Stop Making Excuses [Archive] - Page 2 - Theology Forum

JosephofMessiah

August 5th, 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by zenya
So, you are an expert on evoulution, when life begins, and how to read a bible?

The term expert is thrown around alot and it is uncertain when exactly that comes into label a person. Is a surgeon an expert at his 10th, 50th, 60th, 100th, 1000th surgury?

Therefore to clarify who/what I am, I guess I should say I am a theological author on Early Texts, I study indepth the Torah and KJV to show decrepancies in copy and attain the TRUTH behind the lies of Rome, and I also study the scientific forums and theories of our existence indepth onilne, as well as Discovery, Popular Mechanics, and other magazines which flood into my home at random times. I also am an avid church goer, I speak to rabbis indepth about theological arguments, I have attempted several times to speed indepth with Priests about their views and the Church's viewpoint but end always without a conclusion because they fall back to the "power of the Church" over the literal-ness of scripture.

I also have an inner guide which claims to be YHVH and has brought me to the point I have now attained in life. I'm 28 years old and it is not a joke that my life has been like an episode of Twilight Zone.

You don't believe in the word of God,

Which words?
Which scriptures?
Is 1 John 5:7 from God?
Is the King James Version perfect?
Is the Original Torah perfect?
Did God start talking at Genesis 1:1 and stop talking at Revelations conclusion?

Historically and factually based upon real world data, I seek the One True God which claims to exist to me on a real and personal level. I continue to tell people I feel like the people of Israel after the Sea has just collasped and they crossed on dry land because I have seen unexplained phenomena in my life at VARIOUS points, and I still question my God. God is not afraid of historical evidence, various branches of various theologies are petrified of certain lies coming forward which they have been walking under, such as tradition of the Church over-rides the Word of God.

...and as far as I can tell you don't believe in God.

I honestly do not give a big **** what you believe....

Yet, you are an expert at that too.

Well, I'm above average in the least.

You don't have the first clue as to why God did what he did in Exodus.

Which part?
The exodus from Egypt?
The giving of the law of Moses?
What?
Actually, of men I have met, I bet I understand Moses more-so than most ever have thought about it. Imagine standing in the dessert and some burning bush tells you to take a stick and your brother and go tell the most powerful Country/Nation in the World to do as you say....yeah, Moses had to have spare underwear for that one.

Typical though, most atheist or agnostic's take scripture out of context.

I would say that Christianity as a whole, is the ones most covered by the statement of taking things out of context with their Christianization of the Torah and major/minor prophets.

Why is that?

Translators were paid by a Christian King....you cater to your benefactor.

So you can try to make your weak argument look better?

Please try to understand that I will admit fully that the child within the mother is alive, human, and should be allowed to mature.
Please try to understand that I will also defend unto my death the freedom of that mother to kill anything which is within her body because she is the host organism and the State shall never own a person's body, that is Anti-Christ talk inwhich you would give the State power to brand you and mark you with His mark.

Why do you hate God:think:
Zenya

I hate God because he picked me to talk to ignorance like you after I told him repeatedly to get someone else.

I love my God because I will be what He wants me to be, which is who I was always suppose to be, regardless of my selfish desires to remain a private person.

servent101

August 5th, 2003, 08:48 AM

One Eyed Jack...

He also told them to preach it to the world. The argument you're trying to use here falls flat in the face of that fact. Unless, of course, you don't think He really told them to do that.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus did tell His disciples to preach the Word, and if you follow their example - the four Gospels, they gave the account of our Lord's life - with no hint of how to interpret, no instilling of the orthodox mindset, and with the understanding that people have their own God given intelligence to guide them into a relationship with the Holy Spirit. A far cry from the absolute and inerrant in all situations heresy of the orthodox,.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

One Eyed Jack

August 5th, 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
First, what degree in psychology do you hold

None, but I know enough to recognize a crazy person when I encounter one. Furthermore, delusions (such as thinking you're a prophet) are a hallmark of schizophrenia, which in psychological circles is a sort of catch-all term for all kinds of assorted weirdness.

Also, you seem obsessed with hounding me on this forum -- don't think I haven't noticed, even though I usually don't respond to you, as I think it's pretty pointless to argue with a maniac.

One Eyed Jack

August 5th, 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by servent101
One Eyed Jack...

The fact of the matter is that Jesus did tell His disciples to preach the Word

Exactly, which is why your "certain people in a certain time and place" argument has no merit.

JosephofMessiah

August 5th, 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
None, but I know enough to recognize a crazy person when I encounter one.

Then you should most certainly avoid mirrors.

Furthermore, delusions (such as thinking you're a prophet) are a hallmark of schizophrenia,

I have yet to claim any such ignorance.
A "prophet" means you can predict the future events of mankind.
I have made no such claims.

Second, the term schizophrenia has yet to be defined by you in the conceptual way you are using it...

...which in psychological circles is a sort of catch-all term for all kinds of assorted weirdness.

Again you demonstrate your total backwood ignorance to this mental disorder or delusion and have YET to simply look it up on the internet and see if what I have stated is truth or not. You are not walking in truth, you are walking in lies and you are trying to misrepresent me (saying I have claimed to be a prophet) and are trying to misquote me (saying I suffer from delusions) and are trying to mislabel me (saying I am schizophrenic when this disorder does not describe me fairly).

Schizophrenia is a very well defined pattern of behavior which includes several variables that do not link to myself personally. It is NOT (yet again I have to state this) simply hearing one inner voice. IF schizophrenia were simply hearing an inner voice then yet again I tell you that this would cover all men who have ever "heard from God."

Also, you seem obsessed with hounding me on this forum --

I hound ignorance and persons who would attack me without evidence, and then when they lack evidence they result to personal attack of myself. If that makes you feel like being "hounded" then all you have to do is stop lying about me (using the term schizophrenia) and then attack my arguments that I make with reason and logic which is actually what you should have done in the beginning. If you had any legs to stand on you would have never brought up the things which I have stated about an inner voice and would have attack with your own evidence of why my ideas are unfounded, attack through historical evidence or scientific evidence. The problem is you directly failed in having anything to return (because you lack intelligence enough to seek and find things to support your side) and went off into a fallacy of knowledge known as:

From: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
the person's character is attacked
the person's circumstances are noted
the person does not practise what is preached

It is exceedingly a weak argument. It does not help your ignorance remain because EVEN IF I am a "schizo" as you so ignorantly wish to label an honest and truthful man, I can still think miles ahead of your ignorance. In fact I challenge you to attack the points I have made and see if you can defeat what I have said WITHOUT attack the man behind the message. So far you have done nothing but spout unfounded assertions and attempted to use fallacious logical patterns in every post of yours I have read yet.

...don't think I haven't noticed, even though I usually don't respond to you, as I think it's pretty pointless to argue with a maniac.

Yet again you result to your attack of me, so be it.
You can't defeat the man's knowledge nor his reasoning so you attack the man...seems about right for someone like yourself.

okinrus

August 5th, 2003, 10:03 PM

I heard one, single, still small voice which is not audible but internal.

Be very careful in this age as demons can and do speak to us. Can you be specfic on what the voice said?

It turns out I do not qualify and I am quite "normal" when taken into the reality of the number of people who experience this (including pastors, monks, and the like which claim this inner voice is "God").

Yes, it's normal. Just be very careful to decern if it really is God. If it's not then it's no big deal.

JosephofMessiah

August 6th, 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by okinrus
Be very careful in this age as demons can and do speak to us. Can you be specfic on what the voice said?

Specific.
Yes, Yes I can.

"I AM THAT I AM, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David. I have set upon mankind a new time, a new temple, and a new path. The age of messiah is at hand."

Well, ok, I can't exactly be specific because you then make it sound like this is a one time only thing. Ever since I heard the first inner statement (which was simple as, "seek and ye shall find") it has never left me and has led me to where I presently am.

And it continues to guide my steps, my going to and coming forth, my waking and my sleeping, and though I believe not, He is.

Yes, it's normal. Just be very careful to decern if it really is God.

I have a few questions that I would like you to answer which would allow you to question more-so than myself, I have come to my own conclusions and shall not waiver from the standpoint I have taken, but here is something which is extremely interesting. Answer this if you can.

When Abraham heard the voice of the Lord and it spoke unto him and said to take his son upon a mountain side, and kill his son for the Lord, and in Abraham's heart he would not, could not, but yet he did so, believeing full well in his heart that the Lord was going to require the more horrible of all actions of him all the while.

How did Abraham know it was the voice of God asking for his son upon an altar, for any man today would definitely know it wasn't....right?

Answer me this question, and I will tell you the actual way Abraham knew it was the Lord...

If it's not then it's no big deal.

I would not concider a man who heard voices (or a voice) which were not of God to be a "small deal," would you? [Think, "Son of Sam" if you will.]

One Eyed Jack

August 6th, 2003, 01:12 AM

Well Joseph -- would you rather I say you're demon-possessed? You're not hearing from God. I know that much.

JosephofMessiah

August 6th, 2003, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Well Joseph -- would you rather I say you're demon-possessed? You're not hearing from God. I know that much.

You know the absolute most hilarious thing about that statement One Eyed?

The only way you can say such a thing, were if you were also hearing a voice.

Welcome to the club...

One Eyed Jack

August 6th, 2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
You know the absolute most hilarious thing about that statement One Eyed?

The only way you can say such a thing, were if you were also hearing a voice.

Welcome to the club...

I'm not hearing a voice. Like I said, you need help -- badly.

okinrus

August 6th, 2003, 03:02 AM

When Abraham heard the voice of the Lord and it spoke unto him and said to take his son upon a mountain side, and kill his son for the Lord, and in Abraham's heart he would not, could not, but yet he did so, believeing full well in his heart that the Lord was going to require the more horrible of all actions of him all the while.

How did Abraham know it was the voice of God asking for his son upon an altar, for any man today would definitely know it wasn't....right?

I don't have too much expierence with this but the voice of God is within us. It resounds through out us when he speaks and the moutains tremble. He touches our very hearts and strengthens us with faith. On the other hand, A demonic voice would feel as if it is outside of us but still could still be described as inner. Demons can speak to us so that no one else would hear them but ourselves. Discernment can be more difficult because we are evil and apart from God. It's never a bad idea to ask this voice some questions. If he cannot respond in a way that God would, then it is demonic. However it's no big deal because belief in the supernatural gives us faith in God.

I would not concider a man who heard voices (or a voice) which were not of God to be a "small deal," would you? [Think, "Son of Sam" if you will.]

A constant hearing of inner voices might be a sign of insanity but I think most of us have heard voices from outside us. There not always audible though.

servent101

August 6th, 2003, 07:05 AM

One eyed jack...

Exactly, which is why your "certain people in a certain time and place" argument has no merit.

Your logic is at fault... you simply take the Words of our Lord and use them as absolute and inerrant in all situations... this is beyond the meaning that our Lord was giving,. to do so simply renders the Good News a heresy and brings shame to the life and ministry of our Lord. God's Words cannot be taken out of the context they are in, if your faith is based on mind control, which I suspect it is, you will not be able to understand what I am saying. I feel sorry for you and you are bringing shame to the life and ministry of my Lord Jesus Christ - please consider the correct context of Jesus’ words, and the persons who wrote the New Testament... they were not trying to write the definitive source book of all Spiritual knowledge.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

prodigalson

August 6th, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by servent101
Your logic is at fault... you simply take the Words of our Lord and use them as absolute and inerrant in all situations... this is beyond the meaning that our Lord was giving,. to do so simply renders the Good News a heresy and brings shame to the life and ministry of our Lord. God's Words cannot be taken out of the context they are in, if your faith is based on mind control, which I suspect it is, you will not be able to understand what I am saying. I feel sorry for you and you are bringing shame to the life and ministry of my Lord Jesus Christ - please consider the correct context of Jesus’ words, and the persons who wrote the New Testament... they were not trying to write the definitive source book of all Spiritual knowledge.

Servent, so what you are saying is that we pick and chose what we want to believe about the Bible being true right?

How can we not believe the OT and the Epistles have to say about sin and than turn around and only except Jesus' teachings as being true? That makes no sense. If we are to except what Jesus says as truth and that he said it, how do we then turn around and say "No, the OT and Epistles are not from God." If we take Jesus' words as fact than we should be taking the Apostles words and the OT Saints in the same light.

One Eyed Jack

August 6th, 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by servent101
One eyed jack...

Your logic is at fault...

I don't think so.

JosephofMessiah

August 6th, 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I'm not hearing a voice. Like I said, you need help -- badly.

Unfounded assertion.

I have been cleared by the N. C. board, trust me, if I "had a problem" I would not be a free man right now. I am an X police officer, and I know my stuff.

Your continued unfounded and repetitive attacks without evidence against me, merely slightly annoy me, and not only that, it will be my great pleasure to make you eat those words someday if my God is.

JosephofMessiah

August 6th, 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by prodigalson
Servent, so what you are saying is that we pick and chose what we want to believe about the Bible being true right?

You are now picking and choosing which part of Servent's post to listen to. He spoke very well on the subject and made his points very clear and you are extrapolating an unfair statement.

Servent is telling you to seek and ye shall find and never simply accept something at face value, for the face value is never the truth.

How can we not believe the OT and the Epistles have to say about sin and than turn around and only except Jesus' teachings as being true?

Loaded statement. This is not what Servent was trying to get you to do.

That makes no sense. If we are to except what Jesus says as truth and that he said it, how do we then turn around and say "No, the OT and Epistles are not from God." If we take Jesus' words as fact than we should be taking the Apostles words and the OT Saints in the same light.

No, especially the New Testament should be under exceedingly great historical and researched meaning behind every single word. You should study indepth the manuscript differences and especially the scripture 1 John 5:7 to see if you can accept what Rome was attempting to say about God, and attempting to divide God into sections.

You will not have the truth handed to you on a silver platter.
Never once has the Orthodox been right about the Lord our God.
Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will open, if you walk in absolutes, you are ignoring the World you live within.

attention

August 6th, 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I don't think so.

Your logic happened to be at fault before.

wickwoman

August 6th, 2003, 08:07 PM

I always thought Servant101 was a woman. He/she posts so gently and so kind. Men are usually more offensive. No offense to you J of M.

rfburnhertz

August 6th, 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by attention
rfburnhertz:
You are out of your mind.

A fertilized human egg-cel IS NOT a human, neither is it after a week, after 2 weeks after 3 weeks.

And you are not the moral judge here.

A fertilized human egg is indeed a humanbeing.

It may not be at the stage of life where you recognise it as a human, but it is a human. If left to grow in a normal manner and nothing natural stops growth, will it be born as a bird? A bear? A rabbit?

I am not the moral judge of what?

JosephofMessiah

August 6th, 2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by wickwoman
I always thought Servant101 was a woman. He/she posts so gently and so kind. Men are usually more offensive. No offense to you J of M.

Truly the kindness you walk in is in great irony to your name...

No offense taken in the least...I was assuming the sex of the poster and I am male, my biases are plenty yet I do struggle to overcome them...

attention

August 6th, 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
A fertilized human egg is indeed a humanbeing.

It may not be at the stage of life where you recognise it as a human, but it is a human. If left to grow in a normal manner and nothing natural stops growth, will it be born as a bird? A bear? A rabbit?

Yes, but that is not the argument I think.

It has not yet acquired the properties that make it human.

The law recognizes that, and does not protect a foetus like a real human being.

It is a stage of development of a human being.

A foetus has no sense, no awareness, there is not something that knows that it exists yet. Therefore you can not yet call it a human being.

I am not an expert in the field, I don't know when any awareness starts, but I suppose not before a period of some weeks, or some months.

I am not the moral judge of what?

The ethical questions about wether or not it is right or not to abort a conception, and in what stage, is a societal issue, that is judged on outcomes of juridical processes.

JosephofMessiah

August 6th, 2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
A fertilized human egg is indeed a humanbeing.

You can say something which is unfounded a thousands times, and would still be at fault with your unfounded claims.

A human being is a complex organism. It is composed of trillions of cells, and those cells are organized into tissues, and those tissues into organs, and those organs into systems, and those systems into a human being.

A fertilized egg is nothing more than a single cell organism and your pious and self-righteous ways to protect this life form at the great suffering of the woman to the great evil political systems of our time is exceedingly greedy and ripe with Anti-Christ and End of Days thought. For when/if mankind takes from a woman the rights of her reproductive system, and the rights of her as the host organism to end any and all life within her own body, then at that very moment the State owns the person, owns YOU, and you shall take the mark without questioning the precepts upon which that ownership was built under the law.

It may not be at the stage of life where you recognise it as a human,

Because it is not yet a human...

but it is a human.

Saying ignorance over and over again is like added zero over and over again and it truly gets you no where.

If left to grow in a normal manner and nothing natural stops growth, will it be born as a bird? A bear? A rabbit?

No, it will be born as a child.
I am not saying it is not a life-form, I am saying it is a parasitic life form dependent upon the mother, and the mother's reproductive system is hers until her death, it is not the Church's, the Government's, nor yours. It is most certainly not a theocracies. Such is evil, for the temple of God shall not be owned.

I am not the moral judge of what?

Were man not to be able to judge morality on a personal level, we would not have need of the law. Were man not to be able to have the law, there would be no morality.

rfburnhertz

August 6th, 2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by wickwoman I do not have the right to tell a pregnant woman how she should feel about her future child, the fetus she must carry for 9 months in her uterus, the person who she must either abandon to some person she's never met (wondering for the rest of her life is it was a happy child or not) or care for herself for the next 21 years.

So this is about what a person "may" feel at a given moment?

I may feel bad about adopting my child out, so I must murder it.

We do indeed have the right to tell those in our society that they may not end the life of an innocent person.

We may not practice that right, but the right exists.

As for being an elitest. You have been very dramatic again. Knowing the purpose of why I ever mentioned my personal situation. You asked me why I did not commit suicide. That was the answer. I am a happy person. That doesn't mean that everyone else in the world is. If I were unhappy I would certainly consider suicide if I believed I wasn't going to get a chance to be happy at some point in the future.

The value of life in your mind rests in ones ability to be happy?

For you to dictate to everyone that they must live, no matter what the circumstances of their life is very myopic of you.

I don't recall saying anything even near this assertion.

I think every person is entitled to at the least a shot at life.

If they wish to take their own life later at some point, then obviously they may. If they really want to no one can stop them.

However no one should have the right to take the life of an innocent person.

When a woman has an abortion, when a man makes his wife get an abortion, when an abortionist provides an abortion they have commited an act of murder.

You would have that I do not "dictate" to anyone that they must live.

Yet you are willing that millions aren't even able to decide for themselves if they find this life worth living.

If this is what you have gotten from our conversations, then you have not been paying attention.

[QUOTE]You speak of the Heavenly afterlife, yet you would insist that an unwanted child live here in a life possibly full to poverty, hunger and unhappiness.

How do you know that this is an unwanted childs fate?

How do you know what they may or may not do in their lifetime?

How do you know that even if their life is brief, that they have not had some positive impact on another?

How do you know?

Do you truly believe in Heaven or is that just something that you throw out when its useful to you. Do you truly believe that Heaven is better than here? If so, why would you insist that everyone be here instead of there?

I do indeed believe in heaven. I believe that heaven is perfect.

By your theory here, then every time I pray, I should pray for something like the plauge. A world nuclear war. Something that will wipe out everyone so that we might all go to heaven, now.

rfburnhertz

August 6th, 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by attention
Yes, but that is not the argument I think.

It has not yet acquired the properties that make it human.

What makes it human?
An arm? A leg?
The ability to think? To speak?

The law recognizes that, and does not protect a foetus like a real human being.

And because the law say's this and the law say's that then the law, by default is correct?

I assume then that there are no laws you disagree with. And that if you ;ived in a nation in which abortion was illegal, you would then believe that the unborn were indeed humanbeings.

It is a stage of development of a human being.
It is a stage of life that each humanbeing goes through.

A foetus has no sense, no awareness, there is not something that knows that it exists yet.
Okay.

When my brother was twentyone years old he was walking home from a 7-11 in a driving rain.

Because of the rain he could not see a truck coming and the driver of the truck could not see him.

He was hit and was brain dead instantly.

At that moment that he became brain dead, did he cease to be a human? If he remained a human, then why? Because he had already been a human previously?

If he remained a human after experiancing brain death, did he then cease to become a human at physical death? Or did he simply become a dead human?

Your whole argument is stupid.
Of course it is a human. It can be nothing else.

JosephofMessiah

August 6th, 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Tye Porter
WOW!
Where should i begin?

You can only begin, at the beginning...

1) There are no "Facts" supporting the theory of evolution. But that is for another thread, yes?

There is a great pool of data (which we call facts) which support this exceedingly well developed theory.

2) From the moment of conception, to the moment of birth, all that in between, in your mind, is not life?

It is a life-form.
We protect the host life-form under our laws however and we allow the host to decide the outcome at all stages.

Not a human being?

No, at the very beginning it is a fertilized egg.
Then it is a mass of cells.
Then those cells organize into tissues.
Then those tissues organize into organs.
Then those organs organize into systems.
Note that there is no clear line because this all happens together, tissue/organ/system all build up together.

Until it is a living breathing self-supportive life-form, it is not a human being, per the definition of human being.

PS: Judaism without the corruption of Rome has Torah backing that life begins at birth.

And you justify this, because there are fewer cells in the makeup, than in a full grown human?

No, I justify this because there is no institution on Earth which will protect the rights of the human body nor take into account the billions of different case by case basis for abortion and human reproductive rights without giving a person's body ownership over to the State.

This has been done before, and this is the gravest of errors for any political system to do. The Temple of God is owned by its occupant.

What about an older human, less brain cells,

reaching....

hair cells,

Loosing certain tissue or organs does not immediately disqualify that person as a human being. The loss of total brain function however does end such a definition for it then is classified as a corpse of a human being.

...bone cells, sperm cells, teeth , sight; this human is not a complete, or full human. Is this not a human anymore?

If his life were to be supported by another's life, and that other did not wish to support his life anymore...then the parasitic organism must life or die by its own life-giving processes. Such was the way our law recognizes the levels of life-forms. We do not support the lives of parasitic organisms under our law but the right of the host to end it.

Human rights should be applied to all humans, preborn, or post decay.

Human rights should be applied to self-supportive non parasitic organism life-forms, then then downward with the most developed and self supportive life-form having the greatest level of protection under the law. This manner we prohibit the ownership of a woman's reproductive system by the State which would be a great evil.

attention

August 6th, 2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
What makes it human?
An arm? A leg?
The ability to think? To speak?

At the very minimum the ability for awareness and self-consciousness and reaction to the environment. But I would not know exactly when the foetus has grown to that extend that it can have awareness.

If I dig into my consciousness, I dont' have memories prior to the age of perhaps 2 or 3 years old. I think nobody even remembers birth. But we were alive and consciouss to some extend, at least we were responding to the outside environment and such.

So, we have to consider that consciousness is a proces that has for certain not happened the moment of fertilization, but at least many weeks later, or even months later.

And because the law say's this and the law say's that then the law, by default is correct?

The law is not always correct, and therefore the law has to be corrected sometimes.

But there is no authority above the law that could make judgements there.

I assume then that there are no laws you disagree with. And that if you ;ived in a nation in which abortion was illegal, you would then believe that the unborn were indeed humanbeings.

Any individual could disagree any law, but breaking them would not be lawfull.

To live by the law does not mean you have have to agree with it.

It is a stage of life that each humanbeing goes through.

Yes, of course. But that is the same for egg cells and sperm cells. Need they be protected too?

When my brother was twentyone years old he was walking home from a 7-11 in a driving rain.

Because of the rain he could not see a truck coming and the driver of the truck could not see him.

He was hit and was brain dead instantly.

At that moment that he became brain dead, did he cease to be a human? If he remained a human, then why? Because he had already been a human previously?

If he remained a human after experiancing brain death, did he then cease to become a human at physical death? Or did he simply become a dead human?

Your whole argument is stupid.
Of course it is a human. It can be nothing else.

The situation is different in that case, since he was a human being. But some of the properties of being human, he obviously lost. He can not take any decission for himself anymore.

The factual difference is that even when the person itself, is in fact no more here in consciouss form, for the relatives it is still that person. That is what makes that issue a little different.

The issue of what is human life is of course a delicate matter.

At least I agree we should therefore also treat it delicately.

But I don't conceive of it, when a foetus is removed in the first weeks, that that is killing a human being, since it is not.

There is not a human consciouss that is aware of that. It it just the idea that this actions prevents a living thing to become a human.

That is perhaps an issue, but I think that is the moral decission a mother has to face.

Don't try to tell that this is especially easy for these mothers.
Nobody will look back with pleasure at an abortion. They are quite traumatic.

One Eyed Jack

August 6th, 2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
Unfounded assertion.

I have been cleared by the N. C. board, trust me, if I "had a problem" I would not be a free man right now.

There are plenty of so-called 'functional schizophrenics' in society. As long as they don't go too crazy, they stay free.

I am an X police officer, and I know my stuff.

Why'd you leave the force?

Your continued unfounded and repetitive attacks without evidence against me, merely slightly annoy me, and not only that, it will be my great pleasure to make you eat those words someday if my God is.

I hope you're prepared for disappointment then. You'll never make me eat anything.

One Eyed Jack

August 6th, 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by attention
Your logic happened to be at fault before.

Show me the fault in my logic then.

attention

August 6th, 2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Show me the fault in my logic then.
I referred to the discussion about Thermodynamics.

You argued the universe was a closed thermodynamic system.

It is not closed in the way thermodynamics describes it.

Locally (in the observable universe, and probably also outside the observable horizon, but not the universe in total) the universe expands, which means there are more avialable states for matter/energy.

In that sense, the universe is not a closed thermodynamic system.

If that would be the case, the universe would have already suffered a heat death, which would have already happened.

Unless, one wants to come up with an absolute begin to the universe, but which is both incompatible with the first law, and is against any logic, since a nothing is not a begin. The universe can not begin in nothing. Nothing is only nothing.

rfburnhertz

August 6th, 2003, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by attention
At the very minimum the ability for awareness and self-consciousness and reaction to the environment.
"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
Dr. E. L. Potter, D.r. J. M. Craig
'Pathology of the Fetus and the infant.

Patrick Truman helped to prepare a 1975 brief before the Illionis Supreme Court.

He wrote: We introduce an affidavit from professor of medicine detailing 19 text boooks on the subject of embryology used in medical schools today which universally agree that human life begins at conception."

But I would not know exactly when the foetus has grown to that extend that it can have awareness.

Then error on the side of caution.

So, we have to consider that consciousness is a proces that has for certain not happened the moment of fertilization, but at least many weeks later, or even months later.

This does not equal a void of life.

The law is not always correct, and therefore the law has to be corrected sometimes.

I agree. The law allowing abortion is wrong, and because it is I will fight it until the day I die.

But there is no authority above the law that could make judgements there./[QUOTE]

God.

[QUOTE]Any individual could disagree any law, but breaking them would not be lawfull.
Speaking out against abortion is not breaking the law.
Yet.

To live by the law does not mean you have have to agree with it.
And I have not physically stopped one person from not aborting.
I have however been able to be a part of talking many women out of aborting.

Yes, of course. But that is the same for egg cells and sperm cells. Need they be protected too?

A single sperm is not a human.
A single egg is not a human.
The moment they join a human life has begun.

The situation is different in that case, since he was a human being.

I just wanted to see just how far you were willing to go.

Don't try to tell that this is especially easy for these mothers.
Nobody will look back with pleasure at an abortion. They are quite traumatic.

I don't think it is at all easy for a woman.
In fact I think most women do not want to abort.

From my experiance (which I do not use to gauge actual truth) I have noted that most the women I see go into the abortion mills do so because their boyfriend or husband are leading them.

They are in effect often forced.
I have watched hundreds of women enter the abortion mills crying in an uncontrolable manner. And their boyfriends or husbands are either very sweetly coaxing them in "come on honey. It'll be allright." or well, I won't repeat some of the things I've heard. Let's just say they are "sweetly" coaxing them in.

I believe abortion serves unresponsible men.

I know there is extreeme trauma for the women after an abortion. Very often the trauma is with them for the rest of their lives.

I do feel great compassion for these women. I know that it is un-natural for a mother to murder her child.

And I can relate to the many various reason that a person might attempt to reason out why an abortion is the best thing.

But that does not mean that I must condone the action.
That does not mean that I must not call attention to acts of murder.

As a side note, the fact that I will not condone the action. The fact that I will call attention to acts of murder does not mean that when that woman walks out of that abortion mill without her child that I will not offer any kind of help I can.

I know literally hundreds of active pro-life activists. They are all the same.
They will offer help to the woman and her family when she walks into that abortion mill.

And if she refuses the help and walks out having aborted her child, they still will offer help.

We care for the unborn child yes.
But we also care for the woman.

One Eyed Jack

August 6th, 2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by attention
I referred to the discussion about Thermodynamics.

You argued the universe was a closed thermodynamic system.

It is, at least according to the majority of astrophysicists. I'd say they're in a better position to know than you are.

It is not closed in the way thermodynamics describes it.

Then show us another system with which it thermally interacts. If you can't, then I'll have to agree with the scientists that say it's a closed system.

Locally (in the observable universe, and probably also outside the observable horizon, but not the universe in total) the universe expands, which means there are more avialable states for matter/energy.

Could you explain this a little more clearly? What do you mean by available states, and what sorts do you propose?

In that sense, the universe is not a closed thermodynamic system.

If that would be the case, the universe would have already suffered a heat death, which would have already happened.

Only if it's been expanding forever, which it hasn't been.

Unless, one wants to come up with an absolute begin to the universe, but which is both incompatible with the first law, and is against any logic, since a nothing is not a begin. The universe can not begin in nothing. Nothing is only nothing.

This isn't a problem for a Transcendental Creator.

One Eyed Jack

August 6th, 2003, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
Dr. E. L. Potter, D.r. J. M. Craig
'Pathology of the Fetus and the infant.

It's no use arguing scientifically with attention. The only thing he believes is his communist propaganda.

rfburnhertz

August 6th, 2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
It's no use arguing scientifically with attention. The only thing he believes is his communist propaganda.

I know. He is a faithful Marxist boy.

attention

August 6th, 2003, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Then show us another system with which it thermally interacts. If you can't, then I'll have to agree with the scientists that say it's a closed system.

Thermodynamic laws apply to FINITE systems. You must first proof then the universe is both FINITE and that it is closed.

A finite system has a finite amount of available states.

This is however not proven for the universe.

Therefore, the universe is not closed IN THE THERMODYNAMIC SENSE OF THE WORD CLOSED

Could you explain this a little more clearly? What do you mean by available states, and what sorts do you propose.

It means that when the universe expands in size, there are more ways in which matter can exist. If we would suppose (which we can't) that the singularity was a physical state, it could only exist in one state.

The more the universe expands, the more states become available for the universe. Matter can clutter in different ways, which mean more available states for the universe.

Only if it's been expanding forever, which it hasn't been.

The observable universe points back to some point in time, in which it was (probably) unimaginably small.

This however can not denote the begin of the entire universe, but can at most denote a transformation from a previous state.

What that exact state was, is not entirely known, and does not make much different for the argument.

The universe can however not begin in nothing, since a nothing is not a begin (and neither an end).

This isn't a problem for a Transcendental Creator.

Of course. Neither if one beliefs in magic. Then anything can happen everytime and anywhere. But we were not talking here what can happen if one assumes that magic is the way in which the world exists, but we are talking what can happen in the physical world based on the established knowledge we have.

The account of human knowledge states something different here, and that is what we have to account for. It has costed a few thousand years of human development and progress to establish that knowledge, SO WE MIGHT AS WELL USE IT!

Since you argue at the basis of such established knowledge, it would be pointless to try to reason outside of that established frame of knowledge.

If you want to belief in magic, that is your right but then I don't want to discuss with you.

So, either you reside on established forms of knowledge, or you don't. But then don't come up with seemingly knowledgeable arguments you happen to have heard but don't quite undrstand, and then turn back into magic if it shows up that the way you use this knowledge doesn't make sense.

It's kind of a funny hobby to proof based on one physical law that some other proven physical fact is impossible.

Since the world actually DOES exist, it kind of proofs itself that it can exist in a possbile way, don't you think?

Why the need for magic then?

One Eyed Jack

August 6th, 2003, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by attention
Thermodynamic laws apply to FINITE systems.

The laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems in the physical universe, including the physical universe as a whole. There's no getting around them.

attention

August 7th, 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
The laws of thermodynamics apply to all systems in the physical universe, including the physical universe as a whole. There's no getting around them.

Fine Jack. Then put this "system" into a laboratory, so that we can find out about it's thermodynamic behaviour. You obviously don't get the idea what we are talking about, since you can't examine the universe in a test tube.

A closed system in thermodynamics is something of laboratory size, it has a thermal isolation so that kinetic energy/heat can not dissipate from/into the environment.

If you want to apply that to the whole universe, you must start out with a known and proven closed system, and then add to that it's surrounding system, and proof that also that system is closed in the thermodynamic sense, and then repeat that until the system is equal to the whole universe.

Go ahead, I am awaiting your proof.

The difference between the universe and a known close thermodynamic system is that:
- Known closed thermodynamic systems to which the laws of thermodynamics apply, are finite
- Known closed thermodynamic systems to which the laws of thermodynamics apply, don't expand in the way the universe expands (expanding of space itself, not expanding of matter in pre-existing space).

Therefore the universe in the thermodynamic sense of the word can not be called CLOSED.

Outside of a physics lab, you can not make the statement that a system is a closed thermodynamic system.

But:
- The solar system
- The milky way
- The local group
- The virgo cluster

don't denote a closed thermodynamic system.
So, you can't claim the universe is closed in the thermodynamic sense.

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by attention
Fine Jack. Then put this "system" into a laboratory, so that we can find out about it's thermodynamic behaviour. You obviously don't get the idea what we are talking about, since you can't examine the universe in a test tube.

You don't have to put it into a test tube to examine it.

A closed system in thermodynamics is something of laboratory size, it has a thermal isolation so that kinetic energy/heat can not dissipate from/into the environment.

There is no such thing. The only truly closed thermodynamic system is the physical universe as a whole.

If you want to apply that to the whole universe, you must start out with a known and proven closed system, and then add to that it's surrounding system, and proof that also that system is closed in the thermodynamic sense, and then repeat that until the system is equal to the whole universe.

No you don't. All you have to do is show that there is no system with which it thermally interacts. As far as we can tell, there is none.

Go ahead, I am awaiting your proof.

I don't have to prove anything to you, attention. You're the one that's arguing with established science. Not me. Take a physics course sometime.

The difference between the universe and a known close thermodynamic system is that:
- Known closed thermodynamic systems to which the laws of thermodynamics apply, are finite
- Known closed thermodynamic systems to which the laws of thermodynamics apply, don't expand in the way the universe expands (expanding of space itself, not expanding of matter in pre-existing space).

Therefore the universe in the thermodynamic sense of the word can not be called CLOSED.

Sure it can. But let me ask you one thing -- show me ONE truly closed thermodynamic system OTHER than the physical universe as a whole. You can't, because there isn't one.

Outside of a physics lab, you can not make the statement that a system is a closed thermodynamic system.

You can't make one in a physics lab either. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator.

But:
- The solar system
- The milky way
- The local group
- The virgo cluster

don't denote a closed thermodynamic system.

I never said they did.

So, you can't claim the universe is closed in the thermodynamic sense.

Sure I can. The scientists do. Are you a scientist?

attention

August 7th, 2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
You don't have to put it into a test tube to examine it.

You can examine it but you can not determine of the universe is closed.

There is no such thing. The only truly closed thermodynamic system is the physical universe as a whole.

The universe is only closed in the sense that nothing exists outside it.

The universe can by definition not be bounded by anything.

No you don't. All you have to do is show that there is no system with which it thermally interacts. As far as we can tell, there is none.

That is not "as far as we can tell" but it follows the definition of universe.

But to be closed in this sense, is not the same as to be closed in the way thermodynamics describes and understands it.

A closed system has boundaries, that isolates it from the outside.

The universe does not have such a boundary.

I don't have to prove anything to you, attention. You're the one that's arguing with established science. Not me. Take a physics course sometime.

I would advise you did that. I had my physics courses in university.

Sure it can. But let me ask you one thing -- show me ONE truly closed thermodynamic system OTHER than the physical universe as a whole. You can't, because there isn't one.

You can't make one in a physics lab either. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator.

If you don't proof a thing, then don't argue with me. There is nothing that you have to. If you want to belief in magical stories, I can not make you do otherwise. But don't present magical stories as knowledge or science. That isn't gonna work.

They are approximations, since we can not reduce the amount of thermal interaction to zero.

I never said they did.

If those systems are not close thermodynamics systems, how can you assume then that the universe is?

Sure I can. The scientists do. Are you a scientist?

What scientists says that? Outside of creationists (which aren't scientists, since they only use science to discredit science) there are no scientists that say such a thing.

JosephofMessiah

August 7th, 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
There are plenty of so-called 'functional schizophrenics' in society. As long as they don't go too crazy, they stay free.

One: You have yet to define the way you are using the term schizophrenia for you are not using it in the correct definition and are making up your own which is a false-hood direct lie.

Two: You continue in your false assertions and attempts at labeling me through misrepresentation of the evidence before anyone reading these posts and you have yet to offer any evidence to back your claims.

Three: Yet again you do not state the way you are using this term (schizophrenia) and are attempting (wrongly) to apply through indirect assumption that this term applies to myself when you have yet to offer any reason why it should. Yet again I restate that hearding one single inner voice does not qualify a person for this mental disorder and you have yet to realize the lies and false-hoods you are posting to this board in order to try to fight against my statements which are truthful and logical. Yet again falling into your fallacious logical pattern of attack a person without offering any evidence for the ignorance you continue to post here.

You are a waste of flesh.

Why'd you leave the force?

Two reasons:
1: The system is corrupt, vindictive, and unfair to the needy and poor.
2: I was not.

I hope you're prepared for disappointment then. You'll never make me eat anything.

Time shall tell, you just claimed to be a prophet, therefore you might be the one suffering from a mental disorder....trust me, you have a problem it is called a "hot headed back woods temper" and were I not a calm man I'd love to adjust that for you. But since I have overcome the temperment of my youth, all I can continue to do is to ask you to define the term schizophrenia in the manner you are using it, and if you do not to please stop apply that term to me for it does not match my current state in any way under the correct definition of that term. I am tiring quickly of your argument from ignorance and unfounded assertions you continue to spout about me and the topics at hand.

Yet again proving you are a waste of flesh.

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by attention
You can examine it but you can not determine of the universe is closed.

It's already been determined by astrophysicists.

The universe is only closed in the sense that nothing exists outside it.

Exactly, and if nothing exists outside of it, there is no other system with which it can thermally interact.

The universe can by definition not be bounded by anything.

It doesn't have to be.

That is not "as far as we can tell" but it follows the definition of universe.

Then show us another system that isn't part of the physical universe.

But to be closed in this sense, is not the same as to be closed in the way thermodynamics describes and understands it.

A closed system has boundaries, that isolates it from the outside.

The universe does not have such a boundary.

It doesn't have to, as long as it doesn't have thermal interaction with any other system. And like I said before -- as far as we know, there is no other system.

I would advise you did that. I had my physics courses in university.

You didn't learn much, did you?

If you don't proof a thing, then don't argue with me. There is nothing that you have to. If you want to belief in magical stories, I can not make you do otherwise. But don't present magical stories as knowledge or science. That isn't gonna work.

Science tells us the universe is a closed thermodynamic system.

They are approximations, since we can not reduce the amount of thermal interaction to zero.

Exactly. But if the universe isn't a closed thermodynamic system, then the term has no meaning because then there would be no such thing.

If those systems are not close thermodynamics systems, how can you assume then that the universe is?

That's got to be the stupidest question I've ever heard. They're part of the physical universe, and thermally interact with it. The universe as a whole doesn't thermally interact with anything else.

What scientists says that? Outside of creationists (which aren't scientists, since they only use science to discredit science) there are no scientists that say such a thing.

You are completely full of it. Show me an astrophysicist that says the universe isn't a thermodynamically closed system.

JosephofMessiah

August 7th, 2003, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
You are completely full of it. Show me an astrophysicist that says the universe isn't a thermodynamically closed system.

Gladdly...

http://www.hku.hk/philodep/courses/max/Phil2130/l12-14.html

5. The reason that Creationists think that the second law is in conflict with evolution is that, as they interpret it, the second law demands a trend towards disorder, randomness, whereas Darwinian theory predicts the opposite trend towards increasing complexity and organization. In reply, we could say first, as mentioned above, that evolutionary theory doesn't predict complexity. Further, Creationists overlook the crucial clause in the second law about the systems in question being closed. But it should be obvious that the systems relevant in Darwinian histories are open, and where entropy decreases over time. The reason is obvious: in all the systems of organisms and genealogies and lineages there is a constant inflow of energy from the sun: we are not dealing with closed systems. Suppose however, that in answer to this we say that if we include the sun and the rest of the universe, then we are dealing with a closed system. We can agree, and can grant that the entropy of this system as a whole increases. But that tells us nothing about entropy variation at the local level, where there may be pockets of decreasing entropy.

Had fun...next!

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
Time shall tell, you just claimed to be a prophet, therefore you might be the one suffering from a mental disorder....

I'm not the one suffering from a mental disorder.

trust me, you have a problem it is called a "hot headed back woods temper" and were I not a calm man I'd love to adjust that for you.

Well come and do it -- you want my address? :)

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
Gladdly...

Did you miss this part?

Suppose however, that in answer to this we say that if we include the sun and the rest of the universe, then we are dealing with a closed system. We can agree, and can grant that the entropy of this system as a whole increases.

Obviously you did. All you've done is prove my point for me. Try again.

JosephofMessiah

August 7th, 2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I'm not the one suffering from a mental disorder.

You are a liar and a the truth is not in you.

Well come and do it -- you want my address? :)

Perhaps you missed the "were I not..." part of that.

And trust me, I would not need your address...

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
You are a liar and a the truth is not in you.

Whatever. You're just upset that I've clocked you for the loon you are.

Perhaps you missed the "were I not..." part of that.

No, I didn't miss it. I'm just getting tired of your veiled threats and thought I'd offer you the opportunity again.

And trust me, I would not need your address...

Then how do you propose to find me?

JosephofMessiah

August 7th, 2003, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Did you miss this part?

No, you glance read that paragraph and didn't get what it said.

Yet again proving you lack basic reader comprehension skills.

Obviously you did. Try again.

Your quote only proves you read the part you liked and ignored the truth within the paragraph.

In essence both you and Attention are correct INPART.

Attention wants to argue that the system is not closed because we don't know yet therefore he wants to assume it is open to avoid the discussion of the closed system's entrophy.

You want to argue it is closed so that any non-entrophy means a Creator exists.

You are both part right, part wrong.

A closed system will degrade over time to a system that does not do work. The Sun will someday burn out and all things will be gone. The system (our Solar System) will then fullfill the law of thermodynamics.

However, within a closed system there can be other systems which are not closed which would tend to go against the greater whole. Such that the Sun/Solar System may in fact be a "closed system" but that the Earth is most certain NOT a closed system. The continued influx of energy from the Sun makes our system open on the smaller scale which means that within the entrophy of the whole (the Sun will die) there is a tendency that life will come to be feeding off of energy outside the given system through a period of using that incoming energy from the Sun to create said life and then support it.

In a lab it is much easier for you can say, "the box ends here." That measn the laws of thermodynamics work great for those systems because they are in fact closed within the box. When you take these ideas and apply them to realiy however was lack a box and must then figure out where the outside source of energy would be for our system to generate life. That outside source is the Sun for the LIFE ON OUR PLANET.

In essence, although there is alot more than just our solar system, because all life depends upon our Sun / Star for life and life giving energy, the system is closed on that scale for best obeservation, and once that outside source dies (as all of them do), then the system will do JUST LIKE all closed systems, and go to simlplification...destroying all life and all inner planets in the process...

You were both partly right, and partly wrong....saddly however, evolution can happen under this law, even IF the "greater system" is close or not, because on the level we exist on, there may be a tendency for increased complexity because we feed off of an outside source of energy (the Sun).

JosephofMessiah

August 7th, 2003, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Whatever. You're just upset that I've clocked you for the loon you are.

Clocked?
All you have done is repeat over and over a false claim.
This is no way, as you so eloquently put it, "clocks me" in any way, it merely makes me have to defend myself, and makes you to be a repetitive liar.

No, I didn't miss it. I'm just getting tired of your veiled threats and thought I'd offer you the opportunity again.

I have outgrown you junior, be glad...

Then how do you propose to find me?

An X cop can find anyone he wants at any time with a phone call. If that photo is you (fair change it is due to the ego you demonstrate on this forum) and you have ever registered a driver's lisence in N. C. I could have you with about three phone calls and called in only one favor for I have your photo and town (this does assume you haven't lied about the photo or location but who cares, if I wanted I could).

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
No, you glance read that paragraph and didn't get what it said.

Yet again proving you lack basic reader comprehension skills.

You're the one without reading comprehension skills. I'm not arguing about creation and evolution here. I'm arguing that the universe as a whole is a closed system.

NATEDOG

August 7th, 2003, 02:14 AM

No, at the very beginning it is a fertilized egg.

Aye! So it is. It's a zygote. That zygote is the first step in the life of a unique human being. There will never be another person exactly like it.

Yep.. at your conception, all the pieces of genetic information that could dictate how you'd develope, physically and mentally were there.

[quote] Until it is a living breathing self-supportive life-form, it is not a human being, per the definition of human being.

Not true. Is it alive? Yes. What species are it's parents? Human.
Then it's a human. It's not easy to clearly see it's humanity when it's in the very early stages of development, but it becomes quite clear by about the 12 week.

You know that a child isn't self-supportive after birth.
If it's umbilical isn't cut, it will die. Often, if it's not slapped, it will die. If it's not fed and taken care of hand and foot, it will die.

I was watching an ultrasound recently. The child was in the 13th week and you could see it moving, sucking it's thumb, reacting to loud outside noises. That was me, and that was you. I value my life, and I know that at that very stage in my life I could have legally been destroyed.
I don't know, as Stephen King wrote, "Life's cheap, abortion makes it cheaper."

Attention,
I understand that under the standards of your philosophy,
an appeal to the sanctity of human life won't make a difference.
Under your worldview there is no reason why the killing of a late term fetus, and perhaps even of a newborn is morally reprehensible.

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
Clocked?
All you have done is repeat over and over a false claim.
This is no way, as you so eloquently put it, "clocks me" in any way, it merely makes me have to defend myself, and makes you to be a repetitive liar.

If I'm wrong, then why do you need to defend yourself so vigorously? I think thou dost protest too much.

I have outgrown you junior, be glad...

You don't scare me, Joseph.

An X cop can find anyone he wants at any time with a phone call. If that photo is you (fair change it is due to the ego you demonstrate on this forum)

It is.

and you have ever registered a driver's lisence in N. C.

I have.

I could have you with about three phone calls and called in only one favor for I have your photo and town (this does assume you haven't lied about the photo or location

I haven't.

but who cares, if I wanted I could).

Well do it then. And then come down here and 'adjust my attitude.' :)

JosephofMessiah

August 7th, 2003, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
You're the one without reading comprehension skills.

Yet again you missed my points.

I'm not arguing about creation and evolution here. I'm arguing that the universe as a whole is a closed system.

And you would be wrong to argue such unless you have data to back your claim.

You could argue that any system which feeds off a star is a "closed system." You cannot argue that the entire universe is closed because we DO NOT KNOW YET. You could for a hypothesis about this, but then it would be the THEORY of closed system. If that is what you are saying then so be it, but then both you and Attention would be at a stale-mate of assumptions and unproven theories.

I leave it to you both to figure out what you wish to say here, I do not care, I understand that complex sub-systems (Earth relation to Sun) CAN exist and violate the entrophy of the greater system (Solar System-Sun will die).

The Universe may be closed OR open, it is not proven yet and anyone saying different is working off of assumptions. If you have any data which supports your claims of a closed system then please quote them here for we can't even see the entire universe due to the diffusion of light over distance...we don't even know if the universe is "infinite" or "finite" yet. If Infinite then by definition it would not be closed.

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 02:19 AM

The scientists say it's a closed system. I'm just taking their word for it.

JosephofMessiah

August 7th, 2003, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
If I'm wrong, then why do you need to defend yourself so vigorously?

If I were to not stand up for myself here, and you got the last word, then by default you "win" in what is called "last word standing."

I will continue to defend myself repetitively to your repeated lies until you tire of this game you are playing or figure out I will not let your unfounded claims toward me and who I am to stand.

I think thou dost protest too much.

I think you are an ignorant young man, fair enough I guess.

You don't scare me, Joseph.

Yeah, you don't know who you are talking to either, remember that my friend, the internet brings all forms of people from all walks of life together. You do not know me and I would hope that you would tire of these unfounded attacks against me and begin to once again focus upon the discussions at hand, but until you do that I will continue to defend myself from your unfounded lies and ignorant claims and misrepresentational attacks. That is my right as a member of TOL.

Well do it then. And then come down here and 'adjust my attitude.' :)

Keep feeding the bears my good man, keep feeding the bears.

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
If I were to not stand up for myself here, and you got the last word, then by default you "win" in what is called "last word standing."

Oh, and you just can't stand that, can you?

I will continue to defend myself repetitively to your repeated lies until you tire of this game you are playing or figure out I will not let your unfounded claims toward me and who I am to stand.

I'm just going by the stuff you've said. Maybe if you'd have kept your delusions to yourself instead of sharing them with everybody, then perhaps nobody here would think you were crazy.

I think you are an ignorant young man, fair enough I guess.

I'm older than you, Joseph.

Yeah, you don't know who you are talking to either,

Nor do I care.

remember that my friend, the internet brings all forms of people from all walks of life together. You do not know me and I would hope that you would tire of these unfounded attacks against me and begin to once again focus upon the discussions at hand, but until you do that I will continue to defend myself from your unfounded lies and ignorant claims and misrepresentational attacks. That is my right as a member of TOL.

You can defend yourself here all you want. When you start making veiled threats, I'm gonna challenge you to back them up.

Keep feeding the bears my good man, keep feeding the bears.

Okay. It's not like you're going to do anything about it.

JosephofMessiah

August 7th, 2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Oh, and you just can't stand that, can you?

Allow me to demonstrate how completely ignorant you are being toward me through the use of an unfounded ignorant claim through the use of a loaded question...

"One Eyed Jack, when you abuse young children do you use protection?"

This question is offensive, you will attack back and say it is unfounded, ignorant, has nothing to do with the discussion, and is misleading without any evidence. I then rebut you and say, "yes, but please answer the question, when you are abusing young children do you use proper protection?" You then become irrate that I have returned more ignorance to your attempt to bring the discussion back on course.

I continue to defend myself against your unfounded assertions, because I will not allow your attack from ignorance to stand against me.

I'm just going by the stuff you've said. Maybe if you'd have kept your delusions to yourself instead of sharing them with everybody, then perhaps nobody here would think you were crazy.

No one here thinks I am crazy. I operate on an exceptional level of understanding and logic above which even yourself have yet to defeat in discussion. If I am of a lesser status in any way, you have yet to defeat my sub-normal status...

I'm older than you, Joseph.

Age had nothing to do with that, I was partronizing you because you were not ACTING your age.

You can defend yourself here all you want. When you start making veiled threats, I'm gonna challenge you to back them up.

I know this. I can assure you that my threats are in no way vieled for I speak my mind and I once again say that had I not grown out of my youthful temper we would be spilling eachother's blood on an I-85 overpass like idiots. I care not about you nor your viewpoint of me, all I ask is that you use EVIDENCE in your assertions you make toward me.

Okay. It's not like you're going to do anything about it.

Unfounded assertion.

attention

August 7th, 2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
The scientists say it's a closed system. I'm just taking their word for it.

Science, Jack, is about CRITICAL thinking, and not about taking anything from faith.

Why should you trust a scientist? Not all scientisists state the same. They argue about things, they don't agree on certain things. Science is a critical discipline, it does not require one to take things on faith or belief.

You should not take a word on a scientist and not a word on me, and not a word as is said in any book. You should - in first instance - only trust your own reasoning capacity, and with that reasoning capacity try to find out wether this or that explenation realy makes sense.

I know THAT much about science to know that I can not trust everything what science says. But I also know, that scientists are criticle persons, and that science controls itself, and does not take things on mere faith or belief. Despite that, it does sometimes happen that - and mainly in a popular stance - things are introduced that show to be not true. For instance the "begin" of the universe has become quite popular, and some people take that for what they belief is stated: a begin of everything just like that. Now, if you realy dig into the issue, no scientists (even not Stephen Hawking) realy claims that. At closer inspection Stephen Hawking also say something else, which does NOT match up that same idea. But in popular opinion, one is taken, and the other part of the same idea, is thrown out. This is how halft truths come into the world, and which are believed as truths.

If they make controlable and verifyable statements, yes, then science can control itself. But not all things are verifyable and testable in a direct way. We can not observe any infinity, we can only reason that that must be the case.

But how can they claim to know something that can not be known (not in a direct, observable way)? To state that the universe is a closed thermodynamic system, is to state something based at faith.

It is extending a finite system to a (possible infinite) size.
We know one thing certain. There is no boundary to the universe, since it takes another thing outside the universe to form a boundary. But that is in contradiction to the definition of the universe since everything is inside the universe, so that is impossible. And another thing I know for certain is that the universe can not start out from nothing, cause nothing is no begin. it always takes something to form another thing.

The universe being a closed thermodynamic system therefore makes no sense, sinc it would imply either the universe has already suffered a heat death OR it would require the universe to have magically appeared from nothing. Neither of both I can believe.

It is a leap from a finite system to an infinite one, and the things one can state about a finite system, do not necessarily apply to an infinite system.

Same as a finite line, it has a begin and an end. It can be bound by something else. An infinite line can not. But still an infinite line is composed of only finite lines. A finite line has a begin and an end. An infinite line, composed of only finite lines, does not have a begin or end.

Reasoning with infinites is always difificult cause it will always raise some form of contradiction.

But reasoning about the world/universe itself which is infinite, or about a God which is infinite, does not make that much difference.
In any case the world/universe (with or without God) is infinite, and no way to get around that.

In my idea about the world, it would only introduce an extra entity into the world, to assume a God exists. Why would we need to assume that? It does not make the world any more or any less explainable. We can proof objectively that matter/energy is a conserved quantity, and from that we can directly deduce that therefore the universe has always existed.

Why then the need for a begin of the universe, and introduce arbitrarily a "fudge factor" in the form of a Deity, to account for the existence of the world. It does not make things less complicated, since then one has to account for the existence of God itself, and since that would need another being to account for God, it is said then that God itself has always existed. But THAT conclusion we could have already made about the world/universe itself, that the world/universe exists eternally.
The introduction of God does not in any fundamental way resolve any issue.

For that reason, science does not deal with God (it neither proofs nor disproofs God), and since science is about verifyable and observable things, the concept of the universe as being infinite, is mostly left an "open" issue. We can not "proof" in a direct way the universe is finite, neither that it is infinite. It can however be deduced from other facts.

But anyhow, this is how I perceive of things, and what my worldvision is. As fas as I can understand and know, there are no science facts that would contradict this. And I have digged into many physics and cosmological issues to know that I could state that. That is what I claim, I am certain of.

But of course, who can be Absolutely certain and know everything? Nobody can. There will be always things we can not be 100% certain of, cause our knowledge is never complete.
We must at least assume *something* without introducing any form of "magic" and have it well reasoned out.

I think that I did that.

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
No one here thinks I am crazy.

I do.

I operate on an exceptional level of understanding and logic above which even yourself have yet to defeat in discussion. If I am of a lesser status in any way, you have yet to defeat my sub-normal status...

See -- it's stuff like this that makes me think you're deluded. Like I said before, arguing with a fool is pointless, although I must admit, sometimes it is fun to yank their chains.

Age had nothing to do with that, I was partronizing you because you were not ACTING your age.

Hey, I'm not the one making veiled threats on the internet.

I know this. I can assure you that my threats are in no way vieled for I speak my mind and I once again say that had I not grown out of my youthful temper we would be spilling eachother's blood on an I-85 overpass like idiots.

No, but you might be driving up and down I-85 feeling like an idiot. I'm not going to meet someone on a highway overpass. If you want to deal with me personally, you need to come to my front door and do it. Just be prepared for whatever happens.

I care not about you nor your viewpoint of me, all I ask is that you use EVIDENCE in your assertions you make toward me.

Joseph, here's the part you don't seem to understand -- the evidence is the very stuff you've been posting. Do you get that?

Unfounded assertion.

Okay, how many people have you attacked for insulting you on a forum? My guess is none. Am I close?

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by attention
Science, Jack, is about CRITICAL thinking, and not about taking anything from faith.

I never said otherwise.

Why should you trust a scientist? Not all scientisists state the same. They argue about things, they don't agree on certain things. Science is a critical discipline, it does not require one to take things on faith or belief.

I know that. That's why I read their arguments and decide which ones I agree with.

You should not take a word on a scientist and not a word on me, and not a word as is said in any book. You should - in first instance - only trust your own reasoning capacity, and with that reasoning capacity try to find out wether this or that explenation realy makes sense.

That's what I do.

I know THAT much about science to know that I can not trust everything what science says. But I also know, that scientists are criticle persons, and that science controls itself, and does not take things on mere faith or belief. Despite that, it does sometimes happen that

Oh, I know.

If they make controlable and verifyable statements, yes, then science can control itself. But not all things are verifyable and testable in a direct way. We can not observe any infinity, we can only reason that that must be the case.

Or we can reason that it can't be the case. Answer this question -- why would astrophysicists even attempt to estimate the mass of the universe if they thought it was infinite?

But how can they claim to know something that can not be known (not in a direct, observable way)? To state that the universe is a closed thermodynamic system, is to state something based at faith.

It's the same thing to state that it's not.

It is extending a finite system to a (possible infinite) size.
We know one thing certain. There is no boundary to the universe, since it takes another thing outside the universe to form a boundary. But that is in contradiction to the definition of the universe since everything is inside the universe, so that is impossible.

I think you're confusing boundary with a physical boundary, like a wall or something. It could be an imaginary (so to speak) boundary, beyond which there is simply nothing.

And another thing I know for certain is that the universe can not start out from nothing, cause nothing is no begin. it always takes something to form another thing.

I won't argue with that.

The universe being a closed thermodynamic system therefore makes no sense, sinc it would imply either the universe has already suffered a heat death OR it would require the universe to have magically appeared from nothing. Neither of both I can believe.

Which is exactly your problem, but the universe did in fact appear from nothing, in the physical sense. God created it. This isn't a problem for me, but it is for you, because you don't believe in God. In essence, your disbelief in God causes you to rail against established science.

It is a leap from a finite system to an infinite one, and the things one can state about a finite system, do not necessarily apply to an infinite system.

But you don't know of any infinite systems. Even if there were one, you couldn't prove that it was in fact infinite.

Same as a finite line, it has a begin and an end.

In geometry, that's called a segment, but I see what you're saying.

It can be bound by something else. An infinite line can not. But still an infinite line is composed of only finite lines. A finite line has a begin and an end. An infinite line, composed of only finite lines, does not have a begin or end.

In geometry, a line has no beginning or end. And rays have a beginning, but not an end. But we're not talking about geometry here.

Reasoning with infinites is always difificult cause it will always raise some form of contradiction.

But reasoning about the world/universe itself which is infinite, or about a God which is infinite, does not make that much difference.
In any case the world/universe (with or without God) is infinite, and no way to get around that.

This is what you believe, but it goes against the majority of established scientific learning.

In my idea about the world, it would only introduce an extra entity into the world, to assume a God exists. Why would we need to assume that? It does not make the world any more or any less explainable. We can proof objectively that matter/energy is a conserved quantity, and from that we can directly deduce that therefore the universe has always existed.

Only by completely discounting the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which would be scientifically dishonest.

Why then the need for a begin of the universe, and introduce arbitrarily a "fudge factor" in the form of a Deity, to account for the existence of the world. It does not make things less complicated, since then one has to account for the existence of God itself, and since that would need another being to account for God, it is said then that God itself has always existed. But THAT conclusion we could have already made about the world/universe itself, that the world/universe exists eternally.
The introduction of God does not in any fundamental way resolve any issue.

Not in your worldview, but to many others it does, and the scientific evidence tends to bear this out.

For that reason, science does not deal with God (it neither proofs nor disproofs God), and since science is about verifyable and observable things, the concept of the universe as being infinite, is mostly left an "open" issue. We can not "proof" in a direct way the universe is finite, neither that it is infinite. It can however be deduced from other facts.

Such as?

But anyhow, this is how I perceive of things, and what my worldvision is. As fas as I can understand and know, there are no science facts that would contradict this.

What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Do you think the scientists just completely goofed on this one, or what?

And I have digged into many physics and cosmological issues to know that I could state that. That is what I claim, I am certain of.

If you were certain, then perhaps you could convince the scientific community to see otherwise. I realize this is your worldview, but that's all it is.

But of course, who can be Absolutely certain? Nobody can. We must at least assume *something* and have it well reasoned out.
I think that I did that.

Well, I'm sorry heusdens, but you haven't presented a well-reasoned argument.

attention

August 7th, 2003, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I never said otherwise.

I know that. That's why I read their arguments and decide which ones I agree with.

That's what I do.

Oh, I know.

Exactly.

Or we can reason that it can't be the case. Answer this question -- why would astrophysicists even attempt to estimate the mass of the universe if they thought it was infinite?

They calculate the mass of the OBSERVABLE universe, and they do that, because the mass and volume of the OBERVABLE universe indicates what the density is.

In cosmological models this density is the determining factor for the model, wether open (expanding eternally) or closed (collpsing onto itself) or in between.

So, they actually DO have a good reason to calculate that.

It's the same thing to state that it's not.

Well if we reason that out, which we already did, it would mean the universe would have already suffered heat death.
Which it didn't.

Then it must be the case that either the entropy increase does not apply for the universe in total OR the universe had a begin.

But the last one, I refuse to accept, cause the universe does not begin.

What else can one conclude?

I think you're confusing boundary with a physical boundary, like a wall or something. It could be an imaginary (so to speak) boundary, beyond which there is simply nothing.

Like the space folding onto it self, which makes space finite but unbounded.

I don't think the universe has an overall topology, just locally has.

I won't argue with that.

I take that as an agreement that something must have always existed then.

Which is exactly your problem, but the universe did in fact appear from nothing, in the physical sense. God created it. This isn't a problem for me, but it is for you, because you don't believe in God. In essence, your disbelief in God causes you to rail against established science.

No. That is not the point.
The issue is of course, when you introduce God, to resolve that matter, for the SAME reason I can then ask: and how did God begin.
Well, I know your reply. You state then: God did not begin but existed eternally.

WHICH IS THE SAME AS I ALREADY STATED ABOUT THE WORLD ITSELF.

The difference is this:
- I am certain the world exist. I can not be certain God exist, it has just been arbitrarily introduced to "solve" the problem of the beginning (but as I showed: this was not necessarily).
- I also know that matter/energy does not appear or disappear from/into nothing. THIS ALREADY MAKES ME CONCLUDE THAT MATTER/ENERGY DID NOT BEGIN.

So you introduce TWO things, which I can not believe:
= FIRST you state that contrary to ANY observation MATTER/ENERGY appears from "nothing"
= And since "nothing" is not a begin, you therefore introduce a Deity.

But, the same result, which two less leaps of faith, I can make by simply assumthing that the universe did NOT have a begin.

Based on that, I go for what we CAN know and already DO know, and don't arbitrarily introduce "magical" appearence of all matter/energy from "nothing" and then turning the "nothing" into a Deity.

But you don't know of any infinite systems. Even if there were one, you couldn't prove that it was in fact infinite.

Neither can you proof that God is infinite and eternal.

It can not be proved in the ordinary sense, since an infinity one can not measure.

But I simply concluded that because matter/energy is conserved.
The paradigma of physics is that the laws of physics apply everywhere and at all times.

That is simple scientific knowledge. It does not require me to assume anything other then what we know.

And since the world itself is something I can trust (it won't disappear tomorrow, the sun will tomorrow rise again) from this empiracl point of view, I hold that will be the case everyime and everywhere (well we know about the sun going supernova, but that is far past our time).

WHY DON'T YOU SIMPLY TRUST THAT?
WHAT MAKES YOU DISTRUST THE MATERIAL WORLD???

WHAT HAS OCCURED TO YOU THAT YOU DON'T TRUST THAT?

In some way, I think the position is realy opposite. To assume a Deity of some sorts, can only be based if one distrusts in a fundamental way the world itself. Else, I can't find any reason why one would need to come up with that.

Honestly.

Maybe it is some deeprooted psychological phenomena, maybe passed to us from the time we were left to the forces of nature, I don't know.

But realy, there is no indication that the basement of science about the world, would not be valid.

You can only raise that on distrust, without real evidence for any reason to do so.

At least that is how I see this.

I trust the world. It never failed to exist, and will never fail to exist.

In geometry, that's called a segment, but I see what you're saying.

In geometry, a line has no beginning or end. And rays have a beginning, but not an end. But we're not talking about geometry here.

No. It was an example. An analogy. I put that to show that when leaping from finite to infinite, you can not simple assume the same things. That IS a property of infinity.

This is what you believe, but it goes against the majority of established scientific learning.

Science as it is performed deals with the OBSERVABLE features.
Since an INFINITY has never been or can be measured, science does not state it.

But the logical conclusion follows from known and tested principles.

And SOME scientists do state it EXPLICITLY.

But there is NO scientisist that says: everything there is popped into existence from nothing. Not even Hawking (if you read carefully!).

Sometimes you DO need to read between the lines.

Because whatever you take or see it, in some wat a matter of fait/trust/belief, whatever you wanna call it.

Only by completely discounting the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which would be scientifically dishonest.

No. The second law still is perfectly valid for finite isolated/closed systems.

Not in your worldview, but to many others it does, and the scientific evidence tends to bear this out.

WHICH scientists say that the UNIVERSE in total would sufffer heat death????

You have to distinguish between what they say about OBSERVABLE universe or universe in TOTAL.

Sometimes it is not directly clear what concept they use.

Such as?

Conservation of matter/energy.

What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Do you think the scientists just completely goofed on this one, or what?

Like I said. No. The 2nd law is still perfectly valid for CLOSED/ISOLATED systems, whatever large they are.

But not the universe in total.

If you were certain, then perhaps you could convince the scientific community to see otherwise. I realize this is your worldview, but that's all it is.

I think it is a philosophical view. Science does not deal with that either. That is why there is debate and movement in the scienctific debate, which are about exactly these issues.

Well, I'm sorry heusdens, but you haven't presented a well-reasoned argument.

I think I have.

wickwoman

August 7th, 2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
Truly the kindness you walk in is in great irony to your name...

No offense taken in the least...I was assuming the sex of the poster and I am male, my biases are plenty yet I do struggle to overcome them...

Thank you! Actually, I have been quite offensive on several occasions. I like to think of the word "offensive" literally. That is, I was attacking to ward off an impending attack. My name is really not what most people think, though I couldn't reveal why I chose it without telling something I believe would be safer to keep secret.

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by attention
Well if we reason that out, which we already did,

No, we haven't.

it would mean the universe would have already suffered heat death.
Which it didn't.

But in your view, it can't, and never will. You're trying to use that to validate this exact view, which smacks of circular reasoning. "The universe won't suffer a heat death. It hasn't suffered a heat death, therefore it won't suffer a heat death." This is basically what you're saying.

Then it must be the case that either the entropy increase does not apply for the universe in total OR the universe had a begin.

But the last one, I refuse to accept, cause the universe does not begin.

What else can one conclude?

That it had a beginning. The problem is exactly what you just stated -- you refuse to accept that.

I take that as an agreement that something must have always existed then.

Nothing in the physical universe -- only God.

No. That is not the point.
The issue is of course, when you introduce God, to resolve that matter, for the SAME reason I can then ask: and how did God begin.
Well, I know your reply. You state then: God did not begin but existed eternally.

WHICH IS THE SAME AS I ALREADY STATED ABOUT THE WORLD ITSELF.

But that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Putting God into the equation doesn't suffer from that problem, which is a big one, from a scientific standpoint.

The difference is this:
- I am certain the world exist. I can not be certain God exist, it has just been arbitrarily introduced to "solve" the problem of the beginning (but as I showed: this was not necessarily).

No, He hasn't been introduced to solve that problem, although the introduction of God doesn't suffer from it. You need to understand this distinction.

- I also know that matter/energy does not appear or disappear from/into nothing. THIS ALREADY MAKES ME CONCLUDE THAT MATTER/ENERGY DID NOT BEGIN.

Then you have the problem of how the universe hasn't yet suffered a heat death.

So you introduce TWO things, which I can not believe:
= FIRST you state that contrary to ANY observation MATTER/ENERGY appears from "nothing"

Once, at the beginning of the universe. That's the only time it ever happened. It'll never happen again.

= And since "nothing" is not a begin, you therefore introduce a Deity.

No, I didn't come about my belief in God to solve a scientific problem. He just happens to fit the bill.

But, the same result, which two less leaps of faith, I can make by simply assumthing that the universe did NOT have a begin.

And again, you run right back into the problem of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Based on that, I go for what we CAN know and already DO know, and don't arbitrarily introduce "magical" appearence of all matter/energy from "nothing" and then turning the "nothing" into a Deity.

I'm not turning the 'nothing' into a Deity. The Deity made matter and energy out of nothing. Note the difference.

But I simply concluded that because matter/energy is conserved.
The paradigma of physics is that the laws of physics apply everywhere and at all times.

Sure, once time started. And they do.

That is simple scientific knowledge. It does not require me to assume anything other then what we know.

And since the world itself is something I can trust (it won't disappear tomorrow, the sun will tomorrow rise again) from this empiracl point of view, I hold that will be the case everyime and everywhere (well we know about the sun going supernova, but that is far past our time).

WHY DON'T YOU SIMPLY TRUST THAT?

I do trust that the sun will rise tomorrow.

WHAT MAKES YOU DISTRUST THE MATERIAL WORLD???

I don't distrust the material world. In my worldview, it all fits together perfectly. You're the one with the worldview that has to deny or discount the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm not. I don't have to deny or discount the 1st law either. None of this is a problem for my worldview.

WHAT HAS OCCURED TO YOU THAT YOU DON'T TRUST THAT?

Like I just said -- nothing has caused me to mistrust empirical science. In my view, it all works out fine.

In some way, I think the position is realy opposite. To assume a Deity of some sorts, can only be based if one distrusts in a fundamental way the world itself. Else, I can't find any reason why one would need to come up with that.

Honestly.

Come on, that's not honestly what you think.

Maybe it is some deeprooted psychological phenomena, maybe passed to us from the time we were left to the forces of nature, I don't know.

Uh, we're still left to the forces of nature. Do you think you could stand against the force of a hurricane or a tornado? Of course not.

But realy, there is no indication that the basement of science about the world, would not be valid.

You can only raise that on distrust, without real evidence for any reason to do so.

At least that is how I see this.

I trust the world. It never failed to exist, and will never fail to exist.

Oh, it will most certainly fail to exist someday. Probably not during our lifetimes, but someday.

No. The second law still is perfectly valid for finite isolated/closed systems.

Okay. Show us one then.

WHICH scientists say that the UNIVERSE in total would sufffer heat death????

Most of them say that.

Conservation of matter/energy.

Okay, here's your challenge. How do you reconcile the 1st law with the 2nd law? You can't under your worldview.

Like I said. No. The 2nd law is still perfectly valid for CLOSED/ISOLATED systems, whatever large they are.

Show us an example of something, that in your view, is a closed system. And then I will show you how it's not truly closed -- because if it can be seen, then light (energy) is escaping. Get the point?

I think it is a philosophical view. Science does not deal with that either.

See, that's what it all boils down to here. You don't have a vaild scientific view -- you have a philosophical view, which can be as weird and paradoxical as you want it to be.

JosephofMessiah

August 7th, 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I do.

Your opinion is worthless and meaningless.

See -- it's stuff like this that makes me think you're deluded. Like I said before, arguing with a fool is pointless, although I must admit, sometimes it is fun to yank their chains.

I should not argue with you then...you being the fool with the unfounded attacks upon me.

Hey, I'm not the one making veiled threats on the internet.

Nothing veiled about it, once again, I promise never veil my intentions.

(snip ignorance)
Joseph, here's the part you don't seem to understand -- the evidence is the very stuff you've been posting. Do you get that?

Wrong.
I can admit to having an inner voice and not be labeled schizophrenic under the medical and phsychological meanings of this disorder for it involves MORE than that one variable. What you are trying to do is mislabel me in order to attack the person behind an argument instead of what I have actually said. Once you grow up you will realize that the reason you started all this is because you had no legs to stand upon in your argument and were speaking from ignorance. Until then, you continue on this personal level attack focused at me because you dislike the things I say.

Okay, how many people have you attacked for insulting you on a forum?

Hmmm...you I have resoundingly defended myself against without resulting to re-attack. I have gotten voiceful toward Attention once if my memory does not fail me, and a couple others here and there, but I am a new member, give me time.

My guess is none. Am I close?

Nope. You have yet to respond to my argument with logical and reasonable answers and STILL continue on this personal assault toward me. And yet again your opinion of me does not count, for I am who I am, and if you can't answer a basic discussion forum without resulting to fallacies of logic (such as attacking the messenger over the message) then you can't simply communicate under logic and reason.

So be it.

attention

August 7th, 2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
No, we haven't.
But in your view, it can't, and never will. You're trying to use that to validate this exact view, which smacks of circular reasoning. "The universe won't suffer a heat death. It hasn't suffered a heat death, therefore it won't suffer a heat death." This is basically what you're saying.

My reasoning was a bit different then that.

I stated we do not know if the universe in total, since it is presumably an infinite system, is a closed thermodynamic system.
We only can state that about finite sized closed systems, and we observe them to obey what we have called the second law.

IF we were to assume that the second law would ALSO apply to the universe in total, it would mean that the useuable amount of energy must decrease in time. This therefore does not allow for a universe which has no begin in time. Since we observe the sun still shines, and there must therefore be useuable energy left.

So, we have TWO options:
- Either state the contradictionary begin of everything from nothing scenario
- Or state that the universe in total, does not decrease the amount of useuable energy, but conserves that.

One argument I presented was that a begin of everything from nothing is impossible since a nothing is no begin.

ANOTHER argument which I posted in another thread, was that the expanding universe explains that it can accumulate new states (expansion of space allows matter/energy to exist in more states) and therefore it does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

So, this in fact means that the universe in total, is not running out of useuable energy.

If you care to hear a more worked out description of how it is that the universe in total, or an expanding universe, does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, above the explenation I have given above, I will try to find some related material on that, explaining the physics of it.

That it had a beginning. The problem is exactly what you just stated -- you refuse to accept that.

I stated in the first post that a nothing is no begin. So the universe must have started out from a something, not from a nothing.

In my previous post you appeared to have accepted that too.

Nothing in the physical universe -- only God.

Well, that is exactly the problem. Because we run into some sort of trouble in the real world, we appear to have a contradiction, it would mean we would need to sort that out. Like I did in the previous post.

We KNOW the real world can not fail to exist, and can not have started from nothing, since nothing is not a begin.

From my point of view it is just a weak drop out to assume a creator, and besides: it does not RESOLVE the issue, but shifts that on the conto of a creator.

So, necessarily the next question is then: how can the creator still have useuable energy when it exists an infinite amount of time. So, that doesn't help us.

Since this argument is usually waved away with the argument that God does not exist in the physical universe. But since by definition, in science and in physics it is stated that outside of the universe there is nothing (wether we give that nothing another name or not) does not make it into something. A nothing which has been given the name God, does not solve this problem.

An absolute beginning of everything from nothing is not possible since a nothing is no beginning. A nothing is only nothing.

ERGO: If we would have to conclude that, it simply means we have somewhere made an error, since a nothing can not cause something, and can not account for the fact that the world exists.
Not the world itself is impossible, but our assumptions/theories about it. This wrong assumption (that the universe in total is a closed thermodynamic system) I cleared out in my argument above.

But that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Putting God into the equation doesn't suffer from that problem, which is a big one, from a scientific standpoint.

There is no way that you can allow "putting God into the equations" in physcics or any science. God has (following its 'obscure' definitions) has no physical properties, and therefore CAN't be put into the equations. In physical terms God equals the state of non-existence itself, which by definition does not have existence. Neither it can be a cause of anything, etc.

No, He hasn't been introduced to solve that problem, although the introduction of God doesn't suffer from it. You need to understand this distinction.

In that particular case, I stated that was what happened.
Your account is right in the sense that to my assumptions and knowledge, we would have to attribute a different history to the appearence of the concept of God in human society/culture/history.

Then you have the problem of how the universe hasn't yet suffered a heat death.

That is what we solved in the arguments above in this post.

Once, at the beginning of the universe. That's the only time it ever happened. It'll never happen again.

This is what I assume, and I guess many other scientists, is a mere mythological explenation. A sudden appearence of all matter/energy from literally nothing.

Even if physics/cosmology now come up with concept for explenations of the Big Bang that appear from the outside to state almost the same, from the inside we have to considere that as long as we deal with a real and hard science here, a literal nothing is not what is assume to be the cause of the universe.

The simple fact is this: physics can not make physical law from nothing. There can be no science theory, that could state a real begin of everything (or any something) from literally nothing ( a state of non-existence, no matter/energy, space, time).

No, I didn't come about my belief in God to solve a scientific problem. He just happens to fit the bill.

As a most general statement and an assumption about this, I would reason that our ancestors must have dealt with this kind of problem (the issue of a begin / eternity of the universe/world) and would not be able to know an anwer to that.
Since we do want to adress the occurence of everything in the world on the conto of some cause, this merely has been given the name God. At least I assume this could have been the case.

And again, you run right back into the problem of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Which I solved with my arguments in the begin of this post

I'm not turning the 'nothing' into a Deity. The Deity made matter and energy out of nothing. Note the difference.

I don't want to be obstructive to this explenation you give, but since we are talking physical phenomena here, and you stated your arguments from a scientific point of view, that the universe would decrease it's amount of useuable energy due to the implication of the second law, what explenation you can give me for the physics of this "creation out of nothing" event?
How does THAT event then fit into the first law and second law of thermodynamics.

The ONLY statement YOU (probably) make then is that "God can break the laws of thermodynamics". But on what account is it then that the universe would have to fit into YOUR and that of others stating the same) (perception of how the

Couldn't it be in fact much more simple, that YOUR (and that of others stating the same) implication of what the implications of the second law are for the universe in total, are in fact WRONG?

No matter HOW you look at it, either at THIS (the thermodynamics behaviour of the universe in total) or THAT (the positing of the begin of the universe in total) point, you need to assume something out of the ordinary regarding the First and Second law of thermodynamics.

As I have showed, my explenation is not so much out of the ordinary (it only states that the universe as a whole, conserves it amount of useable energy, unlike a closed and finite thermodynamic system), and in fact is a normal physcis explenation, but your explenation is in fact breaking EVERY RULE of physics.

On a physics account, what solution would you then hold to be the best fitting into physical theory?

Sure, once time started. And they do.
I do trust that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I don't distrust the material world. In my worldview, it all fits together perfectly. You're the one with the worldview that has to deny or discount the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm not. I don't have to deny or discount the 1st law either. None of this is a problem for my worldview.

Your positing of a begin of the universe in total, obviously breaks EVERY PHYSICS rule.

Like I just said -- nothing has caused me to mistrust empirical science. In my view, it all works out fine.

Things do NOT work out fine, cause you have to assume that the physical world/universe is not an objective material entity, that exists INDEPENDEND of anything else, since you had to introduce a "cause" outside matter, time and space in the form of a creator for the existence of the universe in total.

That IS a fudge factor, and not a SMALL one, but one which is INFINITELY LARGE.

Come on, that's not honestly what you think.

I DO try to be honest with you. And it is what I honestly think.
And not only that, I can also say that I did investigate some trouble in finding a GOOD answer to that kind of questions, which are in some way exceptionally hard, but not at all impossible to answer.

But actually, perhaps see my argument on this in another thread, which is exactly about that point of the discussion, which is the issue known as the "Fundamental Question" in Philosophy:

Why is there something (a world, a universe, anything at all) instead of nothing?"

The thread is here (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8244)

This knowledge which I state there, is in no way recent knowledge, in fact for my daily life, one does not even think about such issues, but at some time in my consciouss life, and early in the begining, this was an issue that bothered me deeply, and what caused me to look and dig (through introspection) into that question, and which came up to be that answer.
Well the reasoned way in which I state it now, has been adapted a bit, but the essential knowledge, is the same.

Uh, we're still left to the forces of nature. Do you think you could stand against the force of a hurricane or a tornado? Of course not.

That is another type of issue, which does not go that deep, and is not essential. Of course we can run all sorts of risks in the physical world, I did not imply we do not.

I was only referring to the issue of the independend and objective existence of the world in total. THAT is what I said, is something I trust, which means there is NOT something outside or beyond that, that has to account for the fact that a physical and observable universe exist.

Oh, it will most certainly fail to exist someday. Probably not during our lifetimes, but someday.

I have reason to state that that will not occur ever, in the sense of an end to time itself.
Which does not contradict any fact in cosmology/astronomy that the sun will go supernovae, and things like that, which will (in billions of years) evaporate the earth, but which is far beyond anything we have to be worried about now.

Okay. Show us one then.

A perfect isolated system does not exist, but isolation can be put in such extend, that energy leaks are practically unmeasurable.

Most of them say that.

Did you actually check on that?

I don't think it is the case that most of them state that.
The fact that the (observable) universe expands, is enough reason to state that the (observable) universe is not a closed thermodynamic system.

Okay, here's your challenge. How do you reconcile the 1st law with the 2nd law? You can't under your worldview.

That is what I have been working on, all the time. And again: see the argument above in this post.

Show us an example of something, that in your view, is a closed system. And then I will show you how it's not truly closed -- because if it can be seen, then light (energy) is escaping. Get the point?

THAT I already know, and I have not argued against that either.

See, that's what it all boils down to here. You don't have a vaild scientific view -- you have a philosophical view, which can be as weird and paradoxical as you want it to be.

And would you state that yours isn't a theistic viewpoint?

Yes, but is also quite arguable that philosophy and science are different disciplines, although there are some connections.

The issue of theism vs materialism is however something that can deeply divide the scientific world, and that is (probably) the reason, that science keeps some distance from that.

Although it can be shown that it never occurs in science that they put "God into the equations" to use your terms, but will always need to work things out using physical law.

Science does not deal with or have to assume that the universe existed a trillion years ago and all time before, since firstly that is unobservable and can stand in no relation to what we see now.
The only thing of interest for the current scientific discussion is wether or not the Big bang denotes the begin of the universe, or that a physical universe existed prior to that, causing the Big Bang event.

rfburnhertz

August 7th, 2003, 07:22 PM

Are you a short man Joseph?
Are you suffering from Napoleon complex?

You talk to God, fine.

You are and ex-cop, fine... etc, etc...

All around you are just one heck of a superior person.

All that in mind, you still should not be making threats to anyone.

If you are unable to handle the fact that OEJ doesn't cave into your scattered thoughts, then perhaps you should stop attempting to debate him.

It is very cowardly of you to threaten persons online.
As a grown man, it is simply very unmanly of you in general. Be your threats face to face or online.

Grow up.

JosephofMessiah

August 7th, 2003, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Are you a short man Joseph?

Height is relative.
I'm 5'11" so I'm shorter than some and taller than some.

Are you suffering from Napoleon complex?

Funny you should mention Napoleon. He was a genious in his own time who wouldn't listen to the ideas of idiots. He also failed in the end because he wouldn't look at the bigger picture.

You talk to God, fine.

No, I talk with an inner voice which claims to be God.
There is absolutely no way to prove this is or is not God because God cannot be proven.

You are and ex-cop, fine... etc, etc...

Yes, I thank God everyday I'm not a cop anymore, even if I feel like I may work again in this field somehow...

All around you are just one heck of a superior person.

Thanks Penguin man, same to you.

All that in mind, you still should not be making threats to anyone.

Heh, I don't make threats, I make promises. Under our court system it is illegal to make a threat but if I promise you something it isn't illegal. I phrased what I had to say to OEJ very carefully.

If you are unable to handle the fact that OEJ doesn't cave into your scattered thoughts,

Please demonstrate or don't assert. You should offer a quote of a "scattered thought" instead of making a false statements. Unless you find where I have done this, and re-affirm your statement with evidence, you have lied.

...then perhaps you should stop attempting to debate him.

I'm not debating him, I'm telling him he needs to update his tactics. OEJ attacks the person he is talking to and attempts to discredit them with false statements while ignoring the subject at hand.

That is illogical and doesn't help me nor him make any helpful points because he continues his attack from ignorance and all I get done is defending myself from his ignorance.

It is very cowardly of you to threaten persons online.

You do not know me.

As a grown man, it is simply very unmanly of you in general. Be your threats face to face or online.
Grow up.

Believe what you will, but OEJ is an arse, and I'm simply defending myself from his ignorant attacks. If you don't see it that way, so be it. I'm sick of his repeated attempts to label me something I am not, and then to continue along that line without offering evidence of it.

And then you attempt to defend him over the person who is defending an attack from ignorance. Proving your own ignorance.

rfburnhertz

August 7th, 2003, 11:16 PM

Joseph,
I said what I had to say.

Your reply is meaningless and without value (as are all of your apostate(s/p?) postings.)

I did not post to you as means of debating your cowardly threats. I posted simply to note that is wrong of you to threaten and that you should check yourself and cease with the threats.

Beyond this, I've nothing to say to you.

One Eyed Jack

August 7th, 2003, 11:37 PM

schiz·o·phre·ni·a
n.
1. Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances. Schizophrenia is associated with dopamine imbalances in the brain and defects of the frontal lobe and is caused by genetic, other biological, and psychosocial factors.

JosephofMessiah

August 8th, 2003, 01:52 AM

THANK YOU.

This is exactly what I was wanting you to do.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
schiz·o·phre·ni·a
n.
1. Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality,

Reality is relative to each person. I have an inner guide which your pastor, preacher, monks, others call God's voice. This inner voice claims to be of God, whether it is or not only time shall tell. I have a daily job, carry on a normal life, visit various churches, and have a wonderful life. I have in no way, "withdrawn from reality" by any measure of this phrase.

...illogical patterns of thinking,

I am a highly logical thinker one of the reasons I reject the tenants of Orthodox.

...delusions,

I suppose that if this internal voice is a delusion then this section would apply to me but I fear that it is not a delusion the more I walk this walk. Also note that if this applies to me for this reason alone, it also applies to all pastors and preachers and rabbis and monks and so on and so forth.

...and hallucinations,

Nope, not any of these...

...and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.

I am intellectually disturbed by OEJ and his continued attack from ignorance, but I do not believe that this qualifies me here in.

Schizophrenia is associated with dopamine imbalances in the brain and defects of the frontal lobe and is caused by genetic, other biological, and psychosocial factors.

And I have been "cleared" of this disorder already, thanks, and I am a perfectly normal young man, I simply have an inner guide which claims to be YHVH which does not fall under the definition of schizophrenia for this disorder involves many other variables which do not apply to me as I have maintained all along.

JosephofMessiah

August 8th, 2003, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
Joseph,
I said what I had to say.

You do not "have" to say anything. You said what you wanted to say.

Your reply is meaningless

Only if you are ignorant to what I have said. I said alot in that post including that you are defending a person (OEJ) who is using an attack from ignorance upon an innocent person who is not "guilty" of the things OEJ is accusing him of. And you are therefore going against what is right, making you wrong.

...and without value (as are all of your apostate(s/p?) postings.)

Yet again you fall into ignorance and utter loss of respect for anything I have attempted to tell you. You do not get to make such ignorant statements about me without backing them up. YOU MUST QUOTE where I have stated something which is "apostate" so that I must define what I meant in fullness. You are making a claim which you offered no evidence of which I find is a common trait amongst those on this board, OEJ being one of the worst. If you do not offer quotes of where I have spoken "apostate" then you are a liar until you defend the lies you have spoken above about me.

I did not post to you as means of debating your cowardly threats.

You really have no idea who you are talking to. While an officer I was almost killed numerous times. Then as a guard I was almost killed in the line of duty at least three times but there were at least four incidents which could have been life threatening. I am in no way a coward, and I was simply responding to the ignorance of a hot headed young man telling him to watch his mouth for there are many people on this planet and some may not have out grown his ignorance as I have. If OEJ pulled this stuff and I actually were what he was attempting to label me the OEJ should most definitely be more careful and handled this issue with kid gloves. You do not feed the bears, you feed yourself to bears.

What I am trying to get across to you both is that when you make a statement, back it up. "This guy is this" means that right after that you need to quote where you disagree with this person. If you do not look up the quote then at least paraphrase the idea which you disliked when you read it. That gives the person a chance to defend themself to you. Otherwise I have absolutely no way to defend against your unfounded claims because you have offered no evidence of them. In other words, you are a liar and I can't prove a negative. That is a fact, I cannot prove there is NOT an invisible unicorn sitting on top of your monitor. It is up to YOU to prove I am "apostate" through quotes. But I want you to focus upon this: If you think I am "apostate" to the Church of Rome you be DAMN kippy I am. This paganism Trinitarian viewpoint of the One True God is a lie from whatever evil which does exist upon our World, their FRUITS define them.

I posted simply to note that is wrong of you to threaten and that you should check yourself and cease with the threats.

Beyond this, I've nothing to say to you.

I am NOT threatening. I am warning OEJ that there are people out there and someday he may meet one that is more inclinded to take him up on his ignorance. While I am not such a person, I use to be and had he met me before I met my God, it would not be a pretty sight. It is about being polite as you can be, using evidence to back your claims, and discussing the topic at hand instead of the person behind the topic that matters most.

Even if I turned out to be "delusional" as you guys like to assert, if I can offer logical and meaningful discussion then so be it. If I cannot then simply ignore my posts and let it go...

okinrus

August 8th, 2003, 03:51 AM

No, I talk with an inner voice which claims to be God.
There is absolutely no way to prove this is or is not God because God cannot be proven.

Are you having conversation with the voice or is this just the voice speaking? There is no way to really prove anything in the physical universe. There is no way to even prove that I am speaking with you. However there are questions that you could ask that might prove if it is God or a Spriit falsely proclaiming it is Yahweh. Explain to the Spirit that you do not believe that he is Yahweh. Notice the Spirit's reaction. Does he try to attack you with feelings of doubt etc. I sugest that you speak with an exorcist if you haven't done so already.

wickwoman

August 8th, 2003, 06:49 AM

Does God often allow his children to be deluded by evil spirits with no line of defense? It doesn't sound like the God I know. Maybe Yahweh isn't the name of my God. I know only this: "there is One Spirit in the universe and in my life, God the Good Omnipotent."

servent101

August 8th, 2003, 08:08 AM

prodigalson

Servent, so what you are saying is that we pick and chose what we want to believe about the Bible being true right?

How can we not believe the OT and the Epistles have to say about sin and than turn around and only except Jesus' teachings as being true? That makes no sense. If we are to except what Jesus says as truth and that he said it, how do we then turn around and say "No, the OT and Epistles are not from God." If we take Jesus' words as fact than we should be taking the Apostles words and the OT Saints in the same light.

I trust you will be wise enough to know that we are not talking about sin... we are talking about the context of our Lord's words - "No one comes to the Father but through me" To take the words out of context - that is the isolated geographical location, the development of the human psyche in the culture at the time the words were spoken, renders the words absurd, and a heresy. Jesus is truth, and all higher thought is the same, for one to be advanced enough to understand these Words of our Lord, and our Lords Life, they are advanced enough to be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. The legalistic rendition of the Words of Our Lord does grave injustice to the ministry of His Life.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

servent101

August 8th, 2003, 08:31 AM

Joseph of Messiah

No, I talk with an inner voice which claims to be God.
There is absolutely no way to prove this is or is not God because God cannot be proven.

I think you are a reasonable fellow... and that you have a sound mind. I personally do not have an audible connection with any like sort of way that you may or may not have. (*that was a mouthful*) I have come across a book though... a highly recommended book - A Conversation with God... worthwhile reading, somewhat on the same line as what you think might be in your life.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

servent101

August 8th, 2003, 08:43 AM

wickwoman

Does God often allow his children to be deluded by evil spirits with no line of defense? It doesn't sound like the God I know. Maybe Yahweh isn't the name of my God. I know only this: "there is One Spirit in the universe and in my life, God the Good Omnipotent."

The "Good News" - it does not remain stagnant, and God does intercede by the prayers for those who pray in the Name of our Lord, No fear here of those who pray in the name of their imaginary God. I agree with you Wickwoman... and we are made in the image of God. I am sure you do not accept the imaginary "god" and that you are in Good Hands... may God bless you.

The early Christians who were martyred, I am sure they were praying for the enlightenment of their tormentors, and I think God took their requests and acted upon them. Christianity did become, and still is the official state religion of the same nation that crucified Jesus and martered hundreds of saints,. their prayers did not land on deaf ears.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

One Eyed Jack

August 8th, 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by servent101
prodigalson

I trust you will be wise enough to know that we are not talking about sin... we are talking about the context of our Lord's words - "No one comes to the Father but through me" To take the words out of context - that is the isolated geographical location, the development of the human psyche in the culture at the time the words were spoken, renders the words absurd, and a heresy.

As I've told you before, the fact that Jesus told his disciples to preach the Gospel throughout the world renders your 'isolated geographical location' argument moot.

prodigalson

August 8th, 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by servent101
I trust you will be wise enough to know that we are not talking about sin... we are talking about the context of our Lord's words - "No one comes to the Father but through me" To take the words out of context - that is the isolated geographical location, the development of the human psyche in the culture at the time the words were spoken, renders the words absurd, and a heresy. Jesus is truth, and all higher thought is the same, for one to be advanced enough to understand these Words of our Lord, and our Lords Life, they are advanced enough to be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. The legalistic rendition of the Words of Our Lord does grave injustice to the ministry of His Life.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

How do we take the words "Nobody comes to the Father but through Me." out of context? It is pretty straight forward. How do those words change with culture? How does "Nobody comes to the Father but through Me." change? It's bold and pretty much has no other way to be viewed except as it is.

JosephofMessiah

August 8th, 2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by prodigalson
How do we take the words "Nobody comes to the Father but through Me." out of context?

Easy, attempt to limit the path unto The One True God through legalism.

It is pretty straight forward. How do those words change with culture?

God has unlimited names. One of God's names is Jealous. Another of God's names is "I AM" ("To Be" or "I Exist" or "YHVH" or "YHWH"). Christ was one with God but not equal unto God by his own claims. Finding God is finding Christ who is apart of God.

How does "Nobody comes to the Father but through Me." change?

Depends entirely on how you wish to relate the Messiah unto God. Trinitarianism being a pagan corruption of the One True God makes it more difficult to see the mercy of the Father, but I have a method which helps some see how merciful God is if they can think.

First, Christ said he was one with God. Under Trinitarianism they took it a step further and made Christ one and equal which is contrary to scripture but let's proceed along this thought pattern to demonstrate to the Trinitarian how merciful God is.

Christ said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me." I did that from memory please forgive any small variance.

So we have Christ who is "one and equal" under Trinitarianism.

If Christ be one and equal with God, and the Trinity denotes a One True God as they continue to force feed mankind, then there is a name by which God is known in unity. That name is Yahweh. IF Christ is "one and equal" with God then anyplace you discover Christ's name you could place the One-ness name of God to understand the perfection of scripture under Trinitarian thought.

"[Yahweh] am th way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto [Yahweh] but by [Yahweh.]"

How many more can be saved from Hellfire for all time if this is the mindset of God the Father, that His creation shall be saved by His Infinite Will for He is not willing that any should perish but that all should have eternal life with Christ our Lord. For there is One God, the Father of all, in all and through all, and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus the Christ.

It's bold and pretty much has no other way to be viewed except as it is.

Wrong. There are thousands of ways to take any one scripture, you merely take it by your own interpretation which condemns billions unto Hellfire while saving your own skin. You have demonstrated unto you this day a method of reading that scripture (even under Trinitarianism) which could be by which God the Father allows salvation for mankind. For Salvation is a gift of grace from God, lest any man boast of works.

okinrus

August 8th, 2003, 04:45 PM

Does God often allow his children to be deluded by evil spirits with no line of defense?

No, His first line of defence is faith and God has given us his Son and Spirit, yet evil spirits can still speak to us. Even saints such as Padre Pio http://www.padrepio.com/ had numerous demonic voices and visions. The rosary has proven itself effective in such encounters and is described as weapon, but I guess were all not catholics (:

It doesn't sound like the God I know. Maybe Yahweh isn't the name of my God. I know only this: "there is One Spirit in the universe and in my life, God the Good Omnipotent."

One of the best tricks of the devil is to delude us into thinking that he does not exists.

I think if Jesus is the truth and non-christians can tell the truth, this implies that some non-chrisitans will be saved. Jesus said that there will be a light punishment for those who not knowlingly acted against the will of God.

Christ said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me." I did that from memory please forgive any small variance.

Yes, Deutoronmy says that only God gives life and takes it away. Because Jesus is all goodness that is in ones hearts, he is the only way to come unto the Father. Yet there are others who do not know that this goodness in ones heart is Jesus and this is why Jesus said that he had other sheep that were not of this fold. So Jesus takes care of the gentiles and those who do not know Jesus or the Father by name, leading them into the truth.

rfburnhertz

August 8th, 2003, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by wickwoman
Does God often allow his children to be deluded by evil spirits with no line of defense?

A Christian is "possessed" by the Holy Spirit.

A Christian can be "deluded" in the sense that we are not even near perfect and we do give into temptations.

It doesn't sound like the God I know.

Who is the god that you know? I'm asking for a possible description of some sort, not a name for means of indentification.

Maybe Yahweh isn't the name of my God.
The name of your creator is Yahweh.
The name of who or what ever your god is, is not Yahweh.

servent101

August 14th, 2003, 07:32 AM

One eyed Jack prodigalson

I will have to explain what it is I am objecting too, which you two may not of fallen into yet, but a lot of the "orthodox" believe - that the closed cannon of Christian Scripture is the only authorized Word of God and if anyone does not take it literally, and only take the closed cannon of Christian Scripture (nothing else) as the way back to God they are doomed to spend an eternity in hell. to the thinking person this is absurd and it is only through the underhanded tactics of the orthodox that this blasphemy is instilled in people. Somehow when the "orthodox" take the Words Jesus Spoke about Himself being the Only Way to the Father they come up with the above heresy. Hopefully you will value the Bible, and I agree that it is authorized and bonified, but it is the Holy Spirit that will lead us into ALL truth... and the Bible teaches this - not what the "orthodox" teach. But eventually if you are going to continue to only see the Bible verse, truth, and nothing else is permitted into your contemplation, you will be as blind as the Scribes and Pharisees. You need to realize the importance and purpose of the Holy Spirit and stop demeaning the Spirit of Truth.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

One Eyed Jack

August 14th, 2003, 08:27 AM

Where have I ever demeaned the Holy Spirit?

rfburnhertz

August 16th, 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by servent101
One eyed Jack prodigalson

I will have to explain what it is I am objecting too, which you two may not of fallen into yet, but a lot of the "orthodox" believe - that the closed cannon of Christian Scripture is the only authorized Word of God

Forgive me for jumping in. I haven't been able to keep up with the threads for the last week.

I'd like to know what known text you would also consider to be the Word of God.

and if anyone does not take it literally, and only take the closed cannon of Christian Scripture (nothing else) as the way back to God they are doomed to spend an eternity in hell.

I think I am misunderstanding you here. I sure hope I am misunderstanding you.
You are not indicating that Christians believe the bible to be the source of our salvation are you?

to the thinking person

I've noticed in your posts how much you think of yourself.

I find it interesting that a person who holds themselves in such high regard, seems to hold the written Word of God somewhere a bit lower.

it is the Holy Spirit that will lead us into ALL truth

I would agree with you 100%.

Would you agree that the written Word of God (the Holy Bible) and the Holy Spirit will always agree?

That if we believe the Holy Spirit is telling us something and that something we are being told contridicts the written Word, then we are in fact not being spoken to by the Holy Spirit?

And isn't the written Word of God one of the methods through which the Holy Spirit will lead us to all truth?

PureX

August 16th, 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by prodigalson
How do we take the words "Nobody comes to the Father but through Me." out of context? It is pretty straight forward. How do those words change with culture? How does "Nobody comes to the Father but through Me." change? It's bold and pretty much has no other way to be viewed except as it is. What does "comes to the father" mean? What does "but through me" mean? How can I go "through" someone who doesn't even exist? Obviously this is some sort of metaphor, that has to be interpreted. I don't see anything "strait forward" about it!

Crow

August 16th, 2003, 11:21 AM

rfb--
I've often wondered how you tell just when the Holy Spirit speaks to you, and when it's just your own bright idea. For me--I examine it in light of Scripture, because for me the Holy Spirit speaking isn't always an earth-shattering experience--sometimes it is, sometimes not. When you put what you feel up against scripture, the "bright ideas" tend to get weeded out fast. What you're left with is either the Holy Spirit is speaking, or you're thinking as God would have you think. And didn't Paul say that we should have the mind of God? Not a bad thing if our own thoughts begin to align with God's, is it? Kinda neat, in fact.

One Eyed Jack

August 16th, 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by PureX
What does "comes to the father" mean?

Comes to God.

What does "but through me" mean?

By way of Him.

How can I go "through" someone who doesn't even exist?

Jesus does exist. Ask Him to come into your heart, and you'll find out.

rfburnhertz

August 16th, 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Crow
rfb--
I've often wondered how you tell just when the Holy Spirit speaks to you, and when it's just your own bright idea. For me--I examine it in light of Scripture, because for me the Holy Spirit speaking isn't always an earth-shattering experience--sometimes it is, sometimes not. When you put what you feel up against scripture, the "bright ideas" tend to get weeded out fast. What you're left with is either the Holy Spirit is speaking, or you're thinking as God would have you think. And didn't Paul say that we should have the mind of God? Not a bad thing if our own thoughts begin to align with God's, is it? Kinda neat, in fact.

I am in complete agreement.

prodigalson

August 16th, 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by PureX
What does "comes to the father" mean? What does "but through me" mean? How can I go "through" someone who doesn't even exist? Obviously this is some sort of metaphor, that has to be interpreted. I don't see anything "strait forward" about it!

I'm sorry PureX, I refuse to believe you don't see that statement as 'staright forward'.

Servant, your thinking is backwards, we are to judge other 'doctrines' with scripture not scripture with other doctrines.

PureX

August 16th, 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Comes to God.

By way of Him.

Jesus does exist. Ask Him to come into your heart, and you'll find out. You explained nothing.

PureX

August 16th, 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by prodigalson
I'm sorry PureX, I refuse to believe you don't see that statement as 'staright forward'.

Servant, your thinking is backwards, we are to judge other 'doctrines' with scripture not scripture with other doctrines. If it were so strait forward, why don't you just explain it and also explain why it couldn't be interpreted other ways? What does "through me" mean? How do you know that what you think it means is the only meaning it can possibly have?

prodigalson

August 16th, 2003, 03:12 PM

"Hey, where is the bathroom?"
"Down the hall, on the left."
"What do you mean? Explain it to me, that's not straight forward enough."

One Eyed Jack

August 16th, 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by prodigalson
"Hey, where is the bathroom?"
"Down the hall, on the left."
"What do you mean? Explain it to me, that's not straight forward enough."

PureX just gets a kick out of being contrary, that's all.

JosephofMessiah

August 17th, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
PureX just gets a kick out of being contrary, that's all.

I think it is a very fair statement to say that "through me" when speaking of a human/flesh/body is to be interpreted.

If it were a hallway, a road, or a path...perhaps there would be no need to interpret it. PureX is being an advocate for the understanding that the way you interpret this phrase, is not the only way.

It is not wrong, nor "contrary," to point out truths.

One Eyed Jack

August 17th, 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
I think it is a very fair statement to say that "through me" when speaking of a human/flesh/body is to be interpreted.

Come on, the context makes it perfectly clear. The way Jesus said "through" obviously means "by way of." Even a child can understand that.

Dave Miller

August 17th, 2003, 02:05 PM

Barth, Barth. Barth!

Transcendent God is free to express God's Self in Immanent
form as God chooses. However, the only way to reach Transcendent
God is through Immanent God. The only way to get onto a roof
is with a ladder (I know helicopter, etc., besides the point.) And
they only way to get a ladder in this case is if God chooses to
provide that ladder.

One could argue whether Immanent God can only be found
in Jesus Christ, or whether every manifestation of Immanent
God is in fact Jesus Christ. (I believe the latter, smirk)

The absolute freedom of God allows God to appear in any Immanent
form God chooses, burning bush, pillar of fire, human flesh, whatever.
The fact that God chose to reveal Himself in the flesh in Jesus Christ
is a testament to His love for humanity.

Dave Miller

wickwoman

August 17th, 2003, 06:40 PM

How about this interpretation:

"If you're coming to the father, you're going to have to come through me!" I'm visualizing a big Jesus bouncer guarding the doors to Heaven now.

If you think about it. It seems that's what many Christians misunderstand the verse to say. Why can't the verse just mean you have to follow the same path of self-sacrifice I did?

In other words, to see God is to finish your journey, to realize the Self. When you surrender the physical world, your very body and self-identity, you will be with the Father.

"But if you know you are the Self, the Lord of Life, you will be free from suffering; the supreme source of light; the supreme source of love. You will transcend duality and live in a state of Oneness."

-Mundaka Upanishad

prodigalson

August 17th, 2003, 10:09 PM

Look people, it means what it says, this is not a Bible verse that is complicated and needs deep thought, this is one of those verses that babes can understand. You guys are too smart to be this confused about it.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

PureX

August 17th, 2003, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by prodigalson
Look people, it means what it says, this is not a Bible verse that is complicated and needs deep thought, this is one of those verses that babes can understand. You guys are too smart to be this confused about it.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." Hmmm, seems to me that if this were so obvious, then you Christians would at least agree as to what this "way" is. Christians all are in agreement that they are right and everyone else is wrong, but right about what seems to be quite problematic for them.

Interesting that this most "obvious" phrase has STILL not clearly been explained by anyone, nor has anyone explained how in it's simplicity it couldn't possibly be misconstrued. With the exception of Wickwoman, all I see is people reiterating it like trained monkeys. No explanations, though.

servent101

August 18th, 2003, 07:26 AM

prodicalson

we are to judge other 'doctrines' with scripture not scripture with other doctrines.

1 Timothy - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for correction for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.

I agree with your statement, though to correctly handle the Word of Truth, this idea that is presented in the orthodox mentality of hell, and their literal understanding of interpreting the Bible – that being the closed cannon of Christian Scripture has to be put in perspective.

All higher truth is the same… there is One God, and if one were interested in following His way… one would find insights from all of God’s dealings with the human race and find God everywhere… even the dull and ignorant can show us something of God.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

servent101

August 18th, 2003, 07:34 AM

One eyed Jack

Where have I ever demeaned the Holy Spirit?

But eventually if you are going to continue to only see the Bible verse, truth, and nothing else is permitted into your contemplation, you will be as blind as the Scribes and Pharisees in Jesus' time. You need to realize the importance and purpose of the Holy Spirit and stop demeaning the Spirit of Truth.

Hopefully you haven’t, but as I stated earlier… if you continue to see only the Spirit of Truth work in the Bible you are in danger of becoming as blind and ignorant as the Scribes and Pharisees in Jesus' time, for the truth is that the Spirit will lead you into all truth… including the words of our Lord, and the words of the Apostles and writers of the various epistles, and the truth in all of God’s dealings with the human race. You may even find the Holy Spirit rebuking you via your cat – (in the old Testament someone was rebuked by a mule) –

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

Dave Miller

August 18th, 2003, 08:00 AM

"But if you know you are the Self, the Lord of Life, you will be free from suffering; the supreme source of light; the supreme source of love. You will transcend duality and live in a state of Oneness."

-Mundaka Upanishad

EEE Gad! Quoting the Upanishad's! We have a scholar among us!

My problem with metaphysical Oneness with God is that it lacks
humility, which can lead to some pretty nasty things as history
tells us, like slavery, fascism, caste systems, etc. God is with us,
Immanently, but God is also OTHER, completely other, transcendent.

Seeking God as "Other" is often what leads people who are
raised in a Christian heritage to explore things like Hinduism.
And imagine the joy they find when they discover through
Hinduism that God is not really Other, God is really self! At
that, point, however, someone needs to do a reality check.

djm

servent101

August 18th, 2003, 08:24 AM

Wickwoman

"But if you know you are the Self, the Lord of Life, you will be free from suffering; the supreme source of light; the supreme source of love. You will transcend duality and live in a state of Oneness."

There is no difference between the intelligence and the soul - or the self, once the intelligence has been purified. As we all know our intelligence is often in bondage to what might be adequately described as "demoniac forces" or as some may describe as "pollutants in the collective consciousness" or others describe as the "culture in which we live" and I am sure there is a number of "other and valid" understandings of what "we are" that I have not even come in contact with. The purified "Self" - a quest and one that is to say the least - very interesting. I don't know if you are on that quest, and I don't mean to pry... but is that "Self" something you believe you have already attained?

With Christ's Love

Servent101

wickwoman

August 18th, 2003, 10:01 AM

Dear Dave Miller:

I disagree. Slavery and the other atrocities that happened and still happens are most often associated with those who call themselves Christians and who have a debase and inaccurate view of their own nature. To know your nature is God is very humbling and gives an accurate view of your own potential and how it has been misused in ignorance.

Dear Servant101:

I do not believe I have fully realized the Self. I mostly try to realize the Self in others because it is usually easier to see the truth in another than in yourself. However, this is really the same because there is no difference in me and you. So, when I realize God is in you, I will know he/she is also in me.

prodigalson

August 18th, 2003, 10:09 AM

PureX
Hmmm, seems to me that if this were so obvious, then you Christians would at least agree as to what this "way" is. Christians all are in agreement that they are right and everyone else is wrong, but right about what seems to be quite problematic for them.

We christians do agree on the 'Way'. I guess you also think that if someone claims to be a christian then they must be huh? Also, I am not going to break down a simple passage for you b/c 1) If you can't see something that obvious than there is no point me wasting my time, and 2) You either get and just want me to waste my time. Basically, I don't want to waste my time.

Servant101
1 Timothy - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for correction for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.

You are misunderstanding scripture. All Scripture is inspired by God, but Paul is only refering to Biblical Scripture here, not just doctrine form any ol religion. We know this b/c he then tells Timothy(and other letters) beware of doctrines of men that only want to tickle their ears. If you are reading Paul's letters to churches and getting Paul thinking all doctrine and religions are the same than I don't know what to say. There are plenty of verses where Paul is pretty adament about false doctrines.

1 Timothy: explicitly says that (2) in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to (3) deceitful spirits and (4) doctrines of demons,

I don't think refering to "Doctrines of deamons" is Pauls OK that all scripture is from God.

rfburnhertz

August 18th, 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by PureX
Hmmm, seems to me that if this were so obvious, then you Christians would at least agree as to what this "way" is.

Christians are in agreement.

Those on the fringe who create their own version of Christianity, who take bits and pieces of the biblical text as it suits them, they are not in agreement.

In the end, these people are really traveling the same road as you.

rfburnhertz

August 18th, 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by wickwoman
Slavery and the other atrocities that happened and still happens are most often associated with those who call themselves Christians

There is a book called 'In the lions den'. I forget the author, read it and you will discover you are very wrong.

So, when I realize God is in you, I will know he/she is also in me.

How does one come to realise that god is "in" another?

wickwoman

August 18th, 2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
There is a book called 'In the lions den'. I forget the author, read it and you will discover you are very wrong.

The history books I've read are just fine.

Originally posted by rfburnhertz
How does one come to realise that god is "in" another?

"Believe in your brothers because I believe in you, and you will learn that my belief in you is justified. Believe in Me by believing in them, for the sake of what God gave them." ACIM 9, pg. 165

Aimiel

August 18th, 2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by wickwoman The history books I've read are just fine.Your way might seem right, but...

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

If you believe The Truth, you will have Eternal Life, and not taste of the second death.

billwald

August 18th, 2003, 12:58 PM

1. One doesn't need to know the name of a bridge in order to use it.

2. Queen Victoria controlled thousands of people who never heard of her.

3. The rain falls on the just and the unjust.

Dave Miller

August 18th, 2003, 04:29 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wickwoman
Dear Dave Miller:

I disagree. Slavery and the other atrocities that happened and still happens are most often associated with those who call themselves Christians and who have a debase and inaccurate view of their own nature. To know your nature is God is very humbling and gives an accurate view of your own potential and how it has been misused in ignorance.

Not just Christians, but yes, a debase and inaccurate view
of their own nature, and the nature of God.

Try to explain this to Dalits, how enlightened Brahmins
have had an accurate and humble view of themselves as God.
Everyone needs a reference point outside of themselves
to measure against.

djm

One Eyed Jack

August 18th, 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by servent101
One eyed Jack

But eventually if you are going to continue to only see the Bible verse, truth, and nothing else is permitted into your contemplation, you will be as blind as the Scribes and Pharisees in Jesus' time. You need to realize the importance and purpose of the Holy Spirit and stop demeaning the Spirit of Truth.

I ask you again -- where have I done that? Don't tell me to stop doing something I'm not doing.

You may even find the Holy Spirit rebuking you via your cat – (in the old Testament someone was rebuked by a mule)

I don't have a cat, and that wasn't a mule -- it was a donkey.

rfburnhertz

August 18th, 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by wickwoman
The history books I've read are just fine.

There you go practcing that open mind thing again.

Must not research from sources other than what you know and trust, you just might find a true challange to what you think you know.

"Believe in your brothers because I believe in you, and you will learn that my belief in you is justified. Believe in Me by believing in them, for the sake of what God gave them." ACIM 9, pg. 165

A Course in Miracles. What a shame, I am so sad (though not surprised) that you read this junk and believe it.

servent101

August 19th, 2003, 07:39 AM

prodicalson

1 Timothy: explicitly says that (2) in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to (3) deceitful spirits and (4) doctrines of demons,

This is a two way street - the concept of blind faith is a doctrine of demons, and it is blind faith that is adhered to in the bulk of the organized churches - that being that if it is in the Bible, no matter how insane, if it is in there it is God's Word, so it is true. Just because something is in the Bible does not mean that it is true - not hat I have not found anything in the Bible that is not true or reasonable, it is just that the orthodox pushes the merit of what Jesus said, not based on what our Lord says, but simply because a group of people who admit themselves they are mute, - that they cannot speak God's Word, and as well are blind - that they need to be told what is and what is not from the Spirit, and this logic that they push - that the Bible says itself that it is true - is the assurance of faith creates an utter heresy in the learning process of the believers.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Aimiel

August 19th, 2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by servent101
prodicalson

This is a two way street...

...creates an utter heresy in the learning process of the believers.There is not ONE church on this earth that has ALL things correct. If you find a perfect church, don't attend services, you'll mess it up. We are imperfect beings, but we worship a Perfect God.

servent101

August 19th, 2003, 08:07 AM

One eyed Jack

I ask you again -- where have I done that? Don't tell me to stop doing something I'm not doing.

I am looking through a few of your posts…

The scientists say it's a closed system. I'm just taking their word for it.

Just taking someone’s word on it, or just believing something because it is in a certain book generally means that the essence of what is believed by this method lacks the essentials that bring what is believed alive. It also negates the common sense of the individual to determine what is absurd… for example the orthodox view of hell.

See -- it's stuff like this that makes me think you're deluded. Like I said before, arguing with a fool is pointless, although I must admit, sometimes it is fun to yank their chains.

Calling someone a fool is not advised, though it does not carry the same weight as the word “Racca” (Spelling?) that it is translated from it does carry some evidence of an insolent Spirit – as well admitting it is fun sometimes to yank someone’s chains and appearing to not show any remorse of the act… leads me to think there needs to be some serious contemplation on your behalf of exactly what “Spirit” you want in your life.

The comment though that I made…

But eventually if you are going to continue to only see the Bible verse, truth, and nothing else is permitted into your contemplation, you will be as blind as the Scribes and Pharisees in Jesus' time. You need to realize the importance and purpose of the Holy Spirit and stop demeaning the Spirit of Truth.

The key word here is – eventually - and it seems to be the case the post I wanted to find I could not… but it had to do with what I considered the stand you take on the literal interpretation of the Word, not realizing that the specific time Jesus was speaking to people, and people’s psyche at the time, as well as geographical isolation do not need to be taken into account in the theology that comes from Scripture.

Again though, just for clarification… I did not say you are as blind as the for mentioned people, nor that you are demeaning the Spirit of Truth. I expressed my concern that if you continue to follow your path that I am concerned that you might be becoming like the for mentioned Scribes and Pharisees, with the possibility of demeaning the Spirit of Truth.

I apologize for the not too clear articulation, and not finding your post that I wanted. Hope we can do better things than trying to get what we said understood – we might even understand each other someday, and find we were both on the right track at the time we encountered each other for where we needed to grow Spiritually at that time.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

servent101

August 19th, 2003, 12:15 PM

Wickwoman

I do not believe I have fully realized the Self. I mostly try to realize the Self in others because it is usually easier to see the truth in another than in yourself. However, this is really the same because there is no difference in me and you. So, when I realize God is in you, I will know he/she is also in me.

You do well, and your truth is living and active, I commend you. Some day I think you will look into the face of God...(if you haven’t already) - you seem to be very near.

You are naturally in my prayers.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

servent101

August 19th, 2003, 12:22 PM

Aimiel…

There is a big gap here… , an utter heresy in the learning process of the believers being seemingly covered by the excuse of

[quote] There is not ONE church on this earth that has ALL things correct

Either defend the orthodox, agree with me, but don’t say it is just a little misunderstanding and nobody has it right anyways. What is your opinion on hell – does God send souls there for an eternity, like the Bible literally says, or is Jesus simply describing the condition of the Human Spirit apart from God here on planet earth while alive in these mortal shells?

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

Aimiel

August 19th, 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by servent101 What is your opinion on hell – does God send souls there for an eternity, like the Bible literally says, or is Jesus simply describing the condition of the Human Spirit apart from God here on planet earth while alive in these mortal shells?I know that God does not operate by deception, and Jesus' description of hell (graphic, real and eternal) is no exception. If God was not willing and able to judge the souls of men for all of eternity, I hardly think that He would have had to cause His Son to die to give us Eternal Life. Hell is very real.

servent101

August 20th, 2003, 07:58 AM

Aimiel

I know that God does not operate by deception, and Jesus' description of hell (graphic, real and eternal) is no exception. If God was not willing and able to judge the souls of men for all of eternity, I hardly think that He would have had to cause His Son to die to give us Eternal Life. Hell is very real.

I do not know what is more painful to my Lord, the crucifixion or the continual hard heartedness of those who refuse to see the light of the gospel of peace. The words “How long must I suffer thee” are brought to my mind after reading your post.

I do not reject that hell is very real, possibly with your understanding of the "nature of your god" based on the interpretation of what you hold as authorized scripture, you have no idea of what communion with God is like, therefore no understanding of what being apart from God is either. People are in hell, right now - you might even be right now in hell, thinking you are just fine and dandy.

The Words of our Lord are often bordering on the insane, for example if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off - your eye - pluck it out, eat my body and drink my blood. Jesus is trying to get his point across to a people who are very obstinent and hard hearted. Hopefully you will consider this post, and consider the harm this so called orthodox view is doing to the ministry of our Lord.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

isaiah 1:18

August 20th, 2003, 08:06 AM

I ask that you forgive me as I didn't read from the start of this thread.

But what about the lake of fire mentioned in Rev?

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. .... 14: And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Allegorical or literal? And even if it can be argued to be allegorical, torment is never a pleasant thing. In fact, I'd say it is the exact opposite of Joy. And joy is "where it's at man!"

servent101

August 20th, 2003, 08:27 AM

Isaiah 1:18

I ask that you forgive me, as I didn't read from the start of this thread.

But what about the lake of fire mentioned in Rev?

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. .... 14: And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Allegorical or literal? And even if it can be argued to be allegorical, torment is never a pleasant thing. In fact, I'd say it is the exact opposite of Joy. And joy is "where it's at man!"

Good question, and one that needs to be looked at... Lets start with the book of Revelation.... what part of it do you take literal... All of it? None of it? Just certain parts? I may not be a good person to present the argument - but the argument of the Book of Revelation being taken literally - there are some pretty bizarre things in there (sorry for my lack of specific verses) but to start with what part of the book do you want to take literal and what part do you want to take allegorical. To most people the Book is one of extreme metaphors.

I will try to be a little more like what you are use to in the Christian circles... I will quote Scripture... but it is in my heart (I don't know chapter and verse) God says that His wrath does not endure forever (Old Testament)

With Christ's Love

isaiah 1:18

August 20th, 2003, 08:40 AM

Hey servant101, I'm just like you. I can't remember where most stuff is found. Without my trusty concordance and online bible to cut and paste from....

But let me say this about allegorical passages. Once upon a time, the prophecies of the messiah were considered allegorial. Turns out that they were true in every respect.

With revelations, yes, some of the language used is done to represent things in the future for which the writer has no frame of reference. For instance, a bird ferrying Jews to a safe place? Crazy if taken literally. But if the concept of what it represents is understood, it only means to suggest that they are safely taken to a safe place by whatever means will exist in that day.

With that said, a lake of fire is allegorical in the sense that it is not fire as we know it. It is a fire that affects the spirit or soul. I have no frame of reference to describe that to you with. But the language is meant to suggest just what it says, torment. And torment that I wouldn't wish on my neighbors rabid, fence snarling, poop layin', rose bush peepin', flea bitten, mangy mutt of a dog. :D

Aimiel

August 20th, 2003, 02:58 PM

... and grow from the sincere milk of The Word.Originally posted by servent101 I do not know what is more painful to my Lord, the crucifixion or the continual hard heartedness of those who refuse to see the light of the gospel of peace.If, as you seem to be asserting, The Lord has decided to forgive all sin and allow everyone into Heaven, then He made a big foolish mistake causing His Son to die, to pay the price for the sin of those who will believe. I do not reject that hell is very real, possibly with your understanding of the "nature of your god" based on the interpretation of what you hold as authorized scripture, you have no idea of what communion with God is like, therefore no understanding of what being apart from God is either.I have a unique perspective, having been allowed to suffer the torments of hell, which lasted less than one second, so I know what I am talking about. I also not only have communion with The Lord, but I am used in The Ministry Gifts of The Holy Spirit. It is a great and terrible thing to fall into The Hands of The Living God.

And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?
People are in hell, right now - you might even be right now in hell, thinking you are just fine and dandy.Yes, there are souls in hell, and they will one day be judged, and cast into The Lake of Fire, which is the second death. I am no more in hell right now than you are Rumplestiltskin and can spin straw into gold. Hell is real, and the suffering is real, and the souls in it are those of the wicked who are being reserved unto everlasting punishment in The Lake of Fire.The Words of our Lord are often bordering on the insane, for example if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off - your eye - pluck it out, eat my body and drink my blood. Jesus is trying to get his point across to a people who are very obstinent and hard hearted. Hopefully you will consider this post, and consider the harm this so called orthodox view is doing to the ministry of our Lord.Yes, but He did not choose a parable to speak of hell, but instead chose to describe a certain person, a rich man, who saw Lazarus and Abraham, and also would have been relieved to have just ONE DROP of water. That is not only clear, graphic and personal; it is a description of a very real place, and the only fear Jesus taught us to have is to fear God, who has the power to cast body and soul into hell. If you deny this basic Truth of our Lord's Gospel, what, if anything, do you actually believe? You're not promoting The Gospel by doing such things, you're tearing it down.

servent101

August 21st, 2003, 07:54 AM

isaiah1:18

But let me say this about allegorical passages. Once upon a time, the prophecies of the messiah were considered allegorical. Turns out that they were true in every respect.

The understanding of the prophecies never happened until after they happened, except for our Lords understanding, Jesus knew what the Scriptures were saying.

In the same way I think the Scriptures are not that clear about the concept of hell. I think we are more in a ying-yang existence in that we would not know what is bad, unless we have something good to compare it too - the same as hell, if we do not know the love and presence of God, there is no concept of the absence of God. It is only when we have communion with our Lord, that we realize what life apart from God is like, so in a way the account of hell is real., but it is from a perspective of close proximity to God - which puts a correct understanding of what life is apart from God, though this sentament is not literal., it is metaphoric. To then deduce doctrine on the nature of God from a literal standpoint is absurdity or leads to absurdity.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

servent101

August 21st, 2003, 08:10 AM

Aimiel

Yes, but He did not choose a parable to speak of hell, but instead chose to describe a certain person, a rich man, who saw Lazarus and Abraham, and also would have been relieved to have just ONE DROP of water. That is not only clear, graphic and personal; it is a description of a very real place, and the only fear Jesus taught us to have is to fear God, who has the power to cast body and soul into hell. If you deny this basic Truth of our Lord's Gospel, what, if anything, do you actually believe? You're not promoting The Gospel by doing such things, you're tearing it down.

Here you accuse me of tearing the Gospel down, which by the way do you know that the Word Gospel is properly translated "Good News" The word "Gospel" is simply a trick of the people who translated it to have their way with you, which is quite evident by your post that you are not lead by the Spirit of Truth, but are rather filled (if I can be allowed to say it on TOL) with piss and vinegar. And this is quite common of you folks who take the view that the Bible must be accepted as literal,. and only the closed canon of Christian Scripture and nothing else can be used - and I use the word used to be kind (prostituted would be a better word) to control the people and subjugate them to an authority, and that authority is not the Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, but a demoniac thought mentality.

You accuse me of tearing down the Word of God. I am not tearing down the Word of God, I am tearing down, or attempting to tear down the bizarre so called orthodox understanding of the Word. The parable of Lazarus is not an exhortation on the conditions of hell, it is a warning to the people who do not take the Spirit of the Word, and only abide by the letter, to be Charitable. I would speak to you on the parable - its meaning, but the time I fear would be wasted, for the Spirit of God does not seem to be present in you, just piss and vinegar. (Sorry for the crudeness of the comment, it is just difficult to express the thought of what the so-called orthodox are filling you with)

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Aimiel

August 21st, 2003, 09:29 AM

servent101,

No need to apologize for your character showing itself. Demons are always exposed for what they are, liars.

Aimiel

August 21st, 2003, 09:31 AM

As far as being taught by religious men:

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

servent101

August 21st, 2003, 12:13 PM

Aimiel

No need to apologize for your character showing itself. Demons are always exposed for what they are, liars.

What you ascertain is unfounded and you simply are showing the truth of what I said which was...

I would speak to you on the parable - its meaning, but the time I fear would be wasted, for the Spirit of God does not seem to be present in you, just piss and vinegar. (Sorry for the crudeness of the comment, it is just difficult to express the thought of what the so-called orthodox are filling you with)

But the apology still stands, as you seem to making it true. I accept part of the responsibility for your unfounded insult.

If you want to argue that the story of Lazareth is a story that is meant to show us the conditions in hell go for it, but you know that the meaning of the parable is the importance of showing charity to poor people...

you have a lot of twigs about the hell idea of eternal torment, and I will agree that they are there in the Bible, but if you put all the twigs together you do not have a logical argument - you have a pile of twigs, and thank your God that it is the twigs that will burn, not you, in hell fire. I would be more concerned of the warnings of Jesus - As you judge, so shall you be judged.

Anyways you show me by your words that your really don't know what your doing, and I do not take offence, I forgive you, and besides that your trying to live according to what the Lord of life teaches, and that is a good start, may God of all Glory have mercy on you and grant you some sense .:D

With Christ's Love

Servent101:angel:

wickwoman

August 22nd, 2003, 06:42 AM

Dear Servant101:

I feel your pain. I stopped responding to Amiel many weeks ago. It is much wasted effort and time which I cannot afford to waste.

Aimiel

August 22nd, 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by servent101 If you want to argue that the story of Lazareth is a story that is meant to show us the conditions in hell go for it, but you know that the meaning of the parable is the importance of showing charity to poor people...I know nothing of the sort, and it was not a parable, it was an example, using REAL persons for graphic illustration. This never occurs with a parable. You need to learn how to frame an argument.you have a lot of twigs about the hell idea of eternal torment, and I will agree that they are there in the Bible, but if you put all the twigs together you do not have a logical argument - you have a pile of twigs, and thank your God that it is the twigs that will burn, not you, in hell fire.I thank God that all those who believe in Jesus shall be saved. Those who don't will be sent to everlasting punishment. Any understanding of scriptures which comes to a lesser conclusion is simply someone not examining the evidince.I would be more concerned of the warnings of Jesus - As you judge, so shall you be judged. He also warned us to fear ONE, The Lord, who, He said, has the power to cast body and soul into hell. He did not say that this would be for only a short time, but explained by many scriptures that judgement is eternal.Anyways you show me by your words that your really don't know what your doing, and I do not take offence, I forgive you, and besides that your trying to live according to what the Lord of life teaches, and that is a good start, may God of all Glory have mercy on you and grant you some sense .:D I seem to have been able to make more sense of the Bible than you, and you show by your words that you don't think very clearly or examine evidnce very well. Do you have someone taking care of you, or do you need some help with your daily chores? :kookoo:

Aimiel

August 22nd, 2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by wickwoman I stopped responding to Amiel many weeks ago. It is much wasted effort and time which I cannot afford to waste. Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another: lest he that heareth it put thee to shame, and thine infamy turn not away.

servent101

August 23rd, 2003, 08:55 AM

Aimiel - May God bless you.

Aimiel

August 23rd, 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by servent101 Aimiel - May God bless you. I believe that if we are not growing and being conformed into His Image and Likeness, then we are dead and will begin to 'stink.' :thumb:

Aimiel

August 23rd, 2003, 03:34 PM

... their own advice; for instance maybe re-read the title of their own thread.

rfburnhertz

August 24th, 2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by servent101
And this is quite common of you folks who take the view that the Bible must be accepted as literal,. and only the closed canon of Christian Scripture and nothing else can be used

Are you suggesting that there is another known text other than the bible from which we might read and still come to a understand of God through it?

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by wickwoman

I stopped responding to Amiel many weeks ago. It is much wasted effort and time which I cannot afford to waste.
Open rebuke is better than secret love.

beanieboy

June 24th, 2004, 10:15 AM

Wow, this is the first time I have ever read this thread.

I've never really thought about it - that you have an idea of God, and then you search for a religion or denomination that fits in with your denomination, as if you fit God into your thinking, rather than allow God into your reality.

Hate people? Find a place that validates your anger. Concentrate on the wrath of God, play down turning the other cheek, emphasize, an eye for an eye.

Want to have a loving God? Do the opposite.

Want excitement? Believe in Pentecostalism, and jump around, and believe eveyone else doesn't have the Spirit, but YOU do. Oh, yeah.

Want a conservative God? Become a Lutheran. Think that Pentecostals are a bunch hippies. Stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. Lots of order. When someone yells out, "Praaaaaise you, Jesus", tell them , "We don't do that here."

I've never thought of that, but that's what it seems to be - that people fit God to their beliefs, rather than fitting themselves to God, and then accusing everyone esle of being wrong. When you question their beliefs, they run behind their idol they call God, and say, "well, it's God, not me."

Not very honest.

PureX

June 24th, 2004, 10:21 AM

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 10:24 AM

Yes, just cast common-sense to the wind, ignore the scriptures, become one with the 'inner god' inside of you and you will find pleasure, for a season. Please keep in mind that you have an appointment, that one day you will be called upon to give an account of every single idle word that you have spoken. You will be asked why you ignored The Lord, and chased Him away, every time He tried to speak to you.

Balder

June 24th, 2004, 10:26 AM

That's one way of looking at it ... and when people treat religion superficially, I guess it happens a lot... But another Buddhist way of looking at a multiplicity of approaches is skillful means ... starting where you're at. Some people won't respond to certain ritualistic or contemplative or legalistic approaches, others will. Start where they are and find a way in, towards transformation. Of course, this only works when there is wisdom in the system as a whole, with a teacher or pastor or community to guide you.

There are 84,000 gates to the dharma, but without wisdom, it's just a circus!

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Balder

There are 84,000 gates to the dharma, but without wisdom, it's just a circus! What's dharma? A city in hell? There is only one Gate to The Presence of The Father, God, and that is Jesus.

philosophizer

June 24th, 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by beanieboy

Wow, this is the first time I have ever read this thread.

I've never really thought about it - that you have an idea of God, and then you search for a religion or denomination that fits in with your denomination, as if you fit God into your thinking, rather than allow God into your reality.

Hate people? Find a place that validates your anger. Concentrate on the wrath of God, play down turning the other cheek, emphasize, an eye for an eye.

Want to have a loving God? Do the opposite.

Want excitement? Believe in Pentecostalism, and jump around, and believe eveyone else doesn't have the Spirit, but YOU do. Oh, yeah.

Want a conservative God? Become a Lutheran. Think that Pentecostals are a bunch hippies. Stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down. Lots of order. When someone yells out, "Praaaaaise you, Jesus", tell them , "We don't do that here."

I've never thought of that, but that's what it seems to be - that people fit God to their beliefs, rather than fitting themselves to God, and then accusing everyone esle of being wrong. When you question their beliefs, they run behind their idol they call God, and say, "well, it's God, not me."

Not very honest.

Like many things this has bad effects and good effects. It's not always a question of honesty, but of purpose.

Granted, conforming God to what you want to believe about Him is dishonest and illogical. We should all be interested in the Truth that God offers us.

But at the same time, there isn't necessarily one definitive approach to that Truth. We are all made to worship God in different ways. Some jump up and put all their emotion into their praises. Some calmly reflect on God's meaning in their lives. Some weap at the Love God has given them. Some become soldiers for the cause of Truth. Some are comforters to those in pain. Different purposes for parts of the Body of Christ and different methods of worshiping.

Yes, some (maybe even many) take the backward approach of molding God to their needs. But many (maybe only some) are merely being true to their purpose.

Balder

June 24th, 2004, 10:38 AM

Aimiel,

I may regret saying this, but I really think you have a lot of audacity to put Jesus' face next to the ugliness you so often write...

:(

B.

On Fire

June 24th, 2004, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Balder

Aimiel,

I may regret saying this, but I really think you have a lot of audacity to put Jesus' face next to the ugliness you so often write...

:(

B.

He speaks truth, not a bunch of Beatles lyrics.

beanieboy

June 24th, 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by philosophizer

Like many things this has bad effects and good effects. It's not always a question of honesty, but of purpose.

Granted, conforming God to what you want to believe about Him is dishonest and illogical. We should all be interested in the Truth that God offers us.

But at the same time, there isn't necessarily one definitive approach to that Truth. We are all made to worship God in different ways. Some jump up and put all their emotion into their praises. Some calmly reflect on God's meaning in their lives. Some weap at the Love God has given them. Some become soldiers for the cause of Truth. Some are comforters to those in pain. Different purposes for parts of the Body of Christ and different methods of worshiping.

Yes, some (maybe even many) take the backward approach of molding God to their needs. But many (maybe only some) are merely being true to their purpose.

My teacher expressed this well. He said, "If I am not jumping up and screaming, "Defense, Defense" at a basketball game, am I still enjoying the game?
Everyone is different. I agree.

It's just that once you claim that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, that you become lost yourself.
From personal experience, many Pentecostals believe that unless you are baptized in the Spirit, speak in tongues, are slain in the spirit, etc., you aren't REALLY following God. You are simply going through the motions. You haven't really started living for God.

As I have said before, some Catholics will tell you that only they are Christians, only they believe the truth, and some believe that Lutherans and other Protestants will burn in hell - and seem happy about it.

Who of us can honestly say we have searched for God, and found something other than what we thought we would?

beanieboy

June 24th, 2004, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Balder

Aimiel,

I may regret saying this, but I really think you have a lot of audacity to put Jesus' face next to the ugliness you so often write...

:(

B.

For me, I have begun to associate Jesus with the ugliness he speaks.

That's how I have come to view modern Christianity.
It is what you want it to be. Wrathful, ugly and mean.
Kind and gentle.
All of it can be backed up. Ignore the parts that contradict your thinking, attack anyone who proves you wrong.

beanieboy

June 24th, 2004, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Balder

That's one way of looking at it ... and when people treat religion superficially, I guess it happens a lot... But another Buddhist way of looking at a multiplicity of approaches is skillful means ... starting where you're at. Some people won't respond to certain ritualistic or contemplative or legalistic approaches, others will. Start where they are and find a way in, towards transformation. Of course, this only works when there is wisdom in the system as a whole, with a teacher or pastor or community to guide you.

There are 84,000 gates to the dharma, but without wisdom, it's just a circus!

Does one have to have a teacher to understand Buddhism?

Balder

June 24th, 2004, 11:04 AM

No ... but I do think it helps, along with regular meditation practice.

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Balder

I may regret saying this, but I really think you have a lot of audacity to put Jesus' face next to the ugliness you so often write...What, precisely, do you call ugliness? Perhaps you could be just a little more specific?

Balder

June 24th, 2004, 11:17 AM

Well, like using the phrase "taking out the trash" to refer to killing people in war.

beanieboy

June 24th, 2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Balder

No ... but I do think it helps, along with regular meditation practice.

Got a suggestion of what branch?
Zen? Or something else?

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by philosophizer

We should all be interested in the Truth that God offers us.

But at the same time, there isn't necessarily one definitive approach to that Truth.Jesus (and me, too) differ with you on this:

Jesus saith unto him, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life: no man cometh unto The Father, but by Me."

He didn't say, "There are other ways," as you would have us believe. He didn't say, "Maybe," He said, "I am..." and that means that He is. He didn't say, "One of the ways," He said, "The Way," which means The Only Way.

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by beanieboy

Who of us can honestly say we have searched for God, and found something other than what we thought we would? Honestly? I don't dare to offer you anything but my honest opinion, except scattered Bible verses, and what The Holy Spirit might reveal to me, on your behalf.

I have found Him. He is absolutely nothing like I pictured, and is vastly different, both in His Manifestation of Himself and His Words to me, each and every single time that He speaks. He is Perfect, and Holy. I have seen His Holiness. It is too much to face. It is too Good and too Great to understand (with the mind) or to explain (with flesh). He is so full of Grace and Truth that He cannot be comprehended by us. He can be perceived, by our spirit, who is in perfect communion with His Spirit, if we are saved; but He cannot be comprehended by our flesh. That is not something that I have ever read about or even heard of, it is what I have experienced: Him. He is available, but only to those who seek Him with all of their heart.

Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Balder

Well, like using the phrase "taking out the trash" to refer to killing people in war. I can't help but believe that if Saddam were still in power, that many more would be dead, who oppose him; and that the torture, rape and murder of his own people would have continued, after his demise, under his sons. Yes, Saddam and his cronies are 'trash,' compared to an elected official, such as Clinton, though he made a mockery of the Presidency, he did not do anything that surprised anyone who did not vote for him. If we are going to make moral decisions and attempt to keep at least a semblance of justice in this ammoral and un-just world, we are going to have opponents, such as yourself, who, at times, will need to be put to death, to keep the greatest number of people safe and free. If you like the people that we have had to attack so much, why don't you join them? They need someone to carry explosives, since most of the ones that they've sent out haven't come back from their 'missions.'

Killing is never anything but a last resort, when God is in the heart of a leader, and is only committed to with great misgivings and much prayer. It is still, 'taking out the trash,' even though you can't understand that.

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by beanieboy

Got a suggestion of what branch?I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Balder

June 24th, 2004, 11:35 AM

...we are going to have opponents, such as yourself, who, at times, will need to be put to death...

What are you saying here, Aimiel?

beanieboy

June 24th, 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Aimiel

Honestly? I don't dare to offer you anything but my honest opinion, except scattered Bible verses, and what The Holy Spirit might reveal to me, on your behalf.

I have found Him. He is absolutely nothing like I pictured, and is vastly different, both in His Manifestation of Himself and His Words to me, each and every single time that He speaks. He is Perfect, and Holy. I have seen His Holiness. It is too much to face. It is too Good and too Great to understand (with the mind) or to explain (with flesh). He is so full of Grace and Truth that He cannot be comprehended by us. He can be perceived, by our spirit, who is in perfect communion with His Spirit, if we are saved; but He cannot be comprehended by our flesh. That is not something that I have ever read about or even heard of, it is what I have experienced: Him. He is available, but only to those who seek Him with all of their heart.

Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.

If he is honestly different than you imagined, please illustrate how he is different. Give a description of what you thought God would be, then what he was.

I will say this:
I was taught that God sat on a throne somewhere, and sat there marking off everything you did wrong. Catholics have to bring the list in to the father, and say they are sorry, so that they can be forgiven. Lutherans are just expected to say you are sorry to God, and ask for forgiveness. Then, one day, you die, and then you kneel and the powerful God, who supposedly loves you, even though he demands blood for forgiveness, and would just as soon squash you as a bug for getting out of line. In short, a frightening, abusive parent.

What I have found so far is that this being or spirit lives with you as much as you live. He is standing on his head to get your attention, and once you realize that, it filters through you. You can't help but give to others, and like a fire, it spreads. You don't keep track. You just let it flow. Everything is done. Everything is connected to God.

But something works to keep you from believing that, from enjoying life. It sets up hurdles, and demands that you jump, tells you that if you don't, the love dries up. Dance. Faster! Faster!! Give up music! God hates music, unless it's elevator music. Give up anything pleasurable. Certainly God hates, things that make us happy. Don't listen to your heart that keeps asking you softly, "Why are you doing this to yourself?" Tell your heart it's a liar. Use your head, not your heart.

I'm going to hell, it says!! You're going to fall off a cliff, it says!!

What me while I jump off the cliff and fly.
Follow me if you dare.

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 11:39 AM

Merely explaining your options. You can oppose the rule of law, or you can agree with it. There is no grey.

Balder

June 24th, 2004, 11:42 AM

Who are you intimating will carry out this execution? God, or one of his "servants"?

How is this kind of thinking any different from that of the Muslims you call evil?

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by beanieboy

If he is honestly different than you imagined, please illustrate how he is different. Give a description of what you thought God would be, then what he was.I thought that He would be impossible to ever hear from... He is forgiving and loving, and always has something to say to His Beloved.

I thought that He would never allow me into Heaven, since I was the greatest sinner of all time... I had only kicked the bucket that I have now dumped, refilled and dumped again, many times over, of my sins. He longs for us to come to Him, through Jesus. There is no other way.

I thought that He would be a great big, scary 'thunderer' like Thor or Zeus... He is soft and gentle, He can speak more in silence and with just a puff of wind than the greatest theologians can with volumes of books.

I imagined Him to be far away... He is closer than my next heartbeat. He is within me, and fellowships with me.

I saw Him as a cold, distant and strict schoolmaster... He is peaceful, loving and closer than a brother.

I perceived Him as demanding... He gives us so much more than we could ever repay Him. The song, "Amazing Grace," doesn't scratch the surface of what we owe Him.

I thought that He would send me to hell, because He doesn't want sinners... He showed me that He loved me, even before I sought Him, so much that He sacrificed His Own Son, on my behalf, so that He could prove how Great That Love of His is. (Watch) me while I jump off the cliff and fly.
Follow me if you dare. OK. :kookoo: :LeoVolnt:

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Balder

Who are you intimating will carry out this execution? God, or one of his "servants"?

How is this kind of thinking any different from that of the Muslims you call evil? I don't believe that God kills or has killed anyone. I don't know who is His Servant and who is not. I see people, many times profess to be His, who don't know Him; and again, I see people all the time that do His Will, and don't realize how close they are to The Kingdom.

Also, you can't understand the gospel, objectively.

Balder

June 24th, 2004, 12:03 PM

Your sentence sounded awfully threatening, like you were saying that one day Christians would have to put non-Christian "opponents" to death. If you didn't mean that...I'm glad to hear it!

beanieboy

June 24th, 2004, 12:05 PM

I didn't expect you to understand the last part. You will.

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Balder

Your sentence sounded awfully threatening, like you were saying that one day Christians would have to put non-Christian "opponents" to death. If you didn't mean that...I'm glad to hear it! I don't believe that was a part of our commission. We were told, "Go ye, into all the world. Preach the gospel to every creature," not, "Kill everybody that won't listen to you." We are to shake dust off of our feet when we are not welcomed by a city, but I don't think that means to open fire with automatic weapons, or to plant bombs. We're to spread good news, God is ready to have a relationship with anybody that wants to, not that He has come to an end of His Patience. That will happen, one day, but until then, He is reaching out. Even when His Patience comes to an end, He will not utterly destroy, but He will patiently try to get men to repent. In the last moment, before His return, He will destroy all of His Enemies, with His Word.

Balder

June 24th, 2004, 12:26 PM

I'm glad it's not Christians who are supposed to put people to death. But I'm not clear if you're saying God puts people to death. You seemed to say it, retract it, and then say it again.
In fact, you said, "...at times, will need to be put to death..." I notice that you said, "at timeS," which gives a different impression than the single, big End Event you are talking about now.

So, come to think of it, I'm not at all sure what you're saying.

Aimiel

June 24th, 2004, 12:37 PM

God is not willing that any should perish, but they do, all the time. His Perfect Will for everyone is that they might be saved (from eternal destruction). Not all are willing. He also permits men to police themselves, which is why He doesn't intervene in wars. We need to make sure of our convictions, stand for them, and be willing to defend them. If we aren't, then we are worthless.

No, God doesn't kill anyone. The Truth, fully exposed, will destroy all opponents. When Jesus returns to this earth, nothing more than what He has already said will be released, in full force; and all those who oppose Truth will die, due to the presence of The Truth. His Glory is too great for men to withstand. Those who are not aligned with Him will fall. It will happen because of their sin, and not because of The Lord 'striking' them, except with Truth. No one will have a single word to say against the judgement of The Lord. Perfect Justice will be brought upon all those who are not washed in The Blood of The Lamb.

wickwoman

June 25th, 2004, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

He speaks truth, not a bunch of Beatles lyrics.

Dear AS and Amiel:

Try evaluating what you say like this: "Is what I am saying intended for my own benefit (to save face, to puff up my ego, to cause others to laugh at the person to whom I am speaking) OR is it intended for to edify the person I am speaking to?"

It's a very simple rule. I fear, however, AS would not have much to say if he followed it.

beanieboy

June 25th, 2004, 08:13 AM

That's good advice. I will follow it myself.
I really don't want to get sucked into it.

(btw ww, you made a journal entry again. Thanks.)

wickwoman

June 25th, 2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by beanieboy
Who of us can honestly say we have searched for God, and found something other than what we thought we would?

Exactly! Our concept of God is a reflection of what exists in our mind. None of us has met him/her, therefore, we have no real understanding of God. However, you would think that an impression of God should be based on the highest and best that we as mere humans can conceive of. Unfortunately, some God concepts are lowly and very human, not at all what you would expect from a higher being.

wickwoman

June 25th, 2004, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by beanieboy

That's good advice. I will follow it myself.
I really don't want to get sucked into it.

(btw ww, you made a journal entry again. Thanks.)

Thanks BB, you're helping me get one step closer to Nirvana!

On Fire

June 25th, 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by wickwoman

Dear AS and Amiel:

Try evaluating what you say like this: "Is what I am saying intended for my own benefit (to save face, to puff up my ego, to cause others to laugh at the person to whom I am speaking) OR is it intended for to edify the person I am speaking to?"

It's a very simple rule. I fear, however, AS would not have much to say if he followed it.

wickedwoman,

My purpose is to expose people spouting new age spirituality/god of the smorgasbord drivel for what they truly are: crack pots.

wickwoman

June 25th, 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Balder

What are you saying here, Aimiel?

This sounds like Aimiel reverted back into his predecessor - Famous Gandalf 7. FG7 used to say all kinds of threatening things but the TOL staff thought he was just doing us all a big favor.

On Fire

June 25th, 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by wickwoman

Thanks BB, you're helping me get one step closer to Nirvana!

Buy the CD.

wickwoman

June 25th, 2004, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

wickedwoman,

My purpose is to expose people spouting new age spirituality/god of the smorgasbord drivel for what they truly are: crack pots.

I thought I was a Godless Pagan:kiss:

On Fire

June 25th, 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by wickwoman

I thought I was a Godless Pagan:kiss:

You are.

servent101

June 25th, 2004, 08:43 AM

She is not.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

On Fire

June 25th, 2004, 08:49 AM

You both are.

beanieboy

June 25th, 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

wickedwoman,

My purpose is to expose people spouting new age spirituality/god of the smorgasbord drivel for what they truly are: crack pots.

:chuckle:

One of my favorite Twilight Episodes:

"...the man's a communist...he should be discharged immediately."
"...the man is morally objectionable...he should be discharged immediately."

"Look at them, look at them out there...carrying evil around with them like cold germs. That's when we'll make it occur, we'll make it occur at four o'clock...we shall destroy evil."

"Are you threatening me Mr. Crangle?"

"...I don't threaten people. I compile them...I investigate them..."

"Mrs. Chloe Williams...evidences of subversion.. None, negative personality traits.. Curiosity.. Ignorance."

"At four o'clock we're gonna expose evil. Strip it bare..."

"...I wouldn't go in there without police protection, that man's got a leak in his attac a mile wide!"

"...He's a stranger then to you, a perfect stranger?"

"A stranger, yes. But not a perfect stranger. As a matter of fact, your husband, Mrs. Lucas, happens to be most imperfect."

"...on the night of March 12th, 1961...he permitted the death of one Mrs. Angela Riente..."

"...Your husband is an evil man! I will not put up with evil in any form..."

"Mr. Crangle, why? Why do you do it? Why!"

"Why? You ask me why? Because they're evil."

"...That's it...that's what I'll do... I'll turn all the evil people into little ones... At four o'clock in the afternoon... every evil man and woman will be exactly two feet tall..."

"It is rather for us to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us."

"It's my understanding that the Reds are in complete control in Washington now. "

"...All the evil people of the world have banded together. Communists, subversives, thieves... It's a total, complete, worldwide conspiracy." "...I've made a complete study of evil...I make phone calls late at night... calling these terrible people, constantly, late at night, waking them up..." "In 33 Minutes, all the evil people in the world will become... a third their present size... " "How does evil spread? By public transport. So I had it in mind that I might take the stiffness out of airplane propellers..."

"...Have you ever had any psychiatric help?"

"...Why should I need help? I'm not evil." "Don't you realize how many evil people you'll be able to find? They'll be all over the sidewalks..."

"...What are you gonna do about it?"

"Nothing Mr. Crangle, not a thing...Mr. Crangle...we have the law." "Let me tell you something... You better enjoy yourself for the next 15 or 20 minutes... because you're gonna be two feet tall!"

(bird) "...Nut..."

"...Judgement day, judgement day is upon us. It won't be long now."

"It's happening Pete. It's happening right now.... All the evil ones, they're all turning into tiny little gnomes."

To his surprise, he reaches up to hand her bird a peanut, but the man passing judgement is only two feet tall.

What's the moral of this story?