Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: If A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words, Then What Do These Memes Say? (Parts VIII & I)
Source:
The Potters Clay
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa6ulv9aQno
Published: Oct 10, 2018
Author: The Potters Clay
Post Date: 2019-10-07 12:02:10 by Liberator
Keywords: Truth, Memes, Hmmm
Views: 45779
Comments: 340
A little Meme action... Poster Comment: Get bored easily? No time to watch long videos? MEMES TO THE RESCUE! Short & Sweet. These are found at a Christian You Tube called, 'The Potters Clay'... These are REALLY good. Fun stuff. I promise. Spectacular AND clever. It doesn't matter what your core belief is; you will come upon several memes that will stop you dead in your tracks and challenge you. (STRONG SUGGESTION: To adjust and slow these memes down, go to your YouTube 'Settings', then adjust 'Playback Speed to .75. It will give you more time to contemplate the meme, since they move along pretty fast.) When you have the time, please give them all a look; I consider them a crash-course in Earth-Science Truth, Logic, and Reason.
If you haven't seen them, checkout the rest!
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part I
https://youtu.be/ptar5YtS_Sk
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth A Thousand Words - Part II
https://youtu.be/FchgUVA4SxE
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part III
https://youtu.be/Kth6X1g7bWk
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part IV
https://youtu.be/eVk3DIwf66c
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part V
https://youtu.be/qJAsGkP99rg
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part VI
https://youtu.be/z2a6g-nfQRU
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part VII
https://youtu.be/9Xsh2LJ1SvY
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part IX
https://youtu.be/X-D54GbpPjQ
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 320.
#12. To: Liberator (#0)
I watched both. I find them, to varying degrees, flawed. I'm not willing to rehash the science, at least right now. But setting science aside, I'd just speak to the conspiracy factor. If the earth is flat, then it's an absolutely enormous conspiracy going back some 15 generations to perpetuate this round earth lie. And the number of people that would have to be in on it in this day and age is huge. Not just NASA and astronomers, but meteorologists, navigators, and even satellite TV equipment manufactures. Every parent knows how it is, and so does everyone who's ever been a kid. If you tell one lie, you later have to tell another lie to cover up for your first lie. And then a 3rd lie to cover for the second. It goes on and on and eventually the whole house of cards collapses under its own weight. If the earth is flat, then the lie about the earth being round amounts to an absolute huge house of cards. Then again, I guess you would counter that the house has collapsed. For you. Fact is though, it's only collapsed for a tiny fraction of people. If you were right, this would have fallen over a very long time ago. And that's even ignoring the question of what perpetuating this round earth theory was ever supposed to achieve in the first place. If it was to marginalize the story of Genesis in the Bible, then they could have done that in any number of other ways that would be safe from being disproved, unlike something so basic as the shape of the earth.
Thanks for checking them out. Some of the memes aren't going to be A+. But some of them are. (Which meme or memes did you find "flawed" btw?) ...Setting science aside, I'd just speak to the conspiracy factor. If the earth is flat, then it's an absolutely enormous conspiracy going back some 15 generations to perpetuate this round earth lie. I think we can both agree that acceptance of Globe Earth was first making headway near the time of Galileo and Copernicus, which would have been @ the 1500s. It was not fully accepted by a consensus until the mid-1800s -- at coincidentally the same time "institutional Science" (controlled by certain Elites with an agenda) was insisting that "Evolution" was fact AND that Dinosaurs were older than Man. By the late 1800s and early 1900s Globe Earth was still being challenged strongly, believe it or not... The is is now a Publisher called, 'Dead Authors Society' that enables one to purchase a plethora of re-released old books. I'd read, 'Terra Firma: The Earth Not A Plane, Proved From Scripture, Reason, and Fact' (Author: David Wardlaw Scott). It was published in 1903. What especially fascinating about the book and perspective as written is the degree of knowledge about our realm -- even in 1903 -- style of writing, ideological and scientific battles at that time being waged over how our world should be perceived. (I think you and others would find it a great read.) Regarding any difficulty in catapulting any so-called, "Conspiracies" -- well, it's been quite easy. Institutional Science via schools were co-opted, where they *still* manage to convince the public via these secular humanist schools that 'Evolution' and 'Stone Age Man' is indeed a "Fact" -- even though it's been proven impossible. Regarding our realm, Institutional Science and its cabal have simply rigged the system and what they insist are "natural laws" like "gravity", formulas like "the theory of relativity" and one that explains earth "curvature" -- ALL of which not only remain 'theories' but are proven false. The number of people that would have to be in on it in this day and age is huge. Not just NASA and astronomers, but meteorologists, navigators, and even satellite TV equipment manufactures. Right. And many *would* tell you they already *know* the truth of the matter (or risk ostracization and unemployment. *I* can't believe even how much *I* assumed and denied of my own eyes.) Many of those memes can't be denied, btw. There are 8 more Meme Vids that provide further food for thought and additional "scientific" and observational contradictions FWIW. Every parent knows how it is, and so does everyone who's ever been a kid. If you tell one lie, you later have to tell another lie to cover up for your first lie. And then a 3rd lie to cover for the second. It goes on and on and eventually the whole house of cards collapses under its own weight. True. And Globe Earth remain the biggest, clearest case of adulthood Easter Bunny and Santa Claus (besides, 'Evolution, 'Big Bang', and "We from the Gummint and here to help.") If the earth is flat, then the lie about the earth being round amounts to an absolute huge house of cards. Then again, I guess you would counter that the house has collapsed. For you. Fact is though, it's only collapsed for a tiny fraction of people. If you were right, this would have fallen over a very long time ago. Aye-aye on all the above. (Except your last statement; The reason the PTB are freaking out about Flat Earth/NASA is...Knowledge of the truth is growing exponentially...And collapsing like many other things we've been told is "the truth.") And that's even ignoring the question of what perpetuating this round earth theory was ever supposed to achieve in the first place. (The Big Picture: please see my Post #17) If it was to marginalize the story of Genesis in the Bible, then they could have done that in any number of other ways that would be safe from being disproved, unlike something so basic as the shape of the earth. FWIW, besides Genesis, the shape of the Earth is also discussed in Psalms, Job, and Isaiah. But to your premise, multiple civilizations for thousands of years had already presumed its shape not only to be Flat, but having a Dome or Firmament over it. I didn't make that up; That's a fact. Again, "Globe/Ball" earth has only been advanced as a theory since the 1500s, and "fact" only since the mid-1800s.
This is all I see fit to respond to, with I'll do with a simple "of course". Anyone looking over long distances will have the impression the land is flat, with the exception of ships sailing over the horizon which might be mistaken for disappearing in the distant mist. There's no reason ancients living thousands of years ago should be considered a scientific authority. If we don't consider them an authority when they said that all matter could be subcategorized into one of: Earth, Air, Fire & Water, and if they didn't understand even basic things air pressure, bacteria, steam engines and the like, then why would or should they be considered an authority on the shape of the earth?
....and if they didn't understand even basic things air pressure, bacteria, steam engines and the like, then why would or should they be considered an authority on the shape of the earth? Several separate civilizations (or "authorities" of the day) ALL conceptualized similar configurations of our earthly realm as can be seen below. What are the odds?? NONE conceptualized any realm that was remotely a "ball" or globular. These concepts were more accepted even as recently as the 16th century. The elements of the earth are a whole different category. Why should the previous 5,000 years of mankind's knowledge of nature and science be invalidated? They weren't scientifically uneducated and ignorant of technology. In many ways it could be said that they were more advanced and regressed after the Fall of the Roman Empire. What of the Pyramids the world over? All the Chinese and folk herbal remedies and treatment? Roman sewer systems and aqueducts? And so forth. It really wasn't until the mid-19th century and beyond that man began harnessing "high tech" and discoveries on a macro level. Much of the biological by the mid-20th century. Why dismiss and invalidate all past civilizations' scientific credibility, discoveries and truth on the basis of realm concepts? Moreover, hasn't "modern science and tech" had to build on past tested scientific evidence, truths and technologies? "Science" has claimed a "Big Bang" and "Evolution" are "FACT"; Based on what? At the World's museums "Science" claims a "Prehistoric Man" -- that he indeed evolved from Apes. Based on what? Same of the age of fossils and dinosaur bones. Same of both the age of the Universe and alleged near-infinite size. By what criteria does "Science" claim "empirical evidence" in any of these cases? (HAVE those theories been supported by any evidence -- as per "Scientific protocols"? With respect to the actual shape of this earthly realm, I'd mentioned in a prior post that by the turn of the 20th century there was still a big battle raging over the actual shape of the earth. Serious question to you or anyone else: By whose authority, by what criteria IS the earth said to definitively be a "globe"? Because IF it's NASA, they and their credibility is already an ongoing problem and challenge. If it's flight, the horizon is proven to rise as flat -- whether the horizon at ocean level, the horizon at cloud-level, "space" at low-altitude balloon level.
You really are big on that "whose authority?" question, and not just on religious topics. I really don't have the time or inclination to continue on this. Not now. You are wrong on this. I am satisfied that you have chosen to believe the earth is flat, and that the power of that belief overwhelms the physical evidence of a spherical earth that is all around us. So much in this world wouldn't be as it is if the earth was flat, like flying from Chile to New Zealand in 13 hours at commercial jet speeds. That is such a basic piece of evidence that blows flat earth out of the water all by itself. TC posted this vid about the psychological term for describing an inability to accurately understand or comprehend certain subjects. I forget the term. I know I'm terrible at some subjects and good at others. One area I'm good at is math and, as it pertains to the flat earth subject, geometry. If you are not good at spacial comprehension, and it seems you are not, then that's okay. But I can, with full confidence and respect, say to you that you are so very, very wrong in believing the earth is flat. Every single argument for a flat earth falls flat on its face. Every. Single. One. The power we have to believe things that are not true is one of the most underrated powers known to man. Almost no one appreciates how true that is. And that truism is one reason why I cannot believe that God would judge us on what we believe, rather, what we do with what we believe. Best to you...
I am. But aren't you as well? After all, on who or what source shall we base "truth"? (or credibility?) You are wrong on this... I could accept your premise -- IF it were based on refutations. But all I ever see is THIS one by you: ...So much in this world wouldn't be as it is if the earth was flat, like flying from Chile to New Zealand in 13 hours at commercial jet speeds. That is such a basic piece of evidence that blows flat earth out of the water all by itself. It does no such thing. It's been this very same citation of flight times from Chile to New Zealand I keep seeing as THE prima facia "evidence" and a guarantee by you as well as Flat Earth opponents by search engines that our realm is a "Globe." Strange.) It is on this one basis ALL other evidence to the contrary should be dismissed?? Meanwhile, I've lost count of what must be hundreds of pieces of evidences I've submitted that prove the earth is NOT a "GLOBE," and still you claim, "every single argument for a flat earth falls flat on its face. Every. Single. One." Why engage in cognitive absolutism without examining the tangible, provable data, science, observations, and facts? Please refute ANY of the memes. Just one. One area I'm good at is math and, as it pertains to the flat earth subject, geometry. Alrighty then. Great! Then explain the following geometric out- of-the-way paths this (below). It is said that Santiago-Sydney flights (close to your examples of Chile to New Zealand, right?) go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map. Curious geometry: (200 Proofs The Earth Is Not A Spinning Ball)
The nearest airport to Sydney is Kingsford Smith Airport (SYD) and the nearest airport to Santiago is Arturo Merino Benitez Airport (SCL). Your flat earth map says Sydney to Santiago is 25,400km (15,782 nautical miles or 18149 statutory miles). According to round earth maps, the distance is 11,340km (6,250 nautical miles or 7053 statutory miles). According to this page, Quantas and LAN Airlines both declare the flight time is 12.5 hours duration. You can find other sites that go as high as 14 hours but the general range is established. Typical estimates for modern intercontinental airlines is 500mph with some a little faster or slower. The regularly scheduled non-stop Qantas flights are QF27 and QF28 (eastbound and westbound) and these are daily flights advertised as 12.5 hours flight time. You can verify flight prices and times and duration and live flight status of Qantas QF27 and QF28 flights by referring to these flight route numbers in any search engine. So a trip from Santiago to Sydney on Flat Earth Airlines (15,782 miles) would normally require the airliner to fly for 31.5 hours @ 500mph, in keeping with your Flat estimate . For Flat Earth Airlines plane to make that trip in just 12.5 hours, it would have to fly almost 1300mph. However, if you fly on Round Earth Airlines between those two cities - a distance of 6,250 miles - it will take you . . . exactly 12.5 hours. Just as the airlines have advertised for years. Keep in mind that airlines advertise 14 hours but they include at least a half-hour at both departure and arrival for airport delays, boarding, etc. The flight time is always less than what the airlines advertise. Also, some of these sites confuse nautical miles for statute miles so keep that in mind when you make calculations and make sure you know which number the airline is using. Airlines also have extra prep time for very long flights over the oceans and crew layover times that can affect the advertised flight time. Expedia: Santiago to Sydney non-stop flights Well, I'm kinda meandering here a bit. Let me just point out something: there can be no non-stop flights whatsoever between Sydney and Santiago using Boeing/Airbus airliners. They would fall into the ocean with empty fuel tanks if they tried to make a 25,400km flight. Aerospace-Technology.com: The top 10 longest range airliners in the world I could go on at length but I really don't want to contribute to making the world a stupider place.
The question of proof to the skeptic fascinates me, whatever the subject. So, let me ask you something. If I put you in the cockpit of a long-range airc aircraft. Say, flying due north from New York. So you could look out the fron front window the whole time and see the instruments, and gave you detailed flig flight map so you could follow along the route with your finger. Every few hour hours we would land to let you rest/sleep, etc., so that you always knew where you you w you you were in fixed reference to the ground. Then we took back off and continued the the the the route, flying over the north pole, then across through Russia, and down the othe oth othe other side of the world, map in hand, stopping to sleep. Then up again, over the th the the South Pole, and back up this side of the world to New York, would you then beli b beli believe that the world was round? What about if we went up further, into space, and you watched the world turn be below you, would you believe it then? What would it take to convince you to believe that the world really is round?
I always wonder if kooks would abandon their multiple kook theories if you thoroughly disproved their major kook theory. I think they wouldn't. Being a CT nutjob or full-blown multi-kook is a mental habit and deep-set personality characteristic. If you disprove one kookery, they'll just find another one. But then, I've never been able to put it to the test thoroughly. Which is what you are proposing.
I don't care about the "kook" label. I've heard many epithets hurled at me be because of things that I know that I cannot prove to others because I have no me means to do so. I am fascinated by adamant deniers - of God, for example - or, in this case, of the the spheroidal nature o the the spheroidal nature of the Earth. It does not make me angry, in the slightest degree, that people are Flat Ea Earthers. I just wonder what it would take to demonstrate to them that the Ea Earth is, in fact, a spheroid. I'm pretty sure that no amount of book waving for finger-wagging would do it, just a just as no amo just a just as no amount of that has ever been able to convince me of a single thing concer concerning Go concer concerning God and his existence. I required independent, empirical evidence of the of the sort of the of the sort that I would accept. Nobody provided me that, or tried, but God did. did. So I did. did. So I know there's God, because I know God. Since that time, others have vehemently wagged fingers and books at me telling me t me that I me t me that I DON'T know God, that I am delusional, etc., but I just laugh inside at t at them a at t at them and feel a little bit sorry for them, for reasons I needn't further elab elaborate. I've thought about it. I think the world is round because I don't see any pa particular reason to question it. I've sailed the world around, northern and so southern hemispheres, seen that the stars are different down under, seen what lo looks to me like a curved earth, watched ships rise out of the sea on one ho horizon and sink into the sea on the other. That this is because the earth is cu cur cu curved makes sense to me. The notion that there is a giant conspiracy...about AN AN AN ANYTHING...always sounds nutty to me, and makes me wonder why the person ch chooses to reject things that they reject. Still, it doesn't BOTHER me that people think the earth is flat. Heresy doesn't provoke any ire in me.
I would not say it makes me angry either. I've repeatedly said we are all challenged with certain deficiencies. The only thing that does irritate me in this and similar cases is when someone who doesn't understand something purports to do so while completely walling off what I consider basic logic. I guess it's when the time and effort I expend to debate and, what I would consider "enlighten" simply goes absolutely nowhere. That is when it becomes frustrating. I'm sure what I've just said is just as applicable to the my opposition as it is me on whatever subject. Many Christians say there is not enough faith in the world. I say the opposite. There's too much faith in the world. Faith in things that are simply not true. Our capacity to believe things is grossly underestimated and unappreciated.
For years and years you claimed to be a Christian. What is it that changed your mind? Or were you never really a Christian and you just said that because you were raised with Christians or something like that? Or you just said it without thinking about what it was? Seriously what changed your mind to believe in someone who suggests things to people while they are in a trance like state?
Tell me, Stone, how do you/we qualify a "real Christian"? How do you quantify what constitutes "real" belief? What does it really mean to "believe"? Vicomte13 just posted a bit about the meaning of the term concluding the difference with the term "faith" meaning "trust" more than "belief". I do not know about the tech defs of terms between languages. That's not my area, but I do concur that "belief", if it is to be on par with "head knowledge", regardless of whether the knowledge is correct or not, is not something that God cares about. The pseud-documentary called "The Secret", espouses a "Law of Attraction", which claims that whatever attitude you have in your heart is what will come to fruition in your life, whether good or bad. Leaving aside the question of how true that is (I think it is credible) I do think that describes what faith really is. It's not clenching your fists with your eyes shut trying to force your brain cells into aligning with a certain intellectual understanding, kinda like the child's fable story entitled "The Little Engine That Could" which I think we all know (a story that sure, is applicable for accomplishing challenging physical tasks) but it simply not applicable when it comes to understanding God. No, when it comes to God, understanding or acknowledging the truth doesn't come forcefully. It comes from being open minded, which you are not. You proved it by your prior post about how debating the question of 7+8=9 is a waste of time. In the same way, in your mind, debating the age of the earth is similarly a waste of time. You don't care why I and a great many people think it's far older. Unlike you, I am open minded. I always have been, even while I claimed to be a Christian. And my open minded nature allowed me to explore beyond the Bible. As a matter of theology, I subsequently found Michael Newton's work very credible. It fully qualified God as having all the patience the Bible talks about him having, in spite of the Bible's overall claim of the end of human life being the time when God's patience runs out. I find the theology of sin to be rather "messy" and always have, even while a Christian. Messy because sin must be done with intent, and intent is simply not qualifiable in many cases, particularly with very young children. Our comprehension of right and wrong varies abstractly. Under Newton, one's actual theological understanding of God isn't important. This solves the problem of God condemning people to hell for all eternity because of their sinful nature in spite of the fact that they may never had any opportunity to even hear about this one theological message about Jesus dying for our sins even though "Jesus" a name we are not spelling or pronouncing correctly as we have the wrong language. (But somehow, God knows who we mean anyway, right, so He allows us that leeway but not any other kind of leeway?) Sure you have your explanation about how it's okay for God to condemn people -- or allow them to condemn themselves. I, on the other hand, have an explanation for how that doesn't happen at all. If "faith" is indeed not mere head knowledge, but rather expresses actual trust, then I think I can say that I have faith that God doesn't act this way with non-Christians, and will not act that way with me. I will point out, as I have before, that over 90% of what Christianity teaches is compatible with Michael Newton's findings. Namely in terms of loving others, the Golden Rule, putting others first before yourself, loving your enemies, embellishing virtues and quashing vices. All of that is 100% the same. The only thing different is the theology of sin (though even there, there is some overlap), a final judgment after one life, the idea that our humanity is modeled after God, and of course, the question of how many times a soul can incarnate into a human body. And yes, I think it is accurate to say that Christianity does espouse that we did incarnate when soul merged with the human body. The difference is that Christianity says this can only happen once, while according to Newton, it can happen multiple times. In that light, "reincarnation" is not such a far-fetched theology. Michael Newton makes more theological sense. At least to me. Everything falls in place with this model. Contemporary accounts which are easy to find claim past life experiences, and the one account I've posted of several times of the young boy recalling being a pilot that was shot down and killed in WW2 being exceptionally compelling as he allegedly was even able to recall shipmate names at a veteran reunion. Sure you write that off as demons, but then again, you're close minded. You won't listen to any arguments that contradict the Bible, just as Liberator won't, it seems, listen to any arguments that the earth is round. I may not be a Christian, Stone, but it doesn't mean I don't have faith. God is better than anything you or I can possibly imagine. You may agree with that statement superficially, and yet you nonetheless still keep God in a box, not allowing him to be anything more than what the Bible depicts. You think that under God's watch and in accordance to a design that He signed off on, the vast majority of his children will end up burning in hell for all eternity. I say, God is better than that. And under Newton, God IS better than that. Our path is more than a single lifetime. Why shouldn't it be? And I have found what I believe to be validation in my own life that I have had past lives. No, not lives I can remember consciously, but experiences in past lives that would explain certain fears I've had in this life, and fears I am overcoming. Our journey is far longer, far more sophisticated, far deeper than a single lifetime could possibly offer. It all makes more sense.
A Christian is a human being who is indwelt by God's Spirit. That's basically it.
With that definition, under Newton, everyone is a Christian. Edit: Spelling that out, it's because all souls are born of God. It is that reason why we are considered children of God. It has nothing to do with our humanity (which is why evolution doesn't matter). What matters is our origins as souls, and all of us, as souls, originated from God.
In Christian belief, a person is born with a human spirit. However, that human spirit does not function the way it should, and that person experiences emptiness, which then causes that person to seek to fill the void, so to speak. That person will seek and try many things to fill the emptiness, but nothing ever truly satisfies. Oh, maybe for a little while that person will find excitement, relationships, possessions, ect. but in the end, they are still empty. However, when God's Spirit enters in, the human spirit becomes as it was intended, alive and in communion/fellowship with God. We have been created for this very reason, to have inward fellowship with God. If, as you say, all souls are born of God, why does humanity experience such supreme emptiness? Contrariwise, why does the Christian experience such supreme fullness, peace and joy, that wells up from a source not of a persons making, but of God dwelling within?
You illustrate the paradigm difference between conventional Christian belief and the Newton model I subscribe to. Not just Christian belief but also Judaism and Islam. All 3 of these faiths tend to phrase it as though the soul or spirit is an add-on to the physical body. A person is born "with" a human spirit. This expression implies the physical body is the primary identity of the person, of who and what we are, with the soul being a lessor component thrown in as a bonus. Under Newton, however, the soul **IS** the person, with the human body being the "add-on". It is the soul that defines the vast majority of our personal identity and even personality. Modern science has discovered DNA which has been accepted and presumed to be the defining element of all that we are, shaping our personality, favorite colors, virtues and vices. Under Newton, some qualities are indeed defined by our human structure, sexual preferences being one, but most of what we are is defined at the soul level. We are hybrid entities, mostly soul/spirit, but with a lessor human component, which would include capabilities of the human mind. The human body can be compared to a temporary rental unit instead of something that we own "for life" for the soul, and a rental unit that, once it stops working is disposed of and can be replaced at a future time. Stated another way, we do not say that shoes have feet, gloves have hands, or that hats have heads. We say feet have shoes, hands have gloves and so on. Saying a body has a soul is the same as the former when in fact it is a soul that may or may not have, or wear, a body. Certainly this is why fundamentalist Christians have a problem with evolution. Given the assumption that our DNA defines our full identity, it follows that if we are descended from apes, that apes define our origins. Under Newton, that is not a problem as our human nature is only incidental and does not define our true origins as souls. Under Newton, we have an alternate and more sensible explanation for why we are uniquely valuable to God over any other biological life form on earth. Fundamental Christianity, on the other hand, because it maintains our uniqueness revolves around human nature as being special and unique above all other life forms, has to impart something spiritually unique about the human body, about our DNA that other animals do not possess. It must rely on our humanity reflecting the "image of God", which is often inferred to be the human body itself. Under Newton, that's not the case at all. We incarnate into human form because the human body allows for social interaction which permits all manner of spiritual lessons to be learned. If intelligent life exists on other planets, we could just as easily incarnate into alien bodies for the same purpose. The human race is not who we are. It's what we use, and in spiritual terms is completely disposable, as is planet earth itself. I won't attempt to explain why emotions are experienced as it is something that can't be quantified, but I will say that any emotions associated with a certain religious faith do not necessarily validate the theology of that faith.
We incarnate into human form... So there is a God in the Newton model. What role does God play in your incarnation into human form? Is God central to your being? Or is God on the periphery, while you, your spirit, your being is central to your existence? If God isn't central to your existence, but is relegated to some ancillary role while you reincarnate, can you really say that this meets the definition of "God"? It seems that you have a self centered belief as opposed to a God centered belief.
In Newton's books, the actual term that is frequently cited for God is "The Source". My impression is that is the term repeatedly selected by clients to describe God but I won't swear to it. Obviously as an English, human term, it's definition is likely incomplete as, of course, English is certainly not the language of the spirit world. Rather, clients under hypnosis are using English to describe memories they are recalling of the spirit world. I'm sure you can empathize with that sort of issue in comparing English to Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible. I'm not sure where you are going with that question, but it seems a very deep question and I'm not really inclined to recite the whole book. If you are asking about whether our purpose in life is all centered around God or centered around ourselves, I'd probably say it's centered around everyone, including God, and including ourselves. As we grow, all around us also benefit, so it's not like it's even possible to grow in a self-centered way that doesn't benefit everyone. Consider an analogy to be the average family. The life of parents in a healthy family are pretty much centered around the children, in helping them grow and learn wisdom and knowledge. Why then would it, should it, be different between us and God? The idea that we are nothing and God is everything, which is a frequent theme in Christianity, is inaccurate. If God created us "in His image", which is one biblical description I agree with and which I think is largely how things work in the Newton model, then to say we are nothing is inaccurate. We are special. Not because God arbitrarily decided that we were special. We are special because we, as souls, were born of God. We are special because of our origin and nature. And that has absolutely nothing to do with human DNA or evolution or anything having to do with planet earth.
When I look into the clear night sky I see mass (stars, planets, whatever) and wonder, how did this get here? When I try to look beyond the stars, I wonder, where does this end? I try to imagine what is beyond what I can see, and then what is beyond that, and what is beyond that! And I realize I am looking into infinity...and my brain bogs down. (Try it some time) My brain can't deal with something that has no end because I am a finite creature trying to comprehend the infinite. So my point is this: God is EVEN BIGGER than the infinite universe! He made the universe! Merely by speaking it into existence. Out of nothing. So when the Bible says we are as nothing compared to God...we understand that we are indeed "as nothing". Dust. The unsurpassed beauty of Christianity is that we know a God Who, although is All-powerful, All-knowing, Self-existent(Try to comprehend that), has condescended to not only dwell among us, but to actually serve us, and make a way for us to live with Him forever. That, Ping, is the love of God... God is infinitely more than the "The Source". And that is the kind of God you need and do not have...yet.
I can empathize with much of what you say. But I don't see the connect with your final statement. Neither term, "God" or "The Source", can adequately describe all God is. And this conversation isn't about describing all that he is. It's about how life works. You subscribe to a theology written many thousands of years ago, ascribing some divine truthful authority for it. I, on the other hand, subscribe to a more basic & human explanation for Biblical origins. You admit the universe is incomprehensibly large, and yet maintain it is comprehensibly young. I consider the universe both incomprehensibly large and incomprehensibly old. You insist biological life is too miraculous for any explanation other than divine creation to explain it. I say divine creation does not necessarily exclude utilizing evolution. You suggest God is infinitely more than what we can imagine (true) and yet would create a system that would see so many perish for all eternity simply for not understanding or believing a certain theology. I ask why it is God would make understanding a theology, which is something serviced by the human mind, a condition to enjoying eternal life when even mortal parents would not approve of condemning their own kids to death for not understanding, say, basic mathematics. But your final statement implies that you know me, and you really don't. You base the claim on my academic understanding. I think God is better than that. He really has to be, and the Newton model essentially removes limits on God that Biblical Christianity has in place. It works better in every way I can see. If God condemns me for all eternity because of my theological understanding, then He'll condemn me for being an honest man. If you know God as you claim you do, can you honestly tell me that that is something God would actually do?
I can tell you that there is no injustice whatsoever in God. If there were He would not be God. God is not capable of any wrong or imperfection. When He deals with mankind, including you, it is with perfect justice, perfect love, etc. Understanding is not the basis of Christian theology...it is by faith that God finds us acceptable. Child like faith no bigger that a mustard seed. Not everyone can "understand" because that requires mental capacity, but the capacity to have faith is found in everyone. When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in. Adam and Eve were created to be in the prime of life. Everything God spoke into existence was created with the exact appearance of the age He so chose. Some theologians speculate that Adam would have been created to be the age that Christ was when He died on the cross. You say I don't know you, true, but I know human nature. We are all pretty much the same. We all share the same fallen condition. We all need our Creator, to speak to us, to love us and accept us as we are, to restore us to beings that are fit for that eternal life for which we crave.
Okay, if that is the case, then even if the earth and universe were created just 6000 years ago, then there is no conflict with scientists saying it is billions of years old, because both could be true. Right? It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
This is a very weak argument that watchman is offering. This equate Christian belief with children being taught to believe in the fairy tales, Santa Claus and the Ishtar bunny. It makes of Christianity a non-rational belief system, one that can be sustained only by heavily indoctrinating children in it from an early age.
That is my take as well. The moral seems to be that we should just believe (have faith) as a child would. That is, without question. But that is precisely what 1 billion Muslims have done, have they not? And these non-Christians will all burn in hell for eternity for doing exactly what people are expected to do in accepting Christianity? Oh, but Christianity is the one true faith and Islam isn't. That seems to be what the retort comes to. I've pointed out a few times that if there is a problem with faith when it comes to religion, it's not that we don't have enough, it's instead that we have too much. It is no coincidence that entire countries of many millions of people that are predominently of one religion remain that religion even after generations of people come and go, and that is true no matter what the religion is, whether it Chrisitianity, Islam, Hindu or whatever. Why? Because we, as people, are most apt to do exactly as watchman says we should do: Accept and believe as a child would. Children most often grow up into adults firmly believing whatever religion their parents taught them, no matter what it is. If it were otherwise, we would see religious beliefs homogenously mixed throughout the world as everyone would question faith and migrate to the one that makes the most logical sense to them. But clearly, that is not what happens in the real world. As I've said: The capacity of the human mind to believe things that are not true is greatly underappreciated. So in my book, we MUST apply some rational critique of any theological understanding of God and not simply accept what a religious institution says, what our parents say, or what an old book says. As I see it, the Bible is a compilation of ancient writings that had the benefit of revisions and editing for poetic and literary enhancement as it was passed down verbally from parent to child until such time as it was codified Subsequent writings were done quite often with the author having the benefit of knowing what more ancient texts said, which could very often explain claims of fulfilled prophesy. Combine all that with our overcapacity to believe things, and you have a Christian religion that considers the Bible to be the Word of God. Having said that, I will say that Christianity is a good faith, and in terms of how we are called to live, the Newton model is actually about 100% compatible with Christianity. So I believe there is a lot of theological truth in Christianity. The differences are only in doctrine of judgement, sin, reincarnation, redemption and items of that sort.
You have a point there. Religion is less often a problem for busy people. It's when people have decades of leisure time to browbeat everyone with their opinions or when a TV evangelist or imam sees an opportunity for fame and fortune in hawking ever-more-radical and extreme religious rhetoric and theology that you have the most problems. Not by the government or by libmedia. They rely on it as a foundation of their existence. I refrained from saying so but I think Newton would be rather shocked at these notions of him as some sort of theologian. He was a radical and only marginally Christian. There were far more doctrines in orthodox Christianity that Newton rejected than theology that he did believe and advocate for in the context of his scientific beliefs. By 1672, he had started to record his theological researches in notebooks which he showed to no one and which have only recently been examined. They demonstrate an extensive knowledge of early church writings and show that in the conflict between Athanasius and Arius which defined the Creed, he took the side of Arius, the loser, who rejected the conventional view of the Trinity. Newton "recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him." He was especially interested in prophecy, but for him, "the great apostasy was trinitarianism." Newton tried unsuccessfully to obtain one of the two fellowships that exempted the holder from the ordination requirement. At the last moment in 1675 he received a dispensation from the government that excused him and all future holders of the Lucasian chair. In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin. Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith—which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs." Snobelen concludes that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser (he owned and had thoroughly read at least eight Socinian books), possibly an Arian and almost certainly an anti-trinitarian. In a minority position, T.C. Pfizenmaier offers a more nuanced view, arguing that Newton held closer to the Semi-Arian view of the Trinity that Jesus Christ was of a "similar substance" (homoiousios) from the Father rather than the orthodox view that Jesus Christ is of the "same substance" of the Father (homoousios) as endorsed by modern Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants. However, this type of view 'has lost support of late with the availability of Newton's theological papers', and now most scholars identify Newton as an Antitrinitarian monotheist. Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Along with his scientific fame, Newton's studies of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were also noteworthy. Newton wrote works on textual criticism, most notably An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John. He placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at 3 April, AD 33, which agrees with one traditionally accepted date. He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. The ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason. In his correspondence, Newton claimed that in writing the Principia "I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity". He saw evidence of design in the system of the world: "Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice". But Newton insisted that divine intervention would eventually be required to reform the system, due to the slow growth of instabilities. For this, Leibniz lampooned him: "God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion." Newton's position was vigorously defended by his follower Samuel Clarke in a famous correspondence. A century later, Pierre-Simon Laplace's work "Celestial Mechanics" had a natural explanation for why the planet orbits do not require periodic divine intervention. Scholars long debated whether Newton disputed the doctrine of the Trinity. His first biographer, Sir David Brewster, who compiled his manuscripts, interpreted Newton as questioning the veracity of some passages used to support the Trinity, but never denying the doctrine of the Trinity as such. In the twentieth century, encrypted manuscripts written by Newton and bought by John Maynard Keynes (among others) were deciphered and it became known that Newton did indeed reject Trinitarianism. Returning to your point, Newton's model is indeed compatible with Christianity if by Christianity you do not mean the idea that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind. To Newton, there was no Trinity. And neither he nor anyone else has ever found the word "trinity" in the Bible. By any honest historical measure of Christian orthodoxy, Newton was a dire heretic and a radical. Newton's disagreements with Leibniz and Spinoza can be simplistically reduced to the proposition that God must periodically rewind the celestial clocks to keep the planets in motion and the sun in its assigned position. Newton said God didn't need to do that. So Newton's views on science informed and really dominated his religious sentiments.
Isaac Newton was essentially right about those things, including the April 3, 33 AD date of the crucifixion. (On April 3, 33 AD, a Friday, the moon in the Levant rose in full eclipse - a "blood moon". He was right that Jesus was subordinate to God the Father - at least during his life. Now Jesus is Lord of mankind, and at the end he will be the judge of all things. But Jesus, as the son, was not Father - both are divine. That is how they are both "God" - both share divinity. One was fathered by the other. This isn't really hard to see from the writings. The degree of adamancy of the Trinitarian versus Arian fight is, and always was, excessively violent and un-Christian. Newton was right that this was the doctrine that set the Church on a decidedly bad path, for it was over the doctrine of the Trinity that the Church began carrying out executions in the 380s AD, and with that, tainted itself forevermore.
It probably is the single greatest fight over heresy in Christian history. And I'll remind you that my hero, Saint Lucifer of Cagliari, Sardinia, was right in the thick of things, throwing punches with the best of them, publicly denouncing the Roman emperor as an apostate king in writing, refusing orders to reconcile with Arian bishops, demanding the right for Athanasius to face his accusers in court, and declaring his willingness to die for his beliefs so the emperor could just sod off if he didn't like them. A very passionate guy. Even the fall of Constantinople and the TULIP thing never caused quite so much havoc.
Yep, and it's a pointless and stupid fight. It was of SUCH important to Jesus that he spent zero percent of his time on it. No reason to believe he cared, or cares. But the killing and the ostracism of Christians from each other over it - Jesus forbade that. So Jesus DOES care a lot more about the behavior of divided Christians over the matter than the matter itself, obviously. Equally obviously, Christians are headstrong and know better than Jesus. Which is why their churches are all dying. Can a new Church of Jesus be made that puts it all back together again? Not without miracles that overthrow the iron grip of deterministic science on the bulk of minds, no. Existing Christianity will fight the same dull, pointless fights until the last two geriatrics in the pews of the last church die with their backs turned to each other, and without miracles there's no reason to think that God exists, or that even if God exists, he cares what people think. The existing miracles don't do it. It would take a new prophetic figure doing miracles - preferably great healing miracles (I believe that limb regeneration on live TV would be required to shut up the most stubborn opponents) - to be able to really make the change (if nothing else, every amputee and born blind or deaf or paralytic healed would be a true believer). It would be more potent if the prophetic figure could both heal the paralytic and blind and CAUSE paralysis and blindness, and raise the dead and strike dead as well, for that would set up an actual risk profile, a probably confrontation with a government, and the sudden dissolution (by mass striking dead) of some major state, which would certainly create a following.
Can a new Church of Jesus be made that puts it all back together again? Not without miracles that overthrow the iron grip of deterministic science on the bulk of minds, no. Existing Christianity will fight the same dull, pointless fights until the last two geriatrics in the pews of the last church die with their backs turned to each other... Actual Christians certainly do readily acknowledge NOT knowing anything more or "better" than Jesus. And ARE "Christian" Churches actually "dying"? Is that your observation or experience? Might be time to change gears, Vic. (Or are these last days simply a case of the wheat being divided from the tares?) I don't know if it is a case of today's Christians "fighting fight the same dull, pointless fights until the last two geriatrics in the pews of the last church die"; I'm witnessing a lot of passion, fellowship, growth, and commitment by Believers. We're now at the point where we're all personally accountable. And if anyone truly hungers for the Truth and the Word instead of the politics, they'll focus on THAT. ...Without miracles there's no reason to think that God exists, or that even if God exists, he cares what people think. "Miracles" happen every day in the respective hearts of the broken, the fallen and the disbelieving when they pray to Jesus for His Presence and Belief & Faith in Him. The account of Saul/Paul also testifies to God's existence, hands-on involvement and of personal miracles. And anyway, God's/Jesus' "miracles" are already documented in Scripture (unless you now disbelieve Scripture.) The existing miracles don't do it. It would take a new prophetic figure doing miracles - preferably great healing miracles. If that's all it takes, the anti-Christ or counterfeit Savior might fit that bill. "Narrow is the way." If people demand NT-type "miracles" in order to believe these days, than they are sadly watching too many "Super-Hero" flick and are simply making lazy choices on their respective eternal fate and Salvation.
ACTUAL miracles of healing, the REAL thing. They do not happen, but by the po power of God. Can Satan heal the blind? The cripple? The paralytic? Regnerate limbs? Raise the dea th the dea the dead? No. Jesus asked the same question: "Can Satan cast out Satan?" Some Churches may be growing at the margins, while Christianity as a whole s s shrinks. BUT does that even matter? A few more people here or there believe in s s something. Is the poverty being attacked and reduced? Is the distress w w weakening?
People will see what they want to see and perceive ANY supernatural act as "an act of God." That's the problem. Jesus asked the same question: "Can Satan cast out Satan?" Good point. But then again as watchman has noted and inferred -- there are weak churches, with those of weak faith, who think they are amply "armed." They can and will easily be duped by anti-Christ or false messiah who will wield demonic power, capable of great deception. Some Churches may be growing at the margins, while Christianity as a whole shrinks. BUT does that even matter? YES. EVERY saved soul always matters, doesn't it? THAT person may save other souls. And so forth. A few more people here or there believe in something. Is the poverty being attacked and reduced? Is the distress weakening? Whom do you think has been preventing this evil world from caving in upon itself? The moral, the wise, the Godly. Moreover, this fallen mortal realm was never intended to be Heaven, Vic. You're giving way too much weight to "poverty" as the primary dilemma for man -- Salvation is. Scripture itself tells us the poor will ALWAYS be with us. If anybody has actually been helping the poor, it's been Christian charity. That said, it is NOT up to government to confiscate wealth and re-distribute it. That my friend is called, THEFT. "Distress" you say? NEVER in history has there been less "distress" among poor people. Who do you think in helping Africa fro starving to death?
God commanded that the people of the state he set up give 10% of their production, plus their first fruits harvest, plus their head toll (in total around 24% of their annual income) to the state he set up. He commanded the state he set up to receive those imposts, and to use some of them to support the judges and administrators, and most of it to support the classes of the poor within the land. And he commanded the judges of the state he set up to prosecute and punish those who did not pay their taxes. He commanded every individual to pay what was owed over to his state, and also to lend their excess to their poor neighbors, if asked, without interest, and to drop any portion of that debt that was not repaid after seven years. There was nothing voluntary about any of it, and it was entirely involuntary.
Let's cut to the chase: Does God allow men to kill other men? Jesus said that killers were consigned to the Lake of Fire at final judgment. Who has to worry about that? Do murderers? What about people who order murder but don't commit it themselves? What about those who aid and abet murder? Does Paul have anything to worry about? What about soldiers who kill? What about cops? What about people who kill an innocent by accident? What about people who kill in self defense? What about people who torture animals? Discuss.
Does God allow men to kill other men? Jesus said that killers were consigned to the Lake of Fire at final judgment. Then why are you working for the devil and trying to send people to hell when you said "Yep. Let's throw off the mask. I hate the enemy. Hate them. And I want to see them dead. We cannot lose a war against them, and they're hellbent on war - seizing tankers, shooting down drones, supporting terrorism, declaring us the Great Satan - all of that shit. Let's give them the war they so badly want. And continue that war until they are broken and cease to exist as an organized fighting force. Persia delenda est. So be it. Vicomte13 posted on 2019-07-26 15:47:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Edit"
Not really sure whether I should respond to A K A Stone's rolling raging screed above or not. On the one hand, it's not pleasant to read, and the personal insults and anti-Catholic bigotry in it are painful to deal with. On the other hand, if I don't respond blow for blow, I fear that could be perceived as ceding the field because of a lack of answers to that nonsense. Not being willing to deal with a nettle is not the same thing as being unable to. My instinct is to let the dogs yowl while my caravan passes, and that's what I am likely to do, unless you gentlemen tell me that you think I need to stand and fight here.
...if I don't respond blow for blow, I fear that could be perceived as ceding the field because of a lack of answers to that nonsense. Oh, I don't about that Vic... That depends on how seriously you take LF's "field" and Nurse A K A Ratchet hysteria. Let me put this in perspective for you:
Ha! Well, that's fair. This is, after all, an Internet chat site. Still, I see the sincerity - and the sincere anger - in the posts directed at me. I just don't think I can get through.
Also fair to question whether this forum "reality" really is a "chat" site or Judge, Jury & Firing Squad ;-) Still, I see the sincerity - and the sincere anger - in the posts directed at me. I just don't think I can get through. That is certainly the reality of the situation -- it's no mirage. Points get made, but often little actual feedback is exchanged. At BOTH ends. becomes frustrating. You'd suggested a give & take one-on-one exchange. There's always an element of posturing in a forum -- it's natural, but no one gets very far. Maybe a candid personal exchange beyond prying eyes is the only fair solution to understanding one another. IF that indeed is the goal. And just maybe some of us drone on too long on deep riffs. Some have briefer attention-spans. Maybe better to keep thing shorter & sweeter. JMHO.
Watchman is certainly a sincere Christian - he obviously REALLY BELIEVES what he is trying to teach. I certainly believe what I say. Rather than tear each other apart for everybody else's entertainment, I expect we'll have a discussion by PM of the religious topics we have discussed. That seems to me the way to get to productive discussion between people with very different views of God, if they actually, really, truly want to understand each other. On the other hand, I'm not interested in being preached at, just as I am sure nobody else is either. And finally, I'm really NOT interested in going after anybody with a tire iron. It's not that I CAN'T, it's that I don't want to. I do wonder if it all ultimately serves any purpose. For example, the clear difference in opinion here regarding theories of the origins of species and the literalness of the Bible. There is passion on both sides, but can that passion generate anything other than heat and smoke? Nobody on either side will convince the other of anything. I know that. Why, then, engage in the conversation at all? Do I expect anybody to change his mind? Does anybody really expect to change mine? And that's even if the nicest and most cordial words are used. Obviously nobody ever changed anybody's mind about anything by insulting him and trying to rip him apart. Even that - how does one respond to be ripped at? Physical violence is not possible. What, then? An exchange of insults? In the end, what purpose is there in having these discussions at all?
That's one of the reasons why I see support in my position on theology: It's not what you believe, it's what you do with what you believe. So if one believes the Bible as the literal Word of God, fine. Are you using that belief destructively to harm others or gently to aid others? The contrast between Stone and Watchman, as I perceive it at least, illustrates the wrong and right way to do it. (And yes, Stone, as I see it, resorting to insults is not what the Bible teaches). But.... people need time to change. And one lifetime is simply not enough to change. Probably no argument on that from Christians as quashing vices is not the required Christian objective, but it is an element in support of the reincarnation view.
#321. To: Pinguinite (#320)
2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Jeremiah 13: 23 Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil. Romans 12:1 - I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service 2 Corinthians 7:1 - Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Why because the human mind can believe things that simply aren't true? One lifetime better be enough because that is all you get despite some fool hyptontist whispering suggestions in peoples ears. You still never answered why you used to claim to be a christian. Was it true? What caused you to change your mind? It is curious that you refuse to go into that. It is your right but just curious.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWhen you have the time, please give them all a look; I consider them a crash-course in Earth-Science Truth, Logic, and Reason.
#20. To: Pinguinite (#12)
I watched both. I find them, to varying degrees, flawed.
#21. To: Liberator (#20)
But to your premise, multiple civilizations for thousands of years had already presumed its shape not only to be Flat, but having a Dome or Firmament over it.
#22. To: Pinguinite, ALL (#21)
There's no reason ancients living thousands of years ago should be considered a scientific authority. If we don't consider them an authority when they said that all matter could be subcategorized into one of: Earth, Air, Fire & Water...
#23. To: Liberator (#22)
By whose authority, by what criteria IS the earth said to definitively be a "globe"? Because IF it's NASA, they and their credibility is already an ongoing problem and challenge. I
#24. To: Pinguinite (#23)
(Edited)
You really are big on that "whose authority?" question, and not just on religious topics.
#34. To: Liberator, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#24)
Curious geometry:
The 747-400, the most common variant in service, has a high-subsonic cruise speed of Mach 0.85–0.855 (up to 570 mph or 920 km/h) with an intercontinental range of 7,260 nautical miles (8,350 statute miles or 13,450 km).[16]
So are 300-400 people per day just dying when their airliners crash into the sea and no one ever mentions it or NASA is somehow deceiving us all? Are you stating that these non-stop flights do actually fly over the United States at any time, day or night, and none of the passengers ever notice all those brightly-lit cities along the way or that huge continental land mass? There are 300-400 people flying these non-stop flights, generally on a daily basis and none of them ever notice they were flying over South America and North America on their way between Chile and Australia? Or is NASA just deceiving us all by getting Qantas to advertise these flights but they never actually take the passengers on those flights after they book them and pay for them? Boeing and Airbus take pride in manufacturing some of the world's longest range airliners. The Boeing 777-200LR - with a massive range of 17,395km - tops the list, followed by the Airbus A340-500 with a range of 16,670km.
#35. To: Liberator (#34)
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
What would it take to convince you to believe that the world really is round?
#37. To: Tooconservative (#36)
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
It does not make me angry, in the slightest degree, that people are Flat Earthers. I just wonder what it would take to demonstrate to them that the Earth is, in fact, a spheroid.
#60. To: Pinguinite (#54)
There's too much faith in the world. Faith in things that are simply not true. Our capacity to believe things is grossly underestimated and unappreciated.
#68. To: A K A Stone, Liberator, Vicomte13, watchman, Tooconservative (#60)
For years and years you claimed to be a Christian. What is it that changed your mind? Or were you never really a Christian and you just said that because you were raised with Christians or something like that? Or you just said it without thinking about what it was? Seriously what changed your mind to believe in someone who suggests things to people while they are in a trance like state?
Or were you never really a Christian...
#84. To: Pinguinite (#68)
how do you/we qualify a "real Christian"?
#86. To: watchman (#84)
(Edited)
A Christian is a human being who is indwelt by God's Spirit.
That's basically it.
#87. To: Pinguinite (#86)
With that definition, under Newton, everyone is a Christian.
#90. To: watchman (#87)
In Christian belief, a person is born with a human spirit.
If, as you say, all souls are born of God, why does humanity experience such supreme emptiness? Contrariwise, why does the Christian experience such supreme fullness, peace and joy, that wells up from a source not of a persons making, but of God dwelling within?
#95. To: Pinguinite (#90)
Under Newton, we have an alternate and more sensible explanation for why we are uniquely valuable to God over any other biological life form on earth.
#97. To: watchman (#95)
So there is a God in the Newton model.
What role does God play in your incarnation into human form?
Is God central to your being? Or is God on the periphery, while you, your spirit, your being is central to your existence?
If God isn't central to your existence, but is relegated to some ancillary role while you reincarnate, can you really say that this meets the definition of "God"?
It seems that you have a self centered belief as opposed to a God centered belief.
#99. To: Pinguinite (#97)
The idea that we are nothing and God is everything, which is a frequent theme in Christianity, is inaccurate.
#102. To: watchman (#99)
God is infinitely more than the "The Source". And that is the kind of God you need and do not have...yet.
#103. To: Pinguinite (#102)
If you know God as you claim you do, can you honestly tell me that that is something God would actually do?
#104. To: watchman (#103)
When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in.
Understanding is not the basis of Christian theology...it is by faith that God finds us acceptable. Child like faith no bigger that a mustard seed. Not everyone can "understand" because that requires mental capacity, but the capacity to have faith is found in everyone.
#108. To: Pinguinite, watchman (#104)
It seems child-like faith is accepting something as true without study or analysis, and that is what you are saying people must do when accepting Christianity.
#113. To: Tooconservative, watchman (#108)
This equate Christian belief with children being taught to believe in the fairy tales, Santa Claus and the Ishtar bunny. It makes of Christianity a non-rational belief system
#117. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte13, watchman (#113)
Oh, but Christianity is the one true faith and Islam isn't. That seems to be what the retort comes to.
You should brace yourself but...the Muslims say the same damned thing about Christianity! Who knew? I've pointed out a few times that if there is a problem with faith when it comes to religion, it's not that we don't have enough, it's instead that we have too much.
As I've said: The capacity of the human mind to believe things that are not true is greatly underappreciated.
Having said that, I will say that Christianity is a good faith, and in terms of how we are called to live, the Newton model is actually about 100% compatible with Christianity.
Newton was not a conventional orthodox Christian in any sense. So I can see why you might like him but not the others here. Newton was obviously a very original thinker, something that was not apparent for many years after his death. The religious establishment has also sought to conceal his true opinions, something rather instructive about the nature of concentrated official religious power. The same thing happened with the religious beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, in particular the contents of the Jefferson bible. And Newton would likely have applauded the Jefferson bible, given what we know. I may post separately on the Jefferson bible and its history; it is very interesting and not widely known. Wiki: Isaac Newton: Religious Views Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity; in recent times he has been described as a heretic. So I believe there is a lot of theological truth in Christianity. The differences are only in doctrine of judgement, sin, reincarnation, redemption and items of that sort.
#119. To: Tooconservative (#117)
#123. To: Vicomte13 (#119)
The degree of adamancy of the Trinitarian versus Arian fight is, and always was, excessively violent and un-Christian. Newton was right that this was the doctrine that set the Church on a decidedly bad path, for it was over the doctrine of the Trinity that the Church began carrying out executions in the 380s AD, and with that, tainted itself forevermore.
#153. To: Tooconservative (#123)
It probably is the single greatest fight over heresy in Christian history.
#165. To: Vicomte13 (#153)
Christians are headstrong and know better than Jesus. Which is why their churches are all dying.
#169. To: Liberator (#165)
(Edited)
#194. To: Vicomte13, watchman (#169)
(Edited)
ACTUAL miracles of healing, the REAL thing. They do not happen, but by the power of God.
#197. To: Liberator (#194)
it is NOT up to government to confiscate wealth and re-distribute it. That my friend is called, THEFT.
#198. To: All (#197)
#308. To: Vicomte13 (#198)
Let's cut to the chase:
#310. To: Pinguinite, watchman, Liberator, Tooconservative, nolu chan (#308)
(Edited)
Then why are you working for the devil and trying to send people to hell
#316. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite, watchman, Tooconservative, nolu chan, A K A Stone, Hank Rearden (#310)
Not really sure whether I should respond to A K A Stone's rolling raging screed above or not...
#317. To: Liberator (#316)
#318. To: Vicomte13 (#317)
(Edited)
Ha! Well, that's fair. This is, after all, an Internet chat site.
#319. To: Liberator (#318)
(Edited)
#320. To: Vicomte13 (#319)
Nobody on either side will convince the other of anything. I know that. Why, then, engage in the conversation at all? Do I expect anybody to change his mind? Does anybody really expect to change mine? And that's even if the nicest and most cordial words are used. Obviously nobody ever changed anybody's mind about anything by insulting him and trying to rip him apart.
Replies to Comment # 320. So if one believes the Bible as the literal Word of God, fine. Are you using that belief destructively to harm others or gently to aid others?
And one lifetime is simply not enough to change.
Probably no argument on that from Christians as quashing vices is not the required Christian objective
#326. To: Pinguinite (#320)
That's one of the reasons why I see support in my position on theology:
End Trace Mode for Comment # 320.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]