Printable View
The interesting thing is that adultery used to mean any sex between unmarried partners, not cheating on your spouse. How many Christians do their best to follow that one?Quote:
Originally posted by Rich
while commiting adultery, well, is commiting adultery.
If we are talking in pragmatic, concrete terms then yes you're right. However, no true Jesus-loving, God-fearing, Spirit-filled Christian thinks in such terms when it comes to God. The problem with your statement is that you have no clue what my experience with God is.Quote:
Originally posted by IronPlant
The only reason you think you know the tree fell, and made a sound is from a assumption made on prior experence. You can't say the same thing about God because you have no prior experence like "well i saw god make this tree, so he must have made them all".
You weren't there when He spoke to me and told me that He gave me the power to command angels. You weren't there when He took my wreck of a life and turned it into something wonderful. I saw God take a pathetic, wretched pile of dirt and turn him into a man. And the funny part is He does this on a regular basis with millions of people on a daily basis.
No experience? You have not walked in my shoes sir.
*Promptly kicks Nemesis in the ass*Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis
I know, I\'m going to get kicked in the ass for this, but if Science proves that early man was a evolution of the apes and not from God\'s image of himself then that would mean that God\'s image of himself is a ape, but in Bible it says that God is human man, not a ape, what do you say to that?
SCRIPTURE!!! Book, Chapter and Verse buddy! If you\'re going to be throwing unlearned statements like \"but in the Bible it says that God is human man\" around like that then you\'d better have the Scripture to back it up.
God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth -John 4:24
For our God is a consuming fire-Hebrews 12:29
Whatever the image of God, it is NOT that of human man.
Quote:
I have another question also, How many have broken the ten commandments?
Why don\'t you just ask how many people breathe on a regular basis?
To be fair to Nemesis, the Bible does state that man was created in God's image (no, I'm not about to cite the verse). And I'm pretty sure neither of those quotes are referring to his appearance, although it's hard to tell out of context. Doesn't really matter, because I think you have serious psychological problems if you heard god telling you that you can command angels, so I'm not sure how prescient your interpretations of the Bible are.Quote:
Originally posted by Master of 7s
*Promptly kicks Nemesis in the ass*
SCRIPTURE!!! Book, Chapter and Verse buddy! If you\'re going to be throwing unlearned statements like \"but in the Bible it says that God is human man\" around like that then you\'d better have the Scripture to back it up.
God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth -John 4:24
For our God is a consuming fire-Hebrews 12:29
Whatever the image of God, it is NOT that of human man.
Well, God is the Father (God) the son (Jesus) and the holy Spirit (spirit) all in one, so in some ways he is human, and in other ways not..
*The Holy Trinity* is god is basically what I\'m trying to say..
Doesn't really matter what you think. There will always be doubters who'll never believe anything. Somehow I get the feeling if an angel descended from heaven and laid it all out for you, life, God, the universe, you STILL wouldn't believe.Quote:
Originally posted by Saint of Killers
Doesn't really matter, because I think you have serious psychological problems if you heard god telling you that you can command angels, so I'm not sure how prescient your interpretations of the Bible are.
Say whatever you like, you haven't walked in my shoes nor had God touch your heart in the way He's touched mine. I know what I heard and I know what was said. Psychological problems? Hardly. An unapologetic faith in that which I cannot see, most definitely.:D
I haven't been to the boards in a while, unfortunately I haven't had time to respond. The core of my belifes are summed up on the first page, but to elaborate, I have never held that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. To Master of 7's:
If I missed your point, I'm afaird it is because you were being vauge. The way I interpreted you earlier post was that if god's days were equal in lenth then that would not hold up well, it finite minded or not. Now if it was just a way to put matters in a way that can be understood then I find that that is no diffrent from Odin slaying his father, making mountians of his bones and oceans of his eyes. Just a way to explain things that are not so easily explainable. I suppose there is some middle ground here though which could result in any number of interpretations.
About trees falling - by my fault I began working at a point and didn't finish up on that :/ Typical me. Anyway, my point was:
By not observeing something (not just you but anyone) it is possible ('not impossible' is more just a phrase for it) that this something exists in a superposition of states. This is a wave function called a probability wave. Think Schrödinger's Cat. A event that takes place in a sealed box where a cat is placed occurs and this event should, in practice sadly kill the cat. You do not open the box - there are no detectors inside or used outside - is the cat alive or dead? The answer, in quantum mechanics (as experiments with photons have held up so far) is the cat is both alive and dead or more precicely - in a superposition of states. If you do not observe the tree falling (and more importantly, did not observe the tree at all) then you can't say that it did or did not make a sound. Well, you can assume it does make a sound and frankly - I'm one to belive that this is a rational and perfectly well placed assumption. However - I do not rule out an absence of a power that can be defined as god nor do I rule out the possibility that (in accordance with Quantum Mechanics - which actually is only known to govenrn the behaviour of quantum particles) that the tree does not make a sound or that in some unique probability makes something other than a sound.
So what I was saying is that life is not as simple as an explaination, nor is god. Literature, human language is ill-equiped to deal with matters like that (so explanations like 'On the First Day' and 'How long are Gods days' arise I might think). Tie that in with my sumation of my beliefs and you might see someone either no real beleif at all or one with a grand idea of what god means or stands for.
If what I was saying was the same was what you are getting at (I would assume god could reckon time in any way imaginable and it is possible that should god have told this to man to write in a book for future men that god would have known to tell it to man in ways he could understand --as god created man too-- telling them 'days' instead of 'millions of years' or a simple 'many moons' could be, perhaps, misleading.)
I like your spirit, it is known that the human brain cannot physically contain all of the atomic data found in a grain of salt (Carl Sagan: [/i]Broca's Brain; 1980[/i]) So it would be impossible to simply know everything there is to know about the Universe and thus god. At the end of the day - I agree with you. I belive in god - but I cannot say that there is a Judeo/Cristian god in all certainty. There is naught in science that cannot be refuted... we get somethings that work out of it, but we have never had anything that works in all theoretical conditions (as an example, in 2D the sum of all angles on a triangle, any triangle you like, equal 180 degrees all of the time, but a triangle laid over a sphere, in three dimentions, has sides that equal more than 180 degrees). What I like about science is that it is constantly changeing and it questions itself.. even if people in science take this or that as unbreakable law... that is the nature of people and were it not for that Science would be seen as incredibly fickle. Newton was right all the time, untill Einstien changed that. Einstein became right all of the time, and the likes of Neils Bohr and Max Planck challanged even that and now... it's hard to say what is soild and unquestionable.... in science as much as in anyone's life, you have to assume that the tree makes a sound... just never forget that it is always possible, if not probable, that something else entirely happend that we just don't understand yet. I hope that was easy enough to digest :/
PS:
Rich -
Well, you're assumeing that everything MUST have a begining when, I find it very hard to find something that had a definite begining. In any case, most theories go (mind you they are just theories - but even they hold weight) that the most primordial life on earth came from very early tide pools which are more viscous than flowing water where distinctly not-living molecules combined with other molecules that would later make up the basic amino acids which are simply compound molecules. The Molecules that were more abundant, or perhaps better suited by thier physical structure to combine with common elements did combine. Very common elements in the universe and perhaps clearly on primordial earth is what the basic structure of life on earth is made of. I speak of DNA. I'm not 100% up on my biology, but I think that life likely did come from something other than living beings. Now... where that came from becomes a long tale to the deaths of first generation stars and so on backwards to a "'survival' of the most gravitional" story at the very 'begining' of the Universe as it is right now... all still theory, but still holds some merit methinks. I'm not disagreeing with you intrinsically - I belive that Science is in the very nature of God. A vast and incalculable equation. Science is an ever expanding horizon... the more we discover, the more ground we gain the more we see how seemingly limitless the universe is - even if finite in body. I also can imagine some contratictions in science... even in mathematics... but I think they are contradictions as they are either outdates, wrong in part or whole or that we just don't understand what it is we're calling hypocritical. This applies to more than just science.Quote:
I was talking about how it's rule of biology that "all living things come from other living things" which would be science once again contradicting itself.If everything comes from something else, then the first living organisms had to be put here by something, the theory of God. Concerning the planets, it's a rule that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" which would again be science contradicting itself. Something or someone would have had to place these first planets here with almost limitless potential energy. So if you ask me, science indirectly supports the theory of God. I guess my views come from my Catholic School biology teacher. She was actually very good at teaching and didn't try to brainwash you with all that god crap, but rather provided it as a possibility.
ºtracer
Sounds like Heisenberg's Principle. I understand what you're saying but the fact that these probabilities of quantum physics revolve around human observation/presence reeks of a subconscious arrogance that implies that humankind is the center of all existence. There were supernovas, solar winds and neutron stars in exsistance and going about their celestial business long before man even thought up the wheel.Quote:
Originally posted by TracerBullet
About trees falling - by my fault I began working at a point and didn't finish up on that :/ Typical me. Anyway, my point was:
By not observeing something (not just you but anyone) it is possible ('not impossible' is more just a phrase for it) that this something exists in a superposition of states. This is a wave function called a probability wave. Think Schrödinger's Cat. A event that takes place in a sealed box where a cat is placed occurs and this event should, in practice sadly kill the cat. You do not open the box - there are no detectors inside or used outside - is the cat alive or dead? The answer, in quantum mechanics (as experiments with photons have held up so far) is the cat is both alive and dead or more precicely - in a superposition of states. If you do not observe the tree falling (and more importantly, did not observe the tree at all) then you can't say that it did or did not make a sound. Well, you can assume it does make a sound and frankly - I'm one to belive that this is a rational and perfectly well placed assumption. However - I do not rule out an absence of a power that can be defined as god nor do I rule out the possibility that (in accordance with Quantum Mechanics - which actually is only known to govenrn the behaviour of quantum particles) that the tree does not make a sound or that in some unique probability makes something other than a sound.
I find it a tad difficult to believe that they all just sat around twiddling their thumbs (or whatever it is that neutron stars twiddle) in a superposition of states until man invented the means to observe them.
I agree. There is no simple answer to life or God. If there were someone would've wrote a book about it by now. Some will argue that the Bible is that book, but you can't even get the people who say that to agree on what the Bible means half the time.Quote:
So what I was saying is that life is not as simple as an explaination, nor is god. Literature, human language is ill-equiped to deal with matters like that (so explanations like 'On the First Day' and 'How long are Gods days' arise I might think).
And more than human language or literature, human beings are ill-equiped to deal with matters such as these. Had we the mental capacity to comprehend God we would not constantly be seeking ways to mold Him into our own image.
All too true. Which is why in spite of my faith and all that has taken place in my life as a result of that faith I always have questions about what I believe.Quote:
it's hard to say what is soild and unquestionable.... in science as much as in anyone's life, you have to assume that the tree makes a sound... just never forget that it is always possible, if not probable, that something else entirely happend that we just don't understand yet.
One such question:
The Bible says that God made man in His own image. Well, man was created as a being of sexual nature. What does this imply about God and what does this say about sex?
The Heisenburg uncertianty principal doesn't say that it depends on man to observe something to make it so - it says that observeing something collapses the existance of a varity of states, not just waiting to be defined as one state. It could be thought that these quasars, for example, existed simultaiously in all possible states and when observed one state was observed and collapesed the wave function - there is the idea that there are other universes and such :/ Just because the wave function was collapesed here doesn't mean it was collapsed there... but then we might as well be talking about what God thought was really really cool because it is equally impossible to discern wether or not you can speak in terms of 'cool' or even in strictly comparitive terms - you dig? Personally - I don't know enough about what IS known or presumed about Quantum Mechanics... if I did I would likely not be posting on this message board :/ So in a way - I can't speak for it.
Only one point here in short: I don't personally see arrogance, be it subconcious or otherwise, in the matter of uncertianty. It's all in how you look at it. If you wish, you can find arrogance in selflessness or objectivity or, well, anything. For instance, I could say Mother Terresa was egotistical because she I think she made no attempt to make light of her generosity... she's clearly doing it for the attention and to have more people love her. Or something like that :/
ºtracer
I believe that God and science are essentially one thing. God is just the natural order of things, best portrayed as the mathematical and physical laws that everything in the universe obeys. I do not believe He is some force that intervenes in our lives nor even cares about our lives for that matter. I guess you can He just created these laws that must be obeyed at the creation of the universe, and sat back and watched it all go down, and here we are today.
Yes, I will agree, I was not there when he did all these wonderful things for you. But I have to wonder what sort of label he left, meaning, was there a name brand on your calling to faith? Was it Jehovah, Yahweh, are Zues? Was it Christian, Jewish or Muslim? Was it Buddhist, Romen Greek or maybe some other god in the vast world of gods we have now? Or did you just assume whatever wonderful thing it was that happened was caused by the Christian god?Quote:
Originally posted by Master of 7s
If we are talking in pragmatic, concrete terms then yes you're right. However, no true Jesus-loving, God-fearing, Spirit-filled Christian thinks in such terms when it comes to God. The problem with your statement is that you have no clue what my experience with God is.
You weren't there when He spoke to me and told me that He gave me the power to command angels. You weren't there when He took my wreck of a life and turned it into something wonderful. I saw God take a pathetic, wretched pile of dirt and turn him into a man. And the funny part is He does this on a regular basis with millions of people on a daily basis.
No experience? You have not walked in my shoes sir.
And I suppose you are much better off than me and a lot of other people on this board now, now that God has had a nice little chat with you. I hardly see how that's fair. Me and others will go to hell for our doubt and our search for truth, while you get to go to heaven because HE chose to talk to you.
You make a very hard case for anyone to believe that you've truthfully had a personal religious revelation. Sure you sound like any other "true believer", but its sort of odd how you show it. It's all nice and great to talk big, but 7 you have two big tittie girls on your post. One as your char pic and one at the bottom. Yeah, sure you can say we are all perverted if we think anything lustful about them, but really, come now. I wonder how many sins that is. 1 you had to look at them to use them, so most likely you sinned then. 2. Jesus says that lusting is just as bad as the actual act of adultre. And 3, you put it on here for us all to look at and lust after and thus you are acting as a "stumbling block". So in your little love letter to God you felt you needed to share with us, you've sinned 3 times. If you mess up this much while thinking about God I wonder what sort of things you do when he slips from your mind. And this from someone who's talked to him. What hope do the rest of us have to try to be good.
And talking about people who don't believe in god as being vain and "arrogant" as you put it. I think a person who fallows a faith to save themselves from hell or in a fear of God and the negative things that both can cause is very "arrogant" and vain. That person doesn't believe for any other reason than to save his own ass from pain.