The thread that will never get a real answer

reply to post by Akragon


Your mind does not grow. It has no size. What part can't you comprehend? Knowledge is nothing without. Understanding. Understanding Can't be measured. That's wisdom.

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Akragon

 

Your mind does not grow. It has no size. What part can't you comprehend? Knowledge is nothing without. Understanding. Understanding Can't be measured. That's wisdom.

edit on 5-12-2011 by Theophorus because: (no reason given)

The part where you seem to think you know everything about the spirit...

As a child i assume you were blessed with the knowledge of all the universe and its contents... you had no need to learn anything like the rest of us of course... Had no spiritual growth... it was all there and never changed.

Amazing, you must be the messiah...

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to [url= by Theophorus[/url]

 

Whats the difference between something that has no shape,size,weight,color or mass,

and something that doesn't exist?

that's the most intelligent question I've heard all month. Ill just start by saying matter exists. Spirit does not exist in our physical universe. Your thoughts resemble Your spirit. Do they not exist?

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by Frira

Actually, No.

The water tight-- airtight, even!...........

Read 'most' watertight

Originally posted by Frira

Evolution has observable evidence, but can not be repeated by experiment.

Actually, No.

Originally posted by Frira

DNA sequencing adds evidence to support the theory, but also leaves questions regarding the original concept of the theory and so the theory is continuously adapting to support new evidence. That is scientific, and the marks of a good theory, but it is not, yet, airtight.

................

"As proof goes, its the most water tight proof we have ever discovered"

The point was that science changes, theories adapt, and humans, their cultures and religions adapt to the new knowledge. The e-coli article is interesting but is a tiny piece in the theory.

Originally posted by Frira

It was science and not religion which developed a new theory that the planets, including the earth, orbited the sun. Again, cultures (including religions) adapted.

Modern geocentrism lives on in christian, jewish and muslim 'culture', being taught as truth in churches and the like, for the same reasons they teach misinformation about evolution. It directly contradicts religious scripture, and nothing else.

I hear a lot more non-Christians make that claim of Christians than I hear Christians make it of themselves.

I have never met a Christian who believes the Sun orbits the Earth. Back when science says it did, many Christians believed what science told them and read that into their interpretation of Scripture.

When new evidence caused science to change its own theory, the faithful adapted their interpretation. Individuals, unlearned in science, may have held tight to the old conception, but the Church does not hold that belief, and it has never been a tenet of the Church.

Part II

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by Frira

Note about the Flat Earth: Culture had a problem with a spherical world, but not so much the world's religions.

Actually, No.

Religion has always had a massive problem with a spherical world:

Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
Revelation 7:1
And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)
Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)
Daniel 4:11
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

That you have a problem with interpreting does not mean that the Church does. A flat Earth is not now, nor ever has been, a tenet of the Church. Cosmology is open to speculation for Christians, but the Church does not have a doctrine regarding it.

That you know Christians who are ignorant of science is hardly worth mention-- I know atheists ignorant of science-- So what?

Originally posted by Frira

So now we have a major perspective shift. It upsets some (hardly all) Jews, Christians and Muslims, because they had taken part of the Creation story to mean something other than what is intended.

Similarly, some have taken the first "day" of creation's "Let there be light..." to refer to the sun; but perhaps it refers to the release of energy in the Big Bang? But then again, perhaps it refers to the spiritual Reality, and not at all to the material creation.

Or maybe it means exactly what was written, which would be crazy I know......evolution directly contradicts the abrahamic religions from the very first page of the old testament. This upsets the majority of religious people as seen in this and many other threads on these boards.

No-- it contradicts older interpretations of Scripture. Just as it contradicts older scientific beliefs.

It upsets the majority of Christians THAT YOU KNOW -- it upsets very few of those I know. All this suggests is that I run with smarter Christians than you do. Maybe you should be more picky.

Originally posted by Frira

For over a thousand years, one culture would enslave another culture, certain that their own culture was superior and the only "true humans" (and, for example, at least one American Indian tribe's name means just that). But before science could show us that we are all related back to about 60,000 years ago, culture had already begun to adapt to the concept that all races are equally human-- equally deserving of respect.

That American Indian tribe was then probably exterminated during the following holocaust by the christian settlers.......

Actually, the tribe I had in mind had existed with that name and the enslaving practice long before it ever met a Christian. What that tribe met which spelled its end, was civilization at gun point-- lost a huge battle that they started. But that is off topic.

Originally posted by Frira

Need I point out that religion, and religious people, had very much to do with bringing about that true cultural concept-shift, before science entered the argument?

This I find particularly preposterous, considering the old testaments writings on slavery and the fact that the major opposition to the civil rights act and the abolishment of slavery, was from religious people. We came to adapt to the concept that all races are equally human -equally deserving of respect- inspite of religion and religious people.

edit on 5-12-2011 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2011 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)

That you find it preposterous is not something to brag about.

It was the Church preaching against slavery-- and in the face of self-styled preachers hired by slavers to preach "obedience" to their masters.

It was the Church-- particularly clergy-- and more specifically, particularly Catholic and Episcopal Clergy, who first marched during the civil rights movement.

Mind you, the early Church was under constant persecution for the first three hundred years of its existence-- so was in no position to make political change-- just individual souls.

Originally posted by Akragon

The part where you seem to think you know everything about the spirit.

I know that the spirit is not material. I know that the spirit knows and loves. The rest is all just common sense. Problem is that you cant go above making mental pictures of a material universe. That would be defined as imagination. Try using intellect.

As a child i assume you were blessed with the knowledge of all the universe and its contents

my concern is with spirit not the material universe. I leave the study of matter to science.

you had no need to learn anything like the rest of us of course... Had no spiritual growth... it was all there and never changed.

spiritual growth? There you go again. Something that has no shape, no size,no anything can not grow. Boy, you are simply Hard headed.

Amazing, you must be the messiah

no, just someone who can tell weather something is physical or not. My 5 year old nephew can figure that out.

reply to post by Frira

I hear a lot more non-Christians make that claim of Christians than I hear Christians make it of themselves.

There is a verse which says the earth is fixed.
I doubt it was written in order to create a cosmology that everything revolved around it, but more that the earth doesn't drastically change from day to another.
Psalms 93:1
Indeed, the world is established, it cannot be moved.

In the next verse it says something like the waves crash against it and it does not just go away, or something.
I think people blow that out of proportion to make Christians look like fools.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Frira

 

I hear a lot more non-Christians make that claim of Christians than I hear Christians make it of themselves.

There is a verse which says the earth is fixed.
I doubt it was written in order to create a cosmology that everything revolved around it, but more that the earth doesn't drastically change from day to another.
Psalms 93:1
Indeed, the world is established, it cannot be moved.

In the next verse it says something like the waves crash against it and it does not just go away, or something.
I think people blow that out of proportion to make Christians look like fools.

Yes, and likewise something like, "[God] Spread out the Heavens like a tent."

I have known exactly two Christians (out of thousands) who were all wrapped up in the Creationism verses Evolution "issue."

One is a dear cousin of mine. The other a sweet elderly woman I knew for several years. In each case, due to no fault of their own, their reasoning skills were substandard, with IQ's I would estimate to be in the mid to high 70's. These are real and lovable people with a sincere faith; but if either mixed their faith with science, bad and ugly things could happen.

Both had had experience with self-styled preachers whose credentials were non-existent and who I gathered were either Charlatans or sincere but simple-minded themselves; and supported their faith by watching televangelists on TV. I'm not sure how they got the ideas they had.

When I was a child, I was in a months long "catechism" class, and the Priests had stressed the reasonableness of the faith they taught. Prior to that, my exposure to anything beyond pedestrian Bible study had been my smartest friends with whom I shared and took part in many discussions on faith-- some Christians, some Jews, some agnostic. At the time, I was an agnostic, and trying very hard to stay one.

The Priests, on the other hand, presented the faith in a very different matter than any I had encountered to that time-- and, knowingly or not, focused upon Reason and the explanation of the faith already articulated by the ancient Church, usually called, "Tradition." While not proof, their reasoning was irrefutable.

The expectation of my instructors was that I would be able to reason my faith when I completed the class, and have the tools to continue that work on my own.

I have been charged to teach such classes, and have been told (sometimes as a complaint) that my expectations of the students is that of a college level course (and it is). If I graded my students on anything other than trying-- only about half would "pass."

But I make clear at the start that what the students need to learn may take years to settle in-- and that becoming a mature Christian is a matter of faith and reason which directs our actions and choices-- and beyond trying, there is no test to pass; but that if I did my work well, they could take from the class what they need and build on it themselves.

The stereo-typical scriptural literalist (a.k.a., evangelical fundamentalist) has little in common with my own faith and practice, or that of my students. From the Church's perspective, even I am allowed to hold many speculative positions-- but they remain just that-- my own speculation. But the Church also expects my speculation to be reasonable.


No leader in any Church should ever present his own speculation as authoritative. And when one does, those of us who know better-- including me, and the OP-- and you, JMDewey, can (and probably will) jump on the error-- despite our differences in belief, reason is reason and we know it when we see it.

Originally posted by Frira
Evolution has observable evidence, but can not be repeated by experiment.
The point was that science changes, theories adapt, and humans, their cultures and religions adapt to the new knowledge. The e-coli article is interesting but is a tiny piece in the theory.

That science changes as new evidence is found, is not in dispute. Religions have changed, slightly, but only kicking and screaming and when the evidence gives it no option.

The e-coli article was posted in responce to your claim that

Evolution has observable evidence, but can not be repeated by experiment.

Which is just plain wrong, as has been shown.

Originally posted by Frira

I hear a lot more non-Christians make that claim of Christians than I hear Christians make it of themselves.

I have never met a Christian who believes the Sun orbits the Earth. Back when science says it did, many Christians believed what science told them and read that into their interpretation of Scripture.

When new evidence caused science to change its own theory, the faithful adapted their interpretation. Individuals, unlearned in science, may have held tight to the old conception, but the Church does not hold that belief, and it has never been a tenet of the Church.

The fact that you have never met anyone who accepts geocentrism is completely irrelevant and I'm at a loss as to why you think it would have any relevance. My post on this issue was not based on the tiny cut section of people I have met in my lifetime, as that would be absurd.

This link contains a lot of information on biblical and christian views on geocentrism. A quick browse on the web will show you much more religious based geocentrism. Give it a try, I assure you that you will gain a lot more information that way than asking your friends and family.

In reguards to what 'the church' says I'm not sure what relevance that has either, considering the 33,000 different demoninations of christianity........

Originally posted by Frira

That you have a problem with interpreting does not mean that the Church does. A flat Earth is not now, nor ever has been, a tenet of the Church. Cosmology is open to speculation for Christians, but the Church does not have a doctrine regarding it.

Again............which church? your church? this means nothing as there are plenty of christians that do (as evident in the link previously posted), regardless of what your friends and family accept or not.

Originally posted by Frira

No-- it contradicts older interpretations of Scripture. Just as it contradicts older scientific beliefs.

It upsets the majority of Christians THAT YOU KNOW -- it upsets very few of those I know. All this suggests is that I run with smarter Christians than you do. Maybe you should be more picky.

Ask yourself this, do you think that religious people who deny evolution do it because out of all the scientific theories it has too many holes in it, and it doesn't meet the scientific standard as the other scientific theories do?

Have you ever met or read about religious people who dispute the Atomic Theory? or the Theory of Matter and Energy? or the Cell Theory,The Germ Theory,The Theory of Plate Tectonics?

The sad fact is the majority of Americans do not accept the theory of evolution, yet if you were to ask them about the theories listed above, the vast majority wouldn't of ever heard of them, let alone understood them enough to dispute them.

Why do you think this is?

This would and should be obvious to you, however after reading your last responses, it seems asthough you have either been fed an enormous amount of misinformation in regards to history, or you are in the habit of making up your own version of history (120 million indigenous people wiped out by an invading culture but 'they started it' etc) shows me you have no intention in having an honest debate, and I have been responding to someone who cares very little for the truth..................

reply to post by Theophorus


Ok so im done with you in this topic... simply because you're being an ignorant prick...

buh bye...

reply to post by Frira

I'm reading a book right now (I mentioned this already on at least two threads) Lord of the Cosmos, Mithras, Paul, and the Gospel of Mark, written by someone who is a monastic friar, who makes the argument that Christians from the time of Paul kept up with science and were not behind the times and were not stuck supporting outdated cosmologies.

reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp


Well , you are here , aren't you ? That proves he has a sense of humor

reply to post by Prezbo369


I tell you what, take at look at all of my posts in this thread. There is that neat new feature to make that easy.

I responded to what you wrote, and you respond, each time, by changing the subject. You provide no evidence-- no authorities other than "take a look on the Internet." You take a side, and digest only what fits your already made-up mind.

You are a moving target-- because being wrong doesn't matter to you-- as long as you can be on the offensive.

Enjoy, being offensive; it is the most you can hope for.

reply to post by Prezbo369

The fact that you have never met anyone who accepts geocentrism is completely irrelevant . . .

I have a little video I went to a lot of trouble to make (meaning I made each frame by hand and then put them together to make a movie) showing my hypothetical representation of the orbit of mars around the earth if there was actual geocentrism. The idea of it is to show where the so-called epicycles come from. Epicycles are not the planets going in circles but the relative speed of the background stars versus the speed of the planet circling the earth. A system with the sun as the center of the earth system is not provable. Heliocentrism and geocentrism are equally valid theories as far as I am concerned. The only problem in my opinion with the old geocentrism is that you need to have the earth spinning on its axis. Once you make that adjustment, the geocentric model works perfectly.(once you also recognize that Mercury and Venus do orbit the Sun)

Here is another video I put a huge amount of work into that you would not believe but it is my geocentric model. You need to go to the HD720p version to appreciate it but it has this blue Earth model in the center which I made myself with no small effort, with the Sun (I made that too) circling it and with Venus circling the Sun, and then with Mars coming in from its wide orbit around earth. I had to make this all myself because, guess what, seems no one wants anyone to see an actual geocentric model because it may just make too much sense.

So really the only way to properly watch this is to click on the title inside the video to pop it out into a new window and go to 720, in full screen because Mars is very small, even the Earth is small, and Mars does not even come into frame until 12 seconds into the video because it has a long, elliptical orbit and if I pulled back far enough everything would be too tiny, which makes having an actual accurate to scale model impossible.
You probably need to watch it several times (it's only 30 seconds long) until you get what Mars is doing.
The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen and Venus is a ball of Ammonia. Earth is iron cored and has a crystalline center which is creating a pull on the sun and the planets to orbit it. The sun is massive enough to hold Mercury and Venus but nothing else. Even small asteroids orbiting the Earth graze the Sun's surface with impunity.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Theophorus

 

Ok so im done with you in this topic... simply because you're being an ignorant prick...

buh bye...

it wasn't like you were bringing anything concrete to the table anyhow. And the name calling really affirms to me your maturity level is somewhat lacking. How can you be taken serious when you don't even have a clue as to basic theology.

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.

Prove it to who? To you? To myself?

I'm not asking you to believe god is real, so why would I try to prove it to you?

I have faith in my belief...by definition faith implies not having proof. If I had proof...no one would need faith...it would be fact.


Why are you in such need to have this proof?

Originally posted by Frira

I responded to what you wrote, and you respond, each time, by changing the subject. You provide no evidence-- no authorities other than "take a look on the Internet." You take a side, and digest only what fits your already made-up mind.

You are a moving target-- because being wrong doesn't matter to you-- as long as you can be on the offensive.

Enjoy, being offensive; it is the most you can hope for.

I can understand how hard it must be to have big portions of your worldview refuted, but it doesn't help your case when you continue to make false claims and dishonest statements.

You're fully aware of the evidence I have presented to you (remember the two links, one you referred to as 'interesting') but I'm not going to do your research for you, you're responsible for your own education.

Oh, and have a look at jmdewey60's post on his videos on geocentrism (thanks jm, interesting vids), they will be enlightening (try to ignore the fact that jmdewey60 doesnt go to your particular church, and you have never met him, as it's irrelevant), as I'm pretty sure he is a follower of Jesus

reply to post by Prezbo369

Oh, and have a look at jmdewey60's post on his videos on geocentrism (thanks jm, interesting vids), they will be enlightening (try to ignore the fact that jmdewey60 doesnt go to your particular church, and you have never met him, as it's irrelevant), as I'm pretty sure he is a follower of Jesus

Very funny but my video does not support your argument.
My ideas of geocentrism comes from a Buddhist I know who is a professor of eastern philosophy and it has nothing to do with Christianity other than it makes a good argument against the theory of Copernicus and people after him who picked up on it probably as a way to ridicule Christianity.
Take a tour of YouTube and you will find out I am the only person promoting geocentrism and not for religious reasons but from a general conspiratorial view of history, which is how I came across this outlook. Heliocentrism is as much a fact as evolution, they are theories people present as fact but are not provable.
I made the videos because I was having a hard time visualizing what a geocentric system would look like. I had to spend two weeks on it, pretty intensively so if I run across anyone making fun of geocentrism then of course I am going to pull it out, if for no other reason than to get some use out of all that hard work. Like I said, it is impossible to make a real scale representation because of the vast distances but this does make it so you can at least see it enough to wrap your mind around the concept in order to even come close to making a judgement. Like I also said, I have a conspiratorial view and it is suspicious to me that I have the only video that fairly represents a workable geocentric model, and why do you think that might be? Also like I said, when you look at it without a bias, it makes perfect sense, if it is not someone doing a voice-over about how foolish those religious people are, while showing the worst model they can find which is not even a fair representation of the state of the art in geocentric science.

reply to post by Theophorus


When someone doesn't agree with you... you resort to character assassination such as...

Try using some intellect...

or

spiritual growth? There you go again. Something that has no shape, no size,no anything can not grow. Boy, you are simply Hard headed.

Yes, i would call that being prickish... sorry if the truth hurts...

Lets take a look at "spiritual growth".... Since i bring nothing to the table

2 Peter 3:18,
“Continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our savior, Jesus Christ.”

1 Peter 2:2
“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby

And of course the parable of the mustard seed...

This is just from the bible... i could go through almost any religion and it will tell you your spirit grows as you experience life... It grows in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding of life.

I deal with people that insult me every day of my life.... at least they can't help it... on the other hand you can and chose not to... Thats being a prick... deal with it.

All you bring to the table is your opinion... I bring scripture from accepted texts... And i will toss some gnostic text in to the mix if its needed...

So next time you care to degrade someones character within a post...

Check yourself first

reply to post by Akragon

Originally posted by Theophorus
spiritual growth? There you go again. Something that has no shape, no size,no anything can not grow. Boy, you are simply Hard headed.

Originally posted by Akragon
Lets take a look at "spiritual growth".... Since i bring nothing to the table

2 Peter 3:18,
“Continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our savior, Jesus Christ.”

1 Peter 2:2
“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby

And of course the parable of the mustard seed...

This is just from the bible... i could go through almost any religion and it will tell you your spirit grows as you experience life... It grows in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding of life.

Well said…


Just thought of something which might help with your argument, or at least some clarity of thought…Which, you may have heard of somewhere before lol


“One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small”


Due to time constraints, I can’t say much more than that. Hopefully you can understand what I’m trying to get at, without a lengthy explanation.


Good luck…


- JC


Ps – Btw, I’m not following you around lol