe one of your "missions" in this life has been to spread your story of divine healing. Maybe some are too shy or fearing ridicule of their own "miracles"....OR battles with demonic entities. Many individual spiritual battles (and victories) are waged. (Few speak about them, perhaps because of reactions you elicit.) I don't think I was healed to become a teacher. In fact, God made me keep it a complete secret when it happened, on pain of it being reversed and I being paralyzed. He did what he did for his reasons, and he didn't explain himself. I can give all sorts of explanations, but that would be me spinning a yarn to make sense of something momentous that happened. The one thing that the incident did confirm in my mind is that I may be the luckiest human being alive. And caused me to consider the question of luck itself, of probabilities in a world of physical laws. It was only later that God physically grabbed my arm and my face out of the air and spoke to me aloud. THAT was when I realized that the God of Nature who had made me more fortunate than a lottery winner, was certainly a thinking mind that can grab and catch and talk out loud. During the gap of many years between the two incidents, I learned the physics and the natural sciences as thoroughly as I could. When the direct physical and verbal communication transformed me from a pantheist to a theist, I knew how to evaluate evidence scientifically, and to sort out testable claims from the untestable. I sought out the miracles that anybody can look at specifically to be able to provide concrete scientific proof to anybody who needs fact-based evidence to be able to see the reality of God (properly defined). I could be of particular help to those who would proclaim themselves scientists or scientifically minded, who would then say there is no proof, these things are unprovable. Well, actually there IS, and there is a great deal of wonder and miracle in the physical evidences. I have met two people actually interested in that subject. Two. Of course I have read the Scriptures, pored through them in fact, over and over and over. Not just the Christian ones - all of the major ones. I understand all of the world's major religions, and have read all of their primary texts. I focus on the Christian religion because the major miracles all specifically pertain to Christ in some manner. Therefore, I focus on him. And this is where I run into the heavy seas with Christians. I start by focusing on Christ, and then expand out and look at the stuff said ABOUT Christ, or implied by Christ, in various traditions including the Catholic, and the written traditions of the Bible. And when I do that, I find ripples of contradiction between what HE said and did, and what people who follow him say we are supposed to do. I see whole religions based on these different ripples. And in each place where a religion cleaves off on a path that seems to resist or contradict something Jesus said directly, I view that as an error. It's not my job to go out and tell everybody the errors in their religion. God did not tell me to go preach. I observe the error and note it, and move along. The problem is that to mention the error is to be virulently attacked. To explain why it is an error is to be virulently attacked, mocked, etc. Because the errors are pretty obvious, to me anyway, they are not ameliorated by the personal attacks. Rather, the person attacking me looks to me to be further and further from God, and upholding a political viewpoint - organized religion being old politics. The discomfort of being hectored becomes too great - it's like being barked at by a mean dog. At some point I just shrug my shoulders and walk away, and thank God that religion has had its fangs pulled out such that the various religions can no longer punish anybody for blasphemy, because their power to punish has been broken. That's not because there is no God. It's because these religions that go berserk with rage when their own contradictions and errors are called into question, are not really following God, as proven by the fact that they resorted to violent acts in the past, and still resort to violent words in the present. So, for example, when you asked for an example of an error in and from Scripture, I will give it to you. Now, you have to follow the entire train of thought, it makes a track change and you have to have the patience to listen all the way through and think about what it is that I am seeing. And then, if you're honest, you won't try to pretend that there is no contradiction or error, there very clearly is, by any use of the English language. You will then understand why it is that when I hear men bray at me that there is no contradiction or error, I first think that they are simply ignorant: they don't know the Scriptures so well and are taking that assertion on faith from some pastoral source. But when shown the Scriptures, if the attack continues, then I am dealing with somebody who is wedded to a theological view and who will not honestly deal with the text before him. Let me give you an example. The word "all" appears in Scripture many times. Does "all" really mean ALL, does it mean "everybody"? This word "all", used to mean "every single person", is asserted to make a significant theological point. But does "all" really mean ALL? Elsewhere in Scripture, "all" is used in a context where it could mean "everybody", but where other facts clearly indicated that, even though the text says "all", it cannot mean ALL. This is an example of an "error" in Scripture. A thing that is written that is not literally true. One has to admit that, because it is obviously so. Here is a sample passage: "And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." That says that everybody in Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside went out to John the Baptist and were baptized. It's not ambiguous. It says ALL of Jerusalem. All does not mean "some", or "most". It means all. It is not possible to read that sentence in a way that does not say that ALL of Jerusalem went out to be baptized by John. That is what it says. Now, quite obviously we know that is not actually true. We know that all of the people of Jerusalem went out to be baptized by John. A lot did, but all did not. The text says all did, and that is not true. Is this an error? No. It's a hyperbole, a literally false statement that conveys a truth: a lot of people went out. Everybody? No. It SAYS everybody, but everybody did not go. (I shouldn't really need to point out all of the people of Jerusalem did not go out to John the Baptist. Pontius Pilate and the Roman army were in Jerusalem, as were the Sanhedrin and the High Priests, and Herod and his wife Herodias had a residence there also - none of these people went out to be baptized by John, obviously. Scripture there says "all", and it is not true. So we know that the Scripture writers write using hyperbole, and therefore nobody can assert that every word must be taken literally, especially when taking a word literally creates a contradiction in logic or a contradiction with something else said. Jesus spoke of children and said that the Kingdom of Heaven was made of children and those like children. Children have not fallen short of the Kingdom of God, according to Jesus. Have, then, "all" sinned? In a similar vein, Jesus lists the sins that will result in the Lake of Fire. He lists them twice. Many sins do not appear on that list. But James says that if you break one commandment you have broken them all. That would make a thief equal to a murderer, and both damned to the Lake of Fire, according to James. But according to Jesus, murderers are among those thrown into the Lake of Fire. Thieves are not on either of his lists. That is a contradiction. Break one break 'em all is very different from greater and lesser sins - and Jesus spoke quite consistently of greater and lesser sins, and he spoke of the lake of fire only for certain sins. This is a contradiction in the Bible, and the contradiction carries forth into all of the different Christian denominations. One can take the Pauline approach, ALL have sinned. (But remember the problem with the word "all", above.) One can take the James approach, break one, break 'em all. One can take John's approach, identifying mortal sins and other sins. Or one can Jesus' approach of greater and lesser sin, with a list of sins that will get you the fire. John is closest to Jesus, but not as specific. James and Paul are quite different from Jesus. Different Churches have different preferences, and they fight about these things. For me, there is no struggle at all. Jesus is the son of God. God said "Listen to HIM", therefore, what Jesus said is exactly right, and what Paul and James say, which differ, is to be ignored in this case. Jesus is right, and Paul and James are engaging in hyperbole to make a point, or they're just stating their opinions, and they're wrong (assuming Jesus is always right, which I do). These things cannot be dismissed by hand waves that say they are not important: it is a fundamental difference between Christian religions. They cannot be dismissed as not being real: they are. And they cannot be rectified by saying they say the same thing: they clearly do not. One must choose. Now, experience has taught me that these issues, which have been litigated and relitigated among Christians of each successive generation for the past 2000 years (though never, to my knowledge, on precisely the same grounds as my own view), will not be resolved, and will soon enough result in people pounding the furniture and going purple-faced. I don't like that sort of conflict - it never results in anything pleasant, and it never persuades anybody of anything, least of all me. So once it starts getting there, my tendency is to withdraw. This thread and another is yet another example of this. Even people I like, when they start getting self-righteous with me, rapidly exhaust my patience. I talk about religion less and less, because I see the whole subject as a dying belief system. It is dying because all of the poison that has been poured into the garden. This subject is everything. It needs to be treated with respect, and I myself need to be treated with respect if I am going to talk about it. When I am not, my tendency is to just shake the dust off my shoes and walk away. I have to do that quite a lot around here.
I'm not speaking of properly appointed leaders. Rather, those who find themselves in positions of power and use it to further their own interests. Since you view Constantine as having been a non-Christian, he would be an excellent example. It seems clear you first accept the Bible as God's Word, and because of that, find no inconsistencies. But certainly, once you do accept that premise, you are **not allowed** to find any inconsistencies. Any perceptions of such will be automatically be categorized as something you are not wise enough to understand, in which case there is nothing anyone could point out about the Bible that would make you question it's divine origin. To be clear, my position is not that God should not be believed. My position instead is that the Bible is not his divinely inspired word. This compels me to ask a more fundamental question: Did God have any choice in the matter of spiritual law related to sin and redemption? In the "time before time" as it were, did God, knowing that the Christian model would see a majority of his children perish in eternal flame "sign off" on this model, or is it possible that He could have said, "no, I don't like this model. I prefer a model of reincarnation where I never have to send anyone into a lake of eternally fire". Would you say that A) God had no such choice as he is/was restricted by his very nature, or B) He had a choice, and chose the one now known as Christianity where most of his children end up dying? Personally, I think He had a choice, and I don't see why he would have chosen a system that works less well than one that works more well. You've speculated on that before. Ultimately I can't prove the negative of saying this didn't happen. But if it did, would it be my fault for being suckered? What it comes down to is explaining each belief system in terms of the other's model. Under Christianity, "nefarious spiritual beings" would explain Newton's findings. And under Newton's model, Christianity has a largely human explanation for it's existence. Seven times seventy-seven? :^) I take issue here. There certainly are consequences, which is part of the beauty of it. There absolutely is accountability. It's harder to see everything when us earthlings are so far down the totem pole of progression, but it seems there is a finish. "Get it right" is a mischaracterization, as it conotates more of a chance thing like you're doing some carnival contest of throwing rings to win a stuffed bear than an actual step in growth. Even when we fail, we learn. In the Newton model, everything is 100% positive reinforcement, 0% negative reinforcement. Failing to grow is the punishment. Believing something out of fear is not something I see as a virtue God would respect or admire. I think He would better respect an honest disbeliever than a fake believer.
Or I can observe that Time is a derivative function of state-change which progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) it is observed in. And that God's inertial frame isn't yours! :-/
This subject is everything. It needs to be treated with respect, and I myself need to be treated with respect if I am going to talk about it. When I am not, my tendency is to just shake the dust off my shoes and walk away. Good idea Vic, stop writing about religion.. --- Actually, that would be excellent advice for anyone so obsessed. ---- Imho, nothing kills a forum like LF faster than religious discussions taken to excess
There is very little in this world that is more useless than another man's religion. Nevertheless, American politics are heavily driven by religious belief, in everything from aid to Israel to the perennial struggle over abortion. This site skews conservative, and American conservatives, by and large, have religious motivations as an important source of their political beliefs. Sure, there are conservatives like you, of a more libertarian bent, who find religion to be a complete waste of time. But more conservatives think that it's important, and so it is, in conservative politics. For me, for example - I have to support social welfare to a much greater degree than many other conservatives precisely because my God says so, and I know he exists. You're right: when I speak of this, it largely ends the conversation - for those who don't believe, there's nothing to say. And for those Christians who believe differently, the reaction is pretty violent. So, the conversation is killed, and nobody is persuaded to move off of his position. Yet there is value, I think, in seeing the degree of resolution of the parties. There is no majority for any position. Everything requires coalitions, which means that people who are not interested in religion have to be in coalition with people who are to get anything done. And so, tiresome as it is, it's probably good that on a conservative site like this, the range of opinion is expressed. If we're going to advance our common interests, we need to understand each other sufficiently that the "third rails" of our respective beliefs are not touched.
You'd have to define your notion and context of "inconsistencies" for me. It seems that it means one thing for me, another for you -- not meant as a personal slight. I can construe your perception of God's Word as: 1) "hypocritical", We are indeed advised through the Bible that some "mysteries" would remain -- understanding the Bible fully is impossible; It's not about the lack of "wisdom". In fact we are told to be as "children". What does this tract mean to you?: When we are children (some of us), we do openly and fully and immediately accept the Bible as "God's Word" and Gospel "premise". Eventually most of us enter into intermittent phases of independent critical thinking, whereby during that stage of examination we scrutinize the logic and evidence. I didn't understand the dynamics of Grace and reason for a "Savior until I was about 23 years old. MANY Christians go through this phase; Yes, we ARE "allowed" to think critically about the texts of Scripture....DO and HAVE. For some people only a single sweep through Biblical claims and messaging is a thorough enough "examination" to analyze "inconsistencies", and determine/discern whether the Bible truly is "God's Word". For others it takes multiple sweeps and a critical examination before understanding the full text, connect dots and accepting Scripture as God's Word, inspired through man. But this isn't just about reading comprehension, The Word must then be allowed it to permeate our mind, heart, and spirit. In your case, I assume you've gone through these same steps in completely accepting the Newton Model, although obviously there are far fewer steps, explanations, dynamics, and dot-connecting to consider. To be clear, my position is not that God should not be believed. My position instead is that the Bible is not his divinely inspired word. I may not agree but understand the reason for the cynicism, given man's record of lies and deception (usually in the name of personal power & profit). I see no evidence in this case. But I *do* see divine concepts, teachings, and truth. With respect to maintaining the same train of thought and critiques, aren't Newton's hypnotized subjects men/women as well, perceived to be conveying a "divine" message of sorts? If that premise is accepted, then might Newton himself be considered to be the equivalent of the Biblical Prophets? (btw, I have to break up your post into two different responses)
Those who most loudly PROMOTE Fake News are typically those most aggressively and ironically claim to support 'Freedom'.
I shall respond to your well thought-out, candid post. Thank you for your patience.
Those who most loudly PROMOTE Fake News are typically those most aggressively and ironically claim to support 'Freedom'.
WHY again should "writing about religion" or sharing thoughts on faith and the Hereafter be a bad idea or be frowned upon? There's no compulsion for you or anyone else to participate in its discussion. If *you* lack the same passion or curiosity for exchanging thoughts about our Creator's Plan and Mission for us, no one is coercing you into its discussion, are they? And btw -- why should the "obsession" or extreme interest any OTHER subject of discussion on a forum be "stopped" or curtailed? Imho, nothing kills a forum like LF faster than religious discussions taken to excess Discussions taken to "excess" make for among the best and most interesting threads. In my opinion what kills a forum: Willful Ignorance. Same ol' same ol'. Fear of engagement. Off-handed personal ridicule and contempt of theories.
This compels me to ask a more fundamental question: Did God have any choice in the matter of spiritual law related to sin and redemption? In the "time before time" as it were, did God, knowing that the Christian model would see a majority of his children perish in eternal flame "sign off" on this model, or is it possible that He could have said, "no, I don't like this model. I prefer a model of reincarnation where I never have to send anyone into a lake of eternally fire". Personally, I think He had a choice, and I don't see why he would have chosen a system that works less well than one Really good question, worthy of legit contemplation from any thinking person -- believer or not. (btw, I liked the way you posed the theory and premise . i.e. "signing off on...") It must be repeated that God loves us still as his children. His Son Jesus, a sinless God in the flesh, was sacrificed in our place to pave a direct path to God's Kingdom. We must also be reminded that the source of evil and lies on this mortal plane is...Satan, Lucifer, The Evil One, etc. No, He does not want anyone to perish in Hell-Fire or to be removed from His presence. Then again, through His Grace, The Father has given man an easy and clear path to Him, without ambiguity. But also a terribly frightening path to take and fair Final Judgment (based on our own Free Will and obedience). Are you asking whether God already "knew" how his entire "model" would shake out all along? IF he IS the Alpha & Omega, then obviously so. It didn't mean he wouldn't be disappointed as well as proud of us individually or collectively. (I know I go into this "parental" tangent but...it applies. He is after all, "Our Father".) As God has watched the disastrous results transpiring in real time over the millennia, would or could He have re-considered lowering the bar for his original strict "Ground-Rules" OR switched gears into the Reincarnation Model (Once it was clear The Original Model would result in most taking the wider path of destruction)? Well, God did almost erase the entire board until He was convinced to just start all over again with Noah, his family, and different Earth "model". But man was still appointed to die at least once. Would you say that A) God had no such choice as he is/was restricted by his very nature, or Personally, I think He had a choice, and I don't see why he would have chosen a system that works less well than one that works more well. I agree with "A" -- "God's nature". Whether a "small" sin or "mortal" sin, God's "model still requires our "debt" be paid -- but we can't pay it ourselves, buy our way out or talk/pray our way out. We must remember that He's given all of mankind Free Will. The onus of personal responsibility and obedience falls on us. Of course some of us will have been blessed with far more favorable conditions, and others far less favorable. Moreover, an allowance would have to be made of those who hadn't a chance to learn the "Ground Rules". If God is God -- the fairest Judge possible -- we have to assume that His Verdict come Judgment Day will take all factors into account -- including unavoidable circumstances and opportunity. With respect to the Law as it pertains to "sin and redemption"... Once God established His Law; once man became a sinner, the die was cast and Ground-Rules or "test" of our will to either "listen" to ourselves OR to God was afoot. So you see it is *we* who actually indict and condemn ourselves OR choose to live on in His Kingdom Redemption and Penance were to become man's only Path to God, to "disinfect" our soul before Him and His Kingdom. Until God returned to offer up Himself *in the Flesh* to make us clean enough to entire His Kingdom, the only "Redemption" was in the symbolic death-sacrifice of animals as a proxy for ourselves. And then came Jesus... IF God shifted his original "Game Plan" to Reincarnation, the inevitable sin against God in subsequent lives is never really addressed fully or importantly remediated by man, nor can* be. Man (in his sin-nature) cannot resolve or absolve himself. Only God the Almighty can do that. (Which is one reason why the Newton model comes up short. Who or what "absolves" man of his sin in its model? Or...is such absolution just not necessary because "death" isn't considered "Final"? It seem to me that the human condition has naturally gravitated toward the definitive expectation of climactic "Resolution" and "Justice" either way. Could this "expectation" be hard-wired? (as historically speaking is an innate belief in One Greater Than Us.) IS it possible in the Newton model to become "sin-less"? And what is its Grand Arbiter? (We are told there are team "Counselors" who assess lives and make recommendations). I wonder -- is it the general position of Newton model believers that this model will definitely supersede the Christ-ian model/account of Judgment Day? (If so, does the degree of certainty of Newtonesque protocol and destination upon death vary among believers?) (Longer dialogue regarding Newtonesque model attributes & facets, and "Finish Line" "Fear" factor stuff to be continued)
Discussions taken to "excess" make for among the best and most interesting threads. In my opinion what kills a forum: Willful Ignorance. Same ol' same ol'. Fear of engagement. Off-handed personal ridicule and contempt of theories. You asked "why should the "obsession" or extreme interest any OTHER subject of discussion on a forum be "stopped" or curtailed? " Isn't it obvious in my honest opinion? --- that nothing kills a forum like LF faster than religious discussions taken to an excess of animosity, or of personal remarks? Granted, --- that hasn't happened yet on this thread, and may not happen at all... I'm just saying that it does happen all too often. Your inference that I have a "Willful Ignorance, a fear of engagement", --- or that I'm attempting "Off-handed personal ridicule and contempt of theories" is a good example of how this type of discussion starts to slip into excess.. My comments to Vic were made to agree with some of HIS theories, --- not to insult or denigrate any you hold.. ---- Nor do I ridicule religious people, --- I'm agnostic (I simply don't know), --- I'm not an atheist (one who denies the existence of god)...
Because I'm a constitutionalist/libertarian, and an agnostic, your idea that I find religion "a waste of time" baffles me, as I've never indicated anything like that belief.. Although thinking back 68 years ago, I may have said something like that to Father Riser, the young priest trying to Confirm me as a Catholic, and failing, (tho we didn't tell that to my mother). ;-)
Although thinking back 68 years ago, I may have said something like that to Father Riser, the young priest trying to Confirm me as a Catholic, and failing, (tho we didn't tell that to my mother). ;-) I may have been projecting. I think that religion is a waste of time unless it's true.
Liberator, I see your subsequent responses, but want to expand a bit on this particular exchange. Firstly, it wasn't my intent to mock you or the Bible by employing this biblical numeric reference in my response, though it was certainly intended to be a funny retort as it was exactly that, turning the tables on you. Knowing you, however, I'm confident it wasn't taken as mocking. But it actually goes further than that, because it's a great message on forgiveness and the Bible is completely on point with this quote that is reputed to be the response of Jesus, and I would interpret that number to mean "without count". Would you not agree? And if we are called to forgive without count, is it reasonable to suggest that God has a more restrictive limit on forgiveness? Well, under the Newton model, there are no such limits for God, but under the Christian model, there is. There is the limit of a single life, which may not even last more than a few years. This is what I mean when I say that under the Michael Newton model, God is MORE forgiving and MORE loving and MORE patient than under the Christian model. Everything works **better**, and I would go so far as to say that under the Newton model, God has all the majesty that Christianity talks about Him having, but nonetheless fails to ascribe to Him when it comes to the matter of eternal damnation. I know you can tell me and others the reasons God supposedly does this condemnation, and you may even argue that it isn't Him who actually does it. But it doesn't change the fact that under the Christian model (your version, at least) eternal condemnation occurs, and that under the Newton model, it does not (while still preserving accountability and free will). And I for one simply can't, with an honest mind, hold on to a theology that portrays God as having inferior qualities which is what I frankly see in the Christian model. When you argue about Christianity being the Truth, to me it's much like a car salesman trying to convince me that a Chevy Sail is superior in performance to a Camaro. It's not the individual theological elements that I pay attention to so much. It's the end result. And the end result of the Newton model is, frankly, is superior in having patience that spans eternal (i.e. "Seventy times seven" times) and on several other points as well. (PS: looking it up, I see it's "seventy times seven" not "seven times seventy-seven").
I hold to a different model, one that I believe is what the Scriptures properly parsed for authority in their original languages actually say. I hesitate because I anticipate the anger of Christians who believe their various traditions. Each of the traditions has a basis in Scripture, but I think the interpretations err in that they do not respect the proper hierarchy of authorities, and they rely on mistranslated terms and traditions that have risen up around them. What the Scriptures actually SAY in the original languages is quite a bit different. I don't believe the Christian traditions - I believe they err in important ways. I do believe the literal read of the original languages with respect to the proper authorities. I will write it out if you're actually interested in hearing iit. If you really don't care, then I'd rather not go to the effort, both because it is not a short exposition, and because I'd rather not get shit on by angry co-religionists.
Get with the program dude; you are long-winded and really don't care about the objectives of the discussion, tyme after tyme.
Exhibit A. Buckeroo is not interested in it. If Pinquinite is, I will write it out. Otherwise, I'm fine to leave it be.
You just don't fuckin' care, dude. Do you post on Huffington Post, too?
What I have to say is intelligent and interesting. I do care enough, sometimes, to get permission before I launch. I’m figuring here that Pinguinite is interest d enough in the subject, and intrigued enough to authorize me to proceed, and then I will, and what will flow from my keyboard will be interesting and provocative. It usually is. I don’t write on Huffington Post. Used to write on FreeRepublic, until they banned me for criticizing H W Bush, whom of course they were themselves criticizing soon enough. I’m usually about two years ahead of the trend line, which means you can learn a lot from me once you get past my smug arrogance. I post nowhere but here and, rarely, on Christian Forums, so really I’m a Liberty’s Flame special feature. For those wishing to get the wisdom and wit of the 13th Vicomte of somewhere obscure in France, Liberty’s Flame is just about the exclusive source. Thanks for asking!
I can speak for myself, and I believe also for Liberator, in saying no anger or ridicule will be forthcoming from us. While I have referred to one of your recent perspectives as "hogwash" not long ago, that was my honest perception. And whatever I consider your view point to be, that's a very different thing from how I perceive you. I do wish you the very best, no matter our differences. I guess I would respond by saying that I'm less interested in ancient writings than I would be of something with more tangible evidence of truth. With Newton, we have claims of past life recall. Most of them can't be substantiated, but a very few are (though only one need be substantiated to upset the apple cart) Combine that with what I consider reasonable logic about our existence and everything just falls into place very well. But back to what original Hebrew meant.... would you have any more reason to hold that to be truth than you would original Egyptian hieroglyphs about Osiris, Set and their family of gods? Or the original writings of Budda, or perhaps teachings of the Greek gods as originally decyphered by oracles of the day? What makes the ancient writings of the Israeli's special and gives them the trademark of true divine origin? Unless you can give that, then I'll honestly say that your time writing it for me would indeed likely be wasted, just as any detailed description or substantiation of Newton's depiction of life would likely be of no interest to you. I will say that Buck is right about one thing. You are indeed longwinded. Many times as I scroll down through a comment, if it goes on and on, I know before reaching the bottom that it's yours, and I'm always right. You might consider putting some effort into condensing your views. Not for our sake but for yours. Unless you get some reward from being long winded, you may be better off spending some of that typing time doing something else. I offer that constructively.
The reason I know that there is God is multiple personal miracles and interactions with the divine, and the demonic. I recognize that this is as unverifiable by anybody else as are Near Death Experience claims. In order to bridge that gap of demonstrability, I present the physical miracles that have been examined in the lab and extensively reported on: the Shroud, the Lanciano miracle, the incorrupt bodies, and the Lourdes healings. Because it is the details of these various artifacts that renders them miraculous, the miracles cannot be seen without indulging in extensive detail. Because the miracles prove something that people don't want proven, the facile objections need to be addressed. All of that takes time. What the miracles demonstrate is that there is an intelligent power above nature. The fact that all of the physically examinable miracles - not the claims of miracles, but the ones that can actually be - and that have been - touched, examined under electron microscopes, etc. - are overtly Christian in content, and there are no similar examinable miracles that demonstrate the truth of any OTHER religion, allow one to eliminate the need to consider all of the religions. They claim miracles, but they have nothing examinable. Christianity claims miracles, and has objects that are miracles. Thus, the miracles themselves are evidence for Christianity, while the lack of miracles in the other religions reduce them in relative authority. The miracles are laden with informational content: they revolve around Jesus. So therefore, Jesus has to be examined. The only written contemporary sources that tell us about Jesus are the four Gospels, John's Revelation, and the first part of Acts. Therefore, that is where we have to concentrate our efforts. What Jesus said is recorded in Greek, not English. Jesus never spoke of Hell. He spoke of Gehenna, and of Sheol/Hades. The word "forever" is a mistranslation of a Hebrew concept, and a misuse of a Greek concept that parallels the Hebrew, not the English. Every aspect of this discussion collides with hundreds and even thousands of years of tradition, and each point has to be made with considerable precision. All of that takes time. I've put in the time because, going back to the start: I've talked to God and experienced major miracles, so I know that the effort is worthwhile. To express it in short, pithy form exceeds my ability as a writer. Especially given that each sentence of that short form will be vigorously attacked. To express it in the only form I know how is to be attacked. I'm going to leave it be. The game is not worth the candle.
Under the Newton model, miracles can happen independent of whether the person deemed to be the instigator is theologically accurate. There is a separation of spirituality and academic knowledge, such that it is not required that one have correct theological understanding of God to live a successful life in spiritual terms. This to me makes perfect sense as it makes one's intelligence a non-issue when it comes to "salvation", or, in the Newton equivalent, progression. If it were otherwise, it would potentially give supernatural favor to those who happen to be born with a higher intellectual ability over those with lessor intellectual ability, and that goes completely counter to basic "theo-logic". The equivalent human context: Would parents only love and welcome a child who scored A's in a particular subject, say science, over another child who was only able to average "D's"? Would those "loving" parents be disappointed but none-the-less condemn that child to a life of punishment because of his performance in a single subject? Would they have no interest in how that child does in other subjects, and carry through with this permanent punishment/lack of reward even if this failing child exceeded the capabilities of the first child in other areas? To me, the answer is clear, and it's to God's credit that our intellectual understanding of Him is of little, if any, importance, and this is consistent with the Newton model. Any religious belief system that broadcasts a message of "our belief system is the only way to enter God's presence" pretty much portrays God as being petty, in my view. If someone is able to perform miracles (and under the Newton model, they can occur) it is because of spiritual, not intellectual, strengths. And this goes hand in hand with the concept of the "soul" as being the bulk of our identity, not the physical human body or brain, which though defining part of what we are, does not change our spiritual form any more than, in physical context, changing out of a suit into cut-off jeans and torn undershirt changes who a person is. In that way, the human body is just a discardable shell, which again makes perfect sense, and renders the creation/evolution debate moot. Humans may well have descended from apes and ultimately worms, but even so, it nevertheless has zero impact on our value as children of God, because we are, in fact, not humans but "angels", as it were, that wear human shells for a season. The end result is, in the Newton model, that the ability to perform supernatural miracles is not proof of theological accuracy about God.
That's fine as an intellectual construct, but if it is to be brought into reality, actual miracles would have to be studied scientifically, to demonstrate that they are not merely coincidences. The deep study of physical objects requires forensic science that itself requires a great deal of education and intelligence. Certainly the miraculous object itself, and the perception of it by one who believes it is a miracle (or who sees the miraculous event as it happens), do not require any great intelligence or learning to comprehend, but for that object to be admitted by modern, scientifically-educated minds as really BEING miraculous does require a tremendous amount of effort - and even then, once the effort has been expended, the mind that does not want to accept the evidence can (and often does) simply dismiss it all out of hand. So you're right: miracle does not require genius to experience or to believe. But to PROVE a miracle, that an object contains miraculous properties, one must be thoroughly versed in the laws of physics and in forensic science, such that one can examine the object and report those specific aspects of it that cannot exist under the standard theories as we understand them, and that don't have any likely scientific alternative explanation. Only when that effort has been expended can the skeptic be answered with science - that the object has been studied by science, and it is simply inexplicable - it cannot be, under the known laws of the universe, but there it is anyway. Once one has assembled a set of such artifacts - they do exist, they have been studied - one can observe aspects of the set. The most salient fact that is obvious is that (almost) all of them are Christian in theological contenr. So, nature itself, which formed these stunning artifacts, did so with a strong religious prejudice, apparently. There aren't any Muslim miracles like that, or Jewish, or Confucian, or Hindu. Sure, there are claims of miracles, but they don't stand up under scientific scrutiny. The set of those that do are almost entirely Christian. The data of the miracles, taken as a set, favors the study of the Christian religion, because when nature goes haywire and produces a miracle, it does so conveying Christian data. Nature is biased towards Christianity, which means that if one wants to use the forensic of evidence of miracle as an aid to selecting what religion to study, one has to end up studying Christianity.
That's a model. You start with a model. I am starting with objects that actually ARE miracles that already exist, and confirming their miraculous nature through forensics. I am willing to examine any object or circumstance that claims to be a miracle - there are plenty of scientists who do study these things. Of the objects that have been examined and pronounced scientifically inexplicable, all but a handful are Christian (the remainder are Bhuddist). The objects themselves are fraught with Christian theological content. Therefore, starting with the physical and the forensics, nature shows the path to study first. I don't start with an idea. I start with a sheet, a lump of tissue, a body or two, and proceed upward from there. They are different starting points, yours and mine.
But it actually goes further than that, because it's a great message on forgiveness and the Bible is completely on point with this quote that is reputed to be the response of Jesus, and I would interpret that number to mean "without count". Would you not agree? And if we are called to forgive without count, is it reasonable to suggest that God has a more restrictive limit on forgiveness? I apologize for not finishing up my Part 3 of response -- which would have/will included that Bible quote.... You're right -- I didn't construe your quote as anywhere near "mocking" or insulting; My initial impression was in chuckling to myself. I thought it was clever and conveyed in great humor. Yup, IOW, I "got it". I'll be out of thought-sequence on Part 3, but may as well respond and expound on your thoughts about "forgiveness" as was taught by Jesus. "Seventy-times seven" -- there are a few different ways to interpret it; One obviously is the degree and extent to which we should forgive our brothers (just as long as they are truly repentant). Another is the numerology facet, which the Bible and Jesus often cited. The number 7 is the number of perfection and completeness. It is said (and discovered) as yet one more divine non-coincidence that life operates in cycles of seven (the perfect number chosen by God.) (For example, in the book of Revelation there are seven churches, seven angels to the seven churches, seven seals, seven trumpet plagues, seven thunders and the seven last plagues. The first resurrection of the dead takes place at the 7th trumpet, completing salvation for the Church. And of course, Micky Mantle wore #7 ;-) But back on track -- IF as you say we, mankind, are to forgive as applied law (again, just as long as the offense and sin is NOT habitual and repentance is sincere), then it is what it is. That said, should the rules, laws, and conditions for Mankind within the realm of our mortal, finite plane be applied to Almighty God in His Realm? I think that is the crucial distinction to consider here. We are not The Final Judge and Arbiter of Sin and Justice; God set up the rules and laws -- and He was clear about the Finality of His Judgment. His "restrictive limit on forgiveness" is ultimately hinging on our own heart-felt repentance as well as whether we've accepted His Son, Jesus, in the very last act of "Forgiveness" by the only One who matters -- God. Yes, man may be able to forgive one another for 70 Times 7...until Judgment Day, when the John 3:16 "Clause" kicks in. This is what I mean when I say that under the Michael Newton model, God is MORE forgiving and MORE loving and MORE patient than under the Christian model. Everything works **better**, and I would go so far as to say that under the Newton model, God has all the majesty that Christianity talks about Him having, but nonetheless fails to ascribe to Him when it comes to the matter of eternal damnation. Yes, "limits" do mean "definitive". As do "Laws" in the strictest sense. It is true -- the Newton model of "forgiveness" is far more liberal. But in its model, God lets *everything* slide, doesn't He? It could be construed as a lack of discipline where the evil "students" get a Mulligan forever while the "holy" students are arguably bumped up into "Counselor" positions as a reward. Maybe it's just me -- it doesn't feel like "love"; it feels like an absentee parenting. Yes, I can see how you might construe the Newton model God as more "patient" (eternally patient is it turns out). But might not that kind of God actually be considered "indifferent"? From my perspective, sorta like a substitute teacher or foster parent who is technically "there" and in charge, but is merely going through the motions until the "Lesson" may or may not be learned, *only* "Quizes" are given on life (NOT do or die "Tests"), and students/children "graduate" or become "adult" only if they feel motivated. Moreover, in the Newton model, "Graduation Day" (If it comes) -- what resolution or realm again are its "students" graduating TO? What is the "Finish Line"? The Christan God's "love" can be seen in nature in the sun, the water, the food, in nature. It's the tip of the iceberg of His Kingdom. That's not to say that man won't experience deep hardship and heartbreak in this life. For those who take the Narrow Path (yes, God doesn't sugar-coat it -- far more will not make it, but let's remember that that path is a matter of OUR own Free Will.) The Christian God's love and promises are not only far more tangible than the Newton model, but reach deep into the heart and soul of those seeking Him. He speaks to those who speak to Him. The Christian God has clearly laid out the ground rules and Law, the Way, Truth and Life (without ambiguity), through nothing but simple Grace/Charity/Love paid the ransom for our eternal lives -- AND tells us that the reward for our faith and loyalty is...His Kingdom Forever. Ping, I'm sorry -- I just don't see any of that "Everything works better". I realize you'll discount that as a blind eye or ignorance, but the Newton model seems like a Karmic system that dispenses no actual Justice, has no "Helm", no "Captain", and no real Destination. The Newtonian Resolution seems to be more like a lukewarm purgatory, treading and bobbing in water forever, putting off the inevitable: Death. And Judgment. Yes, along with possible Damnation. But also...Possible Eternal Life with God in His Perfect Kingdom. (This account is described and confirmed by several sources in Scripture. Is there a "confirmed" source of Newtonian Afterlife?) Obviously, the avoidance of negative, fatal resolutions for eternity are what make Newton's model preferable. (That notion/belief still doesn't mean it's Model confirms what actually happens THE Second after we die.) I see "Free Will" in the Newtonian Model, but not remotely any Accountability. Nor Justice. To me, any system that dispenses an earned and holy "Justice" is Godly and righteous. Conversely, why wouldn't Justice that NOT dispensed be considered unfair, a mockery of Eternal Justice? (Moreover, to clarify -- IF true "Justice" were to be meted out by God on Judgment Day, ALL mankind would be declared guilty and condemned. Why? Because we have ALL broken His Law and sinned. (This is the crux of "Grace" and Salvation" and Christ's Love -- that we become declared innocent AND perfect in the Blood of Christ.) Lol...a Chevy "Sail"? Never hoid of it. lets us a "Chevette" as an example :-) The problems with the Newton model remain (without repeating myself) is the lack of evidence, questionable testimony, lack of authority, and its namesake "Prophet" who was an Atheist by his own account. And...where is the "love"?? God proves His identity by His Creation and Love and Justice by the testimony of eyewitness accounts, by miracles, by His laws and existence of His Kingdom through the Prophets, and both His Kingdom and Hell by Scriptural testimony. A You've obviously invested quite a bit of soul-searching into eternal justice and our destiny beyond this mortal coil -- and that's a good thing because it is ultimately all that matters. Why discount the Christan account in the first place? Can it be distilled down to your perception of "cruelty" and God's condemnation of sin and His banning of it from His Kingdom? Or was it your total objection that the "Word" is tainted by "man" to begin with? You DO understand that Newton was man...as were his subjects of whom provide the entire basis of the Newton Model? (Why should the latter's testimony be credible without question and wield THE truth, but the word of Jesus, the Apostles or the Prophets be invalidated?) I can't debate "Truth" of the matter if you've already determined Christianity to be based on lies and testimony you deem invalid or discredited.
If letting things "slide" is your impression, it's an incorrect one and shows your mindset is anchored to the idea that only two states are possible, forgiven and unforgiven, and that is all God cares about. Indeed, that's clear from your other writings and certainly is the Christian doctrine. But under the Newton model, it's really about growth, and if God simply lets things "slide", then there's no growth. As I have emphasized a few times there **IS** accountability in the Newton model. In a word, no. Because it's about growth. You are fixated on the thought that forgiveness must be a tenant of any spirit model. It seems you cannot see beyond that / more than that. In essense, you see fault in the Newton model because of the incompatibilities it has with the fundamental doctrine you are anchored to. You say the rules are clear, and yet you did say in another post that the Bible is too deep for anyone to understand. Contradiction? As for the "reward" for faith and loyalty. Is that the reason Christians follow Jesus? So they can get a "reward" from God for being "loyal"? Isn't that a bit.... wrong somehow, in the sense that it's almost a monetary payback? Admittedly, under the Newton model we are rewarded, but with growth. I guess it's a case of our rewarding ourselves for our perseverance and lifelong choices, rather than God rewarding us. As we do well, we grow well. As for what the "finish line" is, as far as I can tell, it is, ultimately, rejoining God, which is pretty much the same as what Christianity says so there's no conflict there. But isn't it unfair of you to cite the mysteriousness of the full path of the Newton model when you yourself stated that the Bible is beyond complete understanding? Why is it then so bad that the Newton model is beyond complete understanding? Under Christianity, you die and bamm... your there with God. All done for the rest of eternity, no more learning is required. Under Newton, not so fast... it's a far, far, far, longer road. Does it sound so absurd that God might want us to actually grow? You are fixated on the belief that ultimate "judgement" must occur. As long as your mind has sworn loyalty to that belief, then yes you will certainly not ever see sense in the Newton model. That is indeed your perception. Again, it's about growth, not justice. Though justice can help facilitate growth. Under Newton, justice is a means of growth. Under Christianity, not so much. In fact, perhaps not at all. Justice is instead, once served, the end of the line, one way or the other. Oh, okay. We have them down here and they are a popular model slightly higher than an basic Aveo go-kart, which is a glamorized Spark which almost *IS* a go-kart. If you know those models. Are they still making Chevettes in the US? Wow. I could say a lot. But I guess I already have. As for Newton's Atheist past, my first thought is of St. Paul who was certainly worse than an atheist, so I'll return to you that parallel. As for the love in the Newton model.... it sure seems to me Newton wins that contest hands down. I take issue with the claim of witnesses. Unless they've been (quite ironically) reincarnated, the witnesses you refer to are dead, and so cannot be cross examined and so on. What you have are ancient written claims of accounts. By contrast, Newton has witnesses in the form of currently living people who have had past life recall. You may very well have contemporary accounts of miracles accredited to Christian faith. However, those can in fact potentially be explained under the Newton model. By contrast, the Christian explanation for evidence of Newton's model seems to rest on demons weaving a long lasting web of lies. Ultimately, I can't rule that out. But on the other hand, I suggest it's not possible to rule it out for any belief. Is it possible to rule out Christianity as having a similar deceptive source? Indeed I have. Thank you. You have also. A very good and fair question. One reason to discount Christianity is the same argument atheists put forth. A lack of fairness. The idea that an 8 year old child that dies going on to spend eternity in hell because he never heard a Christian gospel is, on it's face, a difficult concept to stomach. Some people live to old age, others die quite young. Some grow up in Christian homes, others never having a chance to consider it as a means to salvation. Yes, there is the standard response to atheists who raise this objection, but in the end, Liberator, that paperwork, bureaucratic divine legalese explanation does not save the 8 year old from eternal damnation. So I ask you, is that the best God can do? Under Christian rules, the answer is "yes". That is the best our all-powerful, all-loving, all-wise God can do. Well, under Newton, we have a different answer, and that answer is "no". God can do far better. Far, far, better. And I believe He does do better. This question is unfair. Never have I considered Newton to be on target "without question". I've been fielding all questions about Newton I can possibly find, from yourself and others. Indeed, we are, unsurprisingly, both firmly set in our views. But being challenged is always a good thing nonetheless.
Both your replies seem to show miracles as a basis of belief in an associated theology. As I stated but perhaps not strongly enough, under the Newton model I recognize, supernatural miracles can occur even if a person they are credited to harbors inaccurate theology. In fact, even under the Christian model, would one suppose than every Christian that a miracle is credited to has a perfect understanding of God? I don't think any Christian scholar would suggest that perfect theological understanding is a requirement to be able to successfully invoke the power of God. So the next question is, to what degree could someone be inaccurate in his understanding of God and still invoke this kind of supernatural favor? I guess I see that as the Achilles heel in your argument. Miracles are not certain proof of theological accuracy. And as I've stated a few times, under the Newton model, supernatural events (miracles) can occur within and without Christian context. I believe every one of us has at least a very tiny ability to supernaturally affect the world around us. It's why prayer can work. In Newton terms, Christianity is a good faith because it espouses pretty much all the same values of love, patience, compassion and so on that the Newton model does. And Newton agrees with Christianity that those are the important things in life, not miracles.
But Pinguinite, I have never spoken of theological accuracy. What I am saying is that the miracles prove the existence of God. I then observe the nature of the actual miracles that exist in the real world in tangible enough format that they can be scientifically studied. These things DO exist, and they are studied. I contrast this with CLAIMS of miracle, which may be true or not true, but which cannot convince me unless I experience them myself. To make a persuasive argument to me, you have to show me a thing I can study, not an idea that could be a lie. These things do exist, and they have been studied. I note that the miracles that actually exist are almost entirely Christian in content. The Shroud of Turin is Jesus' burial cloth, the Lanciano Eucharistic miracle is a piece of human heart tissue and blood...same blood as on the Shroud. Incorrupt bodies of saints exist, undecayed after all these years. And of course the Lourdes miracles happen in the here and now, under the eyes of modern medicine. These miracles demonstrate God's power, and demonstrate that God is at least willing to perform miracles within the Christian religion (and more specifically, the Catholic religion). That means that however objectionable to other humans that particular religion may be, evidently God is not so offended as to deny it miracles. That's one prong of observation. The other is the fact that there are NOT any similar concrete physical examinable miracles in any OTHER religion except for a few Bhuddist incorrupt monks. You're right that the presence of miracle in and of itself does not prove divine favor for a particular religion, and the absence of miracle, by itself, does not prove divine disfavor for a particular religion. But the juxtaposition of the fact that there ARE concrete examinable physical miracles in one religion only, and none in any of the others, actually DOES demonstrate a degree of divine favor for that one religion on which God has bestowed the miracles over the rest to which he has given none. Put more strongly, the existence of forensically examinable miracles proves God. The monopoly of forensically examinable miracles in one single religion proves that God prefers that religion, or at least prefers to give that religion tangible proof of his existence, while leaving the rest without it. There is no Achilles' Heel in that argument. It's really quite stark and strong. The inference is clear and cannot really be argued with. The only way to attack the argument effectively is to deny that the tangible forensically examinable miracles exist.
Yes. We are required to forgive always and endlessly but God is not. When an offense happens, we get hit or cheated etc, the offense is against God not us. So we forgive, and God deals with it as he sees fit. We are to hold others in a constant state of forgiveness without keeping score, not summing up the amount of debt each time and forgiving repeatedly.
Do you sense your own post as conceited and self-eccentric to create the rule and definitions that are about yourself as opposed to the world around us? I do.
Not true. You discounted Beelzebub in your prayer for salvation.
Nah. I see what I wrote as needling you.
You are the devil, himself .... 'eh?
He's not as good lookin'.
You are normally long winded within and about BS. Now ... you are concerned about your "selfie" ... never shown on our channel. You are fuckin' weird, dude.
I wouldn't suggest that God is "required" to forgive or not forgive, though my question perhaps may have left me open for that interpretation. I get your point about how God, as creator, has a **right** to hold himself to a lessor standard. But I wouldn't suggest he actually does that. That implies that we are nothing, that we have no value. While the humility of such a perception may be edifying in some way, I don't think it's true. Under the Newton model, it's not true. The offense is indeed against us, I say. Certainly this is a virtuous position for one to take. Though it's not to say that we should leave ourselves open to injury repeatedly and predictably.
I don't see it that way. It's how our legal system works too, at least for criminal law. If someone assaults you, you are to take no revenge or seek to equalize things. Instead the person is tried for what they did, assaulting someone, and you get no recompense. Certainly not
Even if they do not repend or ask for forgive.
Proof you ignore gods word and substitute your lizard delusions for scripture.
Me too. Your claims are delusional and silly. I'm thinking you bumbped your head and haulcenated.
I don't ignore God's word. I deny that the Bible is "God's Word" in the sense that you believe it is. You've made an idol out of it.
They have the virtue of being true.
It seems to me you have, when you stated: I would disagree. If the year were 1600, and someone walked up to you with a beach ball saying it was God, and then turned on a flashlight to show a miracle, would that prove the beach ball was God? The science of the day would not be able to explain a flashlight, so by your standard, it would constitute a miracle. Science is, today, still an expanding field and just because an apparent miracle can't be explained by today's science, it may be explained tomorrow. My own personal theory on God (a theory not to be accredited to Newton) is that the spirit world exists as a dimension outside and independent of earth's universe. Souls' as immortal entities, may well violate the laws of conservation of energy. But if we, as souls, are from a dimension outside of our big-bang/ earth's dimension, then souls would not be said to violate the laws of conservation of energy. Rather, we'd likely say that the law doesn't apply to souls because the law only applies to this earthly dimension and the material resulting from the big bang, which would not include extra-dimenional souls or whatever extra-dimensional "material" souls are made of. (And as an aside, this provides for me a much a much better explanation as to how/why people "have souls", as it has nothing to do with human DNA or human conception or birth, which Christianity, Judaism and Islam all implicitly assume. The idea that the biochemical event of conception can cause an immortal soul --provided the DNA is human and not something extremely similar such as chimpanzee-- to spring into existence is, at least on it's face, counter intuitive). The upshot of this would be, I suggest, that the spirit world (God) may not be beyond the ability for science to eventually discover and quantify in some ways. This would mean that what you would quantify as a miracle today may not be such a miracle tomorrow. The line between science and spirituality may not be be so wide in the future. And I personally do not see any particular "religion" having any monopoly on access to God. Again, my personal view, not to be ascribed to Newton.
I would hardly find it reasonable to assume God is modeled off our current day criminal justice system. But even in our system, a person who committed an assault can be both prosecuted criminally for the crime as well as sued civilly for damages by the victim. If I infer correctly that you would not sue such a person based on your beliefs, which again have virtue, then that's fine. But I would still say an offense to you occurred. But I do see the virtue in your point.
Ok. Obviously, we see these things a bit differently. Thanks for the conversation. Take care.
Stone, it is better **for you** if you can forgive even absent any apology. That doesn't mean you leave yourself open to harm again from such a person, but it does mean you don't harbor any ill-will. If not forgiving someone means you constantly harbor anger then that simply hurts you. Especially if you maintain a formal database that gives you reason to be angry at 3/4's of the people you deal with on a daily basis. It's not the way to live.
We all see things differently, of course. Best to you.
Some things you can and should let go. I will use an extreme example, what if someone will less your child should you forgive them if they're not sorry about it or even if they are?
Some realtor lady ripped me off in the nineties. I'm still mad about it. I see her signs occasionally. I wonder if she ever wonders what happened to some of those signs.
Yes. When Jesus said forgive 70x7 I don't think the offenders repentance was part of it. And how is Jesus towards you? He holds you in a state of forgiveness without a constant cycle of accounting and forgiving. It's the New Testament way, a state of grace - unmerited favor. Go thou and do likewise.
My point there about the courts is that they are the offended party when a crime is committed, you aren't involved in the prosecution, judging and execution. I suspect, but don't know, that this is modelled on Judeo-Christian ways. I don't know if I'd sue. There is something in the New Testament about this. BTW, I'm not claiming great virtue here, just saying how I think it is.
When it comes to dealing with those who have harmed you, the Newton model offers a perspective that makes it easier to do so. When people intentionally harm others, they will eventually understand that harm they've done and be truly regretful. Newton has found it to be common that when one person harms another in one life, that person who committed the harm will eventually choose a life in which they suffer the same harm they inflicted. For example, one who murders will eventually choose, on the soul level, a life in which they are destined to be murdered. And as souls, they will voluntarily do so. And while in human form they would have no conscious memory of that choice or destiny, it is nonetheless something the soul is aware of. And again, it is something souls will freely choose to do, because it is the way to become more enlightened and to grow. It is NOT for the purposes of justice or punishment, but for understanding and growth. Souls can refuse to do so, but the consequence is no growth. Under the Christian model, an evildoer goes to hell to burn for all eternity, and it doesn't matter if they sinned only a little bit or committed terrible atrocities their whole life. Their punishment is the same. So the temptation to want to exact justice by harming someone who harmed you is arguably much greater. So all considered, under the Newton model, it's easier to deal with people who harm you.
Under one Christian model, a traditional one, yes. But that is not what the Scriptural texts actually SAY, in koine Greek. They say something quite different.
The Catholic Church practices idoltry. You know it is true. Saying gods word is a idol is a lie from hell. Your future home if you don't repent.
Just like oj and Obama right. Hillary too huh. That disproved your Newton's law.
That whole paragraph is silli and untrue. Every day reality should show you that what you wrote is so far from what we all witness every single day here on Earth. There are evil people and they don't give a shit about right or wrong and never will. You're a bit gullible if you actually believe what you wrote.
Your comment is in error. And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, 39And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: 40Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. Newton's is a silly model that doesn't work. Christ told the truth as recorded in the Bible. You also left out the fact that anyone can choose to be saved. Or they can choose hell by rejecting Christ.
Perhaps under Christian model, (your version, at least) there is no hope for them, but under the Newton model, yes. That is correct. Except for those who went through their entire life without ever hearing the Gospel. Correct or no? I can understand your own lack of patience with people. But when you say those people are already lost causes destined for hell, what you are doing is ascribing your own level of intolerance to God. But God is better than you. Better than me too.
Okay, I'll bite. What does the original Greek actually say on the matter?
Saying gods word is a idol is a lie from hell. Your future home if you don't repent. Hell does not exist. There is Paradise/Gan Eden and Gehenna, and then there will be the City of God and the Lake of Fire and the Outer Darkness. That is what is actually IN the Scriptures. Hell does not exist outside of Christian imaginations. The Catholic Church does not practice idolatry. You believe it does because the poorly educated leaders of your religion have taught you that it does. They have also taught you that the Bible speaks of Hell. Neither of those things are true. Jesus is God's Word made flesh. Your religion says that the book is God's word. Your religion has elevated a book to the level of Jesus. That is idolatry. It's a book. Some of God's words are in the book, but the book is not The Word of God. To say that it is, which is what you have been taught by your ignorant preachers, is idolatry. God will forgive your idolatry because you don't know any better and don't mean harm by it.
Necessarily long-winded response will be forthcoming to you tonight.
Actually, no. I'll start now. I'll start here, with these expressions: "To the horizon"; "to the indistinct"; "to the horizon past the horizon", "to a distant time", "to the unknown", "until we don't know", "to the haze where the sky meets the sea", "beyond the horizon". Do you agree that all of those things say approximately the same thing? Can you put in your own words what they say, what that concept is? Please take a moment and do so. Now let me ask you: do any of those things mean "forever"? No, they don't. "Until we don't know" is not the same thing as "forever", is it? Those expressions are all accurate, even directly literal, translations of the words, in Greek and Hebrew that are used to express an idea. If you translate that concept into English using the word "forever" for "to the horizon", and "forever and ever" for "to the horizon past the horizon", you have done irreparable damage to what the text actually says. You are taking a thing that is an unknown "until-we-don't-know-when" and turned it into an absolute "we know for certain that there is no end". That second concept does not appear even one time anywhere in the Greek or Hebrew scriptures. Only the first concept does. That is the first and most important point. It is also the place where the Christian traditionalists will pull out their Strongs and their Concordances and start pounding the table and screaming that words that do not mean "forever and ever" actually DO mean that, because "it is written" in study aids, written by people who believe that "ha olam" must MEAN forever, as opposed to what it actually means "to the indistinct"/"to the horizon". Granted, that's Hebrew, not Greek. The Greek word used to translate the Hebrew is different, but it must carry the Hebrew meaning if it is used to translate Hebrew. We have translated "to the indistinct" as "forever", which means that "forever", in the Bible in English, never means literally "without end", it means "until we don't know when" - which, I think you will agree, is a TOTALLY different idea. And THAT is the first, and worst problem with the Christian theology of Heaven and Hell forever and ever. Forever and ever never appears in the actual Scripture, not even one time. If you erase the English and read the literal, exact word in Hebrew (later translated into Greek) "To the indistinct" is all that is ever there. And THAT changes everything, doesn't it?
If you're like me, you probably have to allow certain thoughts to ruminate and marinate for a while... I can't speak for anyone else on this matter... Perspective: As children, did we behave out of "fear"? Perhaps partially. Do we behave and follow civil law out of "fear"? You have eliminated "Love" and "Respect" out of this equation. The Creator of all things, our God, is a personal God. You've also removed this facet out of the equation as well. "Fear". DO I fear Hell? Yes. Do I want to live in Heaven forever? Yes. Do I want to see God face-to-face and have Him tell me, "Well done my son."? ABSOLUTELY. That my friend IS the "Final Resolution" AND validation from our Ultimate Parent. God did not create our universe, our earth, our lives with malice, hate, and evil; Look at the best of it. He gave us sustenance, companionship, a wondrous world and mind with which to marvel at it. (AND also the Free Will to figure out the Truth.) Yes, what He did do is create a challenge for us, lives in which we would necessarily be "tested" for degree of obedience in accordance to our own Free Will. It may or may not seem "fair", but God's Purpose can't be questioned. This theme is repeated often in Scripture. Job didn't think it was very fair at its extreme in a cautionary tale. Until he did. The Newton Model lacks any personal love, respect, and pleasing of our Father. In its post-mortal "purgatory" lies a sterile, impersonal vacuum of inconsequence for either Obedience OR Disobedience; Of neither Accountability; Reward nor Justice nor Judgement NOR "Resolution" or Validation upon "life-after-life". Instead, the "graduate" of his mortal coil is greeted by non-judgmental Counselors or "coaches" who review the recently depart's life and more or less reassure him/her that "everybody makes mistakes"; That in the next life those mistakes *can* be amended now that he/she has learned exactly what they did wrong. (Yet unanswered: By what or whose standard is "wrong" or "right" amended and validated?) I ask -- at its zenith, on the "Last Play of the Game" -- IS there a "perfect, sinless life"?? And in that case of achieving "perfection", what does the Newton Model say about crossing that "Finish Line"? (IS there one?) All things must have a "Beginning" and End", an Alpha and Omega. The Newton Model also conspicuously lacks any, "In The Beginning" and thus far, there is no "End" (unless I've overlooked something). I think He would better respect an honest disbeliever than a fake believer. You've read Scripture. I think not. You are probably perceiving God's reaction as a friendly mortal foe. The truth is that neither have the respect of The Almighty; He may still love them, but He does not "respect" nor encourage the disobedient or the rebellious. The stakes are high.
When people intentionally harm others, they will eventually understand that harm they've done and be truly regretful. Don't many already eventually understand the guilt of harming of others and repentance in this life? But can the Newton Model explain whose law was broken to begin with, and understanding *why* such guilt or remorse would be "pre-loaded" into our conscience to begin with? I'm sorry -- this makes no sense a any level. It is akin to believing that one MUST commit suicide in the *next life* as a virtual "Penance". I reckon this is "Justice" in the Newton Model. Do you realize what a horror that *should* be? IF this atonement/penance goes on indefinitely, there no *last* innocent man if a past-life murderer require a next-life murderer. EDIT: With respect to "Growth", we are to grow is spirit and in Godly wisdom and understanding IN THIS ONE LIFE. This is it. One shot deal. You keep on referring to "Growth". INTO WHAT? TO WHOM DOES THIS PROCESS PLEASE? TO WHAT END? In the Christian Model, Jesus Christ has already paid the price for "Atonement" or "Penance". Of ALL sins. Moreover, WE may well be repentant in *this* life, but cannot make any atonement or "pay" for the log-jam of sins committed in life ourselves (I will address those who have not known Christ as well as children subsequently). The Newton Model conspicuously eliminates the need for any God or Savior. If Man is his own Savior, Redeemer...no god is needed. Heaven and Hell are also eliminated. IS this resolution reasonable of an Almighty Creator? Why would God create man, his spirit, his soul -- only to abandon man when it came to resolution, to reason, to...keeping open the lines of personal communication to the Wisdom and Knowledge of Purpose IF we listen to Him? Yes, that's right; one sin or ten-thousand sins STILL taints the Pure White of Heaven. There is no shade of gray area that is acceptable to God. ONLY through Christ are we pure. One who sins big, aka "atrocities" -- IF truly repentant in his heart in the name of Christ -- IS forgiven (The thief on the cross for example). Jesus has picked up that tab. I ask -- what greater offer of love is there than that? Those who "exact justice" instead of repenting or feeling remorse lack the spirit of the Lord and love in their heart. Something else has filled the void (evil, man's nature.) As to "Punishment" -- God has said in Revelation: "JUDGED ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY HAD DONE." This could be construed to confer level or degree of Condemnation/Damnation. Nonetheless, God's Life, God's Rules. It is our Free Will whether we are obedient or rebel; whether we embrace His wisdom and knowledge or create our own. It is by our own Free Will and sin that we are condemned as well. *We can NOT save ourselves.* Maybe psychologically, temporarily. Short term. The Newton Model provides assurance that everything will turn out ok. But does it? And for the Big Picture, will it? How sure, how convinced will you be in your deathbed of the Newton Model? Will you have *any* doubt that the very next face you see the second after you pass will be unnamed, unknown entities, Newtonian "Counselors"? OR, before the Throne of God? (just asking) Can you be sure that those "Counselors" are merely cackling demons who've mislead you? May you keep on searching for the truth, brutha.
Go thou and do likewise. Amen...
So, given that "eternity" in Scripture means "to the indistinct" or "to a distant unknown time" as opposed to "forever and ever", we realize that there is "forever and ever" Hell in the Scriptures. That's the first thing. The second is that there is no Hell at all in the Scriptures. Oh yes, sure, the word appears in the English translations, where it is used to translate various different concepts and words. That smearing together of words and concepts is a Christian tradition. It is not what the text actually says. What the text actually says, Old Testament first, is that the spirits of the dead go into Sheol, the underworld of the dead. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew, Sheol is rendered as Hades, and Hades is also the generic word used in the New Testament Greek. This was translated, in English, with the Scandinavian word "Hell", but Hell has a context of disgrace and punishment in its original Scandinavian form. Hades/Sheol do not. Jesus then tells us the rest. In his parable of the rich man and Lazarus, he describes the underworld as divided into two parts: a hot, parched place where the rich man suffers, and a nice place where Abraham dwells (in the parable) with his offspring. A black chasm separates the two. Elsewhere, in several places, Jesus speaks of "fiery Gehenna", of worms and fire. The fires of Gehenna are said to burn on and on, but that does not mean that the person who goes into Gehenna burns there "forever". Remember, there is no "forever". What Jesus actually says, in the parable of the unforgiving servant, is that those who forgive are forgiven by God, but those who don't are imprisoned by God in torment "until the last denarius is paid". Some say that the debt can never be repaid, but those who say that are ignoring what God says elsewhere about debt. Recall that in his Israel, debt was relaxed after six years, and even slavery was released after 49 years. God's model for the remission of debt of sin, then, is forgiven and be forgiven, but if not perfectly forgiven, pay the debt of sin in the prison of Gehenna. God forgives sin, but he does so proportionally to the forgiveness of other men by the sinning man. This is very much not the traditional Christian doctrine, but it is what Jesus actually SAYS in the text. So, we know what Gehenna is, and we know that the rich man was there, and we know that Jesus spoke of the prison of torment as payment for the unforgiven sins. We also know that God set a limit on debt, and that God's laws for Israel were representative of God himself. When Jesus died, he promised the supportive criminal dying alongside him that today he would be with him in Paradise. This is the Greek rendering of Gan Eden. So, the dead do not go the Heaven at all, and there is no Hell either. The dead descend into Sheol, which is Hades, the underworld, and those whose sins are forgiven proceed into Gan Eden/Paradise. Abraham is there. Those with unforgiven sins, a debt to pay, proceed to Gehenna, a fiery parched place, where they remain "until the last penny is paid" - and perhaps there is a remission after a certain period at which point God considers the debt paid - this is modeled by his law of Jubilee. Jewish tradition is that Gehenna is a maximum of one year. The Scripture doesn't say that, but at least the Jewish tradition recognizes that one is in Gehenna and then Gan Eden/Paradise, as Jesus said, as opposed to in Heaven (which is the sky) or in Hell - which is not in the Bible at all. There is nothing eternal - meaning "forever" - about either Paradise or Gehenna. Rather, at the end of the world, they are emptied as the dead are resurrected and face final judgment. The City of God comes down OUT of the Sky, and those who pass final judgment walk through the gates into the City of God to live with God "for the eon" or "for eons of eons" - again, an open-ended term that means "for the age" or "for ages of ages" - a long time - but not unbounded "forever". There is no "forever" in the Bible - only long periods of unknown length, which is DIFFERENT. Those who FAIL judgment are thrown into the Lake of Fire for the "Second Death". The Scripture does not say that they burn there alive forever. Jesus said that the "dead" whose spirits have gone into Sheol are actually alive, but here, he speaks of death with finality. It is clear that there is no coming back out of the Lake of Fire. It is not at all revealed that the "dead" there are "alive" somehow and burning. There is no Gehenna to go back to. The text does not definitively say those spirits are utterly destroyed and permanently cease to exist, but the inference for that is strong given Jesus' use of the word "death", and he rejection of the use of "death" to mean mere physical death - the merely physically dead are alive - their spirits are alive - they are "sleeping", not dead. But the word "dead" is final with the lake of Fire. It is Christian tradition that imagines that those thrown into the lake of fire are not really dead either, but alive as bodies and spirits screaming in the fire for all eternity. That is nowhere in the text. It is made up. Utter destruction can be inferred by the word "death" - perpetual torture in fire cannot be inferred at all. It is imported with the Scandinavian word "Hell", which never appears in the Scripture either. Finally, the text does not say that all sinners with any sin are thrown into the Lake of Fire. Actually, what Jesus says is that at final judgment, those with certain sins only (and presumably those who have not paid the debt in Gehenna), are thrown into the Lake of Fire or left in outer darkness. The list is repeated twice, with some variation, on the last two pages of Scripture. Killers, liars and the sexually immoral are on both lists. Cowards are on one list. "Dogs" are on another. Thieves are on neither list. That is what is actually IN the Bible. No Hell at all, nobody going TO Heaven - for now, down into Hades, then afterwards, back up, and into the City of God, which comes down to earth. Nobody goes to Heaven. Heaven comes down at the end. Forgiveness of sin by God is obtained by men forgiving other men their sins. Imperfect forgiveness leaves a debt which is paid in Gehenna, where one remains UNTIL the sin is paid. It can be inferred that God has a limit on endurance of debt, because he heavily imposes such limits in his Law for the Hebrews, but if not there is still the resurrection at the end of the world, and final judgment. After final judgment, those who pass are alive "for eons" (not forever and ever - nothing in the Bible is forever and ever), while those who fail are thrown into the Lake of Fire for the Second Death, which can be inferred to be total destruction, but cannot be inferred to be a perpetual screaming living torment, for there is no "perpetual" anything in the Bible. Obviously the Bible is in rather violent contradiction with Christian tradition pretty much across the board. The parts of the Bible that reveal these things are said by Jesus himself, so are the most authoritative words of all, and are the correct understanding. No Heaven for men. No Hell at all. No perpetual or eternal anything. Temporary Gehenna for the payment of unforgiven sins, and temporary Paradise for those forgiven or without sin. Then final judgment and living for eons with God in his City, if passed, or thrown body and spirit into the Lake of Fire for the second death, which can be inferred is utter annihilation. Without the inference, we can say "We don't know", but eternal agony cannot be inferred from the text. There is SOME oblique evidence for utter destruction, but no evidence at all for agony forever, because death is not agony, and because there is no "forever" in the Bible. Yes, this is what the Bible has always said. Yes, it is clear, if one reads the words of the Hebrew and Greek carefully. Yes, this means that billions of Christians are wrong about this, and their traditions are in error. No, nobody is going to accept that. They will, instead, state that Hell is there, and that "to the indistinct" means "forever and ever". They will be wrong, but they will rely on consensus gentium and the weight of historical tradition to remain sure in their wrongness. That's what the Greek says.
Briefly, two points: First: Let's say it doesn't say 'forever'. That doesn't mean it's NOT forever, as you claim. It just means we don't fully know. Second: New Testament thought says that man has no ability, or capacity, to repay or make good for sin. That's why Jesus went to the cross, to pay that for us - that which we could not pay. So, to say that a certain amount of time or effort or anything by man will pay the debt of any sin is not right. The new testament remedy for sin is the cross, and that's all. So your thoughts need more thought. But there is much worth considering in what you say. It will take some years to properly consider it all.
Does this mean forever? Most think so but it really kind of means 'for so long you don't need to think of an amount, just keep doing it.' But that's forever, isn't it? Things get strange when God talks to us about time. He doesn't dwell in a place with time and there aren't great ways to explain that to creatures who do dwell in time - which he created for us.
We absolutely can question what God's purpose is. I think you mean it cannot be challenged, which is fine. But under the Christian model, what is God's purpose? To glorify himself? What is the point of our own existence? Newton provides a better answer than Christianity does, in my view. I feel I've rebutted this perspective of yours many times. It seems we are failing to communicate, which is probably an unavoidable situation, given our differences. I do agree that under the Newton model, this answer is much more complex than under the Christian model. But we as souls are more complex also. There is no religious model that offers any beginning that I know of. The question of "Where did God come from?" has no answer, including in the Newton model. But we as souls do have a beginning under the Newton model, which makes more sense than the biochemical answer Christianity (and Judaism & Islam) offers. But proper understanding of an end is hardly a necessity in validating any faith, in my view.
We don't always understand such morality fully. Experience is the best teacher, and that is what earthly life gives us. Experience. It helps us grow. It's why earth exists. It why the universe exists. It's the reason for the big bang. The universe is a playground or gymnasium of sorts, created for us to grow. Under Newton, The universe has a pragmatic purpose. Under Christianity, not so much. Such issues are not a concern for us. There are few, if any, accidents in life. In spite of our free will, the significant people we encounter are nearly always by pre-arrangement. It is known in advance if a point in time were to come when murder would cease, and if so, an indebted soul would have alternate arrangements. Every life, every soul is unique, and infinitely so. And is a single life long enough to make any meaningful progress in quashing vices and embellishing virtues & wisdom? Uncle Joe spent his whole life grumpy and died a grumpy, angry old man. He knew what he was and tried to change, but it was hard. Under the Newton model, Uncle Joe has much more time to change. Lots more time, as much as he needs. Under Christianity, yes, like you said, it's a one shot deal. "Into what"? It's not a mutation or transformation. It's growth, into stronger, wiser and more powerful souls. To what end? That's not completely clear but it seems we would eventually rejoin God. I don't know. On your death bed, can you predict what will be going trough your mind? Will you have any doubts about Christianity? If you answer "no", will that be because you fully anticipate that will be the case, or it is simply a way for you, today, to do your duty as a Christian to please God by demonstrating loyalty as you believe he has commanded? In other words, would you be willing to lie to please God? I can say that the Newton model does, for me, in academic terms, ring more true than Christianity, and I would claim to have experienced validation of it in my own personal life. If God is to punish me because my head knowledge or abstract degree of confidence in this single subject of religion is found unpleasing, then He will do so not because of what I believe, but because of what I am. And what I am, is honest. No more than you can be convinced that demons have not misled you. The same to you.
Thank you very much, Vic, for expounding. I think I generally get the picture. Souls are not necessarily immortal, and in the end, souls that are condemned are permanently destroyed. It seems the rather antiquated Catholic concept of purgatory is allowed for here, and all who are saved enter God's kingdom at the same time. I am aware that Greek mythology predated Christianity, of course, and the Greeks did conquer the present middle east, even to present day India, hundreds of years before the time of Jesus, and I also know that cultures and beliefs both mix as peoples interact and mingle over the long term. So I wonder how much of what you stated might have origins in Greek mythology? I ask that both because some of your information is sourced in Greek writings, and it also somehow seems reminiscent of Greek mythology. I hope that suggestion isn't offensive. I guess I could go more to the point by simply asking you why it is that this ancient writing should be considered accurate theology, and not other ancient writings such as Egyption mythology, Hinduism, Buddism and even other Greek mythological writings that depict a polytheistic universe? All of which predate Christianity. If the age of a writing is a deciding factor in it's authority, why not go back to even more ancient writings?
Second: New Testament thought says that man has no ability, or capacity, to repay or make good for sin. That's why Jesus went to the cross, to pay that for us - that which we could not pay. So, to say that a certain amount of time or effort or anything by man will pay the debt of any sin is not right. The new testament remedy for sin is the cross, and that's all. Actually "To a distant time", and "to the horizon past the horizon" means "not forever". God never promised Israel to the Jews "forever". He promised it to them "to a distant time". That "distant time" came when Jesus pronounced the doom on the vineyard. "To a distant time" does not imply forever. "Until the last penny is paid" means "not forever". As far as the remedy for sin being the cross, that is not what Jesus said. Jesus never said that. Apostles seemed to say it, but Jesus said something very different. Jesus said that to be forgiven, you must forgive, and that if you do not, that God will not forgive you either, but if you do, God will forgive. Jesus is God. Paul is not. They are in conflict. Jesus trumps. You need to understand the hierarchy of divine authority much more clearly. You have placed the Bible at the top. Wrong. God is at the top, and what God says directly in the Bible trumps the REST of the Bible, which is just men speaking under the inspiration of God. Where the Bible conflicts, and it does on this very matter, you have Jesus saying one thing, and men saying another thing. The men are to be disregarded, because Jesus is God.. That is the only proper way to read the Bible. Everything else - treating Paul's words as equal in authority to Jesus, is a direct defiance of God when God said from the sky "THIS is my beloved Son, listen to HIM." HE said that to be forgiven your sins by God, you must forgive the sins of others, otherwise you pay for those sins, for a time. The remedy of other writers is the cross alone. No. The way that is to be properly read is that IF you understand what the Cross is, then you will understand that Jesus is Lord, and THEREFORE you will listen to HIM - and HE says that you are forgiven your sins ONLY IF you forgive others theirs. That's it. That's the ONE way that JESUS said you can be forgiven your sins - you MUST forgive. The blood of Jesus is supposed to make you realize that you have to listen to Jesus. But if you think that the blood of Jesus removes your sins, without your having to actually OBEY Jesus when he says YOU WILL NOT BE FORGIVEN YOUR SINS if you don't forgive other men, then you're overruling Jesus with other parts of the Bible, treating the Bible itself as above Jesus, and lapsing into idolatry. The Blood of Jesus will not forgive anybody's sins unless they LISTEN to Jesus and forgive others. Jesus said that, and THAT is the law. Paul can never override Jesus, not ever. Where Paul and Jesus contradicts, Paul is always wrong. The Bible is not the highest authority - it conflicts. Jesus WITHIN the BIble is the highest authority, because God within the Bible says so. So, the rest of the Bible is subordinate to Jesus in the Bible, and HE said that the only way to be forgiven sins is by forgiving them. Therefore that is the only way, and the Churches that says that the cross does it are wrong, and have always been wrong. Forgiveness is the only way, because Jesus said so, and jJesus is always 100% right by definition, because God said to listen to HIM.
It means that you have to keep forgiving. Unless one is a Biblical literalist, like a Young Earth Creationist who insists on the seven literal days of creation. Then it means that you must forgive others precisely 490 times, and after that, no more.
f the age of a writing is a deciding factor in it's authority, why not go back to even more ancient writings? Because the only physical miracles that exist that are actually examinable in a forensic laboratory, and that have been examined and found to be scientifically inexplicable, are all Christian (except for three or four incorrupt Bhuddist monks, who seem to exhibit incorruption, but who have not been forensically examined). So, the only proven miracles are all Christian. Two of them pertain directly to the body of Jesus: the image on his burial shroud, and his heart tissue, containing the same blood as on the shroud, from 600 years later. None of the other gods, texts, mythologies have any scientific proof, and so can be dismissed as stories. The story of Jesus has to be taken more seriously because something broke the laws of physics to assert, through laboratory-examinable miracle, the physics breaking quality of Jesus. That's why we focus on Jesus and disregard the rest: God proves HIS divinity through evidence. God leaves NO evidence at all for any of the other legends, stories, myths and writings - other than perhaps a head not to the individual holiness of a handful of Bhuddist monks. Jesus was important enough for God to override the laws of nature to leave provable evidence - evidence that can survive modern computation, electron microscopy and forensic science. Without that, ALL of the religious texts could be - and probably should be - dismissed as myths. Their science is all cockamamie. We know better. With Jesus, though, we have miracles. So we have to treat this one differently. All that we know about him is written in five ancient scrolls. Incidentally, we have no more words and teaching and documentary evidence of any other person from the First Century than him. The direct quotation of Jesus exceeds the direct quotation of any other person in the Roman Empire from the First Century. God thought Jesus was important enough to waive the laws of physics and insert miracles into the world so that 21st Century scientists would have to look at him - and ONLY him - based on the evidence. There are no other forensically examinable miracles - None. But there ARE Christian miracles, and on examination, they are not scientifically explicable. So, from the aspects of the religions and ancient texts that contradict what we know scientifically about the universe, we know that they are all poppycock. But Jesus himself gets a saving throw, because the same nature we study to know that the creation myths are all legends and not true is the nature that gave us the Shroud and the Lanciano heart tissue and blood, and they ARE miraculous, nature-defying. So we've got science itself pointing at Jesus, while simultaneously debunking all of the other religious stories, because they tell us an origin of the world that is false. Jesus doesn't tell us the origin of the world. The Jews do, but Jesus didn't teach about that. Rather, Jesus taught a specific set of moral rules, and made those moral rules the criteria to be accepted by the Father and allowed to live on after death in a good way, as a spirit, and then to be reunited with a body at the resurrection, and to live on after that with God. What Jesus said is what is important, and he is confined to four overlapping texts from four pens, that provide four witness viewpoints - better testimony than for any OTHER ancient figure, and a fifth text (Revelation) in which he tells the hearer to take dictation. THAT is why THOSE texts, and not any of the other ones. Now, Jesus came out of a culture, Hellenic Judaism, and he used the reference points and texts of his culture to teach his hearers, which sort of bootstraps in the Hebrew old testament texts as a source of learning and example, but NOT of the same weight or authority as the only guy for whom God actually overrode the physics and left us miracles we can all examine in the lab. That's why it's JUST Jesus, and that's why the other texts have SOME importance, but not the SAME importance as what he says. With "soul", again the English fouls us up. What the Hebrew says is that we are a breath (the word "spirit" means "breath" or "wind") from God that animates a body made of dirt. When the breath and the body are bound together, that unit is called a "nephesh", which we have translated into English as a "soul". At physical death, the SPIRIT departs into Sheol - which is either Gan Eden or Gehenna - while the BODY falls back to dust. "Man, thou art dust, and to dust thou shall return". Since the "SOUL" is the UNION of BODY and BREATH/SPIRIT - a "breather" in the original language - the SOUL ceases to exist at physical death. Only the SPIRIT goes on, into the afterlife of Sheol. Spirits without a debt of sin go straight to Gan Eden, which is the Paradise Garden of God: back to Eden. Everybody else pays for sin in Gehenna "until the last penny is paid", to quote Jesus. Now, God's law given to the Hebrews gives us some inkling that God does not permit debts to be held forever - after 6, or 49 - years God compelled the forgiveness of all debt under his law, so PERHAPS the payment in the hot prison of Gehenna [LONG PARENTHETICAL] (which is described by Jesus as hell-ISH, but should not be called "Hell", because that is a Scandinavian pagan and Christian term that imply things that Jesus did NOT say - we should be precise about language so as to not drag in all of the errors of the ages, and just use the direct terms that Jesus used), [RESUME SENTENCE] is time limited. Jesus said "until", not "forever". In any event, Jesus said that the dead are not dead - they are asleep. At the end of the world, Jesus said that all SPIRITS will be called and put back into bodies - SOULS again - living people - and the person will be judged. Those who pass judgment will enter as SOULS - spirit + body: living people, through the gates of pearl into the City of God, which will come down from the sky (nobody "goes TO heaven" - Heaven is just the sky in the Scripture). Those who fail may wail outside in darkness, as souls. Or they may be thrown as souls - bodies bound with spirits - into the lake of fire for the second death. This, Jesus indicates, really IS death, which strongly implies that not only is the body burnt up - thereby destroying the SOUL, because the SPIRIT is stripped from the body, and a SOUL is a bound spirit and body - but also perhaps the spirit itself, which is a breath of God in its origin, is burnt up and gone, destroyed. That is the best read, though one can fuss at some of the margins. It does not fit Christian theology very well, because Christian theology has confused spirit and soul, making them synonyms, has confused Gehenna and the Lake of Fire with each other, and labelled both as "Hell", which never appears, has confused the Garden of Eden - Paradise, and also the City of God, with the sky (Heaven), and confuses "to a distant time" with "forever". The Christian tradition has changed all of the goalposts of what Jesus said. What JESUS said is actually internally consistent, and gives a clear and non-contradictory structure that fits seamlessly with everything that GOD HIMSELF said directly in the entire Bible. It conflicts somewhat with things that OTHER speakers in the Bible said, including Apostles and other writers, and it certainly conflicts quite sharply with what Christians believe about Heaven, Hell and the Afterlife. So, the Christians are wrong and Jesus is right, and we should listen to him - Just him - not "Him PLUS", because the plus conflicts, and none of the plus has any ancient physical miracles we can look at in the lab, but HE does. Since ALL of the miracles that we can examine are of Jesus, therefore laboratory science proves that Jesus is divine more probably than not, and we should listen to him. Since all other religious texts and sources, including other parts of the Bible, and other religions, and the beliefs OF the Christian religion, conflict with Jesus, we should ignore and discard all of the rest of it and listen to Jesus, JUST Jesus, JESUS ALONE, because HE is the only God who has actually PROVEN himself with physical miracles that even MIT can acknowledge, while all of the rest is piffle, jibber jabber and mere words - and words are wind. Physical miracles are real proof. I will only believe that which proves itself by miracle. So I will listen to Jesus, because he has done so. Now, I have had my own miracles from God, which is why I was so dogged about pursuing the actual miracles myself. That is the source of my focus on miracle. I KNOW, but nobody else can, or should, believe in God because I say I have miracles - I could be a liar or a lunatic or a storyteller just like all of the writers of all of those ancient texts. When the laws of physics put a three-D photographic negative of a man on a piece of LINEN, and somehow that cloth makes it through 2000 years to the forensic lab, along with its linen facecloth companion, while every OTHER piece of cloth from the First Century has crumbled to dust - and the blood on the cloth turns out to be the same very rare blood as from another miracle, of heart tissue, from 600 years and 1500 miles later - and modern American and Western European scientists (i.e.: not superstitious yokels from the undeveloped world) look at these things and say "Yep, they really ARE images and blood, and thus and so - and they really are inexplicable, as no known or postulated process could do that" - THEN I can apply the same inductive reasoning as is used in the rest of science to say -OK, God did this. And since God ONLY did it for things pertaining to Christ, that means that I suspend disbelief - which is universal for ALL religious and superstitious nonsense and mythology and old fables and fictions of the ancients, and say "I guess I have to take THIS one more seriously, out of all of the crap". Then I read Jesus, and I see a clear moral code that really makes sense, though its hard, I see a promise that fits my OWN miracles, and I realize: That's the voice of God. I know that voice. So, that's how I know. And that's why none of the rest cut it at all. The world is on the back of a turtle? Please. That's ridiculous. Mohammed? Well, maybe, except he directly opposed the divine nature of Jesus, but the miracles prove otherwise, so nope. The Greeks and their gods? Nice symbols of nature, but real? We can climb and fly drones up Mount Olympus. There's nothing there but snow.
Can you post a link to a site that modern American and Western European scientists will verify the scientific claims you make above? Thanks.
"To a distant time" does not imply forever. "Until the last penny is paid" means "not forever". Yes, I must agree with this. Ah, yes, I'd forgotten you think like this. Ok, we won't change each others mind about this but you said what you thought so I'll say what I think at we can leave it at that. I don't put the bible above God, like you said, at all. Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. I think the bible is written by men as God directed them. That's all of it, gospels, epistles, and the words in red. That's the written word of god, not the spoken word - that which proceedeth from his mouth. There is no conflict between Paul and Jesus or any of the books and authors. It's all the same source and is laid out as God wanted it to be and tells a whole story. You can't just say this part doesn't matter and this part does. Some parts are hard to reconcile but that's ok, it takes a while to understand how it all fits together. In the New Testament era God intended that he would deal with us one-on-one individually, as He had always intended it to be. 'You will have no need of a teacher, the holy spirit will teach you', and so on. Have faith in God. He can get through to us well enough. Not an indepth explanation but typing on an ipad here, you get the picture.
Thanks. No. I read a couple of books assembled by STURP. I don't have a link. A long time ago there was a site about the Shroud that had links to things such as the Thermochemica Acta publication about vanillin dating. There was no simple site I consulted, but different places and research papers and publications. I was examining the data to satisfy my own curiosity, not to persuade others, and I did not save a paper trail. I think there was a site called "Shroudstory" that contained some links to some of these things. Can't help you past there.
Interesting, and it seems you've answered my challenge well. Thank you. I would also be interested in the scientific-based, pro-divine arguments in favor of the Shroud. Last time I considered it some 20 years ago, it seems the science was saying the shroud was likely a middle-age forgery. On the Newton side, we have contemporary claims of accounts of reincarnation, at least one of which is, in my view, beyond any reasonable accusation of fakery and is certainly well beyond coincidence. At the same time, reincarnation is not a new concept in the least, as it's been believed in some cultures, mainly eastern, for thousands of years. And if I'm not mistake, was also considered in early Christianity, since then labeled heresy.
Thanks for that. When I hear Jesus say to Satan "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God", what I hear Jesus saying is that I need to listen for the words that proceed forth out of the mouth of God - words said BY God. To me, words "inspired by God", words and things that men do because they are filled with spirit for God and write about God, are not words "proceeding forth out of the mouth of God". They are words proceeding forth out of the pen of a man who is inspired by God, to be sure, but they are not words being spoken by God. I think that the words that "proceed forth out of the mouth of God" are those words that are recorded as having been spoken aloud by God. And that THOSE words are the only words to which Jesus is referring. The Law - all of the binding provisions of the Torah - are all entirely spoken directly by God to Moses. The text says "And God said..." Then there's lots of history and writing ABOUT God, and wisdom about God, but very, very little in the rest of the Old Testament, outside of a couple of the prophets, that are words spoken directly by God. Wherever God speaks in the Bible, with the exception of some places in isaiah and Ezekiel, the text always makes it EXPLICIT that GOD is speaking, out loud and directly. THOSE words are the words that "proceeded forth out of the mouth of God" - to proceed forth out of the mouth of anybody, they have to be spoken aloud BY THAT PERSON. Those words, only, are the words to which Jesus referred. Those are the only AUTHORITATIVE words in the Bible, as I read Jesus to literally say. So THOSE are the words I isolate. Of course I read the context, but then I take THOSE words and I stack them up. Now, THOSE words really don't conflict. But then the other stuff, which is 93% of the words of the text (I have counted), are all stuff that did NOT proceed directly forth out of the mouth of God. Under the emprise of God men wrote those things, but some of the things that men wrote in their inspired enthusiasm actually CONTRADICT some of the things that God said directly. Now, one of the most important things that God said directly, to a crowd out witnesses at the Jordan where John was baptizing, was "This is my beloved Son, LISTEN to HIM." So, there I have a commandment that is proceeding forth out of the mouth of God, directing me to listen to JESUS, specifically. With that, it doesn't MATTER to me anymore what Jesus' status is relative to God - I've been told he's God's son, by God - not more - and I've been commanded to listen to HIM. So THAT is what I do. He, then, tells the Devil that man lives by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God, so I DO pay very close attention to the purple letter words of the Old Testament - and guess what! - in those, God explicitly says that the Laws he gives at Sinai are for the Hebrews and their descendants in Israel, not for the world. THAT is why "The Law" does not apply to Gentiles - Jesus did not release US from it, WE were never under it. He was talking in his life only to Jews, and THEY were under the Law, so the Law figures prominently, but when he talks to Jews, he says he is not changing the Law (of Moses) by a penstroke - which MEANS That NO, NONE of the Old Testament law applies to Gentiles, because God SAID they didn't back when he gave the laws, and Jesus did not change The Law. Jesus DID give new laws and new moral precepts for the NEW covenant - new wine in a new bottle. And THAT is the law for a Gentile like me. Where Jesus is telling Jews what THEIR law means, he is NOT extending that law to me, because he said he was not changing the Law of Moses at all, and THAT Law says directly, explicitly, dozens of times, right out of the mouth of God, that it applies only to the Hebrews and their circumcised, obedient descendants in Israel. I'm part Saami. My people could not exist at all if God had intended to Sabbath to be for mankind. The Long Night of the North lasts for 70 days, and the Long Day of summer lasts for 90. If either of those fell on a Saturday, the whole race would be dead from starvation or freezing from the inability to work or light a fire for two or three months - IF the Sabbath applied to the Saami. But it never did. Not before Jesus, and not after. Jesus did not free ME from the Law, I was never under ANY of it. The Law was for the Jews. Jesus DID establish a "New Deal", a new covenant, for individuals (only - no tribes), and that is the New Covenant. THAT is the law we need to know. And obeying Jesus has nothing to do with what one THINKS about Jesus, it has to do with what one does vis a vis other men, and God. Blasphemy against Jesus will be forgiven, he promised. The religion given by Jesus contains very, very little of the things in it that Christians go on about. It DOES contain a few short, stern, hard-to-do things, such as don't lie, forgive, don't hurt, and be extremely charitable, giving and loving. It is my experience that Christians prefer to change Jesus' hard acts-based religion into an easy religion of mere thoughts. I read Jesus as saying nothing like that, and God told me (in the text) to listen to HIM. In this life, in my own experiences and miracles point me towards Jesus and some of the things he said, and not towards what other men say and have said. So, I stick with him. What I believe fits within the Catholic Church, although it is a much smaller footprint, and the Catholic Church does not pay attention to individuals. I was baptized there as a baby, and I stick with the one who brung me. It's why arguing religion with me is so pointless. I've seen miracles, I've studied miracles, I've talked to God, and I listen to God. And I read the Scriptures exactly as I have said above. I am certain I am right, and I don't have tremors of doubt. So what's the point of arguing religion with me? I'm not listening, really. I don't really care what other people believe. I do know what is right - and that's what I focus on: DOING what Jesus said to DO. As long as you DO it, you are following him. He said that. So all of agina about who believes what? It's just pointless, to my eyes and mind. I do like to offer my alternative view to the traditions, because I think the world would be a whole lot better if people just listened to Jesus and did what he SAID to do, rather than focus on all of the easier nonsense that people make up to create a lot of ecclesial jobs and to keep people socially organized. I get the picture of what you said, and thank you for it. Perhaps we should call it a day?
You don't believe in God of the Bible. You believe a self serving piece of shit who calls himself God's name. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools describes Vic to a t.
Screw your alternative lizard and mouse raising from the dead bullshit. Real followers of Christ don't pray to Mary. Jesus never said to do that you idiot. Deceiving and being deceived also describes your prideful arrogant ass.
That is what you do all the time deceiver.
Not exactly.
Thank you. I'm sure we have much common ground.
I think anyone can be saved no matter the sin. I just don't believe everyone changes and regrets wrongs they have commited.
Where did Jesus say to pray to mary? Where did Jesus say to obey the sinful popes? When did Jesus say that some scripture isn't God inspired? He didn't now make up some more bullshit.
There's a lot of truth in that statement. The degree to which people have empathy and regret at harming others varies. Some people feel quite strongly on these points while other feel little. This is where experience makes a difference. The more we understand the harm we have done or might do to others, the stronger these sentiments are. And this is the value gained in returning in subsequent lives which are destined to suffer hardship as we imposed. It teaches us what it's like first hand. It's what makes reincarnation a beautiful tool. Under the Newton model, This is the value of hardship in life. Hardships under the Christian model don't have such a clear reason in our lives.
I know the only God that exists: the real one. When I read the Bible, I see him there in part of it. And I see what he said to do. To me, that is what is important. Talismanic creedal statements as tickets of membership to some religious organization that thinks along the lines you do is not interesting to me.
You have your form of religion, which you have put on magnificent display. I have mine. I call on God to judge between us. I call on men who read this also.
Yes. On my death bed I CAN with full confidence predict AND know exactly what will be going through my mind as far as communication with God is concerned and with it, the comfort of the Holy Spirit. Have you ever been with strong Christians in exactly that scenario? I have. 3 to be exact. Fearlessness. A calm and comfort. Yes, a bit of consternation at times, but overall, a confident acceptance. An amazing thing to behold. No, I have NO reservations or doubt about God's promise to me (or all of us). The reason I don't have an iota of doubt is because I believe Jesus when He said He was "The Way, the Truth, and the Life." AND importantly, because He speaks to me, my heart, my spirit. And I *know* it is Him. (you'll note that I am mostly avoiding citation of Scripture because it might bog down our exchange...but He's told us repeatedly that all we need do is ask Him into our heart.) ...Or it [belief in Jesus as Savior, and His Kingdom] is simply a way for you, today, to do your duty as a Christian to please God by demonstrating loyalty as you believe he has commanded? The Father is pleased when any of His children listen to His voice, believe in Him, are obedient and stay the course. I *know* with 100% certainty that God's Word is the Truth. "Loyalty" and love is a two-way street. Yes, the Father is pleased that His commandments are heeded, but especially by one's decision to ask Him into our life, to hear Him. Once that decision is made, heeding His Word and Promise makes it easier to endure temptation to "go rogue". (Not that the Christian won't continue sinning.) In other words, would you be willing to lie to please God? "Lie"? I don't understand the question or gist. God will be able to suss out those who truly believe OR are merely cosmetic or "Cafeteria Christians". That said, one only need the faith of a mustard seed, then ask God to enter his heart. I can say that the Newton model does, for me, in academic terms, ring more true than Christianity, and I would claim to have experienced validation of it in my own personal life. If God is to punish me because my head knowledge or abstract degree of confidence in this single subject of religion is found unpleasing, then He will do so not because of what I believe, but because of what I am. And what I am, is honest. *I* believe you are sincere AND extraordinarily honest. However, faith is NOT an "academic" matter; It's a spiritual one. The Newton Model of "redemption" is not coincidentally based in large part on an academic model of teachers, schooling, lessons, etc. One could even draw an analogy to "gradient education" considering the karmic elements. Your "validation" of forgiveness and patience in *this* life is virtuous and noble; But besides the self-validation in that vein, are you considering your mortal behavior an "obedience" to the "Counselors" in the Afterlife? Or is there indeed an element within your spirit and conscience that knows these trait demonstrate obedience to Almighty God? Whether God or Newtonian "Counselors", all of the unseen is "abstract" to a degree, wouldn't you agree? The question is a matter of Authority. Question: How many ways does God prove HE is God and The Way, Truth, and Life?
Accounts of those facing death in a Newton context is very similar. People first fall to fear & pity and questions of why, then move to resolution, then acceptance, and then peace. Or something similar. Though I have not been a witness to such a thing. My theory is that it is because the *soul* understands fully the joyful transition that is going to take place, and over a period of time, that joy eventually permeates and dominates the natural mental fear of death that comes with living as a human, calming everything. It does not surprise me at all that strong Christians would experience the same. Mentally, for a Christian, it would be interpreted as a faith in Jesus being validated. But under the Newton model, it doesn't matter what holy name or holy faith would receive credit for the transformation into a peaceful state, and no correction is necessary. What is important is only that yes, everything IS okay, that death is a wonderful transition as we return from the spirit world from which we came, and which is our true home. I am very aware of the mind's ability to believe things that are not true. There are (by our reckoning) fanatical Muslims who are so convinced they blow themselves up believing it to be pleasing to Allah. So even when you say you are completely confident, should I necessarily equate that as a witness to reality? No, not necessarily, and today, I do not. It's why I am hesitant to make such solid claim myself for what I believe. Or what I think I believe. I'm not sure I am capable of being 100% confident of anything, and why I was open minded to consider Newton's work. And I suppose your confidence is why I don't think you have considered Newton's work as having merit, and why you likely never will, ever. At least in your current life. It seems I'm being persuaded to believe something that is inconsistent with my true convictions. Ironically, while I agree with that statement, I don't think you really do. If it was not an academic matter, but only a spiritual one, then there would be no use, no point, in trying to convert people. People will either believe, or they will not believe, and there's nothing anyone could say to change that. And yet, there is no question you do try to convert people in part by sharing the academics of the Bible. Indeed, your stated implication is that it's what we are spiritually that really counts, and that is consistent with the Newton model. To seek the truth is a virtue. I do it for myself, because I want to grow. Not because I believe anyone commands me to. You're losing me. I don't know. There is no need under the Newton model for God to prove anything. It would explain why we have unclear religious answers about our universe, why we have billions of people believing conflicting faiths. Under Newton, what religious views we hold doesn't really matter.
To seek the truth is a virtue. Ok, we both agree that Truth = Virtue. However, what IS "Truth"? Who/what is its source? Same of virtue. And who defines IT? Does the Newton Model explain? Or is one left to fend for himself? To the Left's Ideologues and to Satanists, "truth" and "virtue" mean different things. I do it for myself, because I want to grow. Not because I believe anyone commands me to. Consider the following "virtuous" statements: They are...some of the Satanist Commandments. To seek the truth is a virtue. I do it for myself, because I want to grow. Not because I believe anyone commands me to. IF so-called "Growth" is the End-All goal of the Newtonian Model, then logically, that "growth" can be extended in all 360 degrees, can't it? If 180 degrees is considered "good", the other 180 degrees of "growth" *could* well be considered...questionably virtuous at best and degrees of ambiguous good-to-evil at worst. The Newton Model still lacks a parent standard bearer to define "virtue" as well as "good" and "bad". AND "wisdom". It doesn't any of it or the genesis of "virtue". On he other hand, the Bible fully devotes three chapters to virtue, wisdom, and guidance AND "growth" in this life: PROVERBS People either commit to make a conscious decision to "grow" in *this* life or don't -- that's a matter of Free Will. If Time Expires, whose fault is it really? (God will judge in extenuating circumstances. And btw, NO, babies and children unable to discern morality and Salvation are NOT Hell-bound). The Bible also offers tangible explanations of Authority, Of Reason, of Inspiration, and....of The Beginning and End. Newton kinda leaves one hanging in the air. "Growth" as well as the realm of the "Counselors" is dangerously and un-specifically ambiguous, is it not? Moreover, it is an ethereal realm. The Newton Model conspicuously avoids explaining on whose Authority The Counselors speak upon and by what Authority they represent. IF they are indeed mere "Counselors" or "Teachers", one must assume there is a hierarchy conferring higher "rank". All that said (and unaddressed as of yet), The Newton Model seems to abide in a personal satisfaction of growth and sense of morality or law, instead of a Universal standard of say, "virtue" high-mindedness. The Bible gave us 10 Commandments; 11 if we count Jesus', 'Love Your Neighbor As Yourself'. IF those Commandments are not followed by Newtonian disciples, then what ARE it's "Commandments"? Again, we come full circle -- one needs a reference to what's considered "virtuous" behavior. Frankly and with due respect -- without a definitive law and commandments -- I'd ask, doesn't the Newtonian model and ethic ultimately abide in, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"? There is no need under the Newton model for God to prove anything. It would explain why we have unclear religious answers about our universe, why we have billions of people believing conflicting faiths. Under Newton, what religious views we hold doesn't really matter. It *might* rather explain the degree of deception and man's nature to be stubborn, rebel and be inclined to believe he can and should be his own deity. As well as make up his own Laws. Given man's nature, we already know that rarely turns our well, and if so, only temporarily. And for the record, we ARE already in possession of the "Answers" that really matters. One one hand we have a vast tome of explanation, testimony, wisdom, and message of love and hope within 66 books, 1,189 chapters, and hundreds of thousands of words backing and explaining God's Plan, A-Z, Genesis through Revelation. The Newton Model: A hypnotherapist/atheist who relied on Past Life Regression and the testimony of his subjects to explain the meaning of this Life as well as Death, and the interim between...before what will be new Karmic journey until enough "Growth" is determined to satisfy....Self or Whom?
I think we've sparred enough for a while. I appreciate your combined honesty and respectfulness.
I think both of these statements are true. And I act accordingly. I do hold out hope that those who identify themselves as "scientific", or at least scientifically-minded, could look at the forensics of miracles and realize from the evidence that there is a mind over the physics, but in my experience that does not really happen. So, while I used to really try hard to get people to see those things, I found it largely a waste of time and effort and I have mostly given it up. And ultimately my attitude about people's religion and morals is the same as my attitude towards their behavior. I don't really care what people do, as long as they don't do it in the street and disturb the horses. I don't really care what people believe as long as they pay their taxes and don't practice human sacrifice. And there is truly nothing more useless in this world to me than another man's religion (except insofar as my knowledge of his religion makes his decisions and his actions more predictable to me)
Do not harm little children. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there. They are...some of the Satanist Commandments. Really? Those are SATANIST Commandments? Well, I agree with all of them, and would take some of them quite a bit further than that.
It seems "miracles" form a foundation for what you believe. I guess I can't be critical of that, as I suppose my citation of the account of James Leininger's recollections of being a WWII pilot is basically a miracle, as both coincidence and fraud seem to be ruled out. On the other hand, my sister considers the tilma of Guadalupe to be a real miracle and dismisses the Leininger account out of hand. It seems Liberator has his miracle in the contemporary Bible. I guess we all have our favorite miracles, don't we?
I know little of the Satanic church beliefs, but what little I have heard seems to make it a certainty that what average Christians think of them is very much an erroneous stereotype. It's not in the least surprising that an average bible believing Christian would ascribe evil attributes identifiable by any 8 year old child to any religious body that calls itself "Satanist". But it seems a satanist church member is as likely to wish you a good afternoon as anyone else, and mean it sincerely.
I broke my neck in a lake alone, was paralyzed and drowning, and then God saved me - on pain of silence for years. That's mine. That's also why it's not an intellectual exercise for me - I know God exists. It's why I focus on laboratory-provable miracles: to help others see quickly what I already know, so that we can get onto to the question of what God WANTS of us. Nobody I meet seems to see it this way, which makes me think that private miracles are rare. And nobody seems interested in seeing God through the scientific examination of miracles. People seem very interested in talking about what they believe, and why. So we should all really be able to understand each other better than we do: NONE of us is interested in what any of the others thinks about God. We all want others to be interested in what WE think about God. But nobody is. The subject is, therefore, fatiguing and pointless. Meanwhile, God exists and may want things from us, but we're all gazing at our own navels and angry at our companions for gazing at theirs. Nothing is more useless than another man's religion.
That describes you perfectly. Not everyone else.
Certainly a very true statement for all of us. The only exception being a desire to understand the faith of others for the purpose figuring out how expose flaws that can be used to try to convert them. Kinda reminds me of the T-shirt that reads: "The professional sports team from MY general area can easily defeat the professional sports team from YOUR general area".
I think it does. You've railed on Vic quite a bit over what he believes. Perhaps you do care what he believes but only for the purposes of deriding him for it. You certainly aren't interesting in exploring what he believes constructively, looking to enlighten your own beliefs. Just like him, Liberator, and myself, you are convinced that you are right and everyone that disagrees with you is wrong. That is what Vic has said. And he is correct on that. In that way all 4 of us are really of the same mold, like probably everyone else on the planet, with the possible exception of professional psychiatrists.
I am a dark mirror of you.
I sure have and will continue to do so. I find it odd that someone who claims they follow Jesus says the book about him is mostly lies and not God's word. Vic like you have your own custom religion on an island not inhabited by anyone else. Vic isn't even a real.catholic. Vic God is whatever Vic imagines. Vic doesn't believe me.but I like him. That us why I converse with him. He is interesting and I believe has good intentions.
Well, I agree with all of them, and would take some of them quite a bit further than that. Yup, real deal. Remember though -- the insidious part of Satanic/demonic deception is blending just enough truth with lies. For the record, the rest of the "Satanic Commandments" are vicious. There is nothing virtuous or merciful or benevolent about their ethics; just raw self-interest and selfishness. And lastly, above all else -- Satan/demons LIE.
I agree with your first statement. But yes, *some* of us ARE "interested" in what others think of God or exchanging theories on "Life-after-Life". Ping and I have proven that. *I* value *your* belief -- even if we don't fully agree on the details. The subject is, therefore, fatiguing and pointless. Not at all. And demonstratively not what the Apostles, disciples and Jesus Himself thought, did they? Nothing is more useless than another man's religion. IF you see someone who tells you that according to their "religion" they must walk straight off a cliff, would you let them or attempt to convince them otherwise? As an aside Stone -- could you kindly refrain from haranguing Vic? Isn't there a point where you've made your opinions clear? He's a good man who just happens to disagree with your faith, my faith, and most others' faith here at your forum. I'm hardly one to referee any respective individual beefs -- BUT, let's ratchet it down, ok?
Just because someone calls himself a "Satanist" doesn't mean he really worships Satan. My bet would be that most Satanists don't really think there IS a Satan, and call themselves Satanists to piss off the religious whom they don't like.
It's semantics, isn't it? "Satan" is referred to by several names in the Bible, by God: Abaddon "Satanists" either literally believe in THE devil. Or in the antithetical rebellious nature, spirit, force, and ethics of an anti-Christ.
Probably partially true in cases. If so, they are merely emulating and obeying their master. Enmity, spite and hate are after all innate traits of evil.
It seems Liberator has his miracle in the contemporary Bible. Still some meat left over on what is quite a big bone. First of all, till this very day my brother "remembers" being at Iwo Jima. Yes, we DID watch many a WW2 movie when we were kids. (for he record, my brother believes in God but is NOT religions. At all. And never discusses his beliefs.) That said, there ARE such a phenomena as "false memories". There IS such a thing as "The Power of Suggestion". How exactly do we define "miracle"? Does it require a force of supernatural imposition that displaces "Natural Law" of physics (as we know it?) Or can it be attributed to just astronomical stroke of good luck of a highly unlikely, near-impossible event? Yes, there are also contemporary "miracles" that take place to "common" people; Not just to those documented in the Bible. EXCEPT these "commoner" miracles are performed without a tangible material/physical facilitation. Within the smaller picture are actually the many documented accounts of the miracles performed by Jesus Christ, in the presence of many, Documented by several sources. These occurred just 2,000 years ago. Moreever, what of the many Old Testament miracles? Its historical accounts of places, people, and event stand up to scrutiny. Do we off-offhandedly dismiss them? And miracles of he times? If not, why not? If it's a matter of credibility, then NO "history" should be believed for actual "fact"...Which brings up the next question How far in the past should "history" be considered "factual"? With respect to the Big Picture at another level of "miracle", I'd submit that the microscopic "seed" of both human egg and process of fertilization...and that of any other seed grows into a mighty Sequoia or Blue Whale (containing a gazillion codes to a gazillion processes that both sustain and replicate future generations) IS A MIRACLE AT FACE VALUE.
Under Christianity, not so much. In fact, perhaps not at all. Justice is instead, once served, the end of the line, one way or the other. (For your consideration): It seems you may have inadvertently and just maybe, unfairly distilled Christianity doctrine down to a caricature of itself. Under Christianity, or "Christ-ianity", life can't be helped but be considered a "Test" of sorts" -- a Final Test at that -- except that the circumstances aren't always "fair". Fact is circumstances of life are mostly unequal AND unfair; Yet the ground-rules remain the same for all. IF we are aware of them (the heart/spirit it seems -- even devoid of formal "religion" has always been hard-wired with an innate awareness of "Good & Evil"; Right & Wrong. As well as "knowing" there is Something/Someone Greater than we.) "Justice" IS a consideration for man, which confers a fairness and upheld standard of law and ethic based on morality. I'm sure you'd agree that this expectation would apply whether secular, Newtonian, or Christian life. In Christian life, The Law also commands love, forgiveness, compassion, redemption, mercy. Christians are taught also to grow in wisdom, discipline and humility along the way in life to endure. According to the Bible's record, documenting Adam's lineage (which Jesus Himself cites), pre-Flood man typically lived up to 700-900 (why that was is a discussion for a different thread). Post-Flood man's max life span was downgraded to @100-120 years. That's plenty of time to "grow" in wisdom", IF we make it a priority. (Yes, as we know, in certain civilizations, the life span is cut in half or even less. Again I'd cite "extenuating circumstances" that The Almighty Judge would consider) In any case, inevitably comes death and an account of our life to the One who created us.) "Growth". You'll note that we (all the major Abrahamic faiths) realize we possess just one lifetime in this moral coil with which to "git 'er done". Some take this notion more seriously than others; Some let the chips fall, hoping there is some "Universal Fairness & Justice" mechanism that forgives, forgets. Or as in the Newton Model or perhaps in other Karmic belief systems, interim souls are briefed and tutored on how to best "grow" as their lives are recycled, regenerating enough "growth" in learning to step up in a presumptive hierarchy or upgrade next life. (OR in other Karmic beliefs, the perp becomes "victim" in that "Universal Judicial System". For those of us who believe our "Growth" is limited by our lifespan on this earth, on this mortal plane, there IS a sense of urgency or awareness. Although for many they run out of time (a "shortcoming" the Newton Model alleges to address.) Time. Age. We've both likely noted that this is a reason TIME becomes of the essence for many older folks. When our mortal shells/body's start declining and degrading, it serves as "URGENT!" God's wake-up call to start reassessing and focusing on the right path; what's been expected from us the entire time (IF we've been blessed to live longer lives to begin with.) Frankly, I haven't received or clearly understood answers to the following questions: If "Growth" is the #1 Priority and Goal of the Newton Model, exactly in what sense or context is expected to "grow"? To what extent that would be considered meeting that goal? (what Authority established it? No, I still don't know what IS THE "Authority" of the Newton Model. Newton created a template for the Afterlife, but divulges no authors -- except apparently himself.) What lessons are to be "learned"? Moreover, if the recycled life goes on and on (without resolution), might the subject also degrade instead of improve? Why would there be any sense of urgency in "getting it right" (however "right" is defined)? AT what point does the Newtonian Resolution reach its target or Final Resolution? Is "Peace" projected to be found at its End Game? Love? Fellowship? What kind of Realm is expected? Is it an Edenic metaphysical dimension? Or is Earth the eternal destination (with different bodies?) "Justice". Doesn't the notion preclude a standard of morality and ethics and Law that has been established and expected to have been followed and met to a certain degree? It can be said that "Judgement" precludes an ultimate Judge of said "Law" and extent to which has been deemed "ACCEPTABLE". Or a "Passing Grade". For the God of the Bible, the Creator, There IS no standard of "Acceptable" or Passing Grade on His Report Card. We ALL "Fail". No man is sinless despite all of the good deeds, the virtuous growth of a lifetime, the good intentions. Hence we ALL must die. (at least once.) On Judgment Day, ONLY a Merciful God ONLY through Jesus Christ gives all a "Passing Grade" or "Mulligan" for the Second Life aka "Eternity". Those are HIS words, HIS Guaranty. Why isn't Eternal Life and Paradise for Sinners abusing God's Law considered the ultimate gesture of "LOVE"? Are there other paths to Eternal Life? One must be Judged. If God is the Judge of Judges, His fairness and justice may presumably rest on extenuating circumstances and a God who knows the Heart of All -- even before they were born. Btw -- an aside...I seem to recall you questioning the source of food in the Afterlife or before The Fall. Do you recall? According to my recollection there was a question about death and perhaps "dead things" being the source of food.
Of course there is. Even those who seem to recall things under hypnosis are, upon ending the session, quite often not confident that what they recalled was not something they simply imagined. Confirmation of such recollections, when possible, are often sought. Under the Newton model, "miracles" can occur even if the one who seems to be the instigator of them has incorrect theological beliefs. That, in theory, could explain Biblical miracles being done "in the name of Jesus" or what have you, assuming they really occurred. I think life itself could qualify as miraculous no matter how it came to be, even if via evolution. BTW, the Newton model does not rule out "intelligent design" of life on earth. Under that theory, a combination of evolution and intelligent, supernatural intervention is possible.
One of the advantages of the Newton model: life can be said to always be fair at all times, no matter what happens, even being born with severe deformities, because every soul voluntarily accepted, in advance, the circumstances of a life being lived. Indeed, I agree. And this is supported under Newton, as this perception of morality is soul based -- something we have a sense of because of our subconscious knowledge and memories of life in the spirit world. It is not human based. Sure, I would agree. Our human, earthly sense of justice could/would be a reflection of the morality we collectively brought with us from the spirit world. In spite of obvious differences between the two, when it comes to morality, Christianity and the Newton model agree on just about everything. Under Newton, 100 years is time to grow, but not nearly time enough to grow in all ways earthly life has to offer, which is the practical explanation behind why reincarnation is a reasonable consideration. We've all heard of the crazy elderly uncle that is always angry at people. For such a person, one lifetime has simply not been enough to overcome that vice. So why not grant a soul multiple lifetimes to overcome it? Under Newton, God's patience is eternal in this regard. Under Christianity, there's not, though there's no need to, as forgiveness is a prayer away. Christianity has the doctrinal struggle of faith vs fruits of a believing heart. If someone is "saved" by confessing Jesus as personal savior, then goes on their life as they did before, immersed in sin with no practice of a changed heart, do they go to heaven upon death? You'll get different answers from different fundamentalists Christians, some arguing that once forgiven/always forgiven, another saying that perhaps not, as a changed life is evidence of one who was truly welcomed Jesus into their lives. Regardless of how you come down on that question, the debate exists. Under Newton, the fruits of one's life is regarded strongly as evidence of spiritual growth. What one may pray at one moment in time (i.e. "Jesus forgive me..." is not, though at the same time, such a person is not condemned at life's end to eternal punishment. Instead, they have all the time they need. The number of lives spent in stagnation is a penalty unto itself for the soul in question, as they miss opportunities to grow (the sense of waste which is greatly amplified upon return to the spirit world as are all other regrets). Growth is something that we all want at the spiritual level as per the morality we all have inside as as you described earlier. Though that desire may be in conflict with the carnal temptations that come from human living. Under Newton, some lives are so very short. But even short lives of a few years offer lessons, if even brief, so the tragedy of such a child dying is ultimately not there as it is under Christianity (and all Abrahamic faiths). That's another plus for the Newton model. Yes, of course it is. We are always a heartbeat away from departing life for good. I will do my best, though my answers (*my* answers) may very well not satisfy you. Please do consider the supposition that every soul is unfathomly (a new word perhaps) unique. As such, what constitutes "growth" is similarly unique to every soul. It would be why having a fixed yardstick by which to measure the growth of all souls would be futile. It could perhaps be much akin to attempting to measure an IQ with a number, when the reality is that intelligence comes in a great many forms. One who is exceptionally brilliant with spacial comprehension might be terrible lacking in numeric capabilities, or one brilliant with numbers terrible with reading comprehension. Granted, we can often tell if a person is generally intelligent or not, but attempting to measure all people's intelligence with a number is ultimately fallacious. In the same way, measuring a soul's progress with a similar numeric or binary value would be futile. You have latched on to this "Authority" concept, but I would contend that even though the concept is satisfying to you as a way of thinking about things, it is nonetheless something you depend upon too much (though that obviously won't sway you!) What answer to authorship would satisfy you? A name or set of names? In general, the same as under Christianity. To love, forgive, etc. In a sense, yes. And it does happen. One born into an exceptionally soft life can "degrade" in a sense. There's one example Newton mentions of a soul living the life of a Chinese empress who had complete power to use all that her people could provide for any selfish benefit, likely including power to enslave and kill upon a whim. This soul spent the next 500 years just getting back to where she was before that life. Though on the other hand, a stronger, more experienced and developed soul would likely have been able to live a life exposed to such power and privilege without being consumed by it, at least to such a degree as this soul was. (I.e. s/he would have been able to much better resist the "One Ring To Rule Them All"). So it could be said that this particular soul that "degraded" simply wasn't very strong to begin with, so the life as a self-aggrandizing emperor was productive in exposing that weakness. So in that sense, did that soul, even in this case, truly "degrade"? It all depends on how you look at things. Again, each soul is profoundly unique, and measuring the progress of a soul can't be readily done with a simple yardstick. I suppose it could be said we do not all grow in the same direction, as it were. If it were otherwise, then what is it about us that would be so divinely special? Maybe there wouldn't be. If there was no urgency, would that be a deal killer for belief purposes? Ultimately the only urgency is for the soul in question. We have soulmates (plural) whom all may be progressing faster than we are so that would provide some degree of urgency. At the soul level, we all come to earth for the purpose of growing so upon return, if we have failed to do so, there's a profound sense of waste. At least for the more experienced souls. Younger souls, according to Newton, don't really come to actively grow. Those types are just in the equivalent of nursery school, just getting an introduction to how things feel, much as human babies are learning about gravity and what hurts and what doesn't. More advanced souls want to improve themselves just as people are inspired to excel in education with universities and masters and such. For a specific soul? Again that question suggests a "yardstick" type of measurement. I can't answer that, and never will be able to do so. If you ask in a more universal sense on par with the Christian version of the final judgment, the golden city, Satan and all fallen angels gone from our lives being bound and thrown into the lake of fire... no, there's no final resolution I know of. New souls are constantly created (born of God in the spirit world), which is why earth has souls of all experience and development levels walking upon it, so progress continues without any end I can reason exists. Even our universe, created for the purpose of letting us experience physical life as humans (or whatever other comparable alien race that may exist in the cosmos), created with a big bang and destined, according to our best science today, to eventually fizzle out as dark energy eventually rips even atoms to smithereens, can be replaced with another big bang. Under Newton, multiple universes can exist, and he does cite one client referring to alternate dimensions. There is no limit. One could take all the infinality of God that is present even under Christianity and apply it to both space AND time, and even into universes and find no "Final Resolution". So while yes, under the Bible, there is a "Final Resolution" for all things in the Golden city described in Revelation. Under Newton, any "final resolution" likely does not exist in a universal sense. The spirit world, like God, and consequently us as souls, have no end, not in time, not in space. We will outlast not only this universe which is some 13 billion years old and has perhaps another 100 billion left, but all others that follow. No, endless reincarnation is clearly not our ultimate destiny. A time comes when each soul has progress sufficiently such that further incarnations provide no meaningful growth potential so it would be a waste of time. If such souls were to do so, they would be perceived as especially charismatic and lovely persons and understandably & rightly so. They probably would not run for political office, likely not be televangelists or otherwise be notable people in the media in any way. They would be the quiet types dedicating their life to helping others that only a few people would know. They may even have some supernatural ability to heal others or touch other lives in other supernatural ways. But I digress... Newton does describe in his final book a client that seems to be very advanced and perhaps relatively close to finishing up earthly incarnations, and it seems that our eventual destiny, though perhaps not even our "final" destiny is to rejoin God from whom we have, as souls, been born from in our very soulful infancy. And it may well be something that cannot be done until we have progressed far beyond even what progress earthly life can offer us. This could be considered a parallel of sorts to the Christian "cleansing of sin" that is required to enter God's presense, only "sin" would be replaced in concept with "weakness" or "undeveloped in virtue". In essence, instead of being cleansed of something undesirable, (though yes, there's that in the Newton model when it comes to vices such as anger and jealousy) it's more about expanding into the fullness of virtue through growth. We start out as "baby" souls and grow into very powerful and unique entities unlike any other than has preceded us and any other that is yet to come, and when we rejoin God, we do so as a unique contribution to God, which is in part all souls that have ever done so before. In that state, we are part of God and, I surmise, contribute to the creation/birth of yet more souls. And while that cycle continues, there may yet be even more awaiting us even beyond that. Our human minds are woefully inadequate to understand and perceive the spiritual answers on this point that we want. Hopefully I answered this (though no doubt unsatisfactorily) that the "standard" or "yardstick" or "IQ" method of measuring a soul's state is fallacious in the Newton model. It is a gesture of love. The Christian doctrine of God giving his only son for us has that moral of ultimate love, as does the decision of Jesus to accept the horrendous death on the cross for both God and us. It's a display of love, a message of love, that matches the love in the Newton model. Both under Christianity and Newton, we are called to love and sacrifice for others, though under Newton, we are to do so wisely, and sometimes that means letting people suffer in circumstances that are of their own making. And *THAT* is, perhaps, how God expresses love for us under Newton. He lets us suffer in circumstances of our own making too, because that is how we learn. And for someone that is given to anger, what could be a more fitting manner of love than to see us back on earth, living life after life mired in anger, waiting patiently for us to overcome such a vice? Sure, God could just say, screw it, you've got this anger issue but I'm just going to wipe it away. You don't have to over come it. Just join us at the table, there's your harp so just grab that, have a seat, start playing it and join the party. No. We don't that under Newton. It's instead something like: You did a little better this time, or maybe instead, you learned a bit that last life, didn't you? Now go back and try again. You'll get it! I have faith in ya! Tell me, Liberator, which of those two scenarios is more compelling in virtue? We as parents love to see our children grow, do we not? Why is it so unrealistic for God to want us to grow as well? Parents don't want grown up kids living in the house rent free for the rest of their lives, so why would God only want the equivalent of 4 year olds to never have to even learn how to add? This is just one of many Newton concepts that just makes so. much. more. sense. Your question implies paths exist and that Eternal death exists. Free will always exists, and it does seem some souls, sadly, undergo some very difficult times. It's even possible some choose destruction under Newton, though that's uncertain. But I think the vast majority of souls desire to grow and progress, and each is on its own path. I challenged the creationist view of earth and Eden where death "did not exist". But if this refers to physical/biological death down to the cellular level, whether human or not, then it seems it would be difficult for Adam and Eve to eat much food as digestion of most foods would require death of that material to occur. I suppose fruits could be considered non-living at the time of consumption, though even in that case, they need to be alive to grow in the first place so whether such plant material dies during consumption or before hand, "death" of those cells would occur by necessity. Separately, hair, surface skin and fingernails are, in the human body today, dead cellular material. If there was "no death" in Eden before the fall, would this mean that Adam and Eve had no hair, that their surface skin was alive, and that their fingernails were also alive? Perhaps they never grew. Also, if the command of God to multiply given before the fall, was Eve expected to give birth without any cellular death occurring? That seems quite a trick, all considered. It's an academic challenge on my part for those subscribing to the literal Biblical story of creation. Quite the dialog. Still meat on the old bone indeed!
Yes it is. Can't even see the bone ;-) I appreciate and enjoyed your responses. It's always seems to be good food for thought for both of us. (And thanks for addressing the pre-fall Creationist view of "Death" and challenge to the molecular level. AND adding an addendum regarding "Go and multiply...") I'll be ruminating and eventually responding. (Likely in parts)
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
#4. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter, jameson, Fred Mertz (#1)
Creationists were right all along. Just like I always knew and idiots still deny.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Creationists were right all along. Just like I always knew and idiots still deny.
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#0)
The tree rings were samples of Jordanian juniper that grew in the southern region of the Middle East between 1610 and 1940 CE. By counting the tree rings, the team were able to create a reasonably accurate timeline of annual changes in carbon-14 uptake for those centuries.
#8. To: buckeroo (#6)
Where is any direct internet link to the gobble-d-goop you just described?
#9. To: A K A Stone (#0)
archaeologists attempting to pinpoint Iron Age or Biblical events down to a few years would no doubt have a serious need to question their calibrations.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
buckeroo: Where is any direct internet link to the gobble-d-goop you just described?
#11. To: buckeroo (#10)
#12. To: buckeroo (#10)
You are another liar, thief and sneaker of personal tyme as you described; how can I chase down your BULLSHIT without direct support? Go FUCK Yourself.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Creationists were right all along.
#14. To: buckeroo (#4)
I worry about you, stone. You have no objective evidence to assert your belief system.
#15. To: Tooconservative (#7)
Hmmm...I see their assertions here but was unaware that anyone considered 19 years margin of error in carbon dating to be significant.
#16. To: sneakypete (#14)
That's why they call religions "faiths". Start demanding evidence and they all have to shut their doors and go out of business.
#17. To: Tooconservative, sneakypete (#7)
#18. To: sneakypete (#15)
It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.
#19. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#17)
What is the percentage they are off.
#20. To: sneakypete (#15)
It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.
#21. To: Tooconservative (#20)
Sure but science doesn't date the earth's age by carbon dating. They use other means of providing an estimate.
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
It was not until 1926, when (under the influence of Arthur Holmes, whose name recurs throughout this story) the National Academy of Sciences adopted the radiometric timescale, that we can regard the controversy as finally resolved. Critical to this resolution were improved methods of dating, which incorporated advances in mass spectrometry, sampling and laser heating. The resulting knowledge has led to the current understanding that the earth is 4.55 billion years old.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#16)
You believe in the tooth fairy and evolution.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#18)
How old is the planet and how do you know?
#25. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Wonder just how far you are...
#26. To: Tooconservative (#22)
Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.
#27. To: sneakypete (#24)
#28. To: VxH (#25)
(Edited)
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
#30. To: Tooconservative (#19)
#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)
[12 Billion-Year Old Supernova Discovered by Astronomers]
https://scitechdaily.com/10- billion-year-old-supernova-remnant-discovered-by-astronomers/
#32. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
#33. To: VxH (#31)
So God blew up SN 2213-1745 and SN 1000+0216 as what... some sort of cosmic practical joke?
#34. To: Tooconservative (#22)
Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#29)
Assumption piled on assumption piles on assumption
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
It's not just that. All of the Carbon 14 is gone after 50,000 years, so you can't use it to tell the difference between 51,000 and 500 million years old: zero is zero.
#37. To: Tooconservative (#36)
isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.
#38. To: VxH (#31)
#39. To: Tooconservative (#36)
I'm not sure why you keep repeating this since it is not true. It is not zero C14 after 50,000 years at all.
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#39)
Did I need to go through all of that? Yes, I think I did.
And that's why I keep saying so: because it IS so.
#41. To: Tooconservative (#40)
(Edited)
But it is not true, no matter how many keystrokes you expend.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#38)
You can believe God is a liar. I choose to believe the Bible is true.
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
...dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago...
#44. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#42)
Correct me if I am wrong,but God didn't write the Bible. Mortal men wrote it.
"Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness," ~ 2 Timothy 3:16
The Writing on the Wall
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
Yes, it is true. It is impossible to date anything a few million years old with Carbon-14, because there's no Carbon-14 left in it. It has all decayed away. It isn't there.
#46. To: Liberator (#44)
Q: When a secretary types/writes her boss's words, *who* is responsible for the transposed content/authorship, Pete?
#47. To: sneakypete (#46)
Is that from the Old Testament,which is supposed to be the true word of Gawd,or the " New and Improved "NEW Testament",which is the updated true word of Gawd?
#48. To: Liberator (#43)
It is impossible for blood cells to survive "millions" of years, never mind several thousands.
#49. To: Tooconservative (#45)
Where did I say that? You keep going on about how dinosaurs can't be dated this way but I never said they could. Nice straw man.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
That was my point all along: Carbon dating is useless for dinosaurs.
#51. To: Tooconservative (#50)
Well, thanks for those 10 posts to tell me that C14 dating is not used for dinosaurs when I never suggested that it was.
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
It is a serious tremor that cracks the solidity of a theory.
#53. To: Liberator (#52)
It does crack that theory...Maybe even smashes it to bits. A Game-Changer.
#54. To: Vicomte13, Liberator (#48)
It is impossible for blood cells to survive "millions" of years, never mind several thousands.
#55. To: sneakypete (#54)
What about instances where mosquitoes are trapped in tree sap/amber?
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#55)
It's not as though the death of the dinosaurs is a matter of religious importance to anybody on the scientific side of the house - at least it SHOULDN'T be.
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
On the other hand, it also opens the possibility that not all of the dinosaurs went extinct after the great meteor strike of 65 million years ag
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#55)
Or it really could be that, year, these animals (a dinosaur is, after all, just an animal) died much more recently. That would mean that the orthodoxy about all of the dinosaurs going extinct at a certain time would not be true, but that's ok. It's not as though the death of the dinosaurs is a matter of religious importance to anybody on the scientific side of the house - at least it SHOULDN'T be. Dinosaurs are interesting. When, precisely, the last died out - if they all did - would be a simple matter of historical fact, not something that ought to provoke resistance as though theology were being violated.
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#55)
Dinosaurs are interesting. When, precisely, the last died out - if they all did - would be a simple matter of historical fact, not something that ought to provoke resistance as though theology were being violated.
#60. To: A K A Stone (#57)
Why do you believe the Earth is millions of years old?
#61. To: Vicomte13, Tooconservative, A K A Stone, sneakypete, redleghunter, pinguinite (#26)
Carbon dating is only good back about 50,000 years.
#62. To: sneakypete (#60)
#63. To: Tooconservative (#7)
#64. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
I don't know that the Creationists are right, but I do know that the actual underlying pictoglyphic text of Genesis 1 is vastly more complex, and sophisticated, than the simple translations that sit atop it. There is a genius behind that text that is supernatural in its depth.
#65. To: Vicomte13, sneakypete (#55)
(Edited)
"What about instances where mosquitoes are trapped in tree sap/amber?
#66. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#57)
How were dinosaurs running around before Adam and Eve?
#67. To: Liberator (#43)
It is impossible for blood cells to survive "millions" of years, never mind several thousands.
#68. To: Liberator (#44)
Q: When a secretary types/writes her boss's words, *who* is responsible for the transposed content/authorship, Pete?
"Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness," ~ 2 Timothy 3:16
#69. To: Pinguinite (#67)
"It is impossible for blood cells to survive 'millions' of years, never mind several thousands."
#70. To: Liberator (#52)
That "aspect of the subject" and "logic" lead straight to only one conclusion: The Great Flood was likely way it all went down in Genesis...and...occurred only several *thousands* of years ago.
It's noted that dinosaurs, historically referred to in several ancient civilization texts as "great lizards" and "dragons" (also depicted in ancient paintings in both the Old and New World) indeed existed *at the same time as man*.
#71. To: sneakypete (#59)
They didn't. As has been mentioned here,there is no shortage of crocodiles,alligators,or lizards.
#72. To: Liberator (#65)
It really could be that, year, these animals (a dinosaur is, after all, just an animal) died much more recently. That would mean that the orthodoxy about all of the dinosaurs going extinct at a certain time would not be true...
#73. To: Pinguinite (#68)
(Edited)
Q: When a secretary types/writes her boss's words, *who* is responsible for the transposed content/authorship, Pete?
#74. To: Liberator (#66)
It seems Vic is on record here as considering Genesis as high-minded, perhaps even divinely-inspired "poetry" and not the Word of God.
Ergo that would mean God's Timeline as narrated in Genesis (as well as "sin" and "death" not being in-effect until after Adam and Eve's Fall) would not be taken literally.
#75. To: Liberator, A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#66)
#76. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Liberator (#74)
#77. To: Vicomte13 (#76)
Essentially, I don't believe in the traditional Christian religion
#78. To: A K A Stone (#77)
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#78)
#80. To: Vicomte13 (#78)
The thing that strikes me most about your particular religion is that you DON'T follow Christ
#81. To: Vicomte13 (#78)
follow Christ, in my estimation, means to carefully read exactly what he said, to figure out what he meant by it, and then to do what he said. That is what it means: it means to keep his commandments. It does NOT mean to elevate a book to the status of God.
#82. To: A K A Stone (#79)
There is only one path and that is the path laid out on the Bible,
#83. To: A K A Stone (#80)
MY shortcomings doesn't excuse your ignoring the plain teachings of the scriptures.
#84. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
#85. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
You don't offer anything true, just superstition, idolatry, harsh politics and anger.
#86. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
God pulled me out of a lake and raised two animals from the dead in my presence, and talks to me sometimes. I'm sticking with him.
#87. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
My primary problem with you is that you profess Christ but you totally ignore him with regards to the poor
#88. To: A K A Stone (#81)
You're also delusional with the lizard bulshit talk everybody on the form thinks you're an idiot for it. Not one person buys that b******* probably not even your kids.
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
#90. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
The problem you have is that you are raging like a Pharisee at actual miracles.
#91. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
know God exists because he pulled me out of a lake, raised two dead animals in my presence, and talks to me sometimes. That's the basis for my religion: direct personal experience with God.
#92. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
was always prepared to take God as he is. You have set preconditions upon him. He rejects them, so you sit alone with your book and your fellow ranters. You laugh at me, but I have the greater prize, so your laughter sounds like the mosque to me.
#93. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
I am not urging you to join my religion
#94. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
Your rage is misplaced.
#95. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
It is outrageous, to you. It makes perfect sense, of course: I'm listening to God, and you're listening to men
#96. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
jealous man. You do all of the things your idolatry requires, but God doesn't talk to you. And here's a guy who does not have your religion, and God heals him, shows him miracles, and talks to him.
#97. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
You laugh at me, but I have the greater prize,
#98. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
#99. To: A K A Stone (#98)
#100. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
#101. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
#102. To: A K A Stone (#100)
F*** you ass wipe.
#103. To: Fred Mertz (#102)
#104. To: A K A Stone (#103)
#105. To: Vicomte13 (#99)
I'll stick with the God who pulled me out of the lake and raised that mouse and that lizard from the dead, who flew the dove into my face to drive off the demon, and whose son embraced me. That's God.
#106. To: A K A Stone (#105)
Are you so stupid you cannot see that these comments cannot both be true?
#107. To: Vicomte13 (#106)
#108. To: A K A Stone (#107)
Changing your story buddy.
#109. To: Vicomte13 (#108)
Christ never promised health and happiness in this life - in fact, he promised that those things won't be found here.
#110. To: A K A Stone (#109)
You're not telling the truth. You said the above also in that post of yours. And many other things to reinforce it.
#111. To: Vicomte13 (#110)
#112. To: Fred Mertz, Exodus 12, 1-2 (#2)
#113. To: A K A Stone (#111)
#114. To: Vicomte13 (#113)
#115. To: Vicomte13 (#113)
#116. To: Vicomte13 (#113)
Example: The Bible says that all Jerusalem went out to be baptized by John.
#117. To: Pinguinite (#70)
There's speculation that the story of the "great flood" may have originated with the flooding of the Black Sea by a failed land bridge that separated it from the Mediterranean Sea, which seems occurred within time frame of ancient civilization.
#118. To: Pinguinite (#71)
All [crocodiles,alligators,or lizards] of which are, essentially, dinosaurs.
#119. To: Pinguinite (#72)
"It really could be that, year, these animals (a dinosaur is, after all, just an animal) died much more recently. That would mean that the orthodoxy about all of the dinosaurs going extinct at a certain time would not be true..."
#120. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#74)
Though it's a claim that the Genesis timeline is "God's Timeline" as opposed to a timeline of man that is purported to be God's.
#121. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#75)
I have seen the messages and am thinking about my response. Religious passions are inflamed here, and I have a different viewpoint than all three of you so, given that this is not an area of passion for me, I have to think through the degree to which I'm willing to endure the inevitable hectoring when I say something contrary to somebody else's belief system.
#122. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
The bible is not the complete word of God and is not without error.
#123. To: A K A Stone (#116)
Another lie liar.
#124. To: Liberator (#121)
Some of us are just riffin' thoughts, exchanging ideas.
#125. To: Liberator (#121)
Some of us are just riffin' thoughts, exchanging ideas. Ok, so we might not agree, but sometimes conversations and disagreements are just that.
#126. To: A K A Stone (#116)
you are lying. Liar. ... liar ... liar ... Another lie liar.
#127. To: Liberator (#120)
The only option other than dictating to certain righteous men and Prophets His divine account of Beginning, Middle and End, many ask of this, "If God IS God, why couldn't He just show up and make a Big Announcement in person: "Ok everybody -- I want you to know THIS is how In-The-Beginning all went down; THIS is the deal with dinosaurs;THESE are my Rules For Getting Into Heaven (now that Adam and Eve blew it for you all), and "Here is a Tour of My Kingdom and Hell -- choose wisely"...
BUT...He didn't. He chose for His own reason and purpose to challenge the course our respective mind, spirit, our heart take. And obviously, free will and faith.
#128. To: Liberator, A K A Stone (#120)
Hair isn't a "live being".
Taking another angle, I would submit that what *would* indicate the "death" of hair might be either balding (dying hair follicles), the graying of hair and degradation of quality, i.e. thinning.
Still another angle, if Adam and Eve were designed with absolute physical perfection, and the re-generation of all human tissue was forever, then how could hair be considered "dying"?
Adam and Eve's DNA would have been perfect before The Fall.
#129. To: Liberator (#122)
If you believe there are errors in scripture, can you specify which verses they are?
#130. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#129)
(If you believe there are errors in scripture, can you specify which verses they are? )
You directed to Vic, but I'll answer. Passages that state God gets angry & jealous. To me it's wholly contradictory to other passages about him being all wise, all powerful, all knowing, all loving etc.
#131. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#128)
I guess I was taking an issue with Stone's statement about there being no death before the fall. I should have pinged him. It was a challenge on the notion of "no death" in this context, as on a cellular level, it's hard to imagine there being no death in a perfect world. Even eating food involves digestion of plants & fruits, both of which were either alive when consumed or died prior to consumption, either of which involves death.
#132. To: Vicomte13 (#125)
When it comes to matters of God, it is much more complicated.
#133. To: Liberator, Vicomte13 (#130)
God's "anger" and "jealousy"-- again, in human relate-able terms. Maybe this analogy works for you; Say your child has joined an evil, kooky cult and appears to be embracing it. One emotion might be repulsiveness, others anger, disappointment, and..."jealously" in the sense that you can't believe he/she would choose cultist-enslavement over freedom.
Back to the language used in scripture -- Why wouldn't God explain language so we could understand it in "human" context? Somewhat analogous -- Germans and French both have words for things that don't exists for the English equivalent and vice versa.
There IS such a thing as "righteous anger", no doubt. As far as any "bidding" that's done -- I assume from your perspective, "in the name of God" -- you're going to have to be more specific about just what "political motive" and action your refer to.
#134. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#113)
One must say is that God almost never heals anybody, but that rarely, he does. Because that is the truth.
#135. To: Liberator (#131)
I appreciate your honesty.
I can't obviously convince you of things that might not work for you or for things of which you have doubts.
Sincere question: Do you apply the same sense of critical analysis and assessment of plausibility and authority for your current belief system?
#136. To: Pinguinite (#133)
But God is all knowing, so he would believe it, and even anticipate it. So why would it result in divine "anger".
Ah, but is not the Bible "truth"? Are you suggesting the Bible might convey an impression about God that is not, in fact, true, but somewhat short of that just so that we would "understand" something even though that which we then think we understand is, in fact, a misunderstanding?
Political motives? That's easy.
Well, you may find this notion of God capable of being angry (even "wrathful") and jealous reasonable in spite of His also having infinite wisdom, love & knowledge, but I do not, and it's one element that, for me, favors the Newton model of at least the Old Testament depiction of God, if not the contemporary Christian depiction.
Truly, under the Newton model, God has, in my opinion (if not outright objectively speaking) complete majesty. He has all of the wonders that Christianity claims he has, but without any of the shortcomings such as being capable of anger and jealousy. God is better complemented and revered as a higher standard than in the Judeo-Christian model.
It's my contention that the old testament is a collection of ancient writings that, rather than being divinely inspired, are instead a collection of highly refined writings that are ascribed divine origin status. That ascription has taken on a life of its own in the form of both the Jewish faith as well as, of course, the Christian faith which is an extension of it. Under the Newton model, everything works perfectly, frankly, in terms of divine love and patience, and our purpose. Christianity simply doesn't work perfectly, which which I'm sure you'll strongly disagree. But the bottom line is, under the Newton model, no one is left behind with the possible exception of those who choose to be left behind. And under Christianity, people can go to hell for all eternity because someone never shared the gospel with them when they had the chance to. On it's face.... that's a point scored for the Newton model.
#137. To: Liberator (#134)
That said, your healing, of extension-of-life may also be construed as a analogous example of Jesus' healings, serving to remind you/us of lives that can and will be "healed" Forever.
#138. To: Liberator (#136)
When you put the literal fear of God into a population, and are able to cast yourself as a spokesman for God, then you have strong control over those people.
Is conveying the Word of God as a disciple/"spokesman" a matter of "leadership" OR coercion (as you infer)? Faith in God and heeding His Laws are all still a matter of Free Will, are they not? Jesus Christ and his disciples never coerced others into being Believers. And neither do legit "spokesmen" or Pastors who spread the Gospel and remind and lead the flock down the "narrow road".
Doesn't any parent run that same gamut of emotion as they watch their child grow up? After all, we are just extensions of God the Father. We may even know beforehand that our child WILL fall, but the child must learn. Then we pick him up.
All a matter of personal opinion of course; yours and my Free Will to seek the truth then choose our respective path. I fully understand and accept the context of The Almighty's language and find no inconsistencies or weakness in his conveyance and intent.
I've explained the context of God's "jealousy"; His anger is a *righteous* anger akin to watching your children become willfully disobedient simply out of spite or because of selfishness. And most of all, His Anger (as in the case of ANY loving parent) is a response to knowing some of His children will die as a result of their willful ignorance, selfishness, and...yes, even contempt of a Father who does his best to guide and discipline them.
Q: Is it possible that the testimony of Newton's subjects (on which the entire Newton model is obviously based) *could* be contaminated by nefarious spiritual beings and methodical deception?
The Newton model works on some respects...As a loving forgiving parent. But maybe the "patience" is too much of a good thing. After all, how many time can a parent be expected to see Johnny harm and almost kill himself before being disciplined? Before learning his lesson?
The Newton model may be akin to the parent who won't ever tell Johnny that driving close to the cliff might result in his car going over the cliff and sure death. The main problem with the Newton model is...Consequences -- are are none. There is no personal responsibility, no justice,
no real resolution or Finish Line.
No Heaven and no Hell. No such thing as "sin"; No real such thing as "Forever". And ALWAYS a second, third fourth, infinity of "chances" to "get it right". I don't know how that makes any sense and by what universal "justice" that works (and of course, by whose "Authority")
Justice necessitates that some are NOT rewarded for their willful (keyword here) disobedience, blindness, arrogance, sin, AND contempt of The Father. Reward are merit-based; Obedience is rewarded. The Reward for Eternal Life is but from Grace.
The Afterlife is Forever. Better be sure because there is no second chance.
#139. To: A K A Stone (#38)
You can believe God is a liar.
#140. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#137)
I talk about religion less and less, because I see the whole subject as a dying belief system. It is dying because all of the poison that has been poured into the garden.
#141. To: tpaine (#140)
Actually, that would be excellent advice for anyone so obsessed. ---- Imho, nothing kills a forum like LF faster than religious discussions taken to excess
#142. To: Pinguinite (#138)
It seems clear you first accept the Bible as God's Word, and because of that, find no inconsistencies. But certainly, once you do accept that premise, you are **not allowed** to find any inconsistencies. Any perceptions of such will be automatically be categorized as something you are not wise enough to understand, in which case there is nothing anyone could point out about the Bible that would make you question it's divine origin.
2)"ambiguous",
3) "not clear enough",
4) "nonsensical"
5) "half-true/untrue". "Jesus called a little child to stand among them. 'Truly I tell you,' He said, 'unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me.'" ~ Matthew 18:2-5 (Berean Study Bible)
#143. To: Vicomte13 (#137)
#144. To: tpaine, Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#140)
(Edited)
Good idea Vic, stop writing about religion.. --- Actually, that would be excellent advice for anyone so obsessed.
#145. To: Pinguinite (#138)
("I've explained the context of God's "jealousy"; His anger is a *righteous* anger akin to watching your children become willfully disobedient simply out of spite or because of selfishness. And most of all, His Anger (as in the case of ANY loving parent) is a response to knowing some of His children will die as a result of their willful ignorance, selfishness, and...yes, even contempt of a Father who does his best to guide and discipline them.")
B) He had a choice, and chose the one now known as Christianity where most of his children end up dying?
#146. To: Liberator (#144)
#147. To: Vicomte13 (#141)
there are conservatives like you, of a more libertarian bent, who find religion to be a complete waste of time. But more conservatives think that it's important, and so it is, in conservative politics.
#148. To: tpaine (#147)
Because I'm a constitutionalist/libertarian, and an agnostic, your idea that I find religion "a waste of time" baffles me, as I've never indicated anything like that belief..
#149. To: All (#138)
The Newton model works on some respects...As a loving forgiving parent. But maybe the "patience" is too much of a good thing. After all, how many time can a parent be expected to see Johnny harm and almost kill himself before being disciplined? Before learning his lesson?
Seven times seventy-seven? :^)
#150. To: Pinguinite (#149)
#151. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite (#150)
I will write it out if you're actually interested in hearing iit .
#152. To: buckeroo (#151)
#153. To: Vicomte13 (#152)
#154. To: buckeroo (#153)
#155. To: Vicomte13 (#150)
I hesitate because I anticipate the anger of Christians who believe their various traditions.
Each of the traditions has a basis in Scripture, but I think the interpretations err in that they do not respect the proper hierarchy of authorities, and they rely on mistranslated terms and traditions that have risen up around them. What the Scriptures actually SAY in the original languages is quite a bit different. I don't believe the Christian traditions - I believe they err in important ways. I do believe the literal read of the original languages with respect to the proper authorities.
#156. To: Pinguinite (#155)
#157. To: Vicomte13 (#156)
#158. To: Pinguinite (#157)
Under the Newton model, miracles can happen independent of whether the person deemed to be the instigator is theologically accurate. There is a separation of spirituality and academic knowledge, such that it is not required that one have correct theological understanding of God to live a successful life in spiritual terms. This to me makes perfect sense as it makes one's intelligence a non-issue when it comes to "salvation", or, in the Newton equivalent, progression. If it were otherwise, it would potentially give supernatural favor to those who happen to be born with a higher intellectual ability over those with lessor intellectual ability, and that goes completely counter to basic "theo-logic".
#159. To: Pinguinite (#157)
If someone is able to perform miracles (and under the Newton model, they can occur) it is because of spiritual, not intellectual, strengths.
#160. To: Pinguinite (#149)
Liberator, I see your subsequent responses, but want to expand a bit on this particular exchange. Firstly, it wasn't my intent to mock you or the Bible by employing this biblical numeric reference in my response, though it was certainly intended to be a funny retort as it was exactly that, turning the tables on you. Knowing you, however, I'm confident it wasn't taken as mocking.
Well, under the Newton model, there are no such limits for God, but under the Christian model, there is. There is the limit of a single life, which may not even last more than a few years.
Everything works **better**, and I would go so far as to say that under the Newton model, God has all the majesty that Christianity talks about Him having, but nonetheless fails to ascribe to Him when it comes to the matter of eternal damnation.
I know you can tell me and others the reasons God supposedly does this condemnation, and you may even argue that it isn't Him who actually does it. But it doesn't change the fact that under the Christian model (your version, at least) eternal condemnation occurs, and that under the Newton model, it does not (while still preserving accountability and free will). And I for one simply can't, with an honest mind, hold on to a theology that portrays God as having inferior qualities which is what I frankly see in the Christian model.
When you argue about Christianity being the Truth, to me it's much like a car salesman trying to convince me that a Chevy Sail is superior in performance to a Camaro. It's not the individual theological elements that I pay attention to so much. It's the end result. And the end result of the Newton model is, frankly, is superior in having patience that spans eternal (i.e. "Seventy times seven" times) and on several other points as well.
#161. To: Liberator (#160)
It is true -- the Newton model of "forgiveness" is far more liberal. But in its model, God lets *everything* slide, doesn't He?
Yes, I can see how you might construe the Newton model God as more "patient" (eternally patient is it turns out). But might not that kind of God actually be considered "indifferent"?
Moreover, in the Newton model, "Graduation Day" (If it comes) -- what resolution or realm again are its "students" graduating TO? What is the "Finish Line"?
... The Christian God has clearly laid out the ground rules and Law, the Way, Truth and Life (without ambiguity), through nothing but simple Grace/Charity/Love paid the ransom for our eternal lives -- AND tells us that the reward for our faith and loyalty is...His Kingdom Forever.
The Newtonian Resolution seems to be more like a lukewarm purgatory, treading and bobbing in water forever, putting off the inevitable: Death. And Judgment.
Obviously, the avoidance of negative, fatal resolutions for eternity are what make Newton's model preferable. There are many other points that favor the Newton model (though I don't consider such advantages proof Newton is correct).
I see "Free Will" in the Newtonian Model, but not remotely any Accountability. Nor Justice. To me, any system that dispenses an earned and holy "Justice" is Godly and righteous.
Conversely, why wouldn't Justice that NOT dispensed be considered unfair, a mockery of Eternal Justice?
Lol...a Chevy "Sail"? Never hoid of it. lets us a "Chevette" as an example :-)
The problems with the Newton model remain (without repeating myself) is the lack of evidence, questionable testimony, lack of authority, and its namesake "Prophet" who was an Atheist by his own account. And...where is the "love"??
God proves His identity by His Creation and Love and Justice by the testimony of eyewitness accounts, by miracles, by His laws and existence of His Kingdom through the Prophets, and both His Kingdom and Hell by Scriptural testimony.
You've obviously invested quite a bit of soul-searching into eternal justice and our destiny beyond this mortal coil -- and that's a good thing because it is ultimately all that matters.
Why discount the Christan account in the first place? Can it be distilled down to your perception of "cruelty" and God's condemnation of sin and His banning of it from His Kingdom? Or was it your total objection that the "Word" is tainted by "man" to begin with?
You DO understand that Newton was man...as were his subjects of whom provide the entire basis of the Newton Model? (Why should the latter's testimony be credible without question and wield THE truth, but the word of Jesus, the Apostles or the Prophets be invalidated?)
I can't debate "Truth" of the matter if you've already determined Christianity to be based on lies and testimony you deem invalid or discredited.
#162. To: Vicomte13 (#158)
#163. To: Pinguinite (#162)
(Edited)
#164. To: Pinguinite (#149)
And if we are called to forgive without count, is it reasonable to suggest that God has a more restrictive limit on forgiveness?
#165. To: Vicomte13 (#154)
What I have to say is intelligent and interesting.
#166. To: Biff Tannen (#164)
So we forgive, and God deals with it as he sees fit.
#167. To: buckeroo (#165)
#168. To: Vicomte13 (#167)
#169. To: buckeroo (#168)
#170. To: Vicomte13 (#169)
#171. To: Biff Tannen (#164)
We are required to forgive always and endlessly but God is not.
When an offense happens, we get hit or cheated etc, the offense is against God not us.
We are to hold others in a constant state of forgiveness without keeping score, not summing up the amount of debt each time and forgiving repeatedly.
#172. To: Pinguinite (#171)
That implies that we are nothing, that we have no value
Though it's not to say that we should leave ourselves open to injury repeatedly and predictably.
#173. To: Biff Tannen (#164)
We are to hold others in a constant state of forgiveness without keeping score, not summing up the amount of debt each time and forgiving repeatedly.
#174. To: Vicomte13 (#163)
have never spoken of theological accuracy.
#175. To: Vicomte13 (#163)
contrast this with CLAIMS of miracle
#176. To: A K A Stone (#174)
Proof you ignore gods word and substitute your lizard delusions for scripture.
#177. To: A K A Stone (#175)
Me too. Your claims are delusional and silly.
#178. To: Vicomte13 (#163)
But Pinguinite, I have never spoken of theological accuracy.
The data of the miracles, taken as a set, favors the study of the Christian religion, because when nature goes haywire and produces a miracle, it does so conveying Christian data.
What I am saying is that the miracles prove the existence of God.
#179. To: Biff Tannen (#172)
I don't see it that way. It's how our legal system works too, at least for criminal law. If someone assaults you, you are to take no revenge or seek to equalize things. Instead the person is tried for what they did, assaulting someone, and you get no recompense.
#180. To: Pinguinite (#178)
#181. To: A K A Stone (#173)
Even if they do not repend or ask for forgive.
#182. To: Vicomte13 (#180)
Obviously, we see these things a bit differently. Thanks for the conversation. Take care.
#183. To: Pinguinite (#181)
(Edited)
#184. To: Pinguinite (#181)
#185. To: A K A Stone (#173)
Even if they do not repend or ask for forgive.
#186. To: Pinguinite (#179)
#187. To: A K A Stone (#184)
Some realtor lady ripped me off in the nineties. I'm still mad about it. I see her signs occasionally. I wonder if she ever wonders what happened to some of those signs.
#188. To: Pinguinite (#187)
Under the Christian model, an evildoer goes to hell to burn for all eternity,
#189. To: Vicomte13 (#176)
(Edited)
#190. To: Pinguinite (#187)
When people intentionally harm others, they will eventually understand that harm they've done and be truly regretful
#191. To: Pinguinite (#187)
When people intentionally harm others, they will eventually understand that harm they've done and be truly regretful. Newton has found it to be common that when one person harms another in one life, that person who committed the harm will eventually choose a life in which they suffer the same harm they inflicted. For example, one who murders will eventually choose, on the soul level, a life in which they are destined to be murdered. And as souls, they will voluntarily do so. And while in human form they would have no conscious memory of that choice or destiny, it is nonetheless something the soul is aware of. And again, it is something souls will freely choose to do, because it is the way to become more enlightened and to grow. It is NOT for the purposes of justice or punishment, but for understanding and growth. Souls can refuse to do so, but the consequence is no growth.
#192. To: Pinguinite (#187)
(Edited)
Under the Christian model, an evildoer goes to hell to burn for all eternity, and it doesn't matter if they sinned only a little bit or committed terrible atrocities their whole life. Their punishment is the same. So the temptation to want to exact justice by harming someone who harmed you is arguably much greater.
#193. To: A K A Stone (#192)
When people intentionally harm others, they will eventually understand that harm they've done and be truly regretful
Just like oj and Obama right. Hillary too huh.
You also left out the fact that anyone can choose to be saved. Or they can choose hell by rejecting Christ.
#194. To: Vicomte13 (#188)
Under the Christian model, an evildoer goes to hell to burn for all eternity,
Under one Christian model, a traditional one, yes.
But that is not what the Scriptural texts actually SAY, in koine Greek. They say something quite different.
#195. To: A K A Stone (#189)
The Catholic Church practices idoltry. You know it is true.
#196. To: Pinguinite (#194)
Okay, I'll bite. What does the original Greek actually say on the matter?
#197. To: Pinguinite (#194)
(Edited)
#198. To: Pinguinite (#138)
(Edited)
Believing something out of fear is not something I see as a virtue God would respect or admire.
OR...Did we behave out of wanting to please our parents out of love and respect? Grandparents? Teachers? Coaches? Etal? AND eventually out of knowledge and wisdom?
Again, partially. But do we do so out of love of peace, respect for the law and others, and out of love and respect even for ourselves? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." ~ Proverbs
#199. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#187)
(Edited)
When it comes to dealing with those who have harmed you, the Newton model offers a perspective that makes it easier to do so.
Newton has found it to be common that when one person harms another in one life, that person who committed the harm will eventually choose a life in which they suffer the same harm they inflicted. For example, one who murders will eventually choose, on the soul level, a life in which they are destined to be murdered.
And as souls, they will voluntarily do so [if a Murderer BE Murdered]....And again, it is something souls will freely choose ...Souls can refuse to do so, but the consequence is no growth.
Under the Christian model, an evildoer goes to hell to burn for all eternity, and it doesn't matter if they sinned only a little bit or committed terrible atrocities their whole life. Their punishment is the same. So the temptation to want to exact justice by harming someone who harmed you is arguably much greater.
"And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books."
So all considered, under the Newton model, it's easier to deal with people who harm you.
#200. To: Biff Tannen, A K A Stone (#185)
And how is Jesus towards you? He holds you in a state of forgiveness without a constant cycle of accounting and forgiving. It's the New Testament way, a state of grace - unmerited favor.
#201. To: Pinguinite (#194)
#202. To: Vicomte13 (#201)
#203. To: Vicomte13 (#201)
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
#204. To: Liberator (#198)
It may or may not seem "fair", but God's Purpose can't be questioned.
The Newton Model lacks any personal love, respect, and pleasing of our Father. In its post-mortal "purgatory" lies a sterile, impersonal vacuum of inconsequence for either Obedience OR Disobedience; Of neither Accountability; Reward nor Justice nor Judgement NOR "Resolution" or Validation upon "life-after-life".
(Yet unanswered: By what or whose standard is "wrong" or "right" amended and validated?)
All things must have a "Beginning" and End", an Alpha and Omega. The Newton Model also conspicuously lacks any, "In The Beginning" and thus far, there is no "End" (unless I've overlooked something).
#205. To: Liberator (#199)
Don't many already eventually understand the guilt of harming of others and repentance in this life?
IF this atonement/penance goes on indefinitely, there no *last* innocent man if a past-life murderer require a next-life murderer.
EDIT: With respect to "Growth", we are to grow is spirit and in Godly wisdom and understanding IN THIS ONE LIFE. This is it. One shot deal.
You keep on referring to "Growth". INTO WHAT? TO WHOM DOES THIS PROCESS PLEASE? TO WHAT END?
How sure, how convinced will you be in your deathbed of the Newton Model? Will you have *any* doubt that the very next face you see the second after you pass will be unnamed, unknown entities, Newtonian "Counselors"? OR, before the Throne of God? (just asking)
Can you be sure that those "Counselors" are merely cackling demons who've mislead you?
May you keep on searching for the truth, brutha.
#206. To: Vicomte13 (#201)
#207. To: Biff Tannen (#202)
First: Let's say it doesn't say 'forever'. That doesn't mean it's NOT forever, as you claim. It just means we don't fully know.
#208. To: Biff Tannen (#203)
#209. To: Pinguinite (#206)
Souls are not necessarily immortal,
#210. To: Vicomte13 (#209)
When the laws of physics put a three-D photographic negative of a man on a piece of LINEN, and somehow that cloth makes it through 2000 years to the forensic lab, along with its linen facecloth companion, while every OTHER piece of cloth from the First Century has crumbled to dust - and the blood on the cloth turns out to be the same very rare blood as from another miracle, of heart tissue, from 600 years and 1500 miles later - and modern American and Western European scientists (i.e.: not superstitious yokels from the undeveloped world) look at these things and say "Yep, they really ARE images and blood, and thus and so - and they really are inexplicable, as no known or postulated process could do that" - THEN I can apply the same inductive reasoning as is used in the rest of science to say -OK, God did this
#211. To: Vicomte13 (#207)
Actually "To a distant time", and "to the horizon past the horizon" means "not forever". God never promised Israel to the Jews "forever". He promised it to them "to a distant time". That "distant time" came when Jesus pronounced the doom on the vineyard.
As far as the remedy for sin being the cross, that is not what Jesus said. Jesus never said that. Apostles seemed to say it, but Jesus said something very different.
#212. To: tpaine (#210)
Can you post a link to a site that modern American and Western European scientists will verify the scientific claims you make above?
#213. To: Vicomte13 (#209)
#214. To: Biff Tannen (#211)
#215. To: Vicomte13 (#214)
does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God", what I hear Jesus saying is that I need to listen for the words that proceed forth out of the mouth of God - words said BY God.
#216. To: Vicomte13 (#214)
I do like to offer my alternative view to the traditions,
#217. To: Vicomte13 (#214)
is my experience that Christians prefer to change Jesus' hard
#218. To: Pinguinite (#193)
Except for those who went through their entire life without ever hearing the Gospel. Correct or no?
#219. To: Vicomte13 (#214)
#220. To: Pinguinite (#193)
can understand your own lack of patience with people. But when you say those people are already lost causes destined for hell, what you are doing is ascribing your own level of intolerance to God. But God is better than you. Better than me too.
#221. To: Vicomte13 (#214)
listening, really. I don't really care what other people believe. I do know what is right - and that's what I focus on: DOING what Jesus said to DO. As long as you DO it, you are following him. He said that.
#222. To: A K A Stone (#220)
I just don't believe everyone changes and regrets wrongs they have commited.
#223. To: A K A Stone (#215)
You don't believe in God of the Bible.
#224. To: A K A Stone (#221)
#225. To: Pinguinite (#205)
On your death bed, can you predict what will be going trough your mind? Will you have any doubts about Christianity? If you answer "no", will that be because you fully anticipate that will be the case?
How many ways does the Newtonian Model prove it is the Way, Truth, and Life?
#226. To: Liberator (#225)
Have you ever been with strong Christians in exactly that scenario? I have. 3 to be exact. Fearlessness. A calm and comfort. Yes, a bit of consternation at times, but overall, a confident acceptance. An amazing thing to behold.
No, I have NO reservations or doubt about God's promise to me (or all of us). The reason I don't have an iota of doubt is because I believe Jesus when He said He was "The Way, the Truth, and the Life." AND importantly, because He speaks to me, my heart, my spirit. And I *know* it is Him. (you'll note that I am mostly avoiding citation of Scripture because it might bog down our exchange...but He's told us repeatedly that all we need do is ask Him into our heart.)
In other words, would you be willing to lie to please God?
"Lie"? I don't understand the question or gist.
However, faith is NOT an "academic" matter; It's a spiritual one.
Your "validation" of forgiveness and patience in *this* life is virtuous and noble; But besides the self-validation in that vein, are you considering your mortal behavior an "obedience" to the "Counselors" in the Afterlife? Or is there indeed an element within your spirit and conscience that knows these trait demonstrate obedience to Almighty God?
Whether God or Newtonian "Counselors", all of the unseen is "abstract" to a degree, wouldn't you agree?
How many ways does God prove HE is God and The Way, Truth, and Life?
How many ways does the Newtonian Model prove it is the Way, Truth, and Life?
#227. To: Pinguinite (#226)
(Edited)
Your "validation" of forgiveness and patience in *this* life is virtuous and noble; But besides the self-validation in that vein, are you considering your mortal behavior an "obedience" to the "Counselors" in the Afterlife?
Do not harm little children.
Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop.
Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
ECCLESIASTES
SONG OF SOLOMON
#228. To: Liberator (#227)
#229. To: Pinguinite (#226)
(Edited)
If it was not an academic matter, but only a spiritual one, then there would be no use, no point, in trying to convert people. People will either believe, or they will not believe, and there's nothing anyone could say to change that.
#230. To: Liberator (#227)
(Edited)
Consider the following "virtuous" statements:
#231. To: Vicomte13 (#229)
#232. To: Vicomte13 (#230)
Really? Those are SATANIST Commandments?
#233. To: Pinguinite (#231)
I guess we all have our favorite miracles, don't we?
#234. To: Vicomte13 (#233)
So we should all really be able to understand each other better than we do: NONE of us is interested in what any of the others thinks about God. We all want others to be interested in what WE think about God. But nobody is.
#235. To: Vicomte13 (#233)
(Edited)
So we should all really be able to understand each other better than we do: NONE of us is interested in what any of the others thinks about God. We all want others to be interested in what WE think about God. But nobody is.
#236. To: A K A Stone (#234)
That describes you perfectly. Not everyone else.
#237. To: A K A Stone (#234)
That describes you perfectly. Not everyone else.
#238. To: Pinguinite (#236)
#239. To: Vicomte13 (#230)
Really? Those are SATANIST Commandments?
#240. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#233)
(Edited)
We should all really be able to understand each other better than we do: NONE of us is interested in what any of the others thinks about God.
#241. To: Liberator (#239)
#242. To: Vicomte13 (#241)
Just because someone calls himself a "Satanist" doesn't mean he really worships Satan.
Revelation 9:11
Revelation 12:10
1 Peter 5:8
Revelation 9:11
Revelation 9:11
Matthew 12:24
2 Corinthians 6:15
Isaiah 27:1
Isaiah 27:1 ; Revelation 20:2
Matthew 13:39
1 Samuel 16:14
John 8:44
Revelation 12:3
Isaiah 27:1
John 8:44
1 Kings 22:22
John 8:44
Revelation 12:9 ; 20:2
Isaiah 27:1
Colossians 1:13
John 14:30
Matthew 12:24
Ephesians 2:2
Ephesians 6:12
1 Chronicles 21:1 ; Job 1:6
Genesis 3:4 Genesis 3:16 ; 2 Corinthians 11:3
Ephesians 2:2
Matthew 4:3 ; 1 Thessalonians 3:5
2 Corinthians 4:4
Matthew 12:43
Matthew 13:19 Matthew 13:38
#243. To: Vicomte13 (#241)
(Edited)
My bet would be that most Satanists don't really think there IS a Satan, and call themselves Satanists to piss off the religious whom they don't like.
#244. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#231)
(Edited)
...My sister considers the tilma of Guadalupe to be a real miracle and dismisses the Leininger account [recollections of being a WWII pilot] out of hand.
#245. To: Pinguinite (#161)
Again, it's [The Newton Model] about growth, not justice. Though justice can help facilitate growth. Under Newton, justice is a means of growth.
#246. To: Liberator (#244)
First of all, till this very day my brother "remembers" being at Iwo Jima. Yes, we DID watch many a WW2 movie when we were kids. (for he record, my brother believes in God but is NOT religions. At all. And never discusses his beliefs.)
That said, there ARE such a phenomena as "false memories". There IS such a thing as "The Power of Suggestion".
Moreever, what of the many Old Testament miracles? Its historical accounts of places, people, and event stand up to scrutiny. Do we off-offhandedly dismiss them? And miracles of he times? If not, why not? If it's a matter of credibility, then NO "history" should be believed for actual "fact"...Which brings up the next question
With respect to the Big Picture at another level of "miracle", I'd submit that the microscopic "seed" of both human egg and process of fertilization...and that of any other seed grows into a mighty Sequoia or Blue Whale (containing a gazillion codes to a gazillion processes that both sustain and replicate future generations) IS A MIRACLE AT FACE VALUE.
#247. To: Liberator (#245)
Under Christianity, or "Christ-ianity", life can't be helped but be considered a "Test" of sorts" -- a Final Test at that -- except that the circumstances aren't always "fair". Fact is circumstances of life are mostly unequal AND unfair;
IF we are aware of them (the heart/spirit it seems -- even devoid of formal "religion" has always been hard-wired with an innate awareness of "Good & Evil"; Right & Wrong. As well as "knowing" there is Something/Someone Greater than we.)
"Justice" IS a consideration for man, which confers a fairness and upheld standard of law and ethic based on morality. I'm sure you'd agree that this expectation would apply whether secular, Newtonian, or Christian life.
In Christian life, The Law also commands love, forgiveness, compassion, redemption, mercy. Christians are taught also to grow in wisdom, discipline and humility along the way in life to endure.
According to the Bible's record, documenting Adam's lineage (which Jesus Himself cites), pre-Flood man typically lived up to 700-900 (why that was is a discussion for a different thread). Post-Flood man's max life span was downgraded to @100-120 years. That's plenty of time to "grow" in wisdom", IF we make it a priority.
(Yes, as we know, in certain civilizations, the life span is cut in half or even less. Again I'd cite "extenuating circumstances" that The Almighty Judge would consider)
For those of us who believe our "Growth" is limited by our lifespan on this earth, on this mortal plane, there IS a sense of urgency or awareness.
Frankly, I haven't received or clearly understood answers to the following questions:
If "Growth" is the #1 Priority and Goal of the Newton Model, exactly in what sense or context is expected to "grow"? To what extent that would be considered meeting that goal? (what Authority established it?
No, I still don't know what IS THE "Authority" of the Newton Model.
Newton created a template for the Afterlife, but divulges no authors -- except apparently himself.)
What lessons are to be "learned"?
Moreover, if the recycled life goes on and on (without resolution), might the subject also degrade instead of improve?
Why would there be any sense of urgency in "getting it right" (however "right" is defined)?
AT what point does the Newtonian Resolution reach its target or Final Resolution?
Is "Peace" projected to be found at its End Game? Love? Fellowship? What kind of Realm is expected? Is it an Edenic metaphysical dimension? Or is Earth the eternal destination (with different bodies?)
"Justice". Doesn't the notion preclude a standard of morality and ethics and Law that has been established and expected to have been followed and met to a certain degree? It can be said that "Judgement" precludes an ultimate Judge of said "Law" and extent to which has been deemed "ACCEPTABLE". Or a "Passing Grade".
On Judgment Day, ONLY a Merciful God ONLY through Jesus Christ gives all a "Passing Grade" or "Mulligan" for the Second Life aka "Eternity". Those are HIS words, HIS Guaranty. Why isn't Eternal Life and Paradise for Sinners abusing God's Law considered the ultimate gesture of "LOVE"?
Are there other paths to Eternal Life?
Btw -- an aside...I seem to recall you questioning the source of food in the Afterlife or before The Fall. Do you recall? According to my recollection there was a question about death and perhaps "dead things" being the source of food.
#248. To: Pinguinite (#247)
(Edited)
Quite the dialog. Still meat on the old bone indeed!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]