Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2010 - 02:52pm PT
|
Skep- Bravo, way to keep the charge!
You, too, Dr. F.
Complex problems call for the use of many strategies, not just one.
(e.g., like skis AND snowshoes, from another thread)
You, too, rAdam!
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2010 - 03:05pm PT
|
and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
Nah, I think you misinterpreted it still: there should've been a comma after "colt" to indicate that the foal was riding on the colt. Or perhaps another mistranslation was using "an" instead of "his"...
This is the problem with trying to translate ancient dead languages.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2010 - 06:44pm PT
|
"His return as King upon a white horse."
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2010 - 07:47pm PT
|
Furthermore, I am under no obligation(Biblical or otherwise)to proove anything to you
Dood- Sorry you felt personally attacked. I have no ill will towards you personally, or most other xtians in general. Some of the televangelists I'm not so crazy about. I was just responding in kind to gobshite's relentless mindless cut-and-paste posts.
Werner- Isn't that krisna?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2010 - 07:49pm PT
|
Kalki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki
He's living in the Himalayas right now in incognito and will appear 428,000 years from now on that white horse and kick ass .....
|
|
go-B
climber
Matthew 25:40
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2010 - 11:49pm PT
|
Dr. F., I like it that you take a stand! I'll just have to work harder to wear you down?
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2010 - 10:26am PT
|
|
|
go-B
climber
Matthew 25:40
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2010 - 10:48am PT
|
He hits it out of the Park ladies and gentleman...
Credit: Daily Readings from the Life of CHRIST, vol.2, John MacArthur
Sorry wrong Forum!
|
|
go-B
climber
Revelation 7:12
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2010 - 10:23am PT
|
The only reason I got game at all is because of Jesus, otherwise I strike out on my own!
Credit: Daily Readings from the Life of CHRIST, vol.2, John MacArthur
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2010 - 12:14pm PT
|
ah, dr. F--think of me as mister answers's stand-in.
Answer these questions
and without Biblical quotes
Once a quote comes out, I will have to take away credit for not using your brain that God gave you, and thats a sin
If Jesus was resurrected, he came back to life, right?
right on, bro
1) so he didn't die for my sins, right?
but he did! he did! every last one of them, including your sincere challenge to faith here.
2) Maybe he was never dead, he was just in a coma?
not a coma at all. dead as a doornail in that old tomb there, although i'll bet his flesh didn't start to decompose. anyway, he descended into hell and cleaned out that mofo of all the people who had to wait there for him to come along. these were nice old testament people, but couldn't get into heaven until jesus.
3) After he came back to life, what did he do then? go to America?, hang out in Israel?
a little difference of opinion here. the mormons among us will soon be along to tell you about all his splendid doings in america, where he nevertheless failed to excite much among the natives of the time, enmeshed as they were with their pagan myths. it took a nice white guy like joseph smith to find what was left of his efforts. he did this by translating plates written in ancient egyptian which an angel would hold for him behind a curtain. it was great fun.
otherwise, he hung out in israel for 40 days and 40 nights. doubting thomas came along and stuck a finger in jesus's wound. jesus giggled. then he went off to heaven on a cloud but said, "i'll be back". not sure what kind of cloud that was, or how high he went on it, but it was definitely out of sight of his camp followers. i think it was probably just a handy cumulus cloud which he was able to control with his anti-gravity belt. no way it was a stratus, and if it was a cumulonimbus, people would have remembered.
4) or did he fly up to heaven, like superman?
it was just a gentle, gradual elevation to the point of being out of sight. he didn't go beyond the troposphere. probably somebody hang-gliding could have followed him quite a ways, but, if there woulda been a hang-glider then, he just woulda out-distanced him. or her.
5) or did he die again? so his spirit would go to heaven? so he died, then came to life, then died again in a couple hours, then came to life again in heaven, are you sure about that?
here is where the wisdoms of catholicism come in. the catholic church has thought this out far beyond the powers of poor evangelicals to add or detract.
when jesus got resurrected, he got what is referred to as a glorified body. there are two glorified bodies in existence to date, that of jesus and his mom, with whom i'm sure you're somewhat familiar. jesus got resurrected and ascended into heaven, mary's body was assumed into heaven after she died a natural death. this is celebrated by all catholics everywhere on the feast of the assumption. never assume anything, unless you happen to be god almighty him- or it-self. (i think we have established on other threads that there is not a shred of the feminine in god almighty, beverly sills be damned.)
anyway, glorified bodies. that's what you can look forward to, dr. F, if you repent and are saved. on the last day god will resurrect all the good folks and put you into your glorified bodies and you'll live forever. you'll be able to eat, drink and be merry, but forget about having any sex with someone else and his or her glorified body. strictly forbidden by the new rules. if you're interested in anything like sex, it's now or never. drinking beer may also become forbidden, judging from a fun little polka they used to sing in primarily bohemian and german catholic southern minnesota:
"in heaven, there ain't no beer,
"that's why we have to drink it all down here ..."
i won't belabor this part of this answer much further except to note that there were a character or two from old testament days that got swept directly into heaven, did not pass go, did not collect two hundred dollars. ezikiel or elijah or someone like that, name started with an "e". they wrote a song about him (them):
"swing low, sweet chariot,
"comin' for to carry me home ..."
this little factoid does great violence to some of the thinking-through subsequently done by the catholic church.
6) how do we know he was the son of God, are we just taking his word for it?
big loaded words here, bud. jesus never called himself "the son of god", although he often referred to his father in heaven and once let on that, neener, neener, no one comes to the father except through me. but it was other guys that jesus set up to make big declarations about who he was. peter was probably the best at that, and for his reward he became pope peter the first. there hasn't been a pope named peter after that. the legend in italy is that when some mofo chooses the name pope peter the second, look out brother, game over.
or did God say he has sons once in a while, and that Jesus guy is one of them?
we all have "the power to become sons of god" if we join the program, dr. F. give it a shot. let me know how it works out.
Who did he tell that to ?
those who told others and somebody eventually wrote it down. buy a bible. read books on bible scholarship. it'll get a bit difficult to sort it out, but you're a smart guy.
he never told me he can have sons, he told me that if someone says they are the son of God, its Satan trying to trick you into believing in false Gods and spirits
god's talking to you now, dr. F? wow! why am i trying to explain all this?
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2010 - 12:51pm PT
|
i try not to take sides, doc. as i said long ago on this thread, i consider the business of god to be an open question, and i'm quite comfortable with that.
i did learn something, however, just this past week, and that's how to prove euler's problem with the seven bridges of königsberg. sonofagun, it can be proven.
so the question is over to you, dr. F, and i kinda doubt you're up to giving us a reasonable answer: what standards of proof do you require?
ironically, it was euler himself who scared off no less a personage than denis diderot from the court of catherine the great (catherine well understood the business of having sex down here) with:
"Sir, XXX, hence God exists—reply!"
i can't copy in XXX, since i don't have ed hartouni's math rendering program, but you'll find it at the end of the wiki article on euler. if that's not enough for you, you have to tell us why.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2010 - 12:51pm PT
|
See, it's just as Michael Dowd described it in Thank God for Evolution - Today, Christian theology (the bedrock of Christian religion) has been, and continues to be, trivialized.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2010 - 01:30pm PT
|
tony, aside from using TeX (if you want it you can get it... free...) when I find something on the Wiki page I usually just pull the image over and put it between the img tags used on SuperTopoForum, e.g.:
this links to the Wiki image (or any other image), e.g.:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/e/9/7e9e6db7b0e8c3bd81ca5d54ab0302d5.png
it is an academic affectation to add the citation to the article from which the image is "quoted"
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler ]
I often do this by including the image in a url tag with the url pointing at the reference, but this often confuses the reader here who is not certain or is unaware that their cursor changes when passed over the image indicating that it is linked....
...it is frequently asserted that the existence of mathematics is "proof" of the existence of God... it is a strange proof but one that madbolter1 had begun to embark on in other threads on this topic. Essentially the argument goes that mathematics is not deduced from the physical universe, that it is based on some universal, absolute ideals beyond the physical universe, thus proving such things exist, and that the creation of these things must also have been formed from some intelligence beyond the physical, GOD ∎
But this is really an incomplete proof since it has not been shown that mathematics could not have been a consequence of the existence of the physical universe. It is especially interesting as the proposed universality of mathematics is based on the physical evidence (that is, we observe processes taking place in other parts of the universe and infer that these observations indicate that those processes are describable as they are here on earth). We do not know if our description of mathematics is universal (it most certainly is not, it does not even extend to our own, brief history of mathematics among recent human culture).
There are also troubling problems with the completeness of a logical description where consistency of the axiomatic basis upon which Hilbert sought to put mathematics is called into question, see, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems
Also interesting to note that Hilbert's program was to expunge from mathematics the sort of "proof" that my universality argument above uses, that is, proofs based on physical observation (which were common in the 19th century, especially in differential equations associated with hydrodynamics).
So Euler was uncharacteristically sloppy in his mathematics, but he know what side his bread was buttered, vis-a-vis pleasing his royal patrons.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2010 - 04:23pm PT
|
Look at the animals they just look out for themselves and food
Wow. You need to do some simple research before you make ignorant statements like that. I'd agree that humans are the only ones that are destroying the planet by their selfish greed.
Decades of research on animal social behavior contradict your simplistic world view. Here's a start:
John Lilly - Dolphins
Jane Goodall - chimpanzees
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2010 - 05:03pm PT
|
ah, gobee, lad, beware the lurking icebergs of convenient dogmatism. catherine the great sicced euler on poor diderot, not for the lofty reverence of god to which you are annealed, but the subjugation of serfdom therein, to which you are unknowingly annealed, whilst she herself broke many a commandment for convenience and sovereignty. (they say the story is apocryphal, anyway, like so many books about jesus.)
t'was im kant himself, favorite son of the city of seven bridges, who laid out the stark, noble, but, in the end, impossible categorical imperative--"the greatest wonders are the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me"--whisked away as the noble backbone of old prussia buckled to the exigencies of geopolitics down to this day, when the very name königsberg is buried in modern russification and the memory of that imperative--like yours?--prostrate to the demands, and conveniences, of the present.
there may be more to life than our next sandwich, but chaos is only a paycheck away.
ed--what's an axiom, exactly?
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2010 - 05:18pm PT
|
Skeptimistic/rrrADAM,
To begin with, I haven't even finished reading your last posts, but evidently I failed to make it clear to you previously that I rely upon a relationship, a personal one, not what others have concluded. That relationship(spiritual)began on 1957 at the age of 8 yrs old. He intervened during a life and death moment. I had never seen let alone read a Bible at that time. I have had, over the last 50+ years experienced His presence perhaps 8-10 times. It is rare even amongst Christians, but He is very capable of being able to let you know Who He is by His personal presence. The point being is, that He proved to me, by His very presence, who He was over 50 years ago. Since then it has been a growing relationship, nothing needed to be proven on His part, other then that He keeps His promises.
I am in need of no proof. I could care less if it said He rode in on fifty(50)various four footed and cloven beasts...
Furthermore, I am under no obligation(Biblical or otherwise)to prove anything to you. I just present the Good News(and, as in this exchange, attempt to answer your questions). It is up to you to believe it or not. That is your choice. But mark my(and God's)words, you will be held accountable for your choice.
It has been a long time since I studied the scriptures in relation to your question(rrADAM's)of the ass and the colt. Like I said, I had the very same question at that time. Regardless, Jesus will fulfill the Second Coming prophecy, and "All eyes will see" His return as King upon a white horse.
1. You imply that your "confidence" in the existance of God, namely in Jesus, is based on what you interpret as him acting within your life. Now, can a follower of Islam claim the same thing? Seriously, if a Muslim told you that he was shure that that his idea Allah is correct, and listed the same "self evident proofs" that you did, would that make him correct?
Now, if NOT... Then why does that work for you, but not for him? Seriously, why, as you BOTH cannot be correct, right?
2. You also show that you believe this with all your heart, and that what you feel in your heart guides you to the truth... But, we all know that following our heart alone can get us into plenty of trouble, as it clouds our reason, since we'll often go to great lengths to believe what we "want to believe", even when there is ample evidence that we are wrong.
Example... A mother sits in a court room, sees her son in an orange jump-suit on trial for murder... She even sees all of the evidence against him -- his gun, motive, heckm even a video of him shooting the guy... Yet, she will confidently believe in her heart that he is innocent, and not capable of murder. Doesn't mean he's innocent, just means that she's unable to see the truth, due to her emotional belief.
3. You state that you don't bother yourself much with the Bible, as far as your confident belief goes, yet IT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR BELIEF, as where else are you getting your info for the "second coming" that you are so confident about?
See... The thing is, you axiom are incorrect, thus everything built on it is flawed. Just like the statue in Daniel symbolizes... When you distill it down, it is built on feet of clay.
Let me show you a very simple way of highlighting thit FACT, by a simple question:
What would CONVINCE you that you are wrong in regards to your belief?
Your answer (I'm assuming it's: "nothing") to that question shows what I am talking about... As if NOTHING can cinvince you, then you are by definition closed-minded, and blind to any truth other than what you already believe, and even if you are wrong, there is absolutely no way for you to see it, since "nothing" will convince you otherwise.
Can you not see how this type of thinking (let's face it, your "feeling", not thinking here anyway) is flawed?
go-b... Re: animals:
Humbolt squid have a faster nervous system than we do, meaning they think and react faster than we do.
Also, MANY animals show curiosity, which is a sign of higher intelligence, and they wil try to figure things out, just because they are curious. Same goes with play.
You, especially, aren't as highly evolved in regards to some animals as you think you are.
Tony... An axiom is "a self evident truth that needs no proof"... They are what more complex theories or hypothesis are built off of.
Example of a flawed axiom, that lead to the wrong view of reality...
People believed that the Earth was "fixed and motionless" (as per the Bible), and this was "self evident", as they didn;t dfeel motion, and when they jumped up, they came down where they left the ground. That belief was an "axiom", and upon it, theories about how the heavens moved around the Earth were made, even having to come up with elaberate "epicircles" to account for the motions of the planets.
Problem was, that "self evident" truth wasn't correct, thus the axiom was wrong, and all theories based on it were wrong.
That said, people will often start with an arbitrary or made up "axiom" (think: value of a variable) just to see what happens when a theory or hypothesis is made with that axiom... To see if it matches reality.
In the contexct I used the word axiom above to 'dood', is that to the faithful, the (flawed) axiom is that there is a God, and/or that the Bible is correct.
|
|
go-B
climber
Revelation 7:12
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2010 - 05:39pm PT
|
Our pint sized alpha male Chihuahua Peanut, can't go around our condo without trying take on the neighbors German Shepard!
The birds that nest in the overhangs of the roof seem to fend off the other birds!
Tony your right, "but chaos is only a paycheck away", that's what family is there for, and sometimes God uses hard times to draw us to Him!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2010 - 08:21pm PT
|
the "img tag" works like this:
[img]url for image here[/img]
do that in your "Post a Reply" box, NO SPACES are allowed between the tags [img] and [/img]
how are you going to understand God or even the simpler axiom, if you can't even get the image tags right? You're not giving me much to work with there, tony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2010 - 08:43pm PT
|
The problem with all of these arguments - and why they are always circular - is that they are entirely beholden to materialist language, constructs, yada yada. Materialist constructs such as "real," "physical," "existing," "measurable," and so forth serve us invaluably in our everyday, practical lives. When spiritual concerns are extruded through spiritual filters they are always found lacking for there is never anything "there," nothing "real" (material) to measure, ergo what (what thing) are we talking about if "it" cannot be said or proved to exist in any substantive (material) way. "Prove it," is the common refrain, and this is a fair question. Unfortunately, "prove it," means, show me the material footprint of that spirit you keep talking about, which is just the discriminating mind's attempt to make "it" into a thing (a thought).
And so long as this is the approach, demanding that the spirit suddenly become material for the benefit of our evolved brains, we will likely never find "any thing" and we can rightly pitch all of the spiritual shite as so much imagining or as mere a rhetorical tautology which cannot be disproved but nevertheless tells us "no thing."
And so we circle till we die. And the questions linger . . .
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!