It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Theosophy and Christianity

page: 31
14
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Why is it that you are only using Biblical scholars or facts that concede your points; then why is it that you ignore all evidence to the contrary and accuse it of being devil nonsense?




posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Why is it that you are only using Biblical scholars or facts that concede your points; then why is it that you ignore all evidence to the contrary and accuse it of being devil nonsense?


What evidence have I ignored to the contrary, I have only presented so far on cosmic and some planetary and stellar evolution issues...You had nothing to say about them in this regard on the scientific merit.

Your lack of response on things like the anti-matter issue and population III star issue is your problem to deal with, not mine. After I finish presenting the information against the evolution process and the maximum limits to Earth age arguments then you can attack the creation account as much as you want....at the moment the discussion is on whether the evolution/uninformatarian/naturalists explanation of existence can hold up to some scrutiny (which is the default position in society and mistakenly believed to be an iron and shut case). Well I am opening the case up wide open
edit on 1-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


What does any of that have to do with proving Christianity or Theosophy is false?



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


You are taking some strawmans argument and applying it to me; THAT is why I have not taken your bait.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Well, to start with, you called Pangaea a lie. Which is obviously an idiot thing to do, considering all of the major authorities will defend Pangaea with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE... hint hint.

Does that do for a start?



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Well, to start with, you called Pangaea a lie. Which is obviously an idiot thing to do, considering all of the major authorities will defend Pangaea with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE... hint hint.

Does that do for a start?


The continents do not float on the water! under the oceans you are going to hit solid earth for many miles before you get close to hitting the magma. The shape of the continents is entirely dependent on the sea level. The continent of Africa was shrunk by about 30% to fit the Pangaea model. Any authority proposing Pangaea in light of the discovery of the crustal plates of the earth is well....



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


What does any of that have to do with proving Christianity or Theosophy is false?


If I prove the supernatural creation of the universe, that biological evolution is impossible, that all major phyla occur suddenly in the geological first layer (the Cambrian explosion), that man and dinosaur roamed the earth at the same time, that the universal flood occurred and is responsible for so many land features on Earth, that every step in the sequence to create life from non-life is impossible (scientists still haven't produced or got close to producing life from lifeless organic matter), that no intermediate fossils between groups have been found, that the Earth is less than 7000 years old, that the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy shows the Bible was Divinely inspired, to prove that some other stories in the OT occured, that Yeshua (Jesus) was who He said He was, that his death and resurrection happened.

If I prove all that then:
- any religion promoting a god contained to nature and venerating a god in nature is false (i.e sun and moon gods)
- any religion not promoting the supernatural creation of the universe and life on Earth is false
- any religion promoting evolution will be false
- any religion not acknowledging the divinely inspired nature of the Old Testament is false
- any religion promoting that Jesus was not killed by Crucifixion is false (i.e Islam, although there are so many other many to prove Islam is false as well).
- any religion promoting that Jesus was not resurrection back to life is then false (Judaism)
-----
You are then left with not much other than Christianity....Theosophy will be shown to be false because it won't confirm to the observed evidence....if it does not conform to the observed evidence then it is a religion/philosophy promoting lies and based on misinformation. If it is based on misinformation then no one can have trust in it with anything it has to say on life after death, evolution/ascension, and anyone of their supposed maxims of the universe
-----
If one wanted to then drill down further I could show exactly how Seventh-Day Adventist is the only church representing Christianity that teaches the exact correctly understood doctrines of the Bible (and that there are no conflicts in the Bible and God's character at that point).....It is going to take enough time to get through these first steps to even bother considering proving this to you though.

edit on 2-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Just know that I am not acquiescing; I just don't have the patience to argue with you. There are so many things I want to say, but you know what? I'm not gonna waste my breath, unless it has anything to do with proving your theory you don't want to hear it. So fine stick your head in the sand; have at him Augustus.

Oh, you are a Seventh Day Adventist?? Well I think you should meet your brother; Church of Christ. You two might have some conflicts about who is really going to heaven...

/E: That's the kind of stupid nonsense I'm talking about from you ^ by the way.
edit on 2-9-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I will come back to the information on planet Mercury in a bit but before hand I think a more interesting and persuasive argument is the fine tuning of the physical parameters to enable intelligent life in the universe.

The information I will be using for this topic is mainly from the book, 'The Case for a Creator', Chapter 6: The evidence in Physics (interview with Robin Collins)

Walter Bradley, coauthor of 'The Mystery of Life's Origin' says,

It is quite easy to understand why so many scientists have changed their minds in the past thirty years, agreeing that the universe cannot reasonably be explained as a cosmic accident. Evidence for an intelligent designer becomes more compelling the more we understand about our carefully crafted habitat.


Cosmologist Edward Harrison has come to this conclusion:

The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design.


Dr. Owen Gingerich, senior astronomer at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, commented:

Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a superintelligence.

--------
Robin Collins says,

Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor's edge for life to exist. The coincidences are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance or to claim that it needs no explanation. The dials are set too precisely to have been a random accident. Somebody, as Fred Hoyle quipped, has been monkeying with the physics.


There are about 30 key parameters or dials in physics that need to be spot on, we are going to look at 2 of them, gravity and the cosmological constant

Gravity
Collins says,

Imagine a ruler, or one of those old-fashioned linear radio dials, that goes all the way across the universe. It would be broken down into one-inch increments, which means there would be billions upon billions upon billions of inches. The entire dial represents the range of force strengths in nature, with gravity being the weakest force and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei being the strongest, a whopping ten thousand billion billion billion billion times stronger than gravity. The range of possible settings for the force of gravity can plausibly be taken to be at least as large as the total range of force strengths.

Now, let's imagine that you want to move the dial from where it's currently set. Even if you were to move it by only one inch, the impact on life in the universe would be catastrophic...That small adjustment of the dial would increase gravity by a billion-fold ...[that change] Relative to the entire radio dial-that is, the total range of force strengths in nature-it's extraordinarily small, just one part in ten thousand billion billion billion."


The result of that small change (one part in ten thousand billion billion billion) is animals anywhere near the size of humans would be completely crushed.

Collins:

In fact, a planet with a gravitational pull of a thousand times that of the Earth would have a diameter of only forty feet, which wouldn't be enough to sustain an ecosystem. Besides which, stars with lifetimes of more than a billion years-compared to ten billion years for our sun-couldn't exist if you increase gravity by just three thousand times. As you can see, compared to the total range of force strengths in nature, gravity has an incomprehensibly narrow range for life to exist. Of all the possible settings on the dial, from one side of the universe to the other, it happens to be situated in the exact right fraction of an inch to make our universe capable of sustaining life.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 



Oh, you are a Seventh Day Adventist?? Well I think you should meet your brother; Church of Christ. You two might have some conflicts about who is really going to heaven...

/E: That's the kind of stupid nonsense I'm talking about from you ^ by the way.


You obviously pay very little attention to anything I have to say...I have already previously stated that no church or religion saves anyone. That there will be plenty of Adventist's who don't make it to heaven just like there will be plenty from other denominations that don't and many from other religions that do.

If however one learns the truth of Christianity then rejects it then they are in some trouble for their case to be in the Book of Life. The only way one is in the Book of Life from other religions if God discounts ('winks at') their ignorance mostly and looks at the hearts despite what false illusion they have been under.

No amount of doctrine saves you....for instance, both seventh-day baptists and seventh-day Adventist corporately advocate the keeping of all 10 commandments of the Divine Law, but baptists hold the un-biblical teaching of:
- eternal torment in hell (this teaching comes from the Egyptian Amduat passed along to the Baptists via the Catholic Church)
- Immortality of the soul
- That one goes straight to heaven or hell upon death (no soul sleep in the grave waiting for the resurrection)
- Also wrong understandings on the book of Revelation and some other minor issues

Now if you were to compare and see the result of these incorrect teachings from the 7th-day baptists (despite them being very close to Adventists) what happens:
- They make God out to be a punishing cruel tyrant (eternal torment in hell) thus misrepresenting his character
- Immortality of the soul teaches that there is no real lasting issue on keeping your allegiance to God, you still go on living whether you choose to follow God or not
- No 'soul sleep' of the dead makes people vulnerable to seeking to communicate with the spirits of their dead ancestors (and all they will run into doing that is the fallen angels impersonating their relatives seeking to lead them astray)
ect ect....

People make a big deal about Fundamental Christian this or that....well in terms of fundamentalists you aren't going to find a people more committed to teaching and trying to follow what the Bible actually teaches than an Adventist. The correct religion only points you in the write direction of where you can find truth (the Bible), and the correct denomination can only help you better understand and know God how He wants to be known, understood and obeyed. You can have the correct religion and church but still end up being lost...but having the correct teaching and Truth is going to point you in the best direction than following lies, propaganda, and false teachings. I advocate ultimately the corporate teachings of Adventist's above any other religion on the planet but that doesn't mean you won't walk into an SDA church and find some unfriendly people, people not serious about their religion, people doing the wrong thing ect ect....that is why I make the distinction between what is corporately taught and people (each individual), but you don't seem to get that despite me saying it several times now
edit on 2-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 



Just know that I am not acquiescing; I just don't have the patience to argue with you.


People wanted some irrefutable arguments....I am giving them those (and other points that will be more than compelling as well)....sorry if you didn't believe Christianity could possibly mount any kind of a case (even though I am barely started making it).

The point with irrefutable evidence is that you don't give the other person any good argument they could possibly come up with to explain it coherently....you can called it 'not acquiescing' or 'don't have the patience' but that is something you will have to work out between you and your conscience (and your Creator) about what you did with the information that came your way in life....I am going to give you guys all no good excuse why you would have possibly rejected the Truth of the Bible and Jesus (that's the 'punishment' you all will get for talking smack HAHA).

Your going to get two options:
- front up to reality and be open to truth, or
- block your ears, shut your eyes and ran away from reality

What you are going to get from me is a whole lot of REALITY...
edit on 2-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


so are you are saying the universe is fine tuned to look 14.5 billion years old but that is only 6000 years old? (I don't think the astronomers you have quoted here are young earth type religionists)

What about the fact that archaeologists/historians have a clear unbroken record of civilisation going back 6000 years (and beyond) – not punctuated by any world destroying biblical floods?

You might enjoy this
www.theonion.com...


edit on 2-9-2012 by racasan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
If anyone would like to start on some information already for the Dinosaur-Human co-existence topic then I recommend this video presentation to kick you off

The Co-Existence of Humans & Dinosaurs (1 of 4) - Dr. Don Patton (31 minutes)


part 2 of 4...30 minutes
part 3 of 4...29 minutes
part 4 of 4....10 minutes

I hope you enjoy!


I will post on the cosmological constant and Mercury tomorrow



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


How old does the earth look based on erosion rates...even using the smallest around per year...all the continents are eroded away into the ocean after like 100 million years.

How old is the Great Barrier Reef? You can work it out based on its growth rate?
How old is the Sahara desert that spreads westward at a constant rate each year?
How old is the atmosphere of Earth seeing that the steady state carbon 14 levels created from the cosmic rays hitting nitrogen atoms is said to stabilize after 30,000 years? Well we have still not reached that equilibrium point yet!

It is not up to me to defend any kind of a link you post up....you have to make the case of why something is dated the way it is is accurate and credible. It is up to you to establish anything you say as a 'fact'....You can't just say, 'What about the fact that archaeologists/historians have a clear unbroken record of civilisation going back 6000 years (and beyond)' and I am meant to accept it as is.....prove it!
edit on 2-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


this is the famous white cliff of Dover
www.bbc.co.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...


The cliffs are composed mainly of soft, white chalk with a very fine-grained texture, composed primarily of coccoliths, plates of calcium carbonate formed by coccolithophores, single-celled planktonic algae whose skeletal remains sank to the bottom of the ocean during the Cretaceous


So 350 feet high cliff of the remains of very tiny plankton and all of that made in 6000 years – I don’t think so

or

The Coal measures are layers (40 to 80 layers and maybe more) of highly compacted plant material buried under many miles of earth and rock all of that made in 6000 years – I don’t think so



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
this is the famous white cliff of Dover
www.bbc.co.uk...
So is this…



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


Well, I have not yet presented my case for the flood so you are covering material I am not up to yet.

If you would like to get ahead then I can offer you a few resources to answer your question on how it is possible.

101 - The Earth in Time and Space by Dr. Walter J. Veith (former Professor of Zoology and proponent of evolutionary theory)
Description: In this video, the big bang theory of origins and its plausibility are discussed. The catastrophic origin of the geological column is presented in full multimedia format. Evidence for rapid water deposition of the layers of the geological column, canyon formation, erosional features, and paraconformites (missing time zones) are discussed together with their age implications. The standard geological view is contrasted with the Biblical view, enabling the viewer to make a choice between the two models.

Watch from the 30 minute mark to skip the initial info on big bang and to get to the evidence for rapid water disposition (which is then talked about for the next 1 hour)

102 - A Universal Flood by Walter J. Veith (1 hour long)
Description: Science today denies a universal flood, as it would destroy the continuity of the fossil record in the geological column. In this video, evidence for precisely such a universal phenomenon is presented with fascinating video material from modern day catastrophes on a smaller scale. The origin of the petrified forests and their flood implications are also discussed.


It would be appreciated if you gave you general belief system with some details about what you think it true concerning the origins of life, how long the universe/Earth as been in existence for ect ect... as you have jumped in to the discussion part way through



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 
these scientists support the idea of intelligent design but they aren't in agreement with young earth creationism, perhaps you missed that.
edit on 2-9-2012 by no1smootha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


layers of snow on the ice capes, mud on the bottoms of lakes/oceans show an unbroken year after year record stretching back in some cases many hundreds of thousands of years – not 6000

The thickness of the coral at Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific has been measured at up to 1,380 meters. Indicating and age of over 130,000 years


Flat (square) earth in the bible (I cannot be bothered to type out all the bible verses)

www.lhup.edu...

this is fun: zoom in and check out the verses at the bottom:
upload.wikimedia.org...



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


well that’s a bonny track, but I was think of





top topics



 
14
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join