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: 48507
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
Comments (1-105) not displayed.
.
.
.
#106. To: A K A Stone (#105)
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)
Comments (146 - 248) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAre 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?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]