Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast
Results 97 to 108 of 130
  1. #97
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,314
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The Gay Thread cont.



    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Okay, help me out here, why do you say Catholics are not Christians? Based on the definition in your last paragraph, many I know would qualify as a "true christian"..

    EDIT: disregard, I misread the first paragraph....

    Glad I'm not the only one doing that-lol.

    And thanks for explaining it to Pyite. You said it much better than me as usual and I would have been bopped again for calling him a dick or even a turkey even if I'm attacked first.

    Same kudos to Greg for his points saying it much better than me.

    Also to Darb for his comments on me.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 05-24-2012 at 10:54 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  2. #98
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,314
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The Gay Thread cont.

    One last point on the inspired word of God or 66 points. As someone said, think about these facts:

    _______________________________________
    Think about the above realities: 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents. What’s more, this collection of books shares a common storyline- the creation, fall, and redemption of God’s people; a common theme- God’s universal love for all of humanity; and a common message- salvation is available to all who repent of their sins and commit to following God with all of their heart, soul, mind and strength. In addition to sharing these commonalities, these 66 books contain no historical errors or contradictions. God’s word truly is an amazing collection of writings!
    _____________________________

    And as I keep saying, Daniel's prophesies concerning the rebirth of Israel came true in more than 20 Centuries after he said it would. Same with the discovery and excavation of Babylon and the restoration of Nebecannezera's Southern Palace and the
    Isthar Gate amongst many other dwellings. These are just a few
    prophesies that have come true in our life time.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 05-24-2012 at 10:57 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  3. #99

    Re: The Gay Thread cont.

    Quote Originally Posted by pyite32 View Post
    First off my problem isn't necessarily with Christians I am one... , it's with extremism in all it's forms. Whether it be extreme Christians, extreme Muslims, extreme Right Wing, extreme Left Wing whatever, and you fall into two of these categories. I will continue to argue about anything a zealot spews.

    Second, the picture was a joke (hence the fact that it was an actual line from a comedy show) chill out.
    I wasn't upset about the picture, just pointing out the hypocrisy in the world now where it's perfectly alright to insult Christians but we're expected to respect everyone else. Probably could've worded it better.
    "A moron, a rapist, and a Pittsburgh Steeler walk into a bar. He sits down and says, Hi Im Ben may I have a drink please?
    ProFootballMock




  4. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,454

    Re: The Gay Thread cont.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    A very simple yet profound explanation by renowned scientist Carl Sagan on how something seemingly "magical" has a very real scientific foundation. That is, how a God can interact with our universe despite transcending it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0
    You know, for a smart guy he sure missed the obvious.

    First, there is no "before" the universe since time itself came into existence with it.

    Second, there was NO universe, there was no space so it wasn't some "thing" devoid of matter because there was nothing, as in NO THING. That includes space, time, matter, energy, gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. There was nothing of what we would call nature. This is a mathematical and scientific point and if he or anyone else disagrees they can take it up with Einstein and relativity, which has been proven over and over again by its predictions of experiments indeed being correct.

    Third, since time did not exist outside the universe its cause would be timeless and thus not need a cause. So asking what created God or where he came from is a nonsensical question (or whatever you attribute to the cause of the universe). A simple mental exercise in considering the absurdity of endless causes and effects leading to this point in time should also show that an uncaused cause, or Cause, is required. This was determined even before it was discovered the universe came into existence at a finite point in the past, t=0. You simply can not have an infinite cause and effect process because we would never get here. You can not progress across an infinite amount of anything as there is no point to even start progressing much less some end (in this timeline in this case) to get to.

    It might explain the not-so-hard-to-notice flaws in his design . . .
    These kind of takes show nonsensical thinking. It assumes knowledge of God's purpose and plan for the universe and that is somehows misses the mark. Do you have some insight into the Creator's purpose and that indeed this universe is flawed in some way to fulfill that purpose?

    Your condescension reveals your high view of your intellect but it does not come out into your argumentation here.

    You also completely missed the idea of the being in the higher number of dimensions. You seem to think it has some limitation . . .

    Futher troubling though is the suggestion that our skittish apple-god exists below a manifold of greater dimensions where he can only gather mere perceptual shadows of reality quite like Plato often opined about organic man.
    LOL - seriously, making Platonic references might impress some people but your complete lack of understanding that the 3rd dimensional apple could perceive 2 dimensional space better than 2 dimensional beings shows your ignorance on the matter. It is akin to you looking at a film. You can see all of the film at once, you can even move through the timeline of the film, the various frames and its 3rd dimension much like time, our 4th is to us, freely and without limit, being able to time travel in that world.

    The ability to access another dimension gives a being incredible understanding in all manner of ways and limits it in no way.

    And current science is that beyond our recognizable 4 space and time dimensions are at least 6 more as there is no other way to make sense of gravity and quantum mechanices as we currently understand them.

    Thus, if there is a Creator outside the universe, which is implied since the universe began to exist and something not in it would be its cause, it would more than likely have access to all of these. Further, IT WOULD NOT EVEN BE LIMITED BY THEM SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE THEM!




  5. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,454

    Re: The Gay Thread cont.

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    One last point on the inspired word of God or 66 points. As someone said, think about these facts:

    _______________________________________
    Think about the above realities: 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents. What’s more, this collection of books shares a common storyline- the creation, fall, and redemption of God’s people; a common theme- God’s universal love for all of humanity; and a common message- salvation is available to all who repent of their sins and commit to following God with all of their heart, soul, mind and strength. In addition to sharing these commonalities, these 66 books contain no historical errors or contradictions. God’s word truly is an amazing collection of writings!
    _____________________________

    And as I keep saying, Daniel's prophesies concerning the rebirth of Israel came true in more than 20 Centuries after he said it would. Same with the discovery and excavation of Babylon and the restoration of Nebecannezera's Southern Palace and the
    Isthar Gate amongst many other dwellings. These are just a few
    prophesies that have come true in our life time.
    The most impressive prophecy from Daniel for me is one we all missed including the Pharisees who should have known it better than anybody.

    He told us that after 69 "weeks" or 483 years from the order to rebuild Jerusalem's walls was given (see Nehemiah) that the annointed One would announce himself. This was 483 years before Jesus makes his triumphal entrance into the city.

    Daniel 9: 25 “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem
    Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.

    Luke 19:41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes.

    He cried for them because they should have known that this was the time and he was the one.




  6. #102
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,314
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The Gay Thread cont.

    EXCELLENT BRO.

    But those Pharasees always missed it. They saw all the
    miracles, raising the dead and they still crucified him.

    Dan 9 is also where the anti-Christ reigns and trashes the
    new Temple as part of the destruction you mentioned.

    http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

    Another interesting prophesy coming to light this very moment
    is in Micah 1 where Micah said the Edomites (current day Palestinians including the Hamas) will return to Edom
    (now Jordan) and overthrow the King.

    Jordan is one of the many countries in the middle east that is
    under going revolution as we now speak, just like Micah said
    it would.

    Keep your eye on Jordan and also Babylon as mentioned 4 times
    in Revelation. When the anti-Christ desecrates the temple he
    has to go somewhere.

    Many of us believe he goes to Babylon as mentioned above is
    being restored as we now speak. The US Marines were
    headquartered in the Southern Palace where Sodom Hussein was
    going to move til he ran out of time-lol and they
    trashed the place. Haliburton already fixed things and is building
    more buildings. The Central Bank in Bagdad was destroyed in
    the war and the US moved it close to Babylon.


    The Army turned over the command of Southern Iraq to the
    coalition forces in Babylon. Over 30 flags were flying that day.

    The anti-Christ has to go someone and Babylon is as good a
    guess as any. Then Christ destroys it once and for all.

    This is one way we know the Bible is true and w/o error.



    Great points Greg.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 05-25-2012 at 03:51 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  7. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,454

    Re: The Gay Thread cont.

    One of the most impressive prophetical references in the OT is Isaiah 52:13 through to the end of the 53rd chapter.

    This was written at least 250 years before Christ and long before the Romans were crucifying people.




  8. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,314
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: The Gay Thread cont.

    I never understood it but Christ is the only Messiah that came exactly the
    way it was prophisized in the OT - the only one and they still rejected him
    and still do. He traces his lineage all the way to King David. Of course they
    wanted the Messiah to free them from the Romans while Christ came to free
    them from themselves.

    Nobody else came like this and no one will til Christ returns.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  9. #105

    Re: The Gay Thread cont.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    These kind of takes show nonsensical thinking. It assumes knowledge of God's purpose and plan for the universe and that is somehows misses the mark. Do you have some insight into the Creator's purpose and that indeed this universe is flawed in some way to fulfill that purpose?
    Your understanding of the universe seems sound enough, though I disagree with the notion that you can state with any certainty that its formation is attributed to a "God". Theist religions require an inherent leap of faith that even a deeply religious individual like yourself would have to acknowledge.

    But the larger point is that what you consider nonsensical thinking is to others (like me) considered intellectual curiosity, and that is at the foundation of the advances in science you seem eager to attribute to Christianity.

    I also wonder if you can explain why is it so audacious to ponder in this instance what a "God's" intentions might be, yet in so many other instances his supposed thoughts, ideals, values, and morals are "known" and applied with what you consider certainty?

    The intellectual curiosity I speak of is something I believe to be largely absent from the thought process of those who believe their existence can be explained by a personal God, or through text written thousands of years ago, and many hundreds of millions of years after the creation of the universe as we perceive it to have begun. Overall, the links between theism, its texts, and science as a whole are tenuous at best, and are typically misrepresented.

    The ability to access another dimension gives a being incredible understanding in all manner of ways and limits it in no way.
    LSD has a similar effect. New or altered perceptions enlighten the rather limited capacity of humans to perceive their existence. That's hardly proof of anything (though I agree with your premise).

    Thus, if there is a Creator outside the universe, which is implied since the universe began to exist and something not in it would be its cause, it would more than likely have access to all of these. Further, IT WOULD NOT EVEN BE LIMITED BY THEM SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE THEM!
    This is guesswork. And in light of my own guesswork, I tend to agree instead with Stephen Hawking who said the following:

    "The question is: Is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

    If you feel (like I do) that the laws of science explain everything, you might understand why so many people are not particularly concerned with the prospective marriage of two men or women.
    Last edited by TheExtraPoint; 05-25-2012 at 05:12 PM.




  10. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,454

    Re: The Gay Thread cont.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheExtraPoint View Post
    Your understanding of the universe seems sound enough, though I disagree with the notion that you can state with any certainty that it's formation is attributed to a "God". Theist religions require an inherent leap of faith that even a deeply religious individual like yourself would have to acknowledge.
    Okay, but I am attributing the beginning to God, to what do you attribute it and does that not take a leap of faith?

    The universe cries out for a cause, and the fine-tuning calls out for an intelligent one, as does the existence of morality. This beginning is just one argument in a series I can present that leads to the Cross.

    But the larger point is that what you consider nonsensical thinking is to others (like me) considered intellectual curiosity, and that is at the foundation of the advances in science you seem eager to attribute to Christianity.
    The curiosity or interest is not of issue, the idea that the universe is flawed is. You MUST know the purpose of the universe to know if the design is flawed. To claim one knows this and thus is able to detect flaws as one see it is, IMO, nonsensical.

    I also wonder if you can explain why is it so audacious to ponder in this instance what a "God's" intentions might be, yet in so many other instances his supposed thoughts, ideals, values, and morals are "known" and applied with what you consider certainty?
    Pondering his intentions is one thing. That is quite differrent than claiming knowledge enough to start evaluating his creation based on yhour view on that purpose. Christians certainly ponder why things are the way they are, but to claim the design is flawed without knowing the intent completely is just foolish. And no Christian I know claims this much knowledge of God.

    Beyond that, the flaws are usually something like the existence of evil. I can offer any number of reasons of why God would allow evil to exist. Thus, the existence of evil is not a flaw unless you know God intended for evil not to exist.

    The intellectual curiosity I speak of is something I believe to be largely absent from the thought process of those who believe their existence can be explained by a personal God, or through text written thousands of years ago, and many hundreds of millions of years after the creation of the universe as we perceive it to have begun. Overall, the links between theism, it's texts, and science as a whole are tenuous at best, and are typically misrepresented.
    What? How is believing we came from nothing by chance more intellectually curious than believing we came from a Creator?

    As for the separation of science and Christinaity, Christians in Christian nations developed the scientific method as we know it.

    LSD has a similar effect. New or altered perceptions enlighten the rather limited capacity of humans to perceive their existence. That's hardly proof of anything (though I agree with your premise).
    I am sorry, but I don't get this poiint at all.

    This is guesswork. And in light of my own guesswork, I tend to agree instead with Stephen Hawking who said the following:

    "The question is: Is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."
    What are the laws of science? We have laws of nature which science studies, there are no laws of science.

    And let me make this plain and clear. What we call nature or natural CAME INTO EXISTENCE at the beginning of the universe, to say natural laws caused nature is pure nonsense, Hawking or not. Sometimes smart people say stupid things. This idea of Hawking's has come recently and if you look into the arena of physics you will find Hawking's latest ideas are met with indifference at best. If you asked physicists to rate the current best thinkers in the arena Hawkiing probably wouldn't make the top 20, maybe not even 50.

    If you feel (like I do) that the laws of science explain everything, you might understand why so many people are not particularly concerned with the prospective marriage of two men or women.
    And you are wrong. Science pressuposes any number of things it can not hope to prove. You must presuppose the existence of logic to do science, for example. Thus the scientific method can not ever hope to explain the existence of logic and reason.

    I think William Lane Craig can explain this better:




  11. #107

    Re: The Gay Thread cont.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    Okay, but I am attributing the beginning to God, to what do you attribute it and does that not take a leap of faith?
    The difference between you and I is that I attribute the start of the universe too something quantifiable but unknown, whereas you attribute it to something not yet quantified and yet somehow "known" only to theists who have no real proof.

    The universe cries out for a cause, and the fine-tuning calls out for an intelligent one, as does the existence of morality.
    The correlation between morality and an intelligent cause for the universe is suspect. Morality is better described as a social construct that incidentally varies from person to person, society to society, religion to religion, and so fourth. It often varies within religions themselves. Morality is hardly a finite concept in the human DNA.

    The curiosity or interest is not of issue, the idea that the universe is flawed is. You MUST know the purpose of the universe to know if the design is flawed. To claim one knows this and thus is able to detect flaws as one see it is, IMO, nonsensical.

    Pondering his intentions is one thing. That is quite differrent than claiming knowledge enough to start evaluating his creation based on yhour view on that purpose. Christians certainly ponder why things are the way they are, but to claim the design is flawed without knowing the intent completely is just foolish. And no Christian I know claims this much knowledge of God.
    My issue is not with the perception of flaw in the universe's conception, or the lack of flaw for that matter. What I take issue with is the presumption that there is in fact a conscious, "intelligent" purpose or impetus for the universe's existence in the first place.

    Most of all, even if we both allow that a leap of faith is required to sustain our differing views on the subject, it is the absolutism of theist religion that I take issue with most. Science at least has a standard by which hypothesis becomes fact, even if it has yet to explain the universe comprehensively. Scientists don't claim that no God exists. They don't "claim" anything at all without definitive proof.

    Theists on the other hand assert that their personal God absolutely does explain the universe. Theism is in and of itself a hypothesis veiled as fact by those who view it in a literal context. There is nothing wrong with forming a hypothesis, but there is a problem when hypothesis is presented as fact.

    What? How is believing we came from nothing by chance more intellectually curious than believing we came from a Creator?
    I don't suspect that we came from nothing, but my beliefs are irrelevant. My point is that the belief that science can explain the origin of the universe is by definition more intellectually curious than the view of someone who believes this IS explained by explicitly by the will of a God they can't prove exists to begin with.

    As for the separation of science and Christinaity, Christians in Christian nations developed the scientific method as we know it.
    That's true, but how does Christianity itself explain these developments, or those that have come in their wake? Hopefully you recognize that it doesn't.

    What are the laws of science? We have laws of nature which science studies, there are no laws of science.

    And let me make this plain and clear. What we call nature or natural CAME INTO EXISTENCE at the beginning of the universe, to say natural laws caused nature is pure nonsense, Hawking or not. Sometimes smart people say stupid things. This idea of Hawking's has come recently and if you look into the arena of physics you will find Hawking's latest ideas are met with indifference at best. If you asked physicists to rate the current best thinkers in the arena Hawkiing probably wouldn't make the top 20, maybe not even 50.
    I wouldn't say that nature caused nature. I would say that nature simply is.

    Stephen Hawking is a genius by every reasonable definition, but the quote I provided is certainly speculation on his behalf. The difference again is that he wouldn't claim otherwise. You're supposition about the intelligent formation of the universe is speculation just the same, yet it's often represented in a different way.

    And you are wrong. Science pressuposes any number of things it can not hope to prove. You must presuppose the existence of logic to do science, for example. Thus the scientific method can not ever hope to explain the existence of logic and reason.
    Who is to say that science can prove or disprove the existence of logic (the notion of which is rather convoluted IMO), or the existence of God for that matter? I simply find that one is more likely than the other to occur.

    An early human could not possibly comprehend let alone explain string theory, the pineal gland, or particle collision, so it would not be unreasonable to think that future humans might be able to explain the origins of things we seek to understand but at present do not.

    I'll leave you with this synopsis from another brilliant scientist you may or may not hold in high regard, with a nod to Galileo at the end.





  12. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: The Gay Thread cont.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    These kind of takes show nonsensical thinking. It assumes knowledge of God's purpose and plan for the universe and that is somehows misses the mark. Do you have some insight into the Creator's purpose and that indeed this universe is flawed in some way to fulfill that purpose?
    And here is the intellectual privilege of faith. You have to prove nothing; yet for the scientifc minded, we have to prove all.

    So god creates the human being, an organism that will perish with no water in about 2 weeks. Close to 1 billion of humans in his creation lack access to clean water. 15% of the population of the world is lacking it's second, next to oxygen, most vital resource.

    I see a design flaw. You see it as me not undestanding some divine plan by a compassionate designer. That's convenient and that is intellectually lazy. If the government forced us to drive solar powered cars where 15% of the country was unable to gather enough solar energy to move their cars from their driveway, you would be outraged.

    I could give plenty of examples that deny, for me, a competent creator but for you, no worries.

    The intellectual privilege of faith.



    Your condescension reveals your high view of your intellect but it does not come out into your argumentation here.

    You also completely missed the idea of the being in the higher number of dimensions. You seem to think it has some limitation . . .
    I see another design flaw; god created no sense of humor in you nor did you appear to appreciate Sagan's sense of humor in the mystic attributes he gave his apple.

    LOL - seriously, making Platonic references might impress some people but your complete lack of understanding that the 3rd dimensional apple could perceive 2 dimensional pace better than 2 dimensional beings shows your ignorance on the matter.
    I think my comedy/analogy was more directed at our apple-god not being able to perceive the 4th dimension. I'm glad though, for you, in the end our histrionic apple-god understands our 2 dimensional reality better than we do. I am sure that bolsters your faith.

    And truly, we both know I could never impress you but if by some random chance I did, it would more than likely be quickly couched as an impression from another dimension (surely higher) that you aren't taking your bible studies seriously enough thus making me just a mere messenger.

    Thus, if there is a Creator outside the universe, which is implied since the universe began to exist and something not in it would be its cause, it would more than likely have access to all of these. Further, IT WOULD NOT EVEN BE LIMITED BY THEM SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE THEM
    sorry but this is babble.








Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland