Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ABT Religion Thread
#1
Rollo and gstanford's conversion thread!!!

Yes! Let's convert Rollo and gstanford to Christianity! Come join me as we preach at them!

I'm just kidding guys!

Let's keep it clean in here, ok? No fighting! No personal attacks! No flaming!

Angel
Reply
#2
(08-20-2015, 09:20 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Rollo and gstanford's conversion thread!!!

Yes!  Let's convert Rollo and gstanford to Christianity!  Come join me as we preach at them!

I'm just kidding guys!

Let's keep it clean in here, ok?  No fighting!  No personal attacks!  No flaming!

Angel





As noted, I support the church in general and think they're largely a positive factor in the world.

I even get how anthropomorphizing "God" would be necessary on multiple levels. (allow us to understand, establish positive/negative reinforcement)

I'll stick with my flavor of agnosticism, thank you.
Reply
#3
Conversions eh? Good luck with that! You'll be needing it!

BoFox and to a lesser extent SickBeast remind me of Meredith out of Dragon Age 2.......
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#4
There are just too many fossils like this one:

[Image: skull-aspidorhymchus-lge.jpg]

[Image: hutteFieldMuseum_21.jpg]

https://www.google.com/search?q=fossils+...4&bih=1551

HUNDREDS MORE IN THE LINK ABOVE.

Look at how MANY fossils of FISH eating FISH, sometimes just halfway chewed up, still not yet fully swallowed. 

LOGIC 101 that science forgot:


Fossils are rapidly formed, under extreme pressure scenarios.  Usually, most of these fish are squashed (almost always sideways).  The same goes for most other mammals, like the frozen mammoth that was vertically compressed while standing up.  Fossils do not form over "millions of years".  The death and the extreme pressure scenario should have been rapid enough to put digestion to a halt (which would normally disintegrate all the skin and flesh with the stomach acids over 2 days or so). 

Sure, they could have been flash-frozen like the mammoths (but for deep water to be flash-frozen this quickly means temperatures have to plunge to -150C - anything warmer and the surface would only freeze while the fish dive deeper).  How hard is it for fish to just freeze in the water like that?  (The mammoths had TEMPERATE leafy plants still freshly chewed in their teeth and stomachs, not yet digested - meaning -150degrees C would have been the minimum for flash freezing of them all the way through their mammoth bodies instantly, not like in the Star Wars movie, where we can just cut open the stomach and sleep in it for warmth).  

Regarding the mammoths - during the ice ages, how could they survive eating arctic plants, if smaller elephants need to eat ALL day long (hundreds of pounds of food each day), which is only available in the thick vegetation areas of Earth (let alone 6 months of arctic snow cover, which would freeze their trunks, along with giant ivory tusks acting like a huge heatsink for the rest of the body)?  Mammoth's hair isn't even fur like the types covering arctic animals - it's not the kind that keeps the snow from getting trapped inside the hair fibers and then giving the skin a frostbite.  Just because they have some hair doesn't mean they were arctic animals (like sheep with thick wool, living in the hottest areas of Earth).  Ordinary elephants today cannot even survive just 2 nights of freezing temperatures - a well known fact across all zoos worldwide.  

[Image: mammoths-berezovka_mammoth.jpg]

See the mammoth's erect penis that is flattened at the end? 

To find out more, as to why:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineboo...moths.html

Big Grin    Big Grin   Big Grin
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#5
Gstan might try to paint me as a fruitcake idiot, so I just have to defend myself here and prove that I'm not a complete idiot, that's all.

(btw, the first image above came from: http://creation.com/two-fish-and-pterosa...d-together ) but I don't really like this site as it sounds too "preachy".
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#6
Video 


Reply
#7
Where is that pic of Jesus riding a Dino?
Reply
#8
LOLOLOL!!! Well, the Bible did mention "Behemoth" with a tail swinging like that of a cedar tree, and even Leviathan (which is what Gstan loves to spend his time fighting off in his fantasy world anyway).

Damn me, the damn Bible thumper!!! Scourge me with some fireballs, shall you! Wink
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#9
(08-20-2015, 06:07 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:



As noted, I support the church in general and think they're largely a positive factor in the world.

I even get how anthropomorphizing "God" would be necessary on multiple levels. (allow us to understand, establish positive/negative reinforcement)

I'll stick with my flavor of agnosticism, thank you.

Rollo, you do have a really good "take" on this whole perspective.  So I should quote your lengthy posts that you spent some time contemplating on in your life, so that we could continue the discussion on such. 

Right now, I don't know what to say, about your good "take" on such.  Really great, though.
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#10
Rollo Wrote:I hope there's a benevolent "God" and have been known to pray.

I don't think there's a "God" that's a guy like us with magic powers as described in the Bible.

Such a being would have no use for human traits like jealousy, wrath, vengeance.

Let's say you have an anthill in your yard and the ants worship your wife as god because she dropped a donut one day. Are you jealous of the ants loyalties? No.

Let's say your son or daughter admires another adult. Are you jealous of the adult? No.

Let's say the ants eat your prize rose bush? Are you vengeful, or disappointed so you dump some poison on the ants pretty much without any feeling one way or another?

To "god" we'd be ants. As an ant, I understand I can't understand "god" but I hope he/she is less human than the Bible makes him out. (because we have issues)

Rollo Wrote:Be that as it may, I'm not on board with the idea that a being who exists outside of time and can create worlds out of nothing is going to sit around thinking, "Crikey, this monkey is worshipping the Sun of all things! For this transgression I will torture him for eternity! The Sun! Pfft! Hope he likes it hot!"

Or "Good job at accepting Jesus Mr. Hitler! Got a comfy chair waiting in Heaven for you! You fucked up Ghandi! Putting you in Hell with the other undesirables!"

Or "I think I'll create this race of people, and give them free will. I'll put the choice in front of them to get reward and bliss beyond compare for eternity if they jump through some hoops, but if they fail to jump, going to torture them through eternity. I'll complicate the matter by not showing up for 2000 years, but hey, there are libraries and televangelists- they should figure out the way not to be tortured!"

Too much doesn't add up for me to accept the established dogma, but I am definitely open to the idea our origins weren't random chemical mixing, and we don't know where the chemicals came from in the first place.

I'm smart enough not to try and figure it out, so no cult here.


Above quotes from Rollo from the butchered thread. 

Great contemplation, and great philosophy, dude!  Living intelligence within us and before us in the "here and now" should not be discounted nor under-estimated, no matter how much the "authority" likes to claim a know-it-all stance as to the unintelligent/non-intelligent universe based on raw primordial soup alone.  I'll get back to you on this someday.
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#11
Thanks BoFox, very nice of you to say.
Reply
#12
(08-21-2015, 12:45 AM)BoFox Wrote: Gstan might try to paint me as a fruitcake idiot, so I just have to defend myself here and prove that I'm not a complete idiot, that's all.

(btw, the first image above came from: http://creation.com/two-fish-and-pterosa...d-together ) but I don't really like this site as it sounds too "preachy".

Ironically, he called you that when he was simply asked him to do the thing he was demanding you do: show proof.

He claims that science has all the answers and proves everything is laughable. Scientists have failed on every level, from the smallest to the largest they have not found any hope of true understanding. From the invention of 9 to 11 magical alternative dimensions to psychic subatomic particles that Must be conscious.

You can tell gstanford is from an older generation because science has taken a serious turn into the magical and mysterious the past few decades. The worst part is that even the scientists cannot agree, they have opposing theories in all directions.

What is he gonna do? Just throw out all the research and conflict, the discoveries of the last several decades? The ideas and answers that science had proudly proclaimed didn't stop with the announcement, they were just stories, ideas......theories. As time went on, new people and new generations went on in these areas. Better instruments invented and deeper scientific studies. Huge massive holes show up in every area. Science has found it increasingly harder for the pretty stories they made up to hold water. The Big Bang is held together with duct tape and 11 imagined dimensions and parallel universes. Is it so hard to imagine a spirit realm when science claims alternate dimensions and parallel universes that can have an effect on our own when certain things happen there?

Anyone who claims we understand the world we live in well with science is also speaking from old and aged beliefs. We have since found out that we know very very little about the true existence we are in here on earth. Science has proven it to be completely unlike anything we ever could have thought. So whacky, everyone is scrambling now because the entire world we thought we knew crumbled
Reply
#13
You know I honestly think that the concept of God and religion is too hard for some people to deal with. For whatever reason, religion just doesn't work for everyone. For the agnostic and atheist people, it just doesn't work. I'm sure that they have had people in their life who tried to help encourage them to believe, but for whatever reason it just didn't happen. Arguing with people like that really goes nowhere. You guys can be logical all day with gstanford and point out all kinds of logical facts, but the truth remains that he will probably never truly understand the way we think. And he will probably be happier for it. I can't explain the reason but that's what I feel about this.
Reply
#14
Gstan is just an extremely angry atheist, that's all.  He can believe in the "authority" of the institution of science all he wants, and entertain the massively world-dominated speculation theories like the string theory, dark mass and dark matter, big bang, and macro-evolution.  But since 99.999+% of these "believers" do not know the exact data and the mathematical equations for themselves (actually, most ordinary physicists with a Ph.D. do not know how to apply Einstein's Theory of Relativity mathematical equations, and there isn't a single person on Earth today who can even understand half of Maxwell's (not Nvidia's Maxwell) equations from the 1800's), they're basically eating the whole platter without even taking a grain of salt.  

The Big Bang theory was invented by a science fiction writer, which quickly got popular with the cartoon diagrams in the late 40's and really took off in the 50's.  For the Big Bang to require that 10^90+ molecules of Hydrogen came out of pure vacuum, while bending all scientific laws (strong force, weak force, electrostatic force, and even defying the law of gravitation), it sounds frighteningly religious to me.  The declared formulation of the big bang theory requires that the above universal laws did not apply until after the first few minutes after the big bang took place.  

The strange thing is that the 1st Amendment is allowing for this to be taught at all public schools and universities as the holy grail of truth while allowing very little freedom for other popular theories to be taught as well.  

This is honestly the dumbest religion I've ever encountered in my life.  Parallel universes might just as well be heaven and hell, eh?  For the Big Bang to defy all laws of physics, bring everything out of absolute nothingness (vacuum), and create intelligence and so on...  might just as well be the illogical creation magic (defying all laws) while refusing to mention the creator.  

Funny times.  

Red shifts and radiocarbon dating just need to be better understood by the "conservative" traditional scientists, and not continue to be taken at face value (which is absolutely embarrassing for science as of 2015).

So, it's ok for the big bang to defy all physical laws, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws?  

EDIT- I know Sickbeast is tired of religion talk, but Ocre made a good point about traditional science bordering into all kinds of physics-defying theories, matter originating from nothing, parallel universes, etc.. So, what is really true science now? I just want real science, not quack science to be pushed down our children's throats, that's all.
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#15
Bofox, what is even more ironic is you know more about the science behind the Big Bang than gstanford. He just heard the story and now he thinks he has all the answers. "Everything came from the Big Bang", but has no clue about the massive failing effort that thousands of scientists have put into trying to make it work out. Science has already discovered massive issues that can't be fixed. If he knew anything about the Big Bang he would know it's every bit as magical and unreal as any religion out there. The problem is, science doesn't support the Big Bang at all. It breaks every law and is inconceivable so much so that 1 parallel universes are made up just to make the math work out. That is insane
Reply
#16
That's not saying I believe the universe is 6000 yrs old, I actually believe Einsteins original ideas were right. The universe is static and much much older. It was only when Einstein accepted this Big Bang as fact, then he lost his way. For a long time he denounced the Big Bang, becoming a target of ridicule. Then Hubble showed real data that said the universe was expanding, Einstein was man enough to admit he was wrong and so he did. He went mad trying to put things together, from then on things just didn't come together. There was no fixing it though, because he accepted a false idea based on limited data.

The Big Bang was never the reason the universe was expanding. The expansion isn't driven by it now, which everyone agrees to. So if not now, then why would it have to had been then? Everyone jumped to conclusions way to fast and now we have dark matter and dark energy plus 11 made up invisible parallel universes in an attempt to duct tape this thing together.
Reply
#17
Hey Ocre, let's have another look at Hubble's "real" data....  back when the world was discovering all kinds of facts about chemistry at near-light-speed, that pretty much all of them seemed to blow us away with the same force of grace..  

The "speed theory" of the red shift was measured on the galaxies, and the more distant they appeared to be, the greater the measured red shifts were.  They applied the Doppler effect, and ruled out all other possible things - that was BEFORE Einstein came up with his wonderful theory that gravity affected light.  It wasn't even Einstein's "Special" Theory of Relativity, but the General Theory of Relativity that predicted this, and afterwards, proven by the sun when starlight was being bent by our very own Sun.  

So, there's no such thing as a "blue shift", if the Doppler effect were the case with some stars or galaxies moving TOWARDS us, rather than AWAY from us.  It is nowhere to be seen or observed.  Yet, the Universe isn't just an empty spherical ball, that has everything on the surface, and is empty on the inside - it's the complete opposite of being such a "ball", with everything inside.  If we're moving closer towards any given star even on the other side of our galaxy, or another galaxy in our rotating cluster, there should at least be a "blue shift" if the Doppler effect works both ways.  However, this isn't the case.

First, gravity (like with the black hole), acts upon light.  This was firmly rejected for decades following Hubble's epiphany, actually in order to help build Hubble's case.  This itself would have put the Big Bang theory to crumbles, as such initial gravity would present itself as a center point, and be detectable with the CBR - where the black body radiation isn't so uniform and omni-directional, but rather radiating all in one direction from the same point.  Before the CBR was proven to be omni-directional rather than radiating from one source, there was just too much publicity and rapport acclimatizing CBR as proof of the Big Bang, past the point of no return, among millions of scientists, that years later, it was already past the point of no return.  
Imagine trying to take down the Vatican because the Pope was proven to be a incestuous child molester raping his own granddaughters, and that all the Popes in the past did the same thing as part of a secret Vatican ritual?
Another thing is that in addition to gravity affecting light (first predicted by Einstein, and now routinely proven by distant galaxies presenting themselves as mirror "doubles"), is that light could actually slow down as it loses energy traveling large distances over time (which would still hold true to the law of its relation to the source which naturally has gravity bound upon light photons anyway).  OOPS - that's a huge "no-no" with the institution that we have built upon and placed so much faith in, saying that light has absolutely zero mass......   Great times of confusion and contradiction!  

Yet, the temperature of the dust inside our own galaxy is shown to be roughly the same as the CBR, which is actually 2.7 degrees K, lower than the estimate of what all of the starlight in the universe around us should giving us (~3K).  

Parallax measurement is the only current reliable method of determining star distances.  The European space agency just sent out a Gaia mission to accurately measure parallax distances of thousands of stars, past the ~10% margin of error for about 300 light years, as is possible from the surface of Earth.  Now, we can finally get fairly good measurements for up to 3000 light years away (beyond that on the scale of nanometers should be taken with a grain of salt as light is again shown to dynamically curve with gravitational perturbations during its course).  I'm real excited that Europe is taking matters into their own hands, doing something that NASA would never do, but then I'd still be careful with the accuracy estimates - it's just too tempting to boast and exaggerate anything just to build authority.  

The redshift of quasars is whole another can of worms.  A few quasars have actually shown redshifts to be greater than the magnitude of "c", the speed of light, LONG after quasars were believed to prove the age of the universe.  With the current "expansion" theory, these quasars have to be moving away from us faster than light.  Of course, NASA doesn't really want to talk about this data at all - it's not fun to entertain discoveries that put the Big Bang theory at risk, unless light actually moves at a different speed at a different time/part of the universe.  The history of quasar discovery is very interesting, with over 4,000 quasars discovered to date.  One of the most renowned astronomers of all time was denied telescope time at the observatories (and relieved of his status here in America) because he started creating a map showing that these quasars were actually connected to the galaxies, with most impressive collection of distant galaxy/quasar data ever gathered (since the early 1980's).  
Quote:Halton Arp graduated cum laude from Harvard in 1949 and earned a Ph.D. from Caltech in 1953 (also cum laude). His first postdoctoral position was as an assistant to Edwin Hubble. He worked as a staff astronomer at Mt. Wilson and Mt. Palomar for 29 years before moving to Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics in Munich. Arp's observations of quasars and galaxies are world-renowned. He is the author of the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies (1963: a collectors' item), Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), as well as numerous articles in scholarly journals. He has been awarded the Helen B. Warner Prize of the American Astronomical Society and the Newcomb Cleveland award of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and served as president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific from 1980 to 1983. In 1984, he received the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award.
http://www.amazon.com/Catalogue-Discorda...0968368999

See how "unpopular" his book is (with only 4 reviews), largely rejected by the institution and therefore by the masses...
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#18
More about the quasars:  
Quote:"By the early 1980s, only one or two had been seen beyond a redshift of 3. There seemed to be a redshift limit beyond which quasars could not be seen . .
"Less than five years later, however, Pat Osmer would be among a host of observers vying for the distance record in the discovery of quasars. Between August 1986 and November 1989, ten quasars were found with redshifts greater than 4. Appropriately, Maarten Schmidt [discoverer of the first one] is a member of the team that has spotted half of them, including the most distant object ever seen—a quasar at redshift 4.73 [almost 500 percent!). Discovered in late 1989, quasar PC 1158+4635 is receding at a rate equivalent to a distance of nearly 14 billion light years.
" 'If the age of the universe is 15 billion years [as predicted by the Big Bang theorists], this quasar was emitting light just over 1 billion years after the Big Bang,' says Donald Schneider of Princeton, a co-discoverer with Schmidt and fellow astronomer James Gun, 'which places some serious constraints on theories of galaxy formation.' Suddenly, the theorists seemed to be running out of time for the standard schedule of events that were supposed to have led to the creation of galaxies. If those most distant quasars had somehow formed at an accelerated rate, they showed no sign of such behavior. As Schmidt put it, One of the interesting things about our redshift 4.73 quasar is how normal it is. Except for its great distance, it shows no significant differences from other quasars.' Debate continues as to the implications of these long-distance beacons... [and] perhaps, lend support to Arp's challenge." —*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 68-69.

And as of 1990:
Quote:As of the latter part of 1990, 30 (thirty) of these "faster-than-light" quasars have been found.
Quote:
"Some of this [quasar] material is extremely puzzling to astronomers, because it appears to be moving faster than light (According to Relativity Theory, light is the fastest-moving stuff in the universe. Thus the faster-than-light-quasars—or super-luminary quasars—shouldn't exist. But they do.
"It is thought that there is some illusion with these bizarre objects. . It may be an illusion, but its exact nature isn't yet understood.
"There are 30 or so known super-luminary quasars."—*Star Date radio broadcast, Tuesday, November 6, 1990.

HOW COME?????????????    FASTER THAN HUBBLE'S CONSTANT (light traveling at nearly 6 trillion miles per year)?  How can massive bodies travel faster than light altogether, and yet still form into massive rotating bodies that somehow coalesced? 

My theory is that these quasars were so much dense than the nearby connected galaxies, so they had much greater "pull" on their own radiating light, than the light that the neighboring galaxies were emitting.  But the "religion" of the 15-billion-year old Big Bang theory was already written in stone, and therefore immutable, not allowing for any modification of the red shift speed/distance theory.  It's what they kept Stephen Hawking alive, from being a complete vegetable, and it would be too embarrassing to admit that Hawking was only used as a wisecracking puppet during desperate times. 

Also, correction with the previous post about the galaxy dust needing to heat up:
Quote:"It is a known fact that there is dust absorbing a fraction of the galaxy's light. Therefore, this dust must be heating up. If the galaxy really is billions of years old, our galaxy's dust would be pretty hot by now, approximately 100K. It would emit a 100K blackbody radiation spectrum many orders of magnitude more intense than a 3K blackbody spectrum. The 100 degree spectrum certainly would be there. If the 3K radiation is a leftover from the big bang, say, 10 billion years ago, then the galaxy would contain two superimposed blackbody spectra. The spectrum from the big bang would be centered at 3K, and the spectrum from galactic dust heating would be centered at 100K.

"Since there is only one measured blackbody spectrum as far as we know, and since galactic gas and dust heating does occur, the one spectrum must be due to galactic dust and gas—the spectrum consistent with a recent creation."

Also, it seems to make sense that the universe is actually rotating!!!  If you guys want me to explain more, I can try!!!
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#19
Bofox, why do you believe the universe is 6k yrs old? The bible doesn't actually say this. You have to know that that, even if you accept the bible as the word of God, the New Testament was slung together hundreds of years after Jesus. There were many books and scrolls floating around and they just picked a few. This wasn't a book but a collection of material from different sources, not knowing 100% where the originals were and who actually wrote them,

Counting the Jesus lineage to estimate the earth age is flawed, the two books that speak of his bloodline path don't agree. This is a major issue.
Then, right off the bat.....in genesis, the lord says one day on earth is like 1000 yrs in heaven and one day in heaven is 1000yrs on earth. You see, you can't trace back the time of creation like that. The bible does not tell.....
Reply
#20
If you use this guy's thesis, the earth may actually be 7,000 years old: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answ...ennium.php
Valve hater, Nintendo hater, Microsoft defender, AMD hater, Google Fiber hater, 4K lover, net neutrality lover.
Reply
#21
(09-02-2015, 04:57 PM)ocre Wrote: Bofox, why do you believe the universe is 6k yrs old?  The bible doesn't actually say this.  You have to know that that, even if you accept the bible as the word of God, the New Testament was slung together hundreds of years after Jesus.  There were many books and scrolls floating around and they just picked a few.  This wasn't a book but a collection of material from different sources, not knowing 100% where the originals were and who actually wrote them,

Counting the Jesus lineage to estimate the earth age is flawed, the two books that speak of his bloodline path don't agree.  This is a major issue.
Then, right off the bat.....in genesis, the lord says one day on earth is like 1000 yrs in heaven and one day in heaven is 1000yrs on earth.  You see, you can't trace back the time of creation like that.  The bible does not tell.....

I'm not exactly sure yet, nor do I ever know if I would know for sure, but I definitely do believe that Noah's flood took place less than 5K years ago, having read a few books replete with references and supporting evidence for such - too logical, that traditional anti-flood evolution science cannot hold a candle to science that allows for recent world-wide flood.  As to the universe, perhaps some of what we're seeing could actually be part of the heavens. 

Star creation is nowhere to be seen.  No single person has ever found evidence of a star being created.  A supernova expels only 10% of the mass, and only 2 (TWO) supernovas have ever been observed within the past 300+ years.  At this rate, we should be observing 1 supernova each year in our own galaxy, let alone millions of other galaxies (which should be flashing like fireflies mating night in the summer).  Our sun does not produce heat by nuclear fusion, but by shrinking its diameter by 5 feet per hour (which is more than enough for all the heat produced, but only enough to last for 15 million years max).  The light spectrum does not match any of the hydrogen bomb explosions - all nuclear fusion reactions give off an equally massive array of neutrinos, but the sun gives off none. 

Revelation says:  "and the whole moon became like blood; 13and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. 14The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.…" 

If God is that powerful, being God, why be surprised if God can do these things.  If God is infinite, perhaps it's a sneeze for him to just create trillions upon trillions of stars in a flash, without breaking a sweat, and then amaze us with the vastness of it all? 

Anyway, I don't really want to talk about what I believe here (which is a personal choice anyway).  I just want to discuss the specifics of what we have observed thus far, and what makes the most sense with each detail.  I don't like the topic of this thread - would like to just change it to "controversial scientific discussions" or something like that.  Oh well.  We have lots of facts and data, and having another look at them is what the world will be doing for a LONG time anyway.
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#22
(09-02-2015, 09:14 PM)BoFox Wrote: I'm not exactly sure yet, nor do I ever know if I would know for sure, but I definitely do believe that Noah's flood took place less than 5K years ago, having read a few books replete with references and supporting evidence for such - too logical, that traditional anti-flood evolution science cannot hold a candle to science that allows for recent world-wide flood.  As to the universe, perhaps some of what we're seeing could actually be part of the heavens. 

Star creation is nowhere to be seen.  No single person has ever found evidence of a star being created.  A supernova expels only 10% of the mass, and only 2 (TWO) supernovas have ever been observed within the past 300+ years.  At this rate, we should be observing 1 supernova each year in our own galaxy, let alone millions of other galaxies (which should be flashing like fireflies mating night in the summer).  Our sun does not produce heat by nuclear fusion, but by shrinking its diameter by 5 feet per hour (which is more than enough for all the heat produced, but only enough to last for 15 million years max).  The light spectrum does not match any of the hydrogen bomb explosions - all nuclear fusion reactions give off an equally massive array of neutrinos, but the sun gives off none. 

I just want to discuss the specifics of what we have observed thus far, and what makes the most sense with each detail.  I don't like the topic of this thread - would like to just change it to "controversial scientific discussions" or something like that.  Oh well.  We have lots of facts and data, and having another look at them is what the world will be doing for a LONG time anyway.

I have stayed away from these threads but looking at your timeline I see many flaws.

You can see Star creation right here, Jupiter is a failed Sun. If it ignited we would be a binary Star system.

As far as your question of why we don't see a bazillion Super Nova's is because man hardly can see beyond our nose. It wasn't very long ago when the Telescope was first made and we can tell the difference from a planet VS a Star.

Open your mind beyond our tiny little spec of the Universe and you will realize we are just an Ant.
Reply
#23
Bofox, don't think it is ridicule. The two people that seemed really bothered are gone. You had powerful counter arguments and they had no rebuttal. This frustrated and angered them.

But not everyone is like that. It is quiet alright to have different views and we can learn from each other. When I asked you, it wasn't to mock or attack. Please don't think that.

The rest of us totally accept your spiritual nature. I am spiritual. I believe 100% that there is more to it, that there is intelligence underneath it all: from DNA and species evolving to the universe. There is so much we really don't understand.

So I am not challenging you like that. I am not trying to put you out there. The last thing you are is a fruitcake. Those were just lashing from people loosing a leg to stand on.

I read all of our post and try to read as much as I can on the links you provided. I certainly am not against you or your beliefs.

But for me, I don't subscribe fully to anything. I challenge and question everything, even my own ideas and thoughts on a daily basis. See, I don't believe anyone has all the answers. Nor do I believe that anyone knows the full truth. The is part of being human, we will always have that struggle. That is what makes us man.

The most important trait we have is our imagination. This is what separates us from all the creatures we know. If you really think on this, you will see that tools and words are all an extension of this imagination. We create the world around us, as we image. But as great as this gift is, we lack the ability to truly know. We share our imagined world to one another, in the words we made up. But words only allow us to share the idea, share imaginations.

I don't have a lot of time but I just wanted you to post back to you. I believe our imagination and ego is evident in everything we do. We have to feel like we know, it is our insecurity.

I believe no one has all the answers, no book will get you to heaven. Heaven being just another thing we can only imagine. It is up to you to grow your spirit, let your soul guide you.

Your spirit is like a plant, it will grow towards the sun if you nourish and tend to it. Listen and follow your light. It is great to research and try to figure things out, but those are just words. They can be interpreted so many ways. We are so insecure and this causes us to look for the answers. But inside, your spirit needs to grow. Your life, your love, your joy. Listen to your soul and let it lead you.

Reading about Noah and Abraham, most people focus so much on these stories. But you have your soul and your own journey. Your relationship will be like no one else's. It is why you are here and why you search.

It doesn't matter how old the earth is. People can say 4 billion or 6000 yrs old but not a single person can conceive even 1000yrs. There is the feeling we have to prove this to everyone, prove God. But it doesn't matter, this is just a battle of mankinds insecurities. I believe the earth is neither, not 6000 and not 4 billion. We are all writing stories......

The more interesting part is why. Why do we have to come up with a number, why is everyone pushing this version or that version. Why can't we be satisfied knowing that we may not know.......
Reply
#24
(09-03-2015, 07:16 AM)ocre Wrote: Bofox, don't think it is ridicule.  The two people that seemed really bothered are gone.  You had powerful counter arguments and they had no rebuttal.  This frustrated and angered them.

One very quick last post.

I didn't lack rebuttals. I have explained the difference between facts and theory before here. Theory is different to fact and changes. There may be many different theories over time but the facts always remain the same. Very recently Hawking has revised his black hole theory. I've always been somewhat skeptical of the big bang theory.

However, that doesn't change the facts. The cosmic background radiation is detectable and measurable and many separate experiments have done so (and will continue to do so in future to better understand it).

BoFox's god has never been detected or measured.
Adam knew he should have bought a PC but Eve fell for the marketing hype.

Homeopathy is what happened when snake oil salesmen discovered that water is cheaper than snake oil.

The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. -- George Carlin
Reply
#25
(09-03-2015, 07:16 AM)ocre Wrote: It doesn't matter how old the earth is. People can say 4 billion or 6000 yrs old but not a single person can conceive even 1000yrs.

The more interesting part is why. Why do we have to come up with a number, why is everyone pushing this version or that version. Why can't we be satisfied knowing that we may not know.......

True especially since man made up the "Year".

I beg to differ on the 1,000 years though. 3 or 4 generations covers 100 years roughly so extrapolating out 10 more times is not a stretch.

My wife is into Genealogy and she has gone back 9 generations 300 years so far.
Reply
#26
(09-03-2015, 07:29 AM)gstanford Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 07:16 AM)ocre Wrote: Bofox, don't think it is ridicule.  The two people that seemed really bothered are gone.  You had powerful counter arguments and they had no rebuttal.  This frustrated and angered them.

One very quick last post.

I didn't lack rebuttals.  I have explained the difference between facts and theory before here.  Theory is different to fact and changes.  There may be many different theories over time but the facts always remain the same.  Very recently Hawking has revised his black hole theory.  I've always been somewhat skeptical of the big bang theory.

However, that doesn't change the facts.  The cosmic background radiation is detectable and measurable and many separate experiments have done so (and will continue to do so in future to better understand it).

BoFox's god has never been detected or measured.

Hey!  Welcome back!  Rollo seems to need you real bad around here...   you're like his precious fuel to keep on going on!  Ha, Rollo!

Well, did you even check on the cosmic background radiation?  It's exactly 2.73 degrees K, which is actually less than what was estimated for all of the starlight to be giving us (3 degrees K), and is OMNI-directional (radiating from all directions rather than from one source).  Near perfect uniformity of the CBR goes completely against the lumpy nature of the universe that should have been quite lumpy since Year Two of the universe to begin with. 

And if we can measure God, would God really be God rather than us who are arrogant "gods" capable of reducing God to the confines of our yardstick?
Ok with science that the big bang theory requires that fundamental scientific laws do not exist for the first few minutes, but not ok for the creator to defy these laws...  Rolleyes
Reply
#27
(09-03-2015, 07:44 AM)dmcowen674 Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 07:16 AM)ocre Wrote: It doesn't matter how old the earth is.  People can say 4 billion or 6000 yrs old but not a single person can conceive even 1000yrs.  

The more interesting part is why.   Why do we have to come up with a number, why is everyone pushing this version or that version.  Why can't we be satisfied knowing that we may not know.......

True especially since man made up the "Year".

I beg to differ on the 1,000 years though. 3 or 4 generations covers 100 years roughly so extrapolating out 10 more times is not a stretch.

My wife is into Genealogy and she has gone back 9 generations 300 years so far.

Hey, let's say that each generation has 5 surviving kids per family on average (before birth control), and it all started from one couple:  5 kids has 5 kids each = 25, then 125.  That's the first 100 years
Then 125x5 = 625, then x 5 = 3125, then x 5 = 15625 within 200 years
Then x 5 = 78125, then x 5 = 390625, then x 5 = 1953125 within 300 years  (that's like the population of Cyprus)!
Then x 5 = 9765725, then x 5 = 48 million, then x 5 = 240 million  within 400 years (nearly the population of the United States)!
Dare we go for 500 years?  We'd already reach a billion people within just 1 more generation, let alone 3 more generations before reaching 500 years!  Of course, wars, famine, etc.. all slow this down, but if people could live 900 years - just imagine!!!    Hahahahahaha..  

Well, the world has "transformed" in unimaginable ways within the past 100 years or so anyway!
Reply
#28
(09-02-2015, 11:04 PM)dmcowen674 Wrote: I have stayed away from these threads but looking at your timeline I see many flaws.

You can see Star creation right here, Jupiter is a failed Sun. If it ignited we would be a binary Star system.

As far as your question of why we don't see a bazillion Super Nova's is because man hardly can see beyond our nose. It wasn't very long ago when the Telescope was first made and we can tell the difference from a planet VS a Star.

Open your mind beyond our tiny little spec of the Universe and you will realize we are just an Ant.

Agreed with the bottom line, by a mile!!  At least I don't have the audacity to claim the age of the entire universe, let alone Earth, when we never were able to accurately determine the distance of the most notable nearby super-giant Betelgeuse within 20-30% margin of error, for all of these decades when estimated to be 600-700 light years away (or much worse like 1000 ly) depending on the source after we had the gall to write down the age of the universe.

Regarding the explosions - "In relation to the frequency of stellar explosions that had to occur in order to satisfy the requirements of the Big Bang theory, and with 100 billion stars just in our own galaxy, at least 500,000 stars should explode yearly in our own galactic system. And this would be a low estimate."
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch02.htm
Now, we certainly have gazillions of telescopes pointing at the sky, yet we still aren't seeing any at more than 1/500,000th the rate that should be expected according to the age of the universe.  Either the universe is at least trillions upon trillions of years old, or real young.  

Well, both Jupiter and Saturn are already "ignited" in a way, in that they give off more heat than the heat that is received from the Sun.  Yet, it's impossible for hydrogen gas clouds to just coalesce into a sphere without it already being tightly compressed in the first place in the form of a ball.  Perhaps it's best for me to just quote the scientific journals (or at least the Evolutionists):

    “Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.” George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470.

    u “Talk about a major embarrassment for planetary scientists. There, blazing away in the late evening sky, are Jupiter and Saturn—the gas giants that account for 93% of the solar system’s planetary mass—and no one has a satisfying explanation of how they were made.” Richard A. Kerr, “A Quickie Birth for Jupiters and Saturns,” Science, Vol. 298, 29 November 2002, p. 1698.

It's because the properties of gas in a vacuum just simply do NOT coalesce, unless it was already in liquid or frozen state suspended in space - which is not possible due to solar radiation and zero pressure instantly vaporizing these particles.  Another huge problem is for an orbiting rocky planet even 10 times as massive as Earth to just "collect" all of that gas before it is rapidly driven out of the solar system by expansion from heating up and also be blown away by solar wind, in addition to light radiation from the sun pushing each molecule away with greater force than Sun's own gravity.  It all has to happen in an instant, all at the same time...  "poof"!  The entire outer solar system (including the Kuiper belt and beyond) does not even have enough hydrogen to form one Juptier.

    “In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, the [theorized] lifetime of the solar system. ‘Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ‘We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’ ” Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,” Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054.

And only 2 years ago, the Nature journal states:

    “Planet formation is a paradox: according to standard theory, dust grains orbiting newborn stars should spiral into those stars rather than accrete to form planets.” Philip Campbell, “Trap Holds Protoplanet Dust,” Nature, Vol. 498, 13 June 2013, p. 141.

As to the dust grains, they're not even spiraling into our Sun... yet?

    "Evolutionists claim that the solar system condensed out of a vast cloud of swirling dust about 4,600,000,000 years ago. If so, many particles that were not swept up as part of a planet should now be spiraling in toward the Sun. Colliding asteroids also would create dust particles that, over millions of years, would spiral in toward the Sun.  Particles should still be falling into the Sun’s upper atmosphere, burning up, and giving off an easily measured infrared glow. Measurements taken during the solar eclipse of 11 July 1991 showed no such glow. So, the assumed “millions of years” and this explanation for the solar system’s origin are probably wrong."
See the Poynting-Robertson effect ( http://www.creationscience.com/onlineboo...#wp1260991 )

And then, NOW THIS:
   
Quote:What has been learned? As one astronomer wrote, these newly discovered planets “spell the end for established theories of planet formation.”8 How do these extrasolar planets contradict evolution theories? One planet has been found in a tight cluster of tens of thousands of stars that would disrupt the evolution of any planet. That cluster is also devoid of the heavy chemical elements thought necessary to evolve a planet.9 At least 30 separate planets each orbit a pair of suns whose constantly changing positions would disrupt any slow evolution of a planet.10 One planet has been repeatedly observed eclipsing each of the eccentric binary stars it orbits. The forty-nine experts who discovered this planet admit that they have no theoretical understanding for how such a planetary system could have evolved.11 One planetary system (having at least two planets) orbits a pair of suns! 12 A Jupiter-size planet has been found orbiting three suns! Its orbit is so close to one star (0.05 AU) that it would have been pulled apart and overheated before it could have evolved. Worse yet, two other stars orbit the first star at a distance of 12.3 AU. They would also prevent the planet from evolving.13 Other planets orbit binaries in other strange configurations.14
    Some planets are so near their star that they are losing mass too rapidly to have been planets for very long.15 Besides, their rocky cores would have melted before the planet’s evolution could begin.16 Others are too far from their star and the dust near the star needed to grow a planet. Also, their slow motion at those great distances would “scoop up” little dust. One extreme example is a planet that is 650 AU from its star (650 times the Earth-Sun distance).17 That great distance may have resulted from the stretching of space during the creation week, as explained on pages 418–430.
    If planets have evolved, friction from the gas and dust around a young star would have circularized each planet’s orbit. Many extrasolar planets have very elongated and/or highly inclined orbits as opposed to the orbits of the planets in our solar system. A few planets orbit their star in directions opposite to the direction the star rotates.18 Neither elongated, nor tilted, nor retrograde orbits would evolve from swirling dust clouds.
    Some relatively cool, “rogue” planets (not associated with any star) are being discovered wandering alone in deep space. Experts admit that, “The formation of young, free-floating, planetary-mass objects like these is difficult to explain by our current models of how planets form.” 19
    One extrasolar planetary system, called Kepler-11, consists of six planets orbiting in nearly the same plane. They are so close to their star that collisions and orbital perturbations should have quickly destroyed their compact, “flat” arrangement20—unless they are extremely young.
    What is clear is that for both our solar system’s planets and for the extrasolar planets, evolutionary explanations have been shattered. Unfortunately, hundreds of millions of people have been misled by claims that planets evolved. Even the “experts” who have been telling us these stories will now admit that they were wrong.21
From http://www.creationscience.com/onlineboo...#wp5215740  (but check out the footnotes!!!)

Mind-blowing, isn't it? Maybe Heaven is spitting out planets along with stars in perfect orbits, when we cannot see them (just like with alien UFO's being rather "elusive" to any scientific proof?)
Reply
#29
(09-03-2015, 08:12 AM)BoFox Wrote: Hey, let's say that each generation has 5 surviving kids per family on average (before birth control), and it all started from one couple:  5 kids has 5 kids each = 25, then 125.  That's the first 100 years
Then 125x5 = 625, then x 5 = 3125, then x 5 = 15625 within 200 years
Then x 5 = 78125, then x 5 = 390625, then x 5 = 1953125 within 300 years  (that's like the population of Cyprus)!
Then x 5 = 9765725, then x 5 = 48 million, then x 5 = 240 million  within 400 years (nearly the population of the United States)!
Dare we go for 500 years?  We'd already reach a billion people within just 1 more generation, let alone 3 more generations before reaching 500 years!  Of course, wars, famine, etc.. all slow this down, but if people could live 900 years - just imagine!!!    Hahahahahaha..  

Well, the world has "transformed" in unimaginable ways within the past 100 years or so anyway!

It's a lot of souls.
Reply
#30
(09-03-2015, 08:22 AM)BoFox Wrote: Mind-blowing, isn't it? Maybe Heaven is spitting out planets along with stars in perfect orbits, when we cannot see them (just like with alien UFO's being rather "elusive" to any scientific proof?)
Ah, you have not seen a UFO have you? Or a Ghost?
Reply
#31
Nope, but would love to see a UFO someday, like my wife swears that she did zooming by several times across the sky, not too far away from her. I can only dream for now...
Reply
#32
(09-03-2015, 07:29 AM)gstanford Wrote:
(09-03-2015, 07:16 AM)ocre Wrote: Bofox, don't think it is ridicule.  The two people that seemed really bothered are gone.  You had powerful counter arguments and they had no rebuttal.  This frustrated and angered them.

One very quick last post.

I didn't lack rebuttals.  I have explained the difference between facts and theory before here.  Theory is different to fact and changes.  There may be many different theories over time but the facts always remain the same.  Very recently Hawking has revised his black hole theory.  I've always been somewhat skeptical of the big bang theory.

However, that doesn't change the facts.  The cosmic background radiation is detectable and measurable and many separate experiments have done so (and will continue to do so in future to better understand it).

BoFox's god has never been detected or measured.

Hmmm,

It seemed you got angry and infuriated so maybe i mistook the situation. Having different beliefs shouldnt automatically lead to anger, it shouldnt bother you. Actually, discussing your own thoughts and beliefs should be fun and worthwhile. I actually love listening to people who have their own strong beliefs. Most of the time, i dont feel the same way at all. I just love hearing how they put things together. I listen and love it. I even try to learn whatever i can.

Anyway, about the big bang. Einstein totally rejected it. He fought it hard but eventually persuaded to concede. I believe he was duped. We all probably can admit that Einstein was a very special person that had understood things on a level we could only dream. We know he failed in the end, when he tried to make sense of the new discoveries and what he knew of the universe. His acceptance of the big bang and the quantum theories just wouldnt come together for him. And it still hasnt come together. It still doesnt add up.

Either we have got some things very wrong or there is some major missing puzzle pieces. Einstein could have been right all along, that there was no big bang
Reply
#33
(09-04-2015, 08:07 AM)BoFox Wrote: Nope, but would love to see a UFO someday, like my wife swears that she did zooming by several times across the sky, not too far away from her. I can only dream for now...
Neighbor kid I grew up with and I had a UFO encounter where we were frozen and missing time. To this day he says he doesn't want to talk about it. I have to wonder if they did something to him.
Reply
#34
Wow.

Dave, what do you remember?
Reply
#35
Sanskrit Writings Reveal UFOs Visited India More than 6000 Years Ago

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/08/29/sanskrit-writings-reveal-ufos-visited-india-more-than-6000-years-ago/


NASA??  Hmm...
Reply
#36
Do you guys really think there will ever be disclosure? Surely if they have been hiding something this big for all this time, they have reasons.
Reply
#37
(08-21-2015, 08:46 AM)BoFox Wrote:
Rollo Wrote:I hope there's a benevolent "God" and have been known to pray.

I don't think there's a "God" that's a guy like us with magic powers as described in the Bible.

Such a being would have no use for human traits like jealousy, wrath, vengeance.

Let's say you have an anthill in your yard and the ants worship your wife as god because she dropped a donut one day. Are you jealous of the ants loyalties? No.

Let's say your son or daughter admires another adult. Are you jealous of the adult? No.

Let's say the ants eat your prize rose bush? Are you vengeful, or disappointed so you dump some poison on the ants pretty much without any feeling one way or another?

To "god" we'd be ants. As an ant, I understand I can't understand "god" but I hope he/she is less human than the Bible makes him out. (because we have issues)

Rollo Wrote:Be that as it may, I'm not on board with the idea that a being who exists outside of time and can create worlds out of nothing is going to sit around thinking, "Crikey, this monkey is worshipping the Sun of all things! For this transgression I will torture him for eternity! The Sun! Pfft! Hope he likes it hot!"

Or "Good job at accepting Jesus Mr. Hitler! Got a comfy chair waiting in Heaven for you! You fucked up Ghandi! Putting you in Hell with the other undesirables!"

Or "I think I'll create this race of people, and give them free will. I'll put the choice in front of them to get reward and bliss beyond compare for eternity if they jump through some hoops, but if they fail to jump, going to torture them through eternity. I'll complicate the matter by not showing up for 2000 years, but hey, there are libraries and televangelists- they should figure out the way not to be tortured!"

Too much doesn't add up for me to accept the established dogma, but I am definitely open to the idea our origins weren't random chemical mixing, and we don't know where the chemicals came from in the first place.

I'm smart enough not to try and figure it out, so no cult here.


Above quotes from Rollo from the butchered thread. 

Great contemplation, and great philosophy, dude!  Living intelligence within us and before us in the "here and now" should not be discounted nor under-estimated, no matter how much the "authority" likes to claim a know-it-all stance as to the unintelligent/non-intelligent universe based on raw primordial soup alone.  I'll get back to you on this someday.

Ok, Rollo, getting back with ya on this as promised, lol..

RE:  "I don't think there's a "God" that's a guy like us with magic powers as described in the Bible."

--Not just magic, but God powers if there is a God..  anybody living from the 1700's warped to today would think that a smartphone has magic powers.

RE:  "Such a being would have no use for human traits like jealousy, wrath, vengeance."
--These are expressions of God's wrath on those who had freedom to choose (yet had personal wrath towards God); yet we can only perceive such according to our own emotions/understanding.  Perhaps it's really a 2-way street - as we're created in the image of God, our own wrath towards the Creator (holding the Creator/Creation, others in vain, etc..) is our own un-doing, a part of wrath itself as a whole.  Like, Hitler's wrath towards Jews all came back to himself, with the ultimate self-inflicted wrath.

RE:  "Let's say you have an anthill in your yard and the ants worship your wife as god because she dropped a donut one day. Are you jealous of the ants loyalties? No."
--If I created these ants, perhaps I'd be a bit jealous, if I was giving infinitely better things than a stupid donut, and then the ants ditched me for something so finite and temporary.  Tongue

RE: "Let's say your son or daughter admires another adult. Are you jealous of the adult? No. "
-Maybe, if the other adult is being admired more than me...  Wink

RE:  "Let's say the ants eat your prize rose bush? Are you vengeful, or disappointed so you dump some poison on the ants pretty much without any feeling one way or another?"
Hell yes, who wouldn't?!?  Ha..

RE:  "To "god" we'd be ants. As an ant, I understand I can't understand "god" but I hope he/she is less human than the Bible makes him out. (because we have issues) "
--Well, we can try our best to be in harmony with the ultimate intelligence of the universe, if the universe consists of intelligence (as evidenced by our own intelligence to the very least here in this universe).  

RE:  "Be that as it may, I'm not on board with the idea that a being who exists outside of time and can create worlds out of nothing is going to sit around thinking, "Crikey, this monkey is worshipping the Sun of all things! For this transgression I will torture him for eternity! The Sun! Pfft! Hope he likes it hot!"

---  Perhaps the definition of "eternity" is really relative to the present life - like I cannot ever go back and change the bad things I did in the past, like with adultery.  Here we are, judging and eternally condemning others for murders done 50 years ago, with DNA findings and such.  Perhaps this is how it could be explained with my limited comprehension of God, if I can relate our own human judges (made in the image of God) to God.  

RE:  "Or "Good job at accepting Jesus Mr. Hitler! Got a comfy chair waiting in Heaven for you! You fucked up Ghandi! Putting you in Hell with the other undesirables!"

---  If there is a God (the ultimate intelligence of the universe), why shouldn't God be the judge? 

RE:  "Or "I think I'll create this race of people, and give them free will. I'll put the choice in front of them to get reward and bliss beyond compare for eternity if they jump through some hoops, but if they fail to jump, going to torture them through eternity. I'll complicate the matter by not showing up for 2000 years, but hey, there are libraries and televangelists- they should figure out the way not to be tortured!"

---  Not exactly "jump through some hoops"....  rather, it's to rest on the Sabbath, to not kill, cheat, etc..   unless you consider the rule "Do not kill" to be like jumping through a hoop?  Jesus said, "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30"For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." 
For the soul, that is, if one could believe this.

RE:  "Too much doesn't add up for me to accept the established dogma, but I am definitely open to the idea our origins weren't random chemical mixing, and we don't know where the chemicals came from in the first place.
I'm smart enough not to try and figure it out, so no cult here. "

---  Well, is the rule "Do not kill" just some established dogma that you'd break if you were a soldier instructed by the President to go out and snipe Al Qaeda members from the roof?  If it's ok in that case, perhaps it's ok if God told David to kill 10,000 enemy soldiers, in that case as well?  I don't even know myself, as I'm not God....  at least I'm not claiming that God is speaking to me and telling me to circumvent some of the commandments.  Perhap it's our nature at large (due to our initial sinful ignorance) to not YET see God, unlike the angels who are of a somewhat different nature/dimension/evolutionary stage in the great universal cycle of life?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)