Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

A question, not offensive in the slightest.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-221 of 221 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jun 2012 17:45:35 BDT
Spin says:
Acts: But just because a belief in God existed thousands of years ago, does not mean God exists. The belief in Santa Claus goes back centuries, but that does not entail his existence..=) If you cannot prove that God exists, all beliefs and arguments based on that premise, no matter how much they are based on experimental verification, cannot be taken as truth. E=MC2 is a fact independent of religious belief. If you argue that God made it so, then you have to prove God exists and show how and why he made E=MC2. Simply assuming that he "created" the phenomenon is faulty reasoning.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 14:56:19 BDT
Acts5v29 says:
Good afternoon Spin,

There is an obstacle: the insistence on a certain class of evidence. There are many things for which evidence is no longer available, yet that they were in existence and active nevertheless - the weakness is human lifespan and attestation which would satisfy the modern doubter (on whatever). There was more than merely a belief in God in the nation of Israel - God formed an interactive part of their history. The scriptures attest to this, and even their enemies at the time attested to it, but that is not enough for some modern touchstones of proof.

The idea of declaring a kind of Pol-Pot year 0 - before which all is nullified - is very easy to declare (he even managed to enforce it) but adherence to that view requires stronger "faith" than does belief in God Who was acknowledged - rather than merely believed in - throughout many generations.

This does, actually, touch on an important point of which you may not be aware:

There were many prophets - and many intervntions by the Almighty - during the lifetime of the nation of Israel. Since the Messiah, we have had none. This is a feature of the reason for the Christ - attested to by ancient copies of the scrolls (long before the year zero mentality of denying God) - that man was to walk not by Law, but by faith from now on. At the end of this era, when God intervenes, we will all know that He exists - whether people like the idea or not - because His intervention willl be world-wide. The point being... these are the last few decades in which to show faith, but when God intervenes, those obstacles to faith - by which I mean not sincere disbelief, but those which are determined to hinder belief - will be seen as lacking the wisdom and brilliance of mind that they portray today.

Take away that determined manner, add a little credence and remove the battle, and all people can move forward. While that obstructive attitude persists, debate is superfluous - the "pearls before swine" counsel was to preserve both the peace of those who love Him and the respect for the dignity of God and the scriptures, as well as the prospects for those who may, like Saul of Tarsus, be only temporarily obstinate.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 16:00:28 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hya PP,
They are already working on this.....

Have you ever fantasized about traveling into outer space, or even landing on the moon? While this used to be a far-fetched concept for the average American, over the next few years space travel may actually become more within reach thanks to advances in ongoing research and technology advances in the aerospace field.
The Space Tourism Field
There are currently five private citizens who have journeyed all of the way into outer space as of March of 2008. A sixth person is slated to join the list in the fall. All of the participants to date are billionaires and millionaires, which is a prerequisite at this point to take such a flight if you aren't a professional astronaut, since the current costs are, in fact, currently "astronomical". But a larger number of people (at least a few hundred or more so far) have gone up to 80,000 feet, which is just on the edge of the earth's atmosphere. From this height, passengers can see both the darkness of where space begins and the earth's curve.
A Rapidly Advancing Field
The last time a man walked on the moon was 25 years ago, but someday in the not-too-distant future, this may be an experience others can share. At least that's the goal for several private companies, who are racing to move the stakes, and the flights, higher. They are raising money and coming up with spaceship designs that will, hopefully, make space travel accessible for many more people around the world. There are even plans to someday have hotels and resorts in outer space, and for this to become a popular tourist destination in future decades.
Helping to spur on the technological advances in the aerospace industry is a contest sponsored by Google that is offering a $30 million prize for the first group that sends a spacecraft back to the moon. The idea behind this competition is to prove that more accessible and lower-cost space travel can be made possible through private, non-governmental groups.
The Options
Meanwhile, there are several companies competing to use the latest technological advances and research to their advantage in making outer space a feasible destination for people from all walks of life. One of the leaders in this area is called Space Adventures, which is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia and basically serves as a space travel agency. Space Adventures not only helps arrange the specifics but also has been successful in launching a variety of space programs itself to date, including taking private explorers to the outer limits, creating zero-gravity flights and achieving high altitude experiences. In addition, the company offers a suborbital journey that allows passengers to experience weightlessness 62 miles above the earth. This zero gravity state lasts for just a few minutes, but the unique experience will forever remain with its participants.

The ballpark cost $100 - 200 million.............

How are you getting on with your search for a new job.. Perhaps you could do an OU in Space Travel for starters? :)

Mx

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012 20:20:54 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012 14:09:30 BDT
doctor_jeep says:
Naturally theology is concerned with the study of religion and religious matters - if you do not accept the basic presmise of religion, why concern yourself with theology?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012 14:14:27 BDT
doctor_jeep says:
Essentially, yes.
"Hell" is the inescapable result of not choosing God (at least according to Christian theology anyway) - if someone wants to choose that, then God appears to be prepared to let them have that choice.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 06:41:52 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jun 2012 07:08:40 BDT
Withnail says:
You got to love god don't you - he's a bit of a tyrant but he tries his best and his hearts in the right place.

It's not a free choice. If you are threatened with eternal damnation for a lack of belief then the dice has been shaved. So how is that free will? Judgement happens post mortem, therefore no chance for redemption once judged - again not a free choice.

That is why Pascall's Wager is so persuasive to Christians.

The truth is that god does not exist, but the most successful way of recruiting fresh recruits to Christianity is to warn people that they are going to hell, and only god can save them. I think that is a tad negative - don't you think it would be better to focus on the positive elements of belief???

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 09:47:56 BDT
Acts5v29 says:
Good Morning Withnail,

I may disagree with you on the existence of God, but you have touched on the very reason why God has been rejected.

For some reason, there is a vast swathe of Christians which see nothing wrong with using their love of God as an excuse to terrorise others. The truth of God is very, very different from that hell-and-damnation rhetoric, and God's judgement is quite, quite different from what they preach. The truth is extrordinary simple, beautiful, and far more just than many could ever imagine.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 09:56:15 BDT
Why is your interpretation more valid than those other interpretations?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 09:09:44 BDT
Acts5v29 says:
Good morning Sam Hunter,

It is difficult to hold a less valid interpretation than one which uses the love of God as an excuse to terrorise others.

Comparisons aside though, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is hard to evaluate the taste of something by looking from a distance, which is to treat it merely an object and its important essence is not evaluated at-all by sight. The news that something which has the appearance of being distasteful and poisonness is actually beautiful might prompt genuine interest in those who would give it credence. If the report that God is not returning with a slaughter is a intriguing, the proof of it will be a relief. But as in all things, you can't taste things from a distance.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 10:06:11 BDT
But that doesn't tell me why those other interpretations are less valid than yours. Both interpretations use the same source material as support, so by what do you measure an interpretation in order top determine its validity?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 10:52:00 BDT
Acts5v29 says:
Good morning Sam Hunter,

===
"... It is difficult to hold a less valid interpretation than one which uses the love of God as an excuse to terrorise others."

- But that doesn't tell me why those other interpretations are less valid than yours.
===

Yes it does. A measure is graded on its construction, not the thing it is measuring. If an interpretation looks through the eyes of hatred for non-believers, then that is how it will measure the scriptures.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 11:05:07 BDT
"If an interpretation looks through the eyes of hatred for non-believers, then that is how it will measure the scriptures."

Could you explain further what you mean by this as I'm still not seeing an answer to my question.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 11:40:00 BDT
Acts5v29 says:
Good morning Sam Hunter,

I'm sure you understand. Those who want to see destruction on others will find a way of seeing it in the scriptures, and those who do not want anyone to see at-all will block their way. But the scriptures are very simple - enough to show God's character as beautiful and benevolent.

If you want an answer which will satisfy you completely, then you will have to read the scriptures for yourself. Then you will be able to grade - to your satisfaction - which interpretation is "more valid".

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 11:46:52 BDT
I've read them. The problem is that they're not unambiguous. That some people can see in them hatred while others see love is an illustration of this. My point is that by what standard do you suggestions the validity of an interpretation? Or are you just assuming that God has got to be the loving version?

Posted on 13 Jun 2012 12:09:31 BDT
Acts5v29 says:
Good afternoon Sam Hunter,

If you've read the scriptures in their entirity then you've done more than many Christians have done. The problem in interpretation shows a lack of understanding of what the theme of the Bible is, and what the scriptures are. When God's original purpose is remembered, then all of the following events will be seen in the correct context. God's purpose was for a world in which Mankind would have all other things under their care, to grow under God's tuition and to reflect His character in their its own. When those first steps went awry, He did not destroy those who rebelled and start again, but allowed Mankind to learn that it could not survive without Him. Now we're learning, because the climate crisis is proving too strong for us.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 12:35:56 BDT
Well, that's just your interpretation.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2012 10:12:02 BDT
Acts5v29 says:
Good morning,

Perhaps you have proved me to be a "prophet", because I knew several posts ago that you would say that eventually - or more likely, you telegraphed it. Withnail in his previous post ended with the words:

===
I think that is a tad negative - don't you think it would be better to focus on the positive elements of belief???
===

There is no mystery to the Bible, and Christendom has been wrong to obfuscate its simplicity.

The climate is a nemesis to us Withnail, as you probably appreciate, but Almighty God always knew we would reach this position. We have been allowed to learn from experience that we need Him in order that we know where to turn to for help - He will not destroy non-believers at the very hour of our understanding. That is the context in which we have "progressed" and the very theme of the Bible. He showed His patient character at the beginning: He did not simply re-started Mankind with replacement - non-rebellious - people, which would perhaps have been the more "human" way of setting things right. Instead His purpose has been for us to be re-united under His care - for the Prodigal Son to return and be welcomed by Him - and to benefit from the far-sightedness and guidance which we have so patently been unable to supply to ourselves.

Belief aside, we all see the climate crisis escalating toward a terminal state for us. Some will consider the rescue in light of God's character, and some will demand an infinite recursion of "valid reasoning" before even considering Him - but the crisis will escalate nevertheless.

The Divine Rescue will preserve everyone and with no judgement on anyone at-all; it demands no worship from us, not even belief, but for those who do comprehend, it will take away the fear for the years of climate shocks which lie ahead for us. There is nothing to lose except fear, and no obligation at-all. So is it wise to repeat the intransigence of those policymakers who discarded all the scientists' warnings when the price of considering God's rescue is not even belief?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2012 22:36:26 BDT
Spin says:
Acts: I can see no difference between your use of the word "God" and others use of the word "Nature" in your previous argument..

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 09:52:03 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 15 Jun 2012 09:54:47 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 09:56:00 BDT
Acts5v29 says:
Good morning Spin,

===
Acts: I can see no difference between your use of the word "God" and others use of the word "Nature" in your previous argument..
===

what seems to be the difficulty?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  221
Initial post:  30 May 2012
Latest post:  15 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions