If I remember correctly, it means 'Forsaken of God' in Hebrew.Quote:
Originally posted by Ichabod
...big fiber?
Printable View
If I remember correctly, it means 'Forsaken of God' in Hebrew.Quote:
Originally posted by Ichabod
...big fiber?
...big fiber?
But seriously, I did not know that. I just thought it was a character from The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow :)
hahahaha!!! I love that verse as well, that is Jesus speaking about teaching his word to Gentiles!!! I love how all apologetics overlook that verse, just like Eric picks and chooses which verses are applicable and which was are not to be taken literally, what a fuckin crock of shit....Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
Here's a verse:
Matt 7:6
"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
and Eric why is Christianity not considered polytheistic??? it is nothing but a continuation of the stories of Zeus and all his Gods created in a Jewish context and carried on to this day and age...let US create man in OUR image!!! hahaha!!! oh wait let me guess Jesus and the Holy Spirit were sitting by his side at the time...i should have known...gee i just dont think hard enough, do i (or perhaps i dont think like a apologetic anymore)???
Eric, your a hypocritical apologetic and it is sickening that you think you are somehow abliged to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are legitimate and which are not...just admit it, its a old fuckin book that makes little or no sense and was PRIMARILY WRITTEN TO KEEP THE JEWISH PEOPLE STRONG...IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE ORAL TRADITION OF THEIR GOD IN WRITTEN FORM...get over it..they are fairy tales. inspirational, but none the less, fairy tales.
While I'm pretty sure there is some sort of deeper meaning to the song, I'm also pretty sure it's meant to be taken literally at least on some level. Maynard's pretty anti-religion (or at least anti-mass religion). You've heard Tool's Sober, haven't you?Quote:
Originally posted by arjue
WARNING: This may be offensive. Keep in mind that all religious references in this song are most likely metaphorical, and aren't supposed to be taken literally
open the page seperately. thats what I've been doing in this topic, as I've been using the quick reply option the mostly.Quote:
being composed of natural forms? I would get into other aspects of your post, but since nick and Cap veggie have decided to play dueling Russian novels, i cant get your post onscreen.
and I have explained it, and you have merely been saying that you do not understand why that is the case, so understand that I am having trouble avoiding repeating myself. I am certain that I am repeating myself whenever I explain this, but I do attempt to add some deviation that may make sense in spite of all that I have already said that doesn't.Quote:
Please explain your rock hard logic that demands that natural forms need to be present for some thing to exist.
I'm not certain how these will work out, so view them as independent points ,and not a collective argument.
1. your chain = {fly, inferior formA, inf. form B, inf. form C, nothing.}
2. my chain = {fly, inf. form A, B,C, natural form}
now. you agree here:
that we witness the culmination, as it were, of inferior activity(inferior, referring to relative inferior forms). I am not speaking of a theoretical natural particle directly, as you don't agree with it, but , inferior in general.Quote:
I mean, we identify things by means of our senses, or some form of technological aid, and that detection is how we say wether something exists. But, since at higher levels of the item's construction, the properties emerge, such as the ability to be seen, or touched, or whatever, so i would say that our best ability to determine the reality of said object comes from those emergent properties, rather than an entirely theoretical particle.
ok, from there:
1. the emergent properties, are the abstraction. We are equating an occurence, to be a single entity. Certainly, you cannot say that a fly is a genuinely singular form. You can say,that it is a genuine singular fly, who's definition is based on inferior forms.
2. The "fly", then, being the result of the interactions of inferior forms(cells and the like, what have you. forms that on their own are not a fly, but can interact with other forms to result in what you recognize as a fly.)
Continuing
3. This "fly" can be broken. The inferior forms can be seperated to such a degree, that the definition of "fly" no longer applies to that set of forms. So, to apply independent existence to a fly, is outright wrong. Its existence is dependent on the interactions of inferior forms. As it is, the "fly" is the abstraction, and not the inferior forms it is dependent on. You are not witnessing a singular form. You are witnessing the activity of many forms.
Yet, you are recognizing the fly as singular. "singular" being an abstraction of "multiple interacting forms".
I hope I can skip over the rest of the chain. It would be, essentially, a repetetive re-explanation of the point I have just made. I would like to head to the very end of your chain now. That which you set as the basis for existence of "created forms".
That is to say : "nothing".
and yet, you also refer to the recognition of emergent properties.
andQuote:
, such as the ability to be seen, or touched, or whatever, so i would say that our best ability to determine the reality of said object comes from those emergent properties, rather than an entirely theoretical particle.
*see, I opened up page 8 to pull that out.Quote:
reality is simply based on its existence, it has spatial extension, mass, weight, all the statistics we associate with matter
I would ask, what then is the amount of space occupied by nothing? what is the mass(we can remove weight, right?)? the answer: 0. the complete answer(in general, regarding nothing)? "nothing does not represent a value, it represents the absense of a value."
There is no "creation from nothing".
I'm assuming you're using "nothing" as your base for existence from this:what is the accumulated value of nothing? It has no value. What would there be if something was created based on nothing? The question itself is misleading, with nothing as a base, there is nothing to create with.Quote:
why substances that are impermenant cannot just be created from nothing and return to nothing by a creator
a base value that represents what we witness the culmination of is a requirement for existence. something that represents mass.That can actually lead to accumulated values, which is to say, constructs. In order for something to have "mass" to "occupy space", its existence must be based on a form that both "has mass" and "occupies space". If these values are initially "nothing", then, whatever is dependent on them, will contain a value of "nothing", which is to say, that value will not be present at all. each property that you recognize is a strike against nothing as a base, as each property is an argument against nothing as a base.
4.
I(perhaps you do) do not know if the composition of a quark has been discovered, or mapped out. If it has not, this, or any other unknown inferior form may very well be a natural particle. I can refer you to the atomists, who argued for basic units of construction before atoms and molecules and the like were recognized. Which is to say, its fine to wait things out in our lifetime, but vindication may exist only beyond our time, so let us make do with what we can. Suffice to say, if there is no previous stage to a quark, then it isQuote:
You earlier admitted that the Supposed basic particle that composed quarks or whatever you assume to be the pevious stage was theoretical.
dependent on nothing(and I use this not in the manner that you have, as a substantial base, but to suggest that there is no value for dependency.)
If it has no dependency, there is no interaction that is responsible for its existence, therefore, it exists with no responsible forms, and without a base to gain its values from(a fly's mass is the accumulated mass of the forms its existence is dependent on), those values are natural.
If it is found that a quark does have a form that it is dependent on, then you call that form into question. And if a dependency is found there, then you continue, with the limit being: a form with natural value.
It's similar to the argument that some people bring about, saying that existence is literally based on the observer(as opposed to, recognition of existence is based on observation). How then, does the observer exist? If existence is dependent on observation, then everything that exists must be "observed". However, with nothing to observe, it should follow that an observer exists naturally. If an observer exists naturally, then existence is not dependent on observation. Likewise, with creation. If exsitence is dependent on creation, then everything that exists must be created. But a requirement of creation is a creator. and how can a creator exist without being created? If a creator exists, without being created, then creation is not a requirement for existence. In both cases, an observer, and a creator, must exist naturally. We can consider constructs of matter in the same light. Perhaps, in order to exist, everything must be constructed. but from what? With no natural piece to allow for construction, there can be no constructing. With no natural creator, there can be no creations. With no natural Observer, there can be no observations. And yet, once it is seen that a natural value is required, the previous requirement is voided, in support of "natural existence" as a new requirement.
+
what I have said about why "nothing" cannot be a substantial base for existence
+
my repeated explanation of dependency.
Also, I may have misunderstood what you were referring to as an abstraction. Was it the "natural form", or the "emergent properties" as I thought it was? In any case, if it was the latter, then we agree, and if it was the former, then hopefully what I said was worth something.
I'm not sure what else I can put in this post, so I'll wait until the next one.
If Heaven would be living forever listening to you fucking tools, I'll gladly start believing in hell and try to get there.
And this board thinks I take shit too seriously...goddamn!
of course, however this song is about someone he knew named judith. She looked up to someone as though they were omnipotent. I'm sure his choice of metaphor was intentional though.Quote:
Originally posted by Saint of Killers
While I'm pretty sure there is some sort of deeper meaning to the song, I'm also pretty sure it's meant to be taken literally at least on some level. Maynard's pretty anti-religion (or at least anti-mass religion). You've heard Tool's Sober, haven't you?
You answered your own question. They are God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. These three are one and agree as one.Quote:
Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
and Eric why is Christianity not considered polytheistic???
let US create man in OUR image!!! hahaha!!! oh wait let me guess Jesus and the Holy Spirit were sitting by his side at the time...
..................................................................................... ...........Quote:
gee i just dont think hard enough
......................................................and with that having been said I politely ask all my Bible believing, God-loving brethren in Christ to kindly allow this pointless thread to die. No good will come of this and any further disputes are an excercise in futility. Do not allow satan to use you as tool for dissension and anger. Resist him and move on, In Jesus name.Quote:
just admit it, its a old fuckin book that makes little or no sense and was PRIMARILY WRITTEN TO KEEP THE JEWISH PEOPLE STRONG...IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE ORAL TRADITION OF THEIR GOD IN WRITTEN FORM...get over it..they are fairy tales. inspirational, but none the less, fairy tales.
amen to that.Quote:
and with that having been said I politely ask all my Bible believing, God-loving brethren in Christ to kindly allow this pointless thread to die. No good will come of this and any further disputes are an excercise in futility. Do not allow satan to use you as tool for dissension and anger. Resist him and move on, In Jesus name.
I'd let it die, but part of me doesnt want to, as even though there was lot of negativity a lot of good has come also, and i know i've learned a lot- i think some other people have too.
MKU, i dont know why you suddenly became so offensive towards me, i said it once that no posts i've ever made on this forum had any intentional malice in them.
however, your posts, namely these sections, among others -
Quote:
just like Eric picks and chooses which verses are applicable and which was are not to be taken literally, what a fuckin crock of shit....
Quote:
it is nothing but a continuation of the stories of Zeus and all his Gods created in a Jewish context and carried on to this day and age...let US create man in OUR image!!! hahaha!!!
show all too clearly that you know absolutely nothing of scripture scholarship what so ever.Quote:
Eric, your a hypocritical apologetic and it is sickening that you think you are somehow abliged to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are legitimate and which are not
if you want to debate something with me in an intelligent way, then have an idea of just what it is your debating.
also, the things you said about me
"Eric picks and chooses which verses are applicable and which was are not to be taken literally"
"Eric, your a hypocritical apologetic and it is sickening that you think you are somehow abliged to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are legitimate and which are not"
eric doest choose. scholars and historians, religious and secular, they choose. Eric studies from various sources, listens to all possible theories (especially the secular ones, as they have nothing to prove) then Eric relays the informaton. everything i've said is verifiable, contemporary, information, from people who have dedicated their lives to understanding the bible as the people of the day did.
I'm curious as to how im a hypocrite, but if it's going to cause more unjustified insults its not worth it.
oh and one more thing -
isnt this basically what i was saying in my whole "innate goodness" post!?Quote:
The final choice of who goes to hell and who does not is God's alone,and that there is a real chance that people who are non-beleivers in christianity could still find salvation. So any of the alleged innocents that you love to trump out here, would not be in hell, as hell would be for the guilty. In short, we say that God sorts them out
Gongos - is that really a Catholic belief ? thats great man, i thought i was alone on that one.
thanks, i think you made my day.
and i'd like to give much credit to Rezo and Gongos - their little intellect battle has been great fun to read, and they're both good guys in my book for keeping their cools and keeping this thread civilized if nothing else.
ok.
one more point though:
god creates from nothing. for his creation, what value, with respect to mass is gained from "nothing"? what value, with respect to occupying space is gained from "nothing"? The answer: there is no value. where then, would these values come from? They would have to come from god. What role does "nothing" play as a base for existence? It cannot play any. God would need to be responsible for all the values that allow for existence, and so it is not "creations from nothing", at the very least, it would be "creations from god".
and such and such.