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:45736 Comments:340
A little Meme action... If you haven't seen them, checkout the rest!
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.
The Jet Stream occurs at certain latitudes. Look at the Atlantic. Europe is pretty far north - Paris is the same latitude as Quebec City, and Moscow is about at Hudson's Bay. The great circle routs to Europe largely follow the Jet Stream, which is pretty much on the route across to Europe.
Asian civilization is a bit more southerly, and the great circles (shortest distance) practically go over the Arctic, where there is not much in the way of winds. The routes then pretty much plunge back south perpendicular to the wind patterns, such that one does not really approach China East-to- West, but from the North East. So one is cutting across the winds, not flying directly into them. The winds are still THERE, but their most intense locations cut across the Great Circles at an angle, and thus are not blowing as nearly direct tailwinds or headwinds the way they do on the trans-Atlantic routes. It's still faster to fly FROM Asia TO America than vice versa, because of the headwinds, tailwinds, but if the winds were as direct head-on, or tail on as in the routes to Europe, it would be 6 hours faster to fly TO America from China, and 6 hours slower to fly to China from America.
Then again..."Sin" IS "messy." If we can agree with your statement, then now -- how exactly does sin get "cleaned up"? Or erased from our "Record"?
Jesus said that God forgives men their sins against him in proportion to the degree to which men forgive other men their sins against them. The forgiving are forgiven, and the unforgiving are unforgiven. Those who judge with mercy are judged mercifully, those who judge mercilessly are judged without mercy.
In other words, do unto others as you would have God do unto you: if you forgive, you'll be forgiven. If you're a judgmental bastard, you will find God to be as obdurate.
As Jesus put it: You shall be measured by the measure by which you measured. So, to be forgiven sin, you have to forgive others theirs. That's what Jesus said. Other men say different things.
I get the impression that, on any given day, it is harder to predict the jet stream over the Pacific than it is for eastern CONUS and the Atlantic flight lanes.
There's a good animation of this at Wiki that I linked above. The Pacific region is just more chaotic and constantly in flux. The Atlantic jet stream is pretty predictable by comparison.
Even if you manage to find "defects" in half or even 90% of the assertions, that still leaves 10-50% to legitimately ponder over. Once a NASA caught repeatedly fudging is eliminated from the quotient, what is there?
So you're saying that once NASA's credibility has been called into question with some issues and fabrications of whatever sort, they shouldn't be trusted. Well, shouldn't that same rule apply to flat earth advocates like this one that claims this flight came from Bali and not Taiwan? Why doesn't their credibility fall apart when they suggest wrong distances between cities, or state that the magnetic poles are in line with the geographic poles?
But yes, all allegations of flat earth can be refuted, not just 90% of them, provided they rely on factual info that can be researched. There's no way to refute someone simply claiming to have gone up in a plane and seeing a flat earth. When it comes to unsubstantiated claims, we just have to decide whether to accept them, reject them, or just set them aside as unsubstantiated.
Then again..."Sin" IS "messy." If we can agree with your statement, then now -- how exactly does sin get "cleaned up"? Or erased from our "Record"?
My meaning with "messy" was not in terms of dirty, soiled or unclean. I mean sin is messy theologically. That is, it's pretty much impossible to quantify whether an act is a sin or not. There is no binary switch in the human psyche that flips an LED light on in the brain that specifies a sin is in progress. Sin relies on bad intent to violate some law of God. And how do you measure intent in the mind of a 3 year old who takes a cookie without asking? Is it the commission of a sin against God of stealing or just a 3-year old acting on instinct to eat?
Consciousness varies in all of us from time to time. We are not always fully aware of why we do things or even of what's going on around us. In fact I don't think we can ever attest to being "fully" aware of our surroundings. Sometimes we are wide away and on high alert. Other times we are drousy, sick in bed or even in a coma, so the degree of our awareness of our environment and circumstances varies on a sliding scale. And since a factor in deciding whether sin occurs is how aware we are, then it necessarily also makes sin something that is measured on a sliding scale. But that's not something fundamentalist Christianity teaches, which is that sin is something you have on you, or you don't.
So it's messy. Not clean cut. Not clear. Difficult to qualify in terms of when it sin is committed. Under Newton, while there is right and wrong, virtue and vice, sin as a staining entity that condemns a soul for eternity and can only be washed away by the blood of an innocent is not a theological component. So in terms of theological modeling, the Newton model just works better as it doesn't have that messy issue.
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.
With that definition, under Newton, everyone is a Christian.
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?
I have regretted over the years that I didn't keep an archive of the antifreeper Clown Posse stuff. It seems that RimJob threatened them with lawsuits and they folded up and disappeared entirely.
No. JimRob had nothing to do with shutting down either Clown Posse site, first the Snitz site and shortly thereafter, the vBulletin site. The Snitz site was not brought down by a legal action. A legal action required a plaintiff who knew the real world identity of the site owner in order to effect service. The manner of the shutdown probably required a relationship with the host in the UK who pulled the plug. I believe the vBulletin site was brought down by the threat of legal action, but had nothing to do with JimRob.
In Christian belief, a person is born with a human spirit.
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.
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?
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.
As you have lamented before that you have gone to great lengths, time and effort to explain your beliefs, only to have them hastily tossed aside, I wanted to say that I read your comment carefully, word for word, and...I actually understand your belief system much better now.
So just a point or two...
Under Newton, however, the soul **IS** the person, with the human body being the "add-on".
The Christian belief is pretty much the same. The soul (our thoughts, feelings, etc) is what defines us...that is, until our spirit comes into play. Until our spirit is reborn and comes to life we are regarded as "soulful". Being soulful is actually not a good thing. While our thoughts and feelings can lift us up to exhilarating heights, they can just as easily bring us down to devastating lows. That's because the spirit is not functioning fully, to act as a governor, so to speak. When God gives life to our spirit the human being is now finally able to exist in balance, as God planned. We become regenerated, starting with the spirit, which governs the soul, which in turn governs the body. I know I have written all of this before but it bears repeating.
Before rebirth and renewal we are known by our soul. Think of all the descriptive words: he's an intellectual, she's an emotional wreck, he's moody, she's energetic, on and on. But after rebirth we are known by our spiritual attributes (or should be): he's wise unto God, she's prayerful, he's has a servant heart, she has real peace and joy, and so on. But trust me, the soul is always trying to resume its control of us! Christians fail all the time, every day. Hence the desperate need for grace!
Certainly this is why fundamentalist Christians have a problem with evolution.
Just a word about evolution. We have a problem with evolution because we can see that life is just too complex to fit within the teachings of evolution. We believe God intentional made life so complex that we couldn't reasonably ascribe evolution to the creation. But man did it anyway!
Ping, I have more questions about your beliefs and hope to ask them in another post. I just need to think a bit more about what you have written.
We incarnate into human form because the human body allows for social interaction which permits all manner of spiritual lessons to be learned.
What about evil? How does the Newton model deal with evil?
Is there a spiritual force of evil that acts upon, or in conjunction with human evil?
For Christians, of course, that would be fallen angelic beings aligning themselves with evil humans, or it might just be evil humans acting on their own.
You can't deny that there is evil in the world, and it goes beyond whatever evil is found in human nature.
And it stands to reason that such evil goes beyond the mere learning of spiritual lessons.
What about evil? How does the Newton model deal with evil?
On the question of demons and devils, Newton, in one of his online interviews, while he does not state in absolute terms that they do not exist, does state, in objective fashion, that in the many thousands of hypnotic sessions he's had with clients, not a single one has ever made any mention of such entities existing.
Having said that, he does in his books refer to souls having negative or bad energy, which seems to be essentially a sickness. And that bad energy and souls that emit it can have a negative impact on others. I theorize that such cases could be interpreted as demons at work.
You can't deny that there is evil in the world, and it goes beyond whatever evil is found in human nature.
I think Newton's explanation on the matter would qualify as agreement, except with your use of the adjective "human". Evil, or bad energy, arises as an indirect consequence of weakness of the soul, not from "human nature".
And it stands to reason that such evil goes beyond the mere learning of spiritual lessons.
"Spiritual lessons" are more than simply academic, head knowledge lessons. They are lessons of experience.
Under the hyptnotists model. You can commit all kinds of evil with no consequences. You can rape 100 women, then cut the balls off of their husbands. Then go out an shoot up 50 schools. Then hijack the nukes and Nuke Iran until they are all dead. No matter with Newton you are still a good person there is no consequence for your actions, zero. You are just weak. Then you are still reborn or something.
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.
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.
I have stated many, many times, that in the Newton model, there most certainly is accountability for intentional actions which unjustly harm others. Absolutely there is. I'm sure it doesn't satisfy you that the accountability doesn't take the form of dumping them into a lake of fire for all eternity, but full accountability nonetheless exists.
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.
What role does God play in your incarnation into human form?
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.
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.
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.
Made up bullshit. How would the hyptnotist know? Have some dead people come back to life? Or is he just bullshitting again? I say he is making the shit up for suckers.
You never answered why you used to say you were a christian. Then suddenly you weren't anymore. I guess you don't want to share that.
The idea that we are nothing and God is everything, which is a frequent theme in Christianity, is inaccurate.
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.
Made up bullshit. How would the hyptnotist know? Have some dead people come back to life? Or is he just bullshitting again? I say he is making the shit up for suckers.
You never answered why you used to say you were a christian. Then suddenly you weren't anymore. I guess you don't want to share that.
Then my conversation with you is over. As I pointed out, you are not interested is listening to anything I have to say on this topic. I've answered your questions constructively but all you come back with is animosity.
Oh I listened. You dont answer questions though. You said no matter what you do even my extreme example you are still a good person according to the suggestor.
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?
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.
When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in.
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?
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.
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.
then there is no conflict with scientists saying it is billions of years old, because both could be true. Right?
Right...if your mind is in complete rebellion to God and you wish to reach a conclusion based on a false assumption: that the age of the universe is calculated by the expansion rate of the universe, that the distance between stars, measured from "The Big Bang", tells you that the age of the universe HAS to be billions of years old.
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.
It does not take much study or analysis to hear the gospel message, and realize you are indeed a sinner in need of salvation through Jesus Christ. Even a child can recognize that...can you Ping?
And this is the gospel...
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
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?
More of that retarded tow opposite things can be true. I thought you were smarter than that.
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.
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.
#109. To: watchman, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#103)
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.
That is interesting.
If corrupt Eve hadn't tempted Adam to eat an apple from the one magical tree in all of creation that could instantly confer on the eater the ability to discern good from evil, primarily by revealing to the eater their own nakedness, it does lead to other questions.
If Eve ate the apple first, then she had to know she was naked. Why didn't she go hide her nakedness from Adam? Instead she boldly and cunningly approached him, trying to make him Fall as well. That bitch.
And if Adam or Eve had ever refrained from eating those apples of nakedyness, then what use would mankind have for a savior like Jesus? They wouldn't need Jesus at all, being sinless. There would have been no sins to forgive, would there? No one to nail him to a cross, no one to accuse him, etc.
And no one ever has explained why God, with his perfect foreknowledge of future events that leads to prophecies that come true, failed to foresee that the snake would tempt Eve and then use her as a Vessel Of Evil to cause Adam's fall. Why didn't God see this coming? Why didn't God protect his creation from Satan's plan to thwart God's entire plan of pure and innocent creation with a couple of apples, a snake and a weak woman? Why wasn't God omniscient back in the days of Eden? Why was God lacking in foreknowledge that Satan would attempt to destroy the very nature of God's creation?
#110. To: watchman, Liberator, Pinguinite, Vicomte13 (#105)
Right...if your mind is in complete rebellion to God and you wish to reach a conclusion based on a false assumption: that the age of the universe is calculated by the expansion rate of the universe, that the distance between stars, measured from "The Big Bang", tells you that the age of the universe HAS to be billions of years old.
Hmm...so if God is manufacturing evidence for Big Bang (which has some theoretical problems itself), then isn't God the primary cause of people doubting the entire creation narrative? How can you blame Neil if he notices all this evidence of an old universe if God himself manufactured all that fake evidence to make the universe look old even though God supposedly only created the universe 6,000 years ago?
Some people like to claim that Big Bang or evolution are evil deceptions by the devil. But Satan did not ever have the power to create anything, like light arriving here from millions of years ago. Or is Satan also a time-traveling demon who can travel back in time to create these illusions of ancient light or is Satan perhaps empowered (by God) to manufacture such illusions currently and on an ongoing basis to deceive us. Satan was not a creator at all, only a rebel leader who wanted to spoil God's creation plan on earth.
It begins to appear that God may be the bigger deceiver, not Satan. Satan doesn't have the superpowers that some people wish to ascribe to him.
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.
As I mentioned to Pinguinite, you do not need to study and analyze the gospel in order to recognize it's immediate truth...and then believe.
Here's a passage from Acts where 3000 souls heard the gospel message and believed that SAME DAY... (no time to analyze here, was there?)
And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:40-42
Only after you take that initial step of faith in the gospel can you ever hope to study and analyze the Scriptures. The Bible just does not make sense until you have that indwelling of God's Spirit to help you understand.
Perhaps that is why it is so difficult for highly intelligent people to come to faith in Christ...they trust their (fallen) intellect more than they trust God.
As for 'heavily indoctrinating' children, some do, with great damage being done to the child. Salvation cannot be forced on anyone...
As I mentioned to Pinguinite, you do not need to study and analyze the gospel in order to recognize it's immediate truth...and then believe.
I thought that the subject was creation, the Genesis creation account. Now you suddenly want to switch to a New Testament gospel to try to make your point.
Here's a passage from Acts where 3000 souls heard the gospel message and believed that SAME DAY... (no time to analyze here, was there?)
Which doesn't tell us anything about the fall of man, old/young Earth creationism, Adam & Eve, God's role in manufacturing evidence that undermines the Bible's account, etc.
Only after you take that initial step of faith in the gospel can you ever hope to study and analyze the Scriptures. The Bible just does not make sense until you have that indwelling of God's Spirit to help you understand.
You're just saying that you must set aside rationality entirely in order to believe. If that is the case, then mankind's intellectual capacity must be another of God's mistakes since it thwarts God's plan. But, wait, what exactly was God's plan anyway? He turned the snake loose on Eve which caused the Fall and, despite his perect omniscience and perfect foreknowledge, still allowed mankind to fall. Was it because Jesus was bored up in heaven and needed to have Adam fall so that four thousand years later Jesus could be incarnated and then suffer crucifixion to provide the perfect sacrifice to expiate mankind's sins before God, i.e. the sins which God's plan seems to have required man to suffer through Adam eating a special apple?
You really haven't done much to justify the entire system of belief or to rationalize it or explain the notable inconsistencies inherent to it.
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
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.
And if Adam or Eve had ever refrained from eating those apples of nakedyness, then what use would mankind have for a savior like Jesus? They wouldn't need Jesus at all, being sinless. There would have been no sins to forgive, would there? No one to nail him to a cross, no one to accuse him, etc.
Here's the kicker on this, as I see it. Cause here's the thing.
Reincarnation is not in the least bit a new theological concept. It actually predates Christianity itself, and is built in to Hinduism and Buddhism. It's even referenced, I believe, in the Bible as one of Paul's letters seems to discount reincarnation with a line about it being appointed to man "once to die" and after that, the judgment.
So in my musings, I've wondered why, if the Newton model is correct, it does not exist as a mainstream faith as the "big 5" do (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism). And the answer I come up with is because there is no mandate built into the Newton model that the belief be spread. Christianity has that in the form of a fear of eternal damnation, so believers are energized with the urgency of teaching others the faith. Can't speak for Islam but in at least some versions of it, if you don't believe you get your head chopped off so that's another energizing factor for the faith. With the Newton model, there is no such mandate to convince others of anything because their is no consequence for not believing the Newton model.
Ergo, I postulate that if Christianity did not include the doctrine of Jesus being the son of God, and the necessity of believing in sin being washed away by his blood shed on the cross with a final judgment.... then Christianity would not exist today because people thousands of years ago would not have had any drive to spread the gospel. Not to others, and not to their children.
Hmm...so if God is manufacturing evidence for Big Bang (which has some theoretical problems itself), then isn't God the primary cause of people doubting the entire creation narrative? How can you blame Neil if he notices all this evidence of an old universe if God himself manufactured all that fake evidence to make the universe look old even though God supposedly only created the universe 6,000 years ago?,
I would actually go farther and say that if God created the universe 6000 years ago to make it look like it's 13 billion years old, then it really IS 13 billion years old, and it's completely wrong to say it's only 6000 years old.
Keep in mind, God creates time too, not just space. At least according to Einstein, who found the 2 pretty much go hand in hand.
However, suggesting God would have fast forwarded universe creation instead of just waiting 13 billion years raises the question of why God would have not simply waited it out? Would we suggest that He couldn't bear the thought sitting around twiddling his thumbs for that long? Such suggestions largely ascribe human attributes to God (which is also done in the Bible, I contend, with descriptions of God as jealous and angry). I think those descriptions are done either naively or for the purpose of controlling the audience via imposition of fear of the almighty. (Politics and religion do mix, and often did, even in ancient times!)
Only after you take that initial step of faith in the gospel can you ever hope to study and analyze the Scriptures. The Bible just does not make sense until you have that indwelling of God's Spirit to help you understand.
Perhaps that is why it is so difficult for highly intelligent people to come to faith in Christ...they trust their (fallen) intellect more than they trust God.
I counter this with what I've said that the capacity of the human mind to believe things that are not true is enormous, and it's enough to make one believe that God's spirit is at work is understanding. This phenomenon is partially known in the present day when it comes crime witnesses who falsely, though sincerely, identify innocent people as the criminal perps. Innocent people have gone to jail on sworn testimony that was later found to be flat out wrong. It's a psychological thing, and when time is involved, where the person memory of an event is replayed thousands of times in someone's head, memories can be distorted in dramatic ways. That is one theory behind the accusations against Kavinaugh by Ford of his having raped her 35 years prior. Maybe she lied criminally, and it was all fake, but it's also possible she was sincere in her claims but gravely mistaken as to who it was and where it happened. It's even possible it was a movie she saw which over times became her real past experience.
But in defense of Christianity, I will restate that a great deal of it is completely compatible with the Newton model, and according to the Newton model, we are all subconsciously aware of what the truth is. And those elements of the Bible and Christianity that are true would resonate in each of us as being true, and those resonations would be credited to Christianity, and may even be where you allude to the Spirit of God giving affirmation to us about Christianity.
Again, I consider Christianity to be a good faith. All the morals about how we are to live and treat others, embellishing virtues and such are spot on. The only real differences is in the abstract doctrines of sin, redemption and judgment. And according to the Newton model, it's not important if someone is wrong about that. (Obviously, the reverse is not true for Christianity, or at least your version of it).
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.
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.
As I've said: The capacity of the human mind to believe things that are not true is greatly underappreciated.
Not by the government or by libmedia. They rely on it as a foundation of their existence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
hehehe.... a long write up, and interesting account of Issac Newton. However, all of my references to Newton refer to Dr. Michael Newton who is a contemporary who utilized hypnosis as a therapeutic method, initially for common things like losing weight, quitting smoking and regression to childhood to recall traumatic events that were impacting complaining clients, but then discovered that clients sometimes recalled events from not just prior lives but from between lives that took place, alledgely, in the spiritual realm.
He went on to make past life and between life regression his specialty and wrote a few books on his findings. Michael Newton was initially an atheist but was, he claims, forced to adjust his beliefs because of what he found in his work. He went on to create an institute (The Newton Institute) for training therapeutic hypnotists in the art he had developed on his own for recalling past and between life events. He died just a couple years ago. My frequent searches show no substantive claims of fraud in anything he's done, other than armchair doubters.
I have found his work to be very objective and as scientific in approach as is possible in the field. He has not written things up in an emotional way, but rather very objective way, it seems, which does appeal to me and my way of thinking. He's not as well known as Dr. Brian Weiss who is in the exact same field and came to virtually 100% of all the same conclusions as Newton, and the same way via clients that presented past life recall. Weiss, however, is less scientific and objective in his work, and has far less focus on the between life stage which Newton has declared to be what our earthly life is centered around. All interesting stuff, in my view.
