Re: Heresies and Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:non6h55633bqffjl3...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:53:56 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6qrtg5hdr5nrglirv...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:41:42 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4ndpg5tmq0fes0tlh...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:52:42 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>>>>>> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Nov 24, 1:01 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>>>>>> >On Nov 19, 12:21 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>>>>>> >By grace are we saved thrugh faith and that not of ouselves
>>>>>>>> >it is the gift of God.
>>>>>>>> >Not of works, lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So its OK for a parent to beat their child near to death so the
>>>>>>>> police
>>>>>>>> can give them the life saving gift of arresting the parent?
>>>>>>>These days the police can arrest the parents even when the physical
>>>>>>>punishment was/is reasonable and given for behaviours that the child
>>>>>>>was fully aware were disobedient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if its OK for God to abuse us for all our life then give us the
>>>>>> saving
>>>>>> gift at the end its surely OK for a parent to beat their child to near
>>>>>> death so
>>>>>> they can be saved by police intervention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>When are you going to tell me if the gift of God saving us from
>>>>>>>>himself
>>>>>>>> is like the gift from God that caused us to need saving?
>>>>>>>God does not give a gift to save us from Himself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What else could we need saving from except the one who made it all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And God did not cause the situation that brought death to humans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bible says he did. God placed a tree in the garden knowing Adam and
>>>>>> Eve would eat from it. Of course eating from the tree was a completely
>>>>>> harmless act but God used it as an excuse to downgrade all creation.
>>>>>> When describing the effects of the fall God said "I will" several
>>>>>> times,
>>>>>> so we know it was God who directly caused our problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But He did provide a way so that we may have Eternal Life as His gift
>>>>>>>to us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, there was no death until God introduced it, so we did have the
>>>>>> gift of eternal life.
>>>>>> God giving then taking eternal life is like us taking candy from a
>>>>>> baby
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> make it cry. First you have to give the baby candy so you can take it
>>>>>> away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >When you are willing to accept that truth then you will have
>>>>>>>> >started
>>>>>>>> >your understanding of the Christian faith,
>>>>>>>> I understand far more about the Christian mythology than any
>>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>>> possibly could.
>>>>>>>Christians who follow New Testament teaching and have a personal
>>>>>>>relationship with Jesus Christ do not have a mythology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you prefer to call it a mental illness as documented in the DSM?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you think they do, then your information is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christianity is not factual so what would you call it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gladys Swager
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Barry
>>>>>
>>>>>And the mystery continues as to why Barry despises the God he claims
>>>>>doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> There is no mystery as to why I despise the God concept.
>>>
>>>Very tricky Barry. Very tricky.
>>
>> In what way?
>> I would despise God if such existed, but as it is I despise Christians
>> praising an evil dictator.
>
>That's why it's tricky. What you're saying is:
>
>1. I do not depsise God. There is no God, so there's nothing to despise.
>
>2. I despise God's creators, i.e., Christians, because................?
>
>I don't get the rest of number (2).Please fill in.
Christians praise God for his great love and justice, yet we don't see
only love and justice in the world.
>BAM
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> >> I would despise God if such existed, but as it is I despise Christians
> >> praising an evil dictator.
>
> >That's why it's tricky. What you're saying is:
> >1. I do not depsise God. There is no God, so there's nothing to despise.
> >2. I despise God's creators, i.e., Christians, because................?
> >I don't get the rest of number (2).Please fill in.
>
> Christians praise God for his great love and justice, yet we don't see
> only love and justice in the world.
>
That is true, but if you decide to search you will find that there is
much
love and justice in the world expressed by persons of goodwill,
many of whom are Christians.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
That just shows there is no loving almighty God.
>Gladys Swager
bam
Love and justice mean different things to different people. If you punish a
child, does that mean you don't love him? As far as God's justice goes, I
don't think we can weigh the scales for any particular person, especially
when you realize that this life is just a drop in the bucket.
BAM
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Dec 3, 9:32 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> >> Christians praise God for his great love and justice, yet we don't see
> >> only love and justice in the world.
>
> >That is true, but if you decide to search you will find that there is much
> >love and justice in the world expressed by persons of goodwill, many
> >of whom are Christians.
>
> That just shows there is no loving almighty God.
>
to you in this newsgroup. If you want to continue in ignorance
that is your choice.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:c2vbh59brt6b3v3k5...@4ax.com...
>> Christians praise God for his great love and justice, yet we don't see
>> only love and justice in the world.
>
>Love and justice mean different things to different people. If you punish a
>child, does that mean you don't love him?
That depends on the circumstances. If the child was misbehaving due to
something you had done and the behaviour could be changed by changing
your behaviour then it would suggest vengeance rather than correction.
>As far as God's justice goes, I
>don't think we can weigh the scales for any particular person, especially
>when you realize that this life is just a drop in the bucket.
From God's POV the life of one individual must seem insignificant, but to
the individual it is everything they will ever have, which just goes to show
that God cannot understand our wants and needs.
Barry OGrady
>On Dec 5, 8:14�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Dec 3, 9:32�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>> >> Christians praise God for his great love and justice, yet we don't see
>> >> only love and justice in the world.
>>
>> >That is true, but if you decide to search you will find that there is much
>> >love and justice in the world expressed by persons of goodwill, many
>> >of whom are Christians.
>>
>> That just shows there is no loving almighty God.
>>
>And that just shows that you have learnt nothing from all the postings
>to you in this newsgroup.
I have learned things, just not the things you wanted me to learn.
You admitted there is much that is not love and justice.
If there was a loving almighty God there would not be anything bad.
Conclusion: There is no loving almighty God.
>If you want to continue in ignorance that is your choice.
You are ignoring logic and reason.
bam
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 21:45:09 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:c2vbh59brt6b3v3k5...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Christians praise God for his great love and justice, yet we don't see
>>> only love and justice in the world.
>>
>>Love and justice mean different things to different people. If you punish
>>a
>>child, does that mean you don't love him?
>
> That depends on the circumstances. If the child was misbehaving due to
> something you had done and the behaviour could be changed by changing
> your behaviour then it would suggest vengeance rather than correction.
Don't counterargue with exceptions. Can a man punish a child justly and
still love him?
>>As far as God's justice goes, I
>>don't think we can weigh the scales for any particular person, especially
>>when you realize that this life is just a drop in the bucket.
> From God's POV the life of one individual must seem insignificant, but to
> the individual it is everything they will ever have, which just goes to
> show
> that God cannot understand our wants and needs.
Incorrect premise. Perhaps *you* think you are insignificant to God, but
that's because it helps your argument, which is basically, that it's God's
fault that you sin.
BAM
swa...@ozemail.com.au
>
> You admitted there is much that is not love and justice.
> If there was a loving almighty God there would not be anything bad.
> Conclusion: There is no loving almighty God.
>
between two or more things and from that you have formed the
basis for your comparison. But your conclusion is not correct
because you have not included other points in your comparison.
For some reason you want to convince yourself there is no God
but you are reasoning incorrectly What I have posted to you
on quite a number of occasions you just dismiss that as you
continue to chant your mantra.
> >If you want to continue in ignorance that is your choice.
>
> You are ignoring logic and reason.
>
responsible
for the wrongs in this world. Humans were in the beginning, have
continued to be through the ages and still are now despite all the
laws
designed to regulalte behaviours in responsibilty towards others.
The Bible is right that 'all have sinned and have come short of the
glory
of God. Romans 3 : 23.
The Bible is also right that 'the wages of sin is death, but the gift
of God
is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' Romans 6 : 23
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Dec 8, 8:24�am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>> You admitted there is much that is not love and justice.
>> If there was a loving almighty God there would not be anything bad.
>> Conclusion: There is no loving almighty God.
>>
>You have made an analogy = a partial agreement, or likeness
>between two or more things and from that you have formed the
>basis for your comparison. But your conclusion is not correct
>because you have not included other points in your comparison.
If you love someone don't you want the best for them?
Wouldn't you want to protect them from any harm?
If you were almighty wouldn't you use that power to ensure the object
of your love had only good things?
>For some reason you want to convince yourself there is no God
>but you are reasoning incorrectly
I don't believe there is a God but I am quite certain there is no loving
and almighty God.
>What I have posted to you
>on quite a number of occasions you just dismiss that as you
>continue to chant your mantra.
You are the one chanting the mantra and ignoring logic and reason.
You are so indoctrinated you can't see obvious facts.
>> >If you want to continue in ignorance that is your choice.
>>
>> You are ignoring logic and reason.
>>
>You are ignoring the truth.
What do you think truth is?
>And the truth is that God is not responsible for the wrongs in this world.
You have been indoctrinated to believe God can do no wrong, so you latch
onto any explanation that appears to support that view.
>Humans were in the beginning, have continued to be through the ages and
>still are now despite all the laws designed to regulalte behaviours in
>responsibilty towards others.
Doesn't say much for our creator.
>The Bible is right that 'all have sinned and have come short of the glory
>of God. Romans 3 : 23.
Do you know what that means? If it was a matter of choice some would
not have sinned. The fact that all have sinned means God made us that
way. But could we do anything at all that God had not made possible?
>The Bible is also right that 'the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God
>is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' Romans 6 : 23
God's gift of sin results in death. Perhaps God should not have made us
sinners then. Its not rational for an almighty God to allow anything he
does not approve of.
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:8m2ph55n9nn33h8up...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 21:45:09 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:c2vbh59brt6b3v3k5...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> Christians praise God for his great love and justice, yet we don't see
>>>> only love and justice in the world.
>>>
>>>Love and justice mean different things to different people. If you punish
>>>a
>>>child, does that mean you don't love him?
>>
>> That depends on the circumstances. If the child was misbehaving due to
>> something you had done and the behaviour could be changed by changing
>> your behaviour then it would suggest vengeance rather than correction.
>
>Don't counterargue with exceptions. Can a man punish a child justly and
>still love him?
Its possible.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Can an almighty God ever be justified in punishing rather than changing
whatever is causing the problem?
>>>As far as God's justice goes, I
>>>don't think we can weigh the scales for any particular person, especially
>>>when you realize that this life is just a drop in the bucket.
>
>> From God's POV the life of one individual must seem insignificant, but to
>> the individual it is everything they will ever have, which just goes to
>> show
>> that God cannot understand our wants and needs.
>
>Incorrect premise. Perhaps *you* think you are insignificant to God, but
>that's because it helps your argument, which is basically, that it's God's
>fault that you sin.
You brought up the idea when you wrote "this life is just a drop in the bucket".
To an infinite being individual lives would not even show on the radar, but
to the individual that life is everything. The huge difference means there is no
way for God to appreciate our wants and needs, and it shows.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> >between two or more things and from that you have formed the
> >basis for your comparison. But your conclusion is not correct
> >because you have not included other points in your comparison.
>
> If you love someone don't you want the best for them?
> Wouldn't you want to protect them from any harm?
> If you were almighty wouldn't you use that power to ensure the object
> of your love had only good things?
>
Read Genesis chapters 1 to 3 throuigh ten times, Barry,
That is an order, and if you refuse go and stand in the corner
until you are willing to do so!
When you have done that - and no cheating-
then read Ephesians 2 : 4 -10 through ten times.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Dec 9, 10:54�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>Read Genesis chapters 1 to 3 throuigh ten times, Barry,
>That is an order, and if you refuse go and stand in the corner
>until you are willing to do so!
>When you have done that - and no cheating-
>then read Ephesians 2 : 4 -10 through ten times.
Before I do that would you please answer my questions?
Q: If you love someone don't you want the best for them?
I'm thinking you would.
Q: Wouldn't you want to protect them from any harm?
I'm thinking you would.
Q: If you were almighty wouldn't you use that power to ensure the
object of your love had only good things?
I'm thinking you would.
Q: What do you think truth is?
Q: Could we do anything at all that God had not made possible?
>Gladys Swager
=-=-=
Barry
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
duke
>> If you love someone don't you want the best for them?
>> Wouldn't you want to protect them from any harm?
>> If you were almighty wouldn't you use that power to ensure the object
>> of your love had only good things?
>Read Genesis chapters 1 to 3 throuigh ten times, Barry,
>That is an order, and if you refuse go and stand in the corner
>until you are willing to do so!
>When you have done that - and no cheating-
>then read Ephesians 2 : 4 -10 through ten times.
>Gladys Swager
Genesis 1-11 is not a scientific accounting of God's creation of the universe
and all in it including mankind, but instead Israel's faith statement regarding
same. Gen 1-11 (or all of it) was written after 2 Kings.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:51:16 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
><swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 9, 10:54�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>>Read Genesis chapters 1 to 3 throuigh ten times, Barry,
>>That is an order, and if you refuse go and stand in the corner
>>until you are willing to do so!
>>When you have done that - and no cheating-
>>then read Ephesians 2 : 4 -10 through ten times.
>
>Before I do that would you please answer my questions?
>Q: If you love someone don't you want the best for them?
>I'm thinking you would.
>Q: Wouldn't you want to protect them from any harm?
>I'm thinking you would.
>Q: If you were almighty wouldn't you use that power to ensure the
>object of your love had only good things?
>I'm thinking you would.
Yet that's not what mankind wants. Your scenario is exactly what God promises
us if we only reflect that desire by living that kind of life.
Barry OGrady
Since God does not provide those things which we all want we can say
for certain there is no loving and almighty God.
Gladys is too indoctrinated to see that.
She wants to blame us. Can you imagine that?
>The Dukester, American-American
=-=-=
Barry
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Dec 9, 10:54 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >Read Genesis chapters 1 to 3 throuigh ten times, Barry,
> >That is an order, and if you refuse go and stand in the corner
> >until you are willing to do so!
> >When you have done that - and no cheating-
> >then read Ephesians 2 : 4 -10 through ten times.
>
> Before I do that would you please answer my questions?
>
> Q: If you love someone don't you want the best for them?
> I'm thinking you would.
Yes. But sometimes the best comes through personal understandings
rather than having it given to you 'on a plate'. You appreciate it
more.
> Q: Wouldn't you want to protect them from any harm?
> I'm thinking you would.
A parent has to allow a child to venture out on his own so that
he/she comes to maturity.
> Q: If you were almighty wouldn't you use that power to ensure the
> object of your love had only good things?
> I'm thinking you would.
But the Almighty knew that the object of His love needed not
to be spoon-fed all its life. The object of His love needed to
love God because that was necessary so that the object of His
love would not be a robot.
> Q: What do you think truth is?
>
Truth is everything that is not false.
Jesus Christ is the 'way, the TRUTH and the Life,
No one comes to God the Father except through Jesus Christ
John 14 : 6
> Q: Could we do anything at all that God had not made possible?
>
No
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >> If you love someone don't you want the best for them?
> >> Wouldn't you want to protect them from any harm?
> >> If you were almighty wouldn't you use that power to ensure the object
> >> of your love had only good things?
>
> and all in it including mankind, but instead Israel's faith statement regarding
> same. Gen 1-11 (or all of it) was written after 2 Kings.
>
references.
It is generally believed that Moses wrote the first five books of the
Old
Testament from information taht had been passed orally or on clay
tablets
from the patriarch's. It is a fact that there was an overlapping of
the ages
of the patriarchs so that Lamech, the father of Noah and Noah
himself would have known Adam Genesis 5 :
Do a timeline from that chapter and it will surprise you as it also
did me
when I worked it out. There ia another overlapping of the Israeliites
from
Abraham to Joseph, between a number of the generations.
That overlapping would keep an oral record accurate.
So you believe that God was not capable, by the power of His word
of bringing His creation into being. Jesus Christ was/is the Word as
John 1 : 1 - 3. 14
It has only been in recent times, (I will have to check the date
again),
that the Vatican has supported that universe had come into
existence by the Big Bang and that supposely happened
millions of years ago.
The Creationist scientists do have a right to present their evidence.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3056/
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Dec 10, 10:50�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Dec 9, 10:54�pm, Barry OGrady �wrote:
>> >Read Genesis chapters 1 to 3 �throuigh ten times, Barry,
>> >That is an order, and if you refuse go and stand in the corner
>> >until you are willing to do so!
>> >When you have done that - and no cheating-
>> >then read Ephesians 2 : 4 -10 through ten times.
>>
>> Before I do that would you please answer my questions?
>>
>You have a compulsion to be in charge.
'twas you wat writ;
>That is an order, and if you refuse go and stand in the corner
>until you are willing to do so!
>> Q: If you love someone don't you want the best for them?
>> I'm thinking you would.
>Yes.
That makes you better than God.
>But sometimes the best comes through personal understandings
>rather than having it given to you 'on a plate'. You appreciate it
>more.
Not applicable to an almighty creator.
>> Q: Wouldn't you want to protect them from any harm?
>> I'm thinking you would.
>A parent has to allow a child to venture out on his own so that
>he/she comes to maturity.
Not applicable to an almighty creator.
Would you want to protect someone you love?
>> Q: If you were almighty wouldn't you use that power to ensure the
>> object of your love had only good things?
>> I'm thinking you would.
>But the Almighty knew that the object of His love needed not
>to be spoon-fed all its life.
An almighty creator could "spoon feed" us all for all our lives to our
great benefit, and a loving being would want to.
Would you like to see a world without suffering?
If you were almighty would you make it so?
>The object of His love needed to
>love God because that was necessary so that the object of His
>love would not be a robot.
Where Adam and Eve robots? Are people in heaven robots?
Do miracles violate our free will?
If God used his almighty power to ensure all creatures had an excellent
everyone would willingly love him.
We can be prosecuted if we don't care for our children or pets to the
best of our ability. Why should God be exempt?
Q: If you were almighty wouldn't you use that power to ensure the
object of your love had only good things?
>> Q: What do you think truth is?
>>
>Truth is everything that is not false.
>Jesus Christ is the 'way, the TRUTH and the Life,
What does that mean?
>No one comes to God the Father except through Jesus Christ
Why?
>> Q: Could we do anything at all that God had not made possible?
>>
>No
Remember that when you want to blame us for anything.
duke
>Yes. But sometimes the best comes through personal understandings
>rather than having it given to you 'on a plate'. You appreciate it
>more.
Personal understandings can be very wrong.
duke
>On Dec 11, 4:46�am, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >> If you love someone don't you want the best for them?
>> >> Wouldn't you want to protect them from any harm?
>> >> If you were almighty wouldn't you use that power to ensure the object
>> >> of your love had only good things?
>> > then read Ephesians 2 : 4 -10
>>
>> Genesis 1-11 is not a scientific accounting of God's creation of the universe
>> and all in it including mankind, but instead Israel's faith statement regarding
>> same. �Gen 1-11 (or all of it) was written after 2 Kings.
>I haven't come across the evidence that was so. What are your
>references.
>It is generally believed that Moses wrote the first five books of the
>Old Testament from information taht had been passed orally or on clay
>tablets from the patriarch's.
Gen 1-11, as a minimum, is not scientific statement but instead a faith
statement. That comes from the intro in my bible to Genesis. The writing of
Gen 1-11, as a minimum, was written after 2 Kings according to the Priesthood
knowledge base.
>So you believe that God was not capable, by the power of His word
>of bringing His creation into being. Jesus Christ was/is the Word as
>John 1 : 1 - 3. 14.
>It has only been in recent times, (I will have to check the date
>again), that the Vatican has supported that universe had come into
>existence by the Big Bang and that supposely happened
>millions of years ago.
Only a small % of Christians mandate that every word in the bible is literal
truth in EVERY word. Adam and Eve don't have to be a specific man and woman,
but a representation of the nature of humanity and it's propensity to tell God
no, that we'll decide right from wrong and not he, God. That then makes US as
mankind the equal of God.
Scientifically speaking, God willed the universe into existence some 13.7
billion years ago, something out of nothing into nothingness. That's creation
at it's finest.
v1_0
Hello. I happened to see the following...
> You admitted there is much that is not love and justice.
Ok, this point is an observation and therefore accepted. We could
also generalize it and say "there is much that is evil" (in the world,
I assume).
> If there was a loving almighty God there would not be anything bad.
Now here we have an assertation ("If there was a loving almighty God")
and a conclusion ("there would not be anything bad").
That's fine. But I'd like to see the work inbetween - your chain of
logic and supporting reasoning - if you don't mind.
> Conclusion: There is no loving almighty God.
Ok, your conclusion here is the opposite of your assertion above - for
it to be true, the assertion must be false and there must only be two
choices. Without seeing the chain of logic above, this is
indeterminate.
-V
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >On Dec 11, 4:46 am, duke wrote:
> >> Genesis 1-11 is not a scientific accounting of God's creation of the universe
> >> and all in it including mankind, but instead Israel's faith statement regarding
> >> same. Gen 1-11 (or all of it) was written after 2 Kings.
> >I haven't come across the evidence that was so. What are your
> >references.
> >It is generally believed that Moses wrote the first five books of the
> >Old Testament from information that had been passed orally or on clay
> >tablets from the patriarchs.
>
> Gen 1-11, as a minimum, is not scientific statement but instead a faith
> statement. That comes from the intro in my bible to Genesis. The writing of
> Gen 1-11, as a minimum, was written after 2 Kings according to the Priesthood
> knowledge base.
>
> >So you believe that God was not capable, by the power of His word
> >of bringing His creation into being. Jesus Christ was/is the Word as
> >John 1 : 1 - 3. 14.
> >It has only been in recent times, (I will have to check the date
> >again), that the Vatican has supported that universe had come into
> >existence by the Big Bang and that supposely happened
> >millions of years ago.
>
> Only a small % of Christians mandate that every word in the bible is literal
> truth in EVERY word. Adam and Eve don't have to be a specific man and woman,
> but a representation of the nature of humanity and it's propensity to tell God
> no, that we'll decide right from wrong and not he, God. That then makes US as
> mankind the equal of God.
>
However, you would then have to assert that the datings of the
patriarhs as given
in the Bible (Genesis 5) have no bearing on the keeping of the
historical record
from the Creation by God. The Biblical account has more veracity than
the
accounts of the Roman and the Greek gods as far as I have read of
them.
> Scientifically speaking, God willed the universe into existence some 13.7
> billion years ago,
But that cannot be determined by repeated, testable scientific
investigations.
> something out of nothing into nothingness. That's creation
The Bibilcal account is of about 6000 years ago,
So of the supposedly 6.'7 billion years since scientists say that God
'willed the
universe into existence' the Biblical record covers just 1/2300 of
that time.
What was God doing in 2299/2300 of that time?
God took a very long time in changing unicellular into multicellualar
by that
reasoning. Or by that reasoning did God need a very long sleep to get
over
the exertion of bringing the Universe into existence 13.7 billion
years ago? .
However, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2Cor
5 : 19(a))
Jesus Christ did not have to go through long periods of time to heal
the sick,
raise the dead. So why did God in the beginning need long periods of
time
to change unicellular into multicellular organisms before humans came
to
exist?
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
Or is it that the Roman Catholic Church knowing of Darwin's work from
England
and the early debates with Rev Samual Wilberfore and the beginning of
the evolution protest Movement in England in 1923 under the
chairmanship of
Sir Ambose Fleming, the Father of Electronics, a Protestant Christian,
that it would take its time to determine which side it would support.
But as the ecientists in America insisted that (godless) evolution
should be taught
in schools after Sputnik went up (Russia had won the race-into-space,
so there was
evidence of its superior education system - supposedly - because the
USA was only
a few months behind Russia; although when USA was the first to put men
on the moon
in 1969 - I watched it happening on TV) the decision was not then
reversed). Oh, it was
evolution that enabled men to be put on the moon as well, was it??? No
apologies for
my cynicism!
The Vatican's view of Evolution. The Story of Two Popes
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html
That has some information in it, but it did not give me all I wanted.
i need to do another search.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >Yes. But sometimes the best comes through personal understandings
> >rather than having it given to you 'on a plate'. You appreciate it
> >more.
>
> Personal understandings can be very wrong.
>
in fact of all of us at sometimes in our lives. .
What was the Protestant Reformation?
http://www.gotquestions.org/Protestant_Reformation.html
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Hope it will come on your monitor now.
Gladys Swager
duke
I don't know. Why don't you tell me. You're one of them.
duke
You don't understand, gladys. A discuss is not reading a url. If you can't
even present your own beliefs, why bother posting.
duke
Gen 1-11 is not a scientific accounting of God's creation of the universe and
all in it, but instead Israel's faith statement thereof. Gen 1-11 was written
after 2 Kings.
> The Biblical account has more veracity than
>the
>accounts of the Roman and the Greek gods as far as I have read of
>them.
>> Scientifically speaking, God willed the universe into existence some 13.7
>> billion years ago,
>But that cannot be determined by repeated, testable scientific
>investigations.
It is the profession of the world's scientists and physicists.
>> something out of nothing into nothingness. �That's creation
>The Bibilcal account is of about 6000 years ago,
Wrong. Gen 1-11 destroys that story.
>So of the supposedly 6.'7 billion years since scientists say that God
>'willed the
>universe into existence' the Biblical record covers just 1/2300 of
>that time.
>What was God doing in 2299/2300 of that time?
Well, ask him.
>God took a very long time in changing unicellular into multicellualar
>by that reasoning.
God created, and then turned it all over to evolution.
> Or by that reasoning did God need a very long sleep to get
>over the exertion of bringing the Universe into existence 13.7 billion
>years ago? .
Let's not play children's games.
>However, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2Cor
>5 : 19(a))
>Jesus Christ did not have to go through long periods of time to heal
>the sick,
>raise the dead. So why did God in the beginning need long periods of
>time
>to change unicellular into multicellular organisms before humans came
>to
>exist?
>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
God become man was only on the earth for 33 years.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:08:30 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>
> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >On Dec 12, 4:58 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >> >Yes. But sometimes the best comes through personal understandings
> >> >rather than having it given to you 'on a plate'. You appreciate it
> >> >more.
>
> >> Personal understandings can be very wrong.
>
> >And that also incudes some understandings of Popes -
> >in fact of all of us at sometimes in our lives. .
> >What was the Protestant Reformation?
> >http://www.gotquestions.org/Protestant_Reformation.html
>
> I don't know. Why don't you tell me. You're one of them.
>
http://www.gotquestions.org then enter your own search item.
Yes, I became a Protestant through circumstances, not through
considered choice. And have attended in a number of Protestant
denominations in my life, and in one Roman Catholic church
possibly in 1968 with a relative.
My life's experiences brought me to advocating unity among
Christians early in 1976 and included the idea in a statement
I made on more naturalistic means of managing what are termed
Mental Illnesses. A greater emphasis has been placed on such
means since that time. I am well aware of how professionals can
develop ideas from the initiatives of others.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
And most present-day scientists ans physicists were indoctrinated in
the General Science course in the school system from the early 1960's
ie those about 60 years of age and less that was evolutionary
orientated.
The only diety was 'Mother Nature'.
> >> something out of nothing into nothingness. That's creation
> >The Bibilcal account is of about 6000 years ago,
>
> Wrong. Gen 1-11 destroys that story.
>
So the Bible can be changed to suit some modern scientific views
even when tthere are other scientists who state, from their studies,
that the universe and earth has evidence of a much younger age.
Is tha tyour belief?
> >So of the supposedly 6.'7 billion years since scientists say that God
> >'willed the universe into existence' the Biblical record covers just 1/2300 of
> >that time.
> >What was God doing in 2299/2300 of that time?
>
> Well, ask him.
>
You have tried to tell me that you have a greater knowlsdge of God.
Why don't you ask Him
> >God took a very long time in changing unicellular into multicellualar
> >by that reasoning.
>
> God created, and then turned it all over to evolution.
>
And what life-giving and transmitting properites does evolution have,
It is a theory, not a living being.
> > Or by that reasoning did God need a very long sleep to get
> >over the exertion of bringing the Universe into existence 13.7 billion
> >years ago? .
>
> Let's not play children's games.
>
I know of no children who would work that one out.
> >However, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2Cor
> >5 : 19(a))
> >Jesus Christ did not have to go through long periods of time to heal
> >the sick,
> >raise the dead. So why did God in the beginning need long periods of
> >time
> >to change unicellular into multicellular organisms before humans came
> >to exist?
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
>
> God become man was only on the earth for 33 years.
>
I can'r see the relevance of that statement.
Perfect God was in perfect man, Jesus Christ, but
Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, has existed eternally.
It is in His human existence that He was given the name of 'Jesus'.
However, He took His manhood into heaven when He ascended
forty days after His resurrection. Angels told the disciples that
He would return in the way that they had seen Him ascend.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
Aye, you must be a wee Scottish lad if you can'r see that.
>Perfect God was in perfect man, Jesus Christ, but
>Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, has existed eternally.
So what did God do for the eternity he existed before creating?
>It is in His human existence that He was given the name of 'Jesus'.
>However, He took His manhood into heaven when He ascended
>forty days after His resurrection.
I would hope he took his manhood. We don't want Jesus' rotting penis
here.
>Angels told the disciples that
>He would return in the way that they had seen Him ascend.
I hear the Catholic Church is very rich. Maybe they bought God or at
least the rights to everything God says and does.
In that case you are going to have to accept that what Duke says on
behalf of the RCC is fact.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >Perfect God was in perfect man, Jesus Christ, but
> >Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, has existed eternally.
>
> So what did God do for the eternity he existed before creating?
>
That has not been revealed to us. But when we have everlasting life
we shall know.
> >It is in His human existence that He was given the name of 'Jesus'.
> >However, He took His manhood into heaven when He ascended
> >forty days after His resurrection.
>
Jesus was resurrected. Do you know what 'resurrected' means, Barry? .
> >Angels told the disciples that
> >He would return in the way that they had seen Him ascend.
>
> I hear the Catholic Church is very rich. Maybe they bought God or at
> least the rights to everything God says and does.
Yes, it owns the richest bank in the world, I have read on an Intenet
site.
But Jesus left all teh riches of Eternity to become poor so that we
could
have all the riches of Eternity that money cannot buy.
I think it is on a wikipedia site about Benedict XVI that there is a
photograph
of him in his papal robes. I wonder just what would be the cost of
all the rich embroidery. Jesus wore the clothes of the men of His
day.
When there were those who wanted to kill Him after He had spoken in
the
synagogue at Nazareth He was able to escape through the crowd
Luke 4 : 16 - 30
> In that case you are going to have to accept that what Duke says on
> behalf of the RCC is fact.
>
Duke has to learn to accept scripture instead of the decrees of the
leaders
of the RCC that are not supported by scripture. That will be very
hard for him
to do as the apologists for the RC religion have been very crafty in
the way
they use the scriptures.
Gladys Swager
�R.L.Measures
<god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:37:46 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 12, 11:02�am, duke wrote:
>
> >> God become man was only on the earth for 33 years.
> >>
> >I can'r see the relevance of that statement.
>
> Aye, you must be a wee Scottish lad if you can'r see that.
>
> >Perfect God was in perfect man, Jesus Christ, but
> >Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, has existed eternally.
>
> So what did God do for the eternity he existed before creating?
>
� chortle. Good one Barry O.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
duke
<swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>On Dec 12, 10:56�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:08:30 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>>
>> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >On Dec 12, 4:58�am, duke �wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >> >Yes. But sometimes the best comes through personal understandings
>> >> >rather than having it given to you 'on a plate'. You appreciate it
>> >> >more.
>>
>> >> Personal understandings can be very wrong.
>>
>> >And that also incudes some understandings of Popes -
>> >in fact of all of us at sometimes in our lives. .
>> >What was the Protestant Reformation?
>> >http://www.gotquestions.org/Protestant_Reformation.html
>>
>> I don't know. �Why don't you tell me. �You're one of them.
>>
>That website is not working. I hope the following will
>http://www.gotquestions.org then enter your own search item.
>
>Yes, I became a Protestant through circumstances, not through
>considered choice. And have attended in a number of Protestant
>denominations in my life, and in one Roman Catholic church
>possibly in 1968 with a relative.
>My life's experiences brought me to advocating unity among
>Christians early in 1976
Then why did you turn to a protest movement?
duke
Mother nature is not a deity. Mother nature is evolution in progress.
>> >> something out of nothing into nothingness. �That's creation
>> >The Bibilcal account is of about 6000 years ago,
>> Wrong. �Gen 1-11 destroys that story.
>So the Bible can be changed to suit some modern scientific views
>even when tthere are other scientists who state, from their studies,
>that the universe and earth has evidence of a much younger age.
>Is tha tyour belief?
Call it what you wish. The universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth is
4.5 billion years old.
Gen 1-11 is not scientific and does not propose to be do.
>> >So of the supposedly 6.'7 billion years since scientists say that God
>> >'willed the universe into existence' �the Biblical record covers just 1/2300 of
>> >that time.
>> >What was God doing in 2299/2300 �of that time?
>> Well, ask him.
>You have tried to tell me that you have a greater knowlsdge of God.
>Why don't you ask Him
I already have the answer. I don't have to describe God's day.
>> >God took a very long time in changing unicellular into multicellualar
>> >by that reasoning.
>> God created, and then turned it all over to evolution.
>And what life-giving and transmitting properites does evolution have,
>It is a theory, not a living being.
The very ones that God gave it.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
l
> >http://www.gotquestions.org then enter your own search item.
>
> >Yes, I became a Protestant through circumstances, not through
> >considered choice. And have attended in a number of Protestant
> >possibly in 1968 with a relative.
> >My life's experiences brought me to advocating unity among
> >Christians early in 1976
>
> Then why did you turn to a protest movement?
>
with the Roman Catholic Church. My Dutch maternal grandfather
often had arguments with the local Italian and Irish RC priests
as the Dutch Roman Catholics were closer to
the Church of England in their beliefs and practices.
The problems between Dutch and Italian.Roman Catholics may
go back to Eighteenth Century when Spain was at war with Holland
(the Netherrlands) but that is way back in my school History studies,
even to the Spanish Armada times of the late Sixteenth Century.
Must read on those times again.
At the age of three years I attended in a Protestant Sunday School
as my mother allowed a neighbour to take me. The RC Church was
about three kilometres away and farm work was very intensive - seven
days a week.in those days especially as the farm was being developed
on virgin bushland. - all manual labour.
What you must realise is that the hierarchy of the Church at Rome
took Christianity from faith-based.teachings for salvation
to a faith PLUS works-based religion in which the priests took control
of all of the believers' lives with the threat of a period in
Purgatory
after this life. The Bible was denied to even the educated laity -
those who could read. It required the RC priests themselves to be
courageous enough to state their convictions against the wrong
teachings that had been introduced - and even today they are still
within the beliefs of the Church and still imposed - believe or else!
Christmas is less thn two weeks away. The teachings about Mary,
two only decreed in 1854 and 1950 (Immaculate Conception and
Assumption into heaven) should make members of the
RC Church to question them . And with access to the Internet
which does have both sides of the issue now makes that information
more readily available. You need to do more study, Duke.
Gladys Swager.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Dec 12, 11:02 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> >> >However, you would then have to assert that the datings of the
> >> >historical record from the Creation by God.
>
> >> Gen 1-11 is not a scientific accounting of God's creation of the universe and
> >> all in it, but instead Israel's faith statement thereof. Gen 1-11 was written
> >> after 2 Kings.
>
Testament,
sometime before the happenings in 2 Kings.
> >> >> Scientifically speaking, God willed the universe into existence some 13.7
> >> >> billion years ago, (Duke)
>
> >> >But that cannot be determined by repeated, testable scientific
> >> >investigations.
I have not seen any scinetific evidence that that dating is correct.
It has even been repeated in sections of the media, but I would doubt
that
the journalists had been able to scientifically prove it to be
correct.
The introduction of the teaching of evolutionary theory in schools has
been
more an exercise of secularists/atheists that children had no means
to
discredit and which they have taken into adulthood as being true.
> >> It is the profession of the world's scientists and physicists.
> >And most present-day scientists and physicists were indoctrinated in
> >the General Science course in the school system from the early 1960's
> >ie those about 60 years of age and less that was evolutionary
> >orientated. The only diety was 'Mother Nature'.
>
> Mother nature is not a deity. Mother nature is evolution in progress.
>
There is evelution = change in every living organism in every
procreation -
parent to offspring; but that can't then be used to state that there
has been
evolutionary change from one species to another.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/
> >> >The Bibilcal account is of about 6000 years ago,
> >> Wrong. Gen 1-11 destroys that story.
> >So the Bible can be changed to suit some modern scientific views
> >even when tthere are other scientists who state, from their studies,
> >that the universe and earth has evidence of a much younger age.
> >Is that your belief?
>
> Call it what you wish. The universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth is
> 4.5 billion years old.
That means it took the earth a very long time to spin away from some
other
planet - or by what other means did the earth come into existence.
You do not believe that God could have created by the power of His
word
something out of nothing!?
> Gen 1-11 is not scientific and does not propose to be do.
>
> >You have tried to tell me that you have a greater knowledge of God.
> >Why don't you ask Him
>
I have never posted that and you are well aware of that.
Sounds as if you are getting desperate in your thinking!
> I already have the answer. I don't have to describe God's day.
>
> >> >God took a very long time in changing unicellular into multicellualar
> >> >by that reasoning.
> >> God created, and then turned it all over to evolution.
> >And what life-giving and transmitting properites does evolution have,
> >It is a theory, not a living being.
>
> The very ones that God gave it.
>
And you can't desribe them in scientific terms?
Gladys Swager
duke
>On Dec 13, 6:18�am, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>l
>> >http://www.gotquestions.org� then enter your own search item.
>>
>> >Yes, I became a Protestant through circumstances, not through
>> >considered choice. And have attended in a number of Protestant
>> >denominations in my life, and in one Roman Catholic Church
>> >possibly in 1968 with a relative.
>> >My life's experiences brought me to advocating unity among
>> >Christians early in 1976
>>
>> Then why did you turn to a protest movement?
>I woke earlier this morning thinking of my family's experiences
>with the Roman Catholic Church. My Dutch maternal grandfather
>often had arguments with the local Italian and Irish RC priests
>as the Dutch Roman Catholics were closer to
>the Church of England in their beliefs and practices.
>The problems between Dutch and Italian.Roman Catholics may
>go back to Eighteenth Century when Spain was at war with Holland
>(the Netherrlands) but that is way back in my school History studies,
>even to the Spanish Armada times of the late Sixteenth Century.
>Must read on those times again.
And how sad that a family argument drives one away from the Church founded by
Christ.
>At the age of three years I attended in a Protestant Sunday School
>as my mother allowed a neighbour to take me. The RC Church was
>about three kilometres away and farm work was very intensive - seven
>days a week.in those days especially as the farm was being developed
>on virgin bushland. - all manual labour.
No points.
>What you must realise is that the hierarchy of the Church at Rome
>took Christianity from faith-based.teachings for salvation
>to a faith PLUS works-based religion in which the priests took control
>of all of the believers' lives
And what you must realize is that lut took those willing to protest from
believing scripture to playing A&E and deciding for one's self if Christ knew
what he was talking about.
And of course, lute told you "no".
> with the threat of a period in Purgatory after this life.
And why is purgatory a threat? Have you given up a life of sin? If you say
yes, you're lying. Because scripture says that only Jesus did that. Heb 4:15.
And if you (and all of us) still embrace sin, how can you profess that you can
stand face to face with God?
Matthew 5:8 (New International Version)
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Why are you so afraid of the purification of your heart? Why are you so scared
to accept that purgatory is for the saved, not the damned. Why are you so
afraid that Jesus gave us the purging so that "little" sinners could enter the
kingdom of God and see God? This purging not only removes the stain of our past
sins, but also removes the propensity to sin that is mankind, all the way back
to A&E.
Why are you so afraid of Jesus, gladys?
> The Bible was denied to even the educated laity -
>those who could read.
But how many had the time and fortitude to study and understand the full
revelation from Gen 1:1 to Rev 22:21? I ask you gladys - how many other than
those devoting an entire lifetime over and above the lifetimes already spent by
others, including those that knew Christ himself? And you actually think lute
wasn't playing people like you for fools?
>Christmas is less thn two weeks away. The teachings about Mary,
>two only decreed in 1854 and 1950 (Immaculate Conception and
>Assumption into heaven) should make members of the
>RC Church to question them.
Why would we question that which was fully belief in 33AD? Only the foolish do
that.
> And with access to the Internet
>which does have both sides of the issue now makes that information
>more readily available. You need to do more study, Duke.
>Gladys Swager.
I already have my authority - Jesus and his Church. Possibly you should query
your internet sources and see what makes them an authority.
duke
>On Dec 13, 6:23�am, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Dec 12, 11:02�am, duke �wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> >> >However, you would then have to assert that the datings of the
>> >> >patriarchs as given in the Bible (Genesis 5) have no bearing on the keeping of the
>> >> >historical record from the Creation by God.
>>
>> >> Gen 1-11 is not a scientific accounting of God's creation of the universe and
>> >> all in it, but instead Israel's faith statement thereof. �Gen 1-11 was written
>> >> after 2 Kings.
>Mosees is credited to be the author of teh first five books of the Old
>Testament, sometime before the happenings in 2 Kings.
Well, allow me to quote you a statement from the intro to Genesis in my Catholic
Study Bible.
"The author of Genesis: The simplest and most honest thing we can say about who
wrote Genesis is that we do not know. Although Genesis does not record the name
of it's author, by Jesus' time the rabbis had come to agree that Moses wrote
Genesis and the four books which follow it , sometimes called the pentateuch, or
five-scrolls. In the NT, Jesus makes reference to "the Law of Moses" and early
Christians accepted the TRADITION of the Mosaic authorship.
Some modern critical scholars come to a different conclusion. Their theory is
that Genesis, Exodus, Leiticus, and Numbers in their present form, constitute
one largely connected narrative. They were not written as separate books."
>> >> >> Scientifically speaking, God willed the universe into existence some 13.7
>> >> >> billion years ago, (Duke)
>> >> >But that cannot be determined by repeated, testable scientific
>> >> >investigations.
>I have not seen any scinetific evidence that that dating is correct.
>It has even been repeated in sections of the media, but I would doubt
>that the journalists had been able to scientifically prove it to be
>correct.
It's not the journalists, gladys, it's the scientists and physicists.
>> >> >The Bibilcal account is of about 6000 years ago,
>> >> Wrong. �Gen 1-11 destroys that story.
>> >So the Bible can be changed to suit some modern scientific views
>> >even when tthere are other scientists who state, from their studies,
>> >that the universe and earth has evidence of a much younger age.
>> >Is that your belief?
>> Call it what you wish. �The universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth is
>> 4.5 billion years old.
>That means it took the earth a very long time to spin away from some
>other planet - or by what other means did the earth come into existence.
>You do not believe that God could have created by the power of His
>word something out of nothing!?
God did create something out of nothing. He created that infinitely small point
of mass of infinite density and cut it loose is what is typically called the big
bang.
You're really scared to death to see God as creator
>> Gen 1-11 is not scientific and does not propose to be do.
>> >You have tried to tell me that you have a greater knowledge of God.
>> >Why don't you ask Him
>I have never posted that and you are well aware of that.
>Sounds as if you are getting desperate in your thinking!
No, but I am getting desperate to continue to discuss with a person that sees no
value in learning other than to turn to unlearned, outlaw internet sites for her
beliefs.
God said he created the universe and all in it, and science says it can apply
scientific principles to observe that this happened some 13.7 billion years ago
with God's creation and including outer space as part of the point. God said
that he sent his son to show us the way to overcome sin and live in his grace
with the desire for eternal rest, even though we cannot be as he is sin free,
but you cannot accept that you have a small part to play - to repent, avoid sin,
go to confession if you slip up, and have y(our) sin nature and the stain of
actual sin removed.
It's sad how you expose yourself to eternal damnation every day because you
cannot accept what God did say and didn't say. Your attitude is that the bible
can only be accepted as you see it, and not as God can have easily intended it.
>> I already have the answer. �I don't have to describe God's day.
>> >> >God took a very long time in changing unicellular into multicellualar
>> >> >by that reasoning.
>> >> God created, and then turned it all over to evolution.
>> >And what life-giving and transmitting properites does evolution have,
>> >It is a theory, not a living being.
>> The very ones that God gave it.
>And you can't desribe them in scientific terms?
I have no need to. God's way is evolution following creation.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> >Testament, sometime before the happenings in 2 Kings.
>
> Well, allow me to quote you a statement from the intro to Genesis in my Catholic
> Study Bible.
>
> "The author of Genesis: The simplest and most honest thing we can say about who
> wrote Genesis is that we do not know. Although Genesis does not record the name
> of it's author, by Jesus' time the rabbis had come to agree that Moses wrote
> Genesis and the four books which follow it , sometimes called the pentateuch, or
> five-scrolls. In the NT, Jesus makes reference to "the Law of Moses" and early
> Christians accepted the TRADITION of the Mosaic authorship.
>
the rabbis had
come to agree that Moses wrote the Pentateuch'?
> Some modern critical scholars come to a different conclusion. Their theory is
> that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers in their present form, constitute
> one largely connected narrative. They were not written as separate books."
>
Whether they were written as one book or five books is of little
consquence,
> >> >> >> Scientifically speaking, God willed the universe into existence some 13.7
> >> >> >> billion years ago, (Duke)
> >> >> >But that cannot be determined by repeated, testable scientific
> >> >> >investigations.
> It's not the journalists, gladys, it's the scientists and physicists.
>
The journalists were quoting what they had been told by scientists or
what they had read in of the writings of scientists.
Students at school would also they state that information, simp;y
because
they had been taught it. But I know from experience that all that was
taught
in the school system is not correct.
Not every scientist re-does the experiments of previous scinetists.
But what expereients can be done to determine that age of the
universe
as billions of years.
If as scientists say the humans have existed for 4.7 billion years
then
why aren't there many more skeletons in the fossil record?
And why isn't the population of the world at bursting point now.
About 7 billion population, as it is now, matches better with 6000
years
it does with 4.7 billion years.
> >> Call it what you wish. The universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth is
> >> 4.5 billion years old.
> >That means it took the earth a very long time to spin away from some
> >other planet - or by what other means did the earth come into existence.
> >You do not believe that God could have created by the power of His
> >word something out of nothing!?
>
> God did create something out of nothing. He created that infinitely small point
> of mass of infinite density and cut it loose is what is typically called the big
> bang.
>
And as Gid was infintively great so that He could create something out
of nothing,
why was He incapable, in your estimation, of forming all organisms in
their
full forms? Where are all the incomplete forms in their mature adult
stage?
> No, but I am getting desperate to continue to discuss with a person that sees no
> value in learning other than to turn to unlearned, outlaw internet sites for her
> beliefs.
>
There is a lot of good on the Internet as well as a lot of rubbish.
Sites are 'outlaw' to you when they do not agree with what you accept
to be
true. You have been well trained in the RC tradition of believe
whatever is taught.
> God said he created the universe and all in it, and science says it can apply
> scientific principles to observe that this happened some 13.7 billion years ago
> with God's creation and including outer space as part of the point. God said
> that he sent his son to show us the way to overcome sin and live in his grace
> with the desire for eternal rest, even though we cannot be as he is sin free,
> but you cannot accept that you have a small part to play - to repent, avoid sin,
> go to confession if you slip up, and have y(our) sin nature and the stain of
> actual sin removed.
> It's sad how you expose yourself to eternal damnation every day because you
> cannot accept what God did say and didn't say. Your attitude is that the bible
> can only be accepted as you see it, and not as God can have easily intended it.
>
Then why did Paul teach that
'by grace are we saved through faith; and that NOT of ourselvesl,
***it is the gift of God*** NOT OF WORKS LEST ANYONE SHOULD BOAST'.
God's way is change within a species in each procreation.
That is happening continually. That is what Charles Darwin saw in the
Galapogas
Islands. He did not see change from univcellular to multicellular.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
http://www.gotquestions.org then enter your own search item.
>
You, Duke, are not at a stage when you can accept that the Church
at Rome began to move away from the teachings of Jesus Christ
by the early Fourth Century and has continued to adopt ideas
contrary to those teachings up to the last Century.
If Mary McKillop is canonised as the First Australian saint in the
near
future that will be another teaching that is contrary to the New
Testament.
All Christians, who hold Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9 - for by grace are we
saved
through faith and that not of ourselves; it is the gift of God
Not of works. lest anyone should boast, are saints - see
Introductions
to Paul's epistles, ARE saints with all those so named in those
epistles.
While miracles performed are said to be the basis of sainthood.
Jesus told His disciples that they would do 'greater things because He
was
going to the Father" One interpretation of that is that causes, cures
and
preventitive methods would be found, .
>
> >What you must realise is that the hierarchy of the Church at Rome
> >took Christianity from faith-based.teachings for salvation
> >to a faith PLUS works-based religion in which the priests took control
> >of all of the believers' lives
>
> believing scripture to playing A&E and deciding for one's self if Christ knew
> what he was talking about.
>
have been
taught in the RC Church, perhaps even from quite a young boy.
I am not saying that all that happened as the Protestant Reformation
progressed
was correct. There was so much ignorance on all sides of the issue as
there were
few published books since the Printing press has been invented about
one hundred
years previously. So a lot that happened has to be understood in the
context of
those times.
<snip, I hope to come back later>
Gladys Swager.
duke
>On Dec 14, 2:15�am, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>http://www.gotquestions.org�then enter your own search item.
>The church at Rome today is NOT the church that Jesus founded.
There is no "Church at Rome". The home of the Roman Catholic Pope is Vatican
City, a sovereign country.
>You, Duke, are not at a stage when you can accept that the Church
>at Rome began to move away from the teachings of Jesus Christ
>by the early Fourth Century and has continued to adopt ideas
>contrary to those teachings up to the last Century.
Lut sure sucked you in.
>> >What you must realise is that the hierarchy of the Church at Rome
>> >took Christianity from �faith-based.teachings for salvation
>> >to a faith PLUS works-based religion in which the priests took control
>> >of all of the believers' lives
>> And what you must realize is that <Luther> took those willing to protest from
>> believing scripture to playing A&E and deciding for one's self if Christ knew
>> what he was talking about.
>Luther WAS believing scripture.
No, he wasn't. He was playing cafeteria Christian. I can't imagine a fool like
lut coming along 1600 years after Christ taught his Church and deciding for
himself that he knew better then what Christ said and what Christ meant.
> You have your facts incorrect as you have been taught in the RC Church
And you have totally bombed out trying to reveal those things. You have been
victimized by lut.
duke
>On Dec 14, 2:45�am, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Dec 13, 6:23�am, duke �wrote:
>> >Moses is credited to be the author of the first five books of the Old
>> >Testament, sometime before the happenings in 2 Kings.
>> Well, allow me to quote you a statement from the intro to Genesis in my Catholic
>> Study Bible.
>> "The author of Genesis: �The simplest and most honest thing we can say about who
>> wrote Genesis is that we do not know. �Although Genesis does not record the name
>> of it's author, by Jesus' time the rabbis had come to agree that Moses wrote
>> Genesis and the four books which follow it , sometimes called the pentateuch, or
>> five-scrolls. �In the NT, Jesus makes reference to "the Law of Moses" and early
>> Christians accepted the TRADITION of the Mosaic authorship. �
>What is your historical proof that it was only 'by Jesus' time' that
>the rabbis had come to agree that Moses wrote the Pentateuch'?
I told you above where that came from.
>> Some modern critical scholars come to a different conclusion. �Their theory is
>> that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers in their present form, constitute
>> one largely connected narrative. �They were not written as separate books."
>Whether they were written as one book or five books is of little
>consquence,
Just wanted you to see the true origins of scripture.
>> >> >> >> Scientifically speaking, God willed the universe into existence some 13.7
>> >> >> >> billion years ago, (Duke)
>> >> >> >But that cannot be determined by repeated, testable scientific
>> >> >> >investigations.
>> It's not the journalists, gladys, it's the scientists and physicists.
>The journalists were quoting what they had been told by scientists or
>what they had read in of the writings of scientists.
That's what I said. Scientifically, we can set the age of the universe at some
13.7 billion years and the earth at 4.5 billion years.
>Students at school would also they state that information, simp;y
>because
>they had been taught it. But I know from experience that all that was
>taught
>in the school system is not correct.
>Not every scientist re-does the experiments of previous scinetists.
Gladys, face it - the age of the universe is some 13.7 billion years and the age
of the earth is some 4.5 billion years. Quit trying to make excuses.
>But what expereients can be done to determine that age of the
>universe as billions of years.
>If as scientists say the humans have existed for 4.7 billion years
>then why aren't there many more skeletons in the fossil record?
You're confused between the age of the universe/earth and the age of mankind.
>And why isn't the population of the world at bursting point now.
>About 7 billion population, as it is now, matches better with 6000
>years it does with 4.7 billion years.
>> >> Call it what you wish. �The universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth is
>> >> 4.5 billion years old.
>> >That means it took the earth a very long time to spin away from some
>> >other planet - or by what other means did the earth come into existence.
>> >You do not believe that God could have created by the power of His
>> >word something out of nothing!?
>
>> God did create something out of nothing. �He created that infinitely small point
>> of mass of infinite density and cut it loose is what is typically called the big
>> bang. �
>And as Gid was infintively great so that He could create something out
>of nothing,
>why was He incapable, in your estimation, of forming all organisms in
>their
>full forms? Where are all the incomplete forms in their mature adult
>stage?
He could have. He didn't.
>> No, but I am getting desperate to continue to discuss with a person that sees no
>> value in learning other than to turn to unlearned, outlaw internet sites for her
>> beliefs.
>There is a lot of good on the Internet as well as a lot of rubbish.
>Sites are 'outlaw' to you when they do not agree with what you accept
>to be true. You have been well trained in the RC tradition of believe
>whatever is taught.
I don't try to define your spiritual views by going to a Vatican site. You
should quit trying to tell me my spiritual views by going to an ignorant
personal site of someone that has no more knowledge than you do.
>> God said he created the universe and all in it, and science says it can apply
>> scientific principles to observe that this happened some 13.7 billion years ago
>> with God's creation and including outer space as part of the point. �God said
>> that he sent his son to show us the way to overcome sin and live in his grace
>> with the desire for eternal rest, even though we cannot be as he is sin free,
>> but you cannot accept that you have a small part to play - to repent, avoid sin,
>> go to confession if you slip up, and have y(our) sin nature and the stain of
>> actual sin removed.
>> It's sad how you expose yourself to eternal damnation every day because you
>> cannot accept what God did say and didn't say. �Your attitude is that the bible
>> can only be accepted as you see it, and not as God can have easily intended it.
>Then why did Paul teach that
>'by grace are we saved through faith; and that NOT of ourselvesl,
Because you and I are regular sinners who may or may not be guilty of the worst
kind of sins, that confession is the only way Christ gave us to clear our
conscience with him especially on the really bad sins, that the ugliness and
stain of sin and the sin nature on our soul prevents us from standing before
God.
Now you reject those things that are clearly presented from scripture because
you elect to see them only as you wish to see them, but then turn to your
favorite statement from Paul, and you demand it can only be taken one way - your
way.
Your statement can be taken 2 ways - a) faith **in** Jesus is the only way to be
saved, and b) faith **that** Jesus is the only way to be saved.
b) is the only version supported throughout the rest of scripture.
I can go with either version, but one thing I can't accept is that the
continuous sinner has faith in Jesus. The continuous sinner rejects Jesus and
his teachings. And James well says that continuing sin leaves no room for
Jesus's sacrifice, only the fires of hell.
Barry OGrady
>On Dec 12, 2:04�pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>> >Perfect God was in perfect man, Jesus Christ, but
>> >Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, has existed eternally.
>>
>> So what did God do for the eternity he existed before creating?
>>
>That has not been revealed to us. But when we have everlasting life
>we shall know.
Just think, after two trillion years you will be so bored you will beg God
to end it, and you haven't even made a dent on eternity.
Q, a character from Star Trek, begged the crew to end his existence
because he had done everything ten times.
>> >It is in His human existence that He was given the name of 'Jesus'.
>> >However, He took His manhood into heaven when He ascended
>> >forty days after His resurrection.
>>
>Jesus was resurrected. Do you know what 'resurrected' means, Barry? .
Sure. Do you know manhood is slang for genitals?
>> >Angels told the disciples that
>> >He would return in the way that they had seen Him ascend.
>>
>> I hear the Catholic Church is very rich. Maybe they bought God or at
>> least the rights to everything God says and does.
>
>Yes, it owns the richest bank in the world, I have read on an Intenet site.
>But Jesus left all teh riches of Eternity to become poor so that we could
>have all the riches of Eternity that money cannot buy.
Like boredom and desperation?
>I think it is on a wikipedia site about Benedict XVI that there is a photograph
>of him in his papal robes. I wonder just what would be the cost of
>all the rich embroidery. Jesus wore the clothes of the men of His
>day.
The robes and huge churches are necessary so people can "feel"
God. Its interesting they wear dresses when God forbid the wearing
of clothing for the other gender.
>When there were those who wanted to kill Him after He had spoken in
>the synagogue at Nazareth He was able to escape through the crowd
After all the big talk Jesus turned out to be a coward.
>> In that case you are going to have to accept that what Duke says on
>> behalf of the RCC is fact.
>>
>Duke has to learn to accept scripture instead of the decrees of the leaders
>of the RCC that are not supported by scripture. That will be very hard for him
>to do as the apologists for the RC religion have been very crafty in the way
>they use the scriptures.
Duke is very much indoctrinated but so are you.
You offer no reason for Duke or anyone to follow you.
Barry OGrady
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:14:06 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
><swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Yes. But sometimes the best comes through personal understandings
>>rather than having it given to you 'on a plate'. You appreciate it
>>more.
>
>Personal understandings can be very wrong.
Especially of those you trust.
>The Dukester, American-American
Barry OGrady
>On Dec 7, 4:24�pm, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Hello. I happened to see the following...
>
>
>> You admitted there is much that is not love and justice.
>
>Ok, this point is an observation and therefore accepted. We could
>also generalize it and say "there is much that is evil" (in the world,
>I assume).
That would seem fair.
>> If there was a loving almighty God there would not be anything bad.
>
>Now here we have an assertation ("If there was a loving almighty God")
What am I asserting here?
>and a conclusion ("there would not be anything bad").
Note the if that proceeds the conclusion.
>That's fine. But I'd like to see the work inbetween - your chain of
>logic and supporting reasoning - if you don't mind.
That's a fair question though I thought it was obvious.
We can't test God directly but we can determine what we would observe
if there was a loving and almighty God.
If God loved us he would want all to be well with us.
If God was almighty he could have what he wants.
So God may love us, or God may be almighty, but not both.
>> Conclusion: There is no loving almighty God.
>
>Ok, your conclusion here is the opposite of your assertion above - for
>it to be true, the assertion must be false and there must only be two
>choices.
You seem to not know what an assertion is.
I asserted that IF there was a loving almighty God there would not be anything bad.
The if makes the assertion a fact.
The statement ("there would not be anything bad") is also fact.
Since there are bad things the only possible conclusion is there is no God that
is both loving and almighty.
>Without seeing the chain of logic above, this is indeterminate.
To most it is obvious but I don't know your current mental state.
>-V
v1_0
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:02:01 -0800 (PST), v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 7, 4:24 pm, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Hello. I happened to see the following...
>
> >> You admitted there is much that is not love and justice.
>
> >Ok, this point is an observation and therefore accepted. We could
> >also generalize it and say "there is much that is evil" (in the world,
> >I assume).
>
> That would seem fair.
>
> >> If there was a loving almighty God there would not be anything bad.
>
> >Now here we have an assertation ("If there was a loving almighty God")
>
> What am I asserting here?
>
> >and a conclusion ("there would not be anything bad").
>
> Note the if that proceeds the conclusion.
>
> >That's fine. But I'd like to see the work inbetween - your chain of
> >logic and supporting reasoning - if you don't mind.
>
> That's a fair question though I thought it was obvious.
Well, it's a big internet - best not to take anything for granted. I
was hoping you weren't just doing the old "How can a loving God allow
evil" argument.
>
> We can't test God directly but we can determine what we would observe
> if there was a loving and almighty God.
> If God loved us he would want all to be well with us.
We can't say that just being provided with all that we need would be
enough. Each of us has additional desires beyond just our needs, and
any lack of those would create unhappyness. Further, it is often the
case that when we achieve one desire we are happy for a short time and
then find another thing to desire. Some of our desires are for rare/
hard to get things so when they have those they get a sense of
accomplishment and/or pride over their fellow beings, as they now have
something that everyone wants but does not have. If everyone were to
have that thing, then it would be neither rare nor hard to get, so
therefore not desirable. Finally, some of our desires are for things
that are not good for us, or that may be harmful to others. Yet they
are still desires and would bring unhappyness if not fulfilled. Some
would even wish to "be" God (or replace him).
If we remain as we are, even an almighty God would not be able to make
"all be well with us" - because of us. But this is an aside,
actually.
> If God was almighty he could have what he wants.
At most, you can only say that *no force* could prevent an almighty
God from having what he wants. However, this does not exclude
internal prevention/restraint. A loving almighty God would be
obliged to restrain himself from forcing his ways upon someone (like
us).
I suppose it would be customary at this point for you to ask "why" or
"how can that be so, God is almighty" etc. Quite simply: it is
necessary. An almighty God would easily be able to create
automations that would do exactly what he wanted. For the most part,
we are able to do that with computers today. Programming a computer
to say "I love you" is empty, while having a child say this to you is
touching because it is real. I assert that without the ability to
have reasoning and freedom of choice, any expressions of love would -
like the computer - be false. And without the ability to love, we
would not be able to appreciate being loved.
> So God may love us, or God may be almighty, but not both.
>
> >> Conclusion: There is no loving almighty God.
>
> >Ok, your conclusion here is the opposite of your assertion above - for
> >it to be true, the assertion must be false and there must only be two
> >choices.
>
> You seem to not know what an assertion is.
Well, this is the definition I am using: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assertion.
Please let me know if you are using the word in a different way.
> I asserted that IF there was a loving almighty God there would not be anything bad.
> The if makes the assertion a fact.
> The statement ("there would not be anything bad") is also fact.
> Since there are bad things the only possible conclusion is there is no God that
> is both loving and almighty.
>
> >Without seeing the chain of logic above, this is indeterminate.
>
> To most it is obvious but I don't know your current mental state.
Obviously not.
-V
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Checking from the introductions ot the first five books, the
Pentateuch' in my KJV
(Zondervan publication) the five books deal with periods from Creation
to the return
of the Israelties to the borders of their promised land. Whether the
five books were
originally one book or separate fbooks from the time of their writing
is immaterial.
>
> >The journalists were quoting what they had been told by scientists or
> >what they had read in of the writings of scientists.
>
> That's what I said. Scientifically, we can set the age of the universe at some
> 13.7 billion years and the earth at 4.5 billion years.
>
> >Students at school would also state that information, simply
> >because they had been taught it.
>
> Gladys, face it - the age of the universe is some 13.7 billion years and the age
> of the earth is some 4.5 billion years. Quit trying to make excuses.
>
That is what Evolutionary scientists state. I believe that Creation
Scientists have
just as much right to state their investigations.
> >But what experients can be done to determine that age of the
> >universe as billions of years?.
> >If as scientists say the humans have existed for 4.7 billion years
> >then why aren't there many more skeletons in the fossil record?
> >And why isn't the population of the world at bursting point now.
> >About 7 billion population, as it is now, matches better with 6000
> >years than it does with 4.7 billion years.
> >> God did create something out of nothing. He created that infinitely small point
> >> of mass of infinite density and cut it loose is what is typically called the big
> >> bang.
> >And as Gid was infintively great so that He could create something out
> >of nothing, why was He incapable, in your estimation, of forming
> >all organisms in their full forms? Where are all the incomplete forms in their
> > immature adult stage?
>
> He could have. He didn't.
>
You are very sure of what God could or could not have done.
> >> No, but I am getting desperate to continue to discuss with a person that sees no
> >> value in learning other than to turn to unlearned, outlaw internet sites for her
> >> beliefs.
You do not like any contrary opinions to your own.
> >There is a lot of good on the Internet as well as a lot of rubbish.
> >Sites are 'outlaw' to you when they do not agree with what you accept
> >to be true. You have been well trained in the RC tradition of believe
> >whatever is taught.
>
> I don't try to define your spiritual views by going to a Vatican site. You
> should quit trying to tell me my spiritual views by going to an ignorant
> personal site of someone that has no more knowledge than you do.
>
My knowledge is not at the zero level, I can assure you of that.
We both have information that does not agree.
> >> God said he created the universe and all in it, and science says it can apply
> >> scientific principles to observe that this happened some 13.7 billion years ago
> >> with God's creation and including outer space as part of the point. God said
> >> that he sent his son to show us the way to overcome sin and live in his grace
> >> with the desire for eternal rest, even though we cannot be as he is sin free,
> >> but you cannot accept that you have a small part to play - to repent, avoid sin,
> >> go to confession if you slip up, and have y(our) sin nature and the stain of
> >> actual sin removed.
And Jesus said that as we pray say 'Our Father, ... Forgive us our
trespasses as
we forgive those who trespass against us'.
> >> It's sad how you expose yourself to eternal damnation every day because you
> >> cannot accept what God did say and didn't say. Your attitude is that the bible
> >> can only be accepted as you see it, and not as God can have easily intended it.
> >Then why did Paul teach that
> >'by grace are we saved through faith; and that NOT of ourselvesl,
>
> Now you reject those things that are clearly presented from scripture because
> you elect to see them only as you wish to see them, but then turn to your
> favorite statement from Paul, and you demand it can only be taken one way - your
> way.
>
> Your statement can be taken 2 ways - a) faith **in** Jesus is the only way to be
> saved, and b) faith **that** Jesus is the only way to be saved.
> b) is the only version supported throughout the rest of scripture.
>
> I can go with either version, but one thing I can't accept is that the
> continuous sinner has faith in Jesus. The continuous sinner rejects Jesus and
> his teachings. And James well says that continuing sin leaves no room for
> Jesus's sacrifice, only the fires of hell.
>
And the Christian, well aware of New Testament teachings, will
endeavour to live
by faith in every aspect of life. The sin against the Holy Spirit, the
only sin that
can't be forgiven is rejecting the salvation and forgiveness that
Jesus offers us.
The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has made its priests
mediators
between us and God when 1 Timothy 2 : 5 teaches that 'there is one
mediator
between God and (wo)men, the man Christ Jesus.
Gladys Swager
duke
>On Dec 15, 12:37�am, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Dec 14, 2:45�am, duke �wrote:
>Checking from the introductions ot the first five books, the
>Pentateuch' in my KJV
>(Zondervan publication) the five books deal with periods from Creation
>to the return
>of the Israelties to the borders of their promised land. Whether the
>five books were
>originally one book or separate fbooks from the time of their writing
>is immaterial.
Right.
>> >The journalists were quoting what they had been told by scientists or
>> >what they had read in of the writings of scientists.
>> That's what I said. �Scientifically, we can set the age of the universe at some
>> 13.7 billion years and the earth at 4.5 billion years.
>>
>> >Students at school would also state that information, simply
>> >because they had been taught it.
>>
>> Gladys, face it - the age of the universe is some 13.7 billion years and the age
>> of the earth is some 4.5 billion years. �Quit trying to make excuses.
>That is what Evolutionary scientists state. I believe that Creation
>Scientists have just as much right to state their investigations.
Those pushing the idea of the literal truth of every word in the bible must
demand that the earth is 6000 years old.
>> >But what experients can be done to determine that age of the
>> >universe as billions of years?.
>> >If as scientists say the humans have existed for 4.7 billion years
>> >then why aren't there many more skeletons in the fossil record?
>> >And why isn't the population of the world at bursting point now.
>> >About 7 billion population, as it is now, matches better with 6000
>> >years than it does with 4.7 billion years.
>
>> >> God did create something out of nothing. �He created that infinitely small point
>> >> of mass of infinite density and cut it loose is what is typically called the big
>> >> bang. �
>> >And as Gid was infintively great so that He could create something out
>> >of nothing, why was He incapable, in your estimation, of forming
>> >all organisms in their full forms? Where are all the incomplete forms in their
>> > immature adult stage?
>> He could have. �He didn't.
>You are very sure of what God could or could not have done.
Let's just say that God did not use black magic in his ways, but instead natural
evolution and natural events.
>> >> No, but I am getting desperate to continue to discuss with a person that sees no
>> >> value in learning other than to turn to unlearned, outlaw internet sites for her
>> >> beliefs.
>You do not like any contrary opinions to your own.
I'm perfectly willing to consider other opinions. Remember, gladys, you are the
one that professes Ep 2:8-9 can only be taken one way - YOUR way - and no other.
>> >There is a lot of good on the Internet as well as a lot of rubbish.
>> >Sites are 'outlaw' to you when they do not agree with what you accept
>> >to be true. You have been well trained in the RC tradition of believe
>> >whatever is taught.
>> I don't try to define your spiritual views by going to a Vatican site. �You
>> should quit trying to tell me my spiritual views by going to an ignorant
>> personal site of someone that has no more knowledge than you do.
>My knowledge is not at the zero level, I can assure you of that.
>We both have information that does not agree.
This is true. But the proper statement is that we both have beliefs, not
information, that does not agree.
>> >> God said he created the universe and all in it, and science says it can apply
>> >> scientific principles to observe that this happened some 13.7 billion years ago
>> >> with God's creation and including outer space as part of the point. �God said
>> >> that he sent his son to show us the way to overcome sin and live in his grace
>> >> with the desire for eternal rest, even though we cannot be as he is sin free,
>> >> but you cannot accept that you have a small part to play - to repent, avoid sin,
>> >> go to confession if you slip up, and have y(our) sin nature and the stain of
>> >> actual sin removed.
>And Jesus said that as we pray say 'Our Father, ... Forgive us our
>trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us'.
And I concur totally. But.....we are still asking God, not telling God what he
is to do. If we truly live by those words, then we don't have a problem. But,
to that we must still face the revealed scriptural fact that we are still
sinners, as we don't come up to the equal of the sin-free of Jesus. Only God,
specifically Jesus, will evaluate us at the moment we die to see if we are
worthy of the kingdom of God. If the answer is yes to Jesus, then we have the
stains of our past sins and the propensity to sin removed from our soul.
>> >> It's sad how you expose yourself to eternal damnation every day because you
>> >> cannot accept what God did say and didn't say. �Your attitude is that the bible
>> >> can only be accepted as you see it, and not as God can have easily intended it.
>> >Then why did Paul teach that
>> >'by grace are we saved through faith; and that NOT of ourselvesl,
>> Now you reject those things that are clearly presented from scripture because
>> you elect to see them only as you wish to see them, but then turn to your
>> favorite statement from Paul, and you demand it can only be taken one way - your
>> way.
>> Your statement can be taken 2 ways - a) faith **in** Jesus is the only way to be
>> saved, and b) faith **that** Jesus is the only way to be saved.
>> b) is the only version supported throughout the rest of scripture.
>> I can go with either version, but one thing I can't accept is that the
>> continuous sinner has faith in Jesus. �The continuous sinner rejects Jesus and
>> his teachings. �And James well says that continuing sin leaves no room for
>> Jesus's sacrifice, only the fires of hell.
>And the Christian, well aware of New Testament teachings, will
>endeavour to live by faith in every aspect of life.
There is no way in hell that such is the case. And the open hole in your
statement is that all these people "profess" deep belief in God while they
merely go about living a life of gleeful sin.
That's why I've pushed you so hard here. I know lots of people, and I'm
certainly not absolving myself, who see themselves as Christians, but who don't
even come close to the purity that God calls for before standing before him. And
we don't know that limit. But I can say that scripture calls for us living in
the Holy Spirit, the spirit of Christ, who came to serve and not to be served.
This is reflected throughout the NT. It's specified throughout the NT. There
is no way I can judge you nor you judge me. Only God, in the person of Jesus,
can ascertain the status of our soul at the moment of death, and to the sinner,
he goes direct to hell, and to the saved, he is purified before standing before
God.
> The sin against the Holy Spirit, the only sin that
>can't be forgiven is rejecting the salvation and forgiveness that
>Jesus offers us.
See what I mean - you're so quick to demand "only" way.
Rejecting that salvation by failure to make a complete about face in your
lifestyle and to heed those words is a sure ticket to hell, regardless of giving
lip service. Again, we're back to our actions required. WE must change and
follow Christ.
>The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has made its priests
>mediators between us and God
Not a thing other than what Christ told his Apostles in John 20:22-23. He's
gone, and he left salvation of souls via confession of sin in the hands of men.
As he was always ready to declare, let it be known that the son of man, as
opposed to the Son of God, has authority to forgive sins, to be bound in heaven
as they are bound on earth.
> when 1 Timothy 2 : 5 teaches that 'there is one
>mediator between God and (wo)men, the man Christ Jesus.
And Jesus himself said that decisions by the son of man will be maintained with
God.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Dec 15, 12:37 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >> >The journalists were quoting what they had been told by scientists or
> >> >what they had read in of the writings of scientists.
> >> That's what I said. Scientifically, we can set the age of the universe at some
> >> 13.7 billion years and the earth at 4.5 billion years.
>
> >That is what Evolutionary scientists state. I believe that Creation
> >Scientists have just as much right to state their investigations.
>
'Young' age of the earth and Universe
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
>
> >> >And as Gid was infintively great so that He could create something out
> >> >of nothing, why was He incapable, in your estimation, of forming
> >> >all organisms in their full forms? Where are all the incomplete forms in their
> >> > immature adult stage?
Fossils
http://www.creationontheweb.com/creation/view/3001/
> Let's just say that God did not use black magic in his ways, but instead natural
> evolution and natural events.
>
God didn't need 'black magic' nor 'white magic', God is ominipotent
(all powerful)
omniscient (all-knowing). omnipresent (always present), eternal,
everlasting
> I'm perfectly willing to consider other opinions. Remember, gladys, you are the
> one that professes Ep 2:8-9 can only be taken one way - YOUR way - and no other.
>
Not My way. It is the New Testament way.
Not of works means just that. We are saved BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH.
Have you 'got it now'???
>But the proper statement is that we both have beliefs, not
> information, that does not agree.
>
Beliefs and information are one and the same thing; they may be
correct
or they may be incorrect.
> >And Jesus said that as we pray say 'Our Father, ... Forgive us our
> >trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us'.
>
> And I concur totally. But.....we are still asking God, not telling God what he
> is to do.
But when we pray the Lord's prayer, as given above, won't God forgive
us our trepasses without having to go to a RC priest and repeat them
in the Confssional as there is no teaching concerning that in the
New Testament???? The teaching is 'confess your faults one to another
and pray for each other that you may be healed'
(A) Christian friend (friends) is/are the most valuable friend(s)
that we can have.
Gladys Swager
theo
wrote:
> I haven't come across the evidence that was so. What are your
> references.
> It is generally believed that Moses wrote the first five books of the
> Old Testament from information taht had been passed orally or on clay
> tablets from the patriarch's.
Did he write all this on clay whilst his tribe was wandering about the
desert for 40 years? Where did they get the clay from. How did they
carry them all?
> It is a fact that there was an overlapping of
> the ages of the patriarchs so that Lamech, the father of Noah and Noah
> himself would have known Adam Genesis 5 :
> Do a timeline from that chapter and it will surprise you as it also
> did me when I worked it out. There ia another overlapping of the Israeliites
> from Abraham to Joseph, between a number of the generations.
> That overlapping would keep an oral record accurate.
Gladys, have you heard of Chinese whispers? An oral tale can become
totally inaccurate after being passed from mouth to mouth by as few as
four people.
> The Creationist scientists do have a right to present their evidence.http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3056/
And we have the right to laugh at them.
Theo
theo
wrote:
> On Dec 12, 5:08 am, duke wrote:
> > Scientifically speaking, God willed the universe into existence some 13.7
> > billion years ago,
>
> But that cannot be determined by repeated, testable scientific
> investigations.
Gladys, you yourself repeatedly refue to provide "repeated, testable
scientific investigations" for your version of creation.
> The Bibilcal account is of about 6000 years ago,
> So of the supposedly 6.'7 billion years since scientists say that God
> 'willed the
> universe into existence' the Biblical record covers just 1/2300 of
> that time.
> What was God doing in 2299/2300 of that time?
Gladys, even a mathematically challenged person such as yourself
should be able to work out that 13.7 billion divided by 6000 equals
2,300,000 not 2,300.
The answer to your question as to what God was doing during that
period of time is nothing, the same as He is doing now.
> But as the ecientists in America insisted that (godless) evolution
> should be taught
> in schools after Sputnik went up (Russia had won the race-into-space,
> so there was
> evidence of its superior education system - supposedly - because the
> USA was only
> a few months behind Russia; although when USA was the first to put men
> on the moon
> in 1969 - I watched it happening on TV) the decision was not then
> reversed).
Gladys, Gladys, Gladys, surely you are aware that the Americans didn't
ever suggest evolution was godless. They are one of the most devout
practising Protestant Christian nations on the planet.
Theo
theo
wrote:> >http://www.gotquestions.org/Protestant--Reformation.html
>
> Hope it will come on your monitor now.
> Gladys Swager
Nope.
Theo
theo
wrote:
> On Dec 12, 11:02 am, duke wrote:
> > Well, ask him.
> You have tried to tell me that you have a greater knowlsdge of God.
> Why don't you ask Him
I don't believe God has spoken to, or ever will, to either one of
you.
Dear God, if you're out there, please enlighten Gladys and/or Duke.
Oh, and please copy in aus.religion.christian
Thanks
Theo :-)
theo
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:08:28 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
> >Yes, I became a Protestant through circumstances, not through
> >considered choice. And have attended in a number of Protestant
> >denominations in my life, and in one Roman Catholic church
> >possibly in 1968 with a relative.
> >My life's experiences brought me to advocating unity among
> >Christians early in 1976
>
> Then why did you turn to a protest movement?
The family moved and the Protty church was closer than the RC one.
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Dec 11, 6:40 am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > I haven't come across the evidence that was so. What are your
> > references.
> > It is generally believed that Moses wrote the first five books of the
> > tablets from the patriarchs
>
> Did he write all this on clay whilst his tribe was wandering about the
> desert for 40 years? Where did they get the clay from. How did they
> carry them all?
>
Pharoah's
palalce, he most likely learnt to write on papyrus. The issue then
would be was
Genesis written in Egypt and taken with the Israelites as they left.
The idea has crossed my mind that a quantity of Papyrus may have been
taken
with the Israelists and Moses uses strips of it to keep a record, but
that is pure
speculation and has some serious logistical problems.
It is possilble to keep an accurate oral tradition. There have been
four gennerations
of my family in Australia and I have some information about great
grandparents and
grandparents from about the mid 1880's. Within the families of those
who are
descendents of the First Fleeters there could be some accurate acounts
that are
close to two hundred and twenty three years old. from the embarkation
in England.
leaving in April 1787 for the ten months voyage!.
The Exodus of the isrealites took forty years travelling and resting
in the 'wilderness'
- most likely the Sinai Penisula - during which time the most
important events
would have been carfully preserved as an oral tradition.
> > It is a fact that there was an overlapping of
> > the ages of the patriarchs so that Lamech, the father of Noah and Noah
> > himself would have known Adam Genesis 5 :
> > Do a timeline from that chapter and it will surprise you as it also
> > did me when I worked it out. There ia another overlapping of the Israeliites
> > from Abraham to Joseph, between a number of the generations.
> > That overlapping would keep an oral record accurate.
>
> Gladys, have you heard of Chinese whispers? An oral tale can become
> totally inaccurate after being passed from mouth to mouth by as few as
> four people.
>
That is a new one. But in whispering, words may not be accurately
heard
so the passed on message could be corrupted.
> > The Creationist scientists do have a right to present their evidence.
> > http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3056/
>
> And we have the right to laugh at them.
>
It will be a matter of who has the last laugh. I believe they have a
right to be
heard, but the evolutionists are very loathe to give them the
opportunity.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Dec 12, 4:51 am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 5:08 am, duke wrote:
> > > Scientifically speaking, God willed the universe into existence some 13.7
> > > billion years ago,
>
> > But that cannot be determined by repeated, testable scientific
> > investigations.
>
> scientific investigations" for your version of creation.
>
investigations.
> > The Bibilcal account is of about 6000 years ago,
Bishop Ussher did a calculation from internal evidence in the Bible.
and from memory the date he gave was 6004 years ago, but I could be
out by
a years or so.
> > So of the supposedly 6.'7 billion years since scientists say that God
> > 'willed the universe into existence' the Biblical record covers just 1/2300 of
> > that time.
> > What was God doing in 2299/2300 of that time?
>
> Gladys, even a mathematically challenged person such as yourself
> should be able to work out that 13.7 billion divided by 6000 equals
> 2,300,000 not 2,300.
>
I worked it as a fraction and was not thinking that a billion has nine
zeros.
You are also on the ball mathematically today.
> The answer to your question as to what God was doing during that
> period of time is nothing, the same as He is doing now.
>
We just don't know, so it is foolish to speculate.
> > But as the scientists in America insisted that (godless) evolution
> > should be taught in schools after Sputnik went up (Russia had won
> > the race-into-space, so there was
> > evidence of its superior education system - supposedly - because the
> > USA was only a few months behind Russia; although when USA was
> > the first to put men on the moon in 1969 - I watched it happening on TV)
> > the decision was not then reversed).
>
> Gladys, Gladys, Gladys, surely you are aware that the Americans didn't
> ever suggest evolution was godless. They are one of the most devout
> practising Protestant Christian nation on the planet.
>
Yes, there have been persons of various ideological beliefs who have
believed that God created by the evolutionary process.
The Creation Scientists are seeking to prove (scientifically) that
God created within the Biblical timescale. Christians have a right to
support
them in that work if they so desire.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Dec 13, 3:18 am, duke wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, "s...@ozemail.com.au"
> > >Yes, I became a Protestant through circumstances, not through
> > >considered choice. And have attended in a number of Protestant
> > >denominations in my life, and in one Roman Catholic church
> > >possibly in 1968 with a relative.
> > >My life's experiences brought me to advocating unity among
> > >Christians early in 1976
>
> > Then why did you turn to a protest movement?
>
the protests, your attitude to Protestants will most likely change.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Dec 14, 8:05�ｿｽpm, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:02:01 -0800 (PST), v1_0 <v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 7, 4:24�ｿｽpm, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hello. �ｿｽ I happened to see the following...
>>
>> >> You admitted there is much that is not love and justice.
>>
>> >Ok, this point is an observation and therefore accepted. �ｿｽ We could
>> >also generalize it and say "there is much that is evil" (in the world,
>> >I assume).
>>
>> That would seem fair.
>>
>> >> If there was a loving almighty God there would not be anything bad.
>>
>> >Now here we have an assertation ("If there was a loving almighty God")
What am I asserting here?
>> >and a conclusion ("there would not be anything bad").
>>
>> Note the if that proceeds the conclusion.
>>
>> >That's fine. �ｿｽBut I'd like to see the work inbetween - your chain of
>> >logic and supporting reasoning - �ｿｽif you don't mind.
>>
>> That's a fair question though I thought it was obvious.
>
>Well, it's a big internet - best not to take anything for granted. I
>was hoping you weren't just doing the old "How can a loving God allow
>evil" argument.
Is there something wrong with asking?
>> We can't test God directly but we can determine what �ｿｽwe would observe
>> if there was a loving and almighty God.
>
>> If God loved us he would want all to be well with us.
>
>We can't say that just being provided with all that we need would be
>enough. Each of us has additional desires beyond just our needs, and
>any lack of those would create unhappyness. Further, it is often the
>case that when we achieve one desire we are happy for a short time and
>then find another thing to desire. Some of our desires are for rare/
>hard to get things so when they have those they get a sense of
>accomplishment and/or pride over their fellow beings, as they now have
>something that everyone wants but does not have. If everyone were to
>have that thing, then it would be neither rare nor hard to get, so
>therefore not desirable. Finally, some of our desires are for things
>that are not good for us, or that may be harmful to others. Yet they
>are still desires and would bring unhappyness if not fulfilled. Some
>would even wish to "be" God (or replace him).
>
>If we remain as we are, even an almighty God would not be able to make
>"all be well with us" - because of us. But this is an aside,
>actually.
An almighty God could change us so that we would not desire that which
would harm ourselves or others.
>> If God was almighty he could have what he wants.
>
>At most, you can only say that *no force* could prevent an almighty
>God from having what he wants. However, this does not exclude
>internal prevention/restraint. A loving almighty God would be
>obliged to restrain himself from forcing his ways upon someone (like
>us).
A loving almighty God would feel compelled to "force" on us things
that are good for us. As it is we have many harmful things forced on us.
>I suppose it would be customary at this point for you to ask "why" or
>"how can that be so, God is almighty" etc. Quite simply: it is
>necessary. An almighty God would easily be able to create
>automations that would do exactly what he wanted. For the most part,
>we are able to do that with computers today. Programming a computer
>to say "I love you" is empty, while having a child say this to you is
>touching because it is real. I assert that without the ability to
>have reasoning and freedom of choice, any expressions of love would -
>like the computer - be false. And without the ability to love, we
>would not be able to appreciate being loved.
So a loving God would never command us to love?
Jos 22:5, Mark 12:30-31, John 13:34, John 15;12, Rom 13:9, 1John 3:23 etc.
Would it be wrong if God gained the love of us all by being lovable?
God could improve our lives dramatically by removing things that cause us
distress, such as illness and depression. We spend much of our lives just
staying alive. There are plenty of non-lethal challenges to amuse us.
>> So God may love us, or God may be almighty, but not both.
>>
>> >> Conclusion: There is no loving almighty God.
>>
>> >Ok, your conclusion here is the opposite of your assertion above - for
>> >it to be true, the assertion must be false and there must only be two
>> >choices.
>>
>> You seem to not know what an assertion is.
>
>Well, this is the definition I am using: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assertion.
>Please let me know if you are using the word in a different way.
I agree with that definition but it doesn't match your claim that my assertion
and conclusion don't match.
>> I asserted that IF there was a loving almighty God there would not be anything bad.
>> The if makes the assertion a fact.
>> The statement ("there would not be anything bad") is also fact.
>> Since there are bad things the only possible conclusion is there is no God that
>> is both loving and almighty. �ｿｽ
>>
>> >Without seeing the chain of logic above, this is indeterminate.
>>
>> To most it is obvious but I don't know your current mental state.
>
>Obviously not.
Also I don't know which of the many Christian cults you follow.
v1_0
>
> >We can't say that just being provided with all that we need would be
> >enough. Each of us has additional desires beyond just our needs, and
> >any lack of those would create unhappyness. Further, it is often the
> >case that when we achieve one desire we are happy for a short time and
> >then find another thing to desire. Some of our desires are for rare/
> >hard to get things so when they have those they get a sense of
> >accomplishment and/or pride over their fellow beings, as they now have
> >something that everyone wants but does not have. If everyone were to
> >have that thing, then it would be neither rare nor hard to get, so
> >therefore not desirable. Finally, some of our desires are for things
> >that are not good for us, or that may be harmful to others. Yet they
> >are still desires and would bring unhappyness if not fulfilled. Some
> >would even wish to "be" God (or replace him).
>
> >If we remain as we are, even an almighty God would not be able to make
> >"all be well with us" - because of us. But this is an aside,
> >actually.
>
> An almighty God could change us so that we would not desire that which
> would harm ourselves or others.
I can change a regular truck into an electric car, given enough time
(and money). From one perspective, this may seem like a good idea -
green, and all that - but what if I actually needed the truck to haul
things?
Bringing the point to this discussion: God made us, as we are, for a
purpose. This included the ability to reason, and to make decisions
based on that reasoning. Removing some part of this - yes, including
the desire aspect - would make us less than we are.
>
> >> If God was almighty he could have what he wants.
>
> >At most, you can only say that *no force* could prevent an almighty
> >God from having what he wants. However, this does not exclude
> >internal prevention/restraint. A loving almighty God would be
> >obliged to restrain himself from forcing his ways upon someone (like
> >us).
>
> A loving almighty God would feel compelled to "force" on us things
> that are good for us. As it is we have many harmful things forced on us.
You are saying that the ends ("good") justify the means ("having it
forced upon you"). I do not agree with that. The means are as much
a moral decision as the ends you are trying to achieve.
One more thing, there are plenty of times where we must choose between
*two evils* - say to remove a tumor by operation, or to allow it to
grow/spread and possibly die. The operation to remove the tumor
certainly will cause pain - and thereby we would call it "evil", yet
it is done to prevent a greater "evil" (death). By your logic, the
government should *force* the operation on the person with the cancer,
regardless of their desires.
>
> >I suppose it would be customary at this point for you to ask "why" or
> >"how can that be so, God is almighty" etc. Quite simply: it is
> >necessary. An almighty God would easily be able to create
> >automations that would do exactly what he wanted. For the most part,
> >we are able to do that with computers today. Programming a computer
> >to say "I love you" is empty, while having a child say this to you is
> >touching because it is real. I assert that without the ability to
> >have reasoning and freedom of choice, any expressions of love would -
> >like the computer - be false. And without the ability to love, we
> >would not be able to appreciate being loved.
>
> So a loving God would never command us to love?
I'm not sure how you got this out of what I said, I am sorry for being
unclear. A loving God wants us humans to genuinely love each other
and Him as well. We cannot have genuine love without the ability to
choose to love or not. (ie: it is not really love if you are merely
forced to act as though it is - that is what the computer example
above was about).
> Jos 22:5, Mark 12:30-31, John 13:34, John 15;12, Rom 13:9, 1John 3:23 etc.
> Would it be wrong if God gained the love of us all by being lovable?
Not at all. One of the best ways of teaching is to set an example.
By forcing someone to *be* something they are not, what sort of
example is that? And, how do you force someone to love?
>
> God could improve our lives dramatically by removing things that cause us
> distress, such as illness and depression. We spend much of our lives just
> staying alive. There are plenty of non-lethal challenges to amuse us.
Aha! The last two sentences here are very significant. There is a
lot to discuss in regards to those..
First, it looks like you are not fully understanding the Christian
concept of death. (I am not intending to call you non-Christian, or
non-anything, with that.) Your view of what is "good"/"evil" and
even the "purpose of life" would therefore be focused entirely upon
the here and now. If that is true, you see the entire measure of our
existance based upon our lives here on earth - with judgement and
afterlife being nebulous. This would certainly lead to making
"staying alive" - in all of its forms - the top priority of our lives.
Please tell me if I am not close on that.
One of the things that Jesus came to do was to remove the fear of
death. This allows us to put our lives here on this earth into a
larger perspective. If you read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch,
especially the ones to the Romans (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/
anf01.v.xii.html, chapter 5 is a particularly good illustration), you
see that he is looking forward to his death (At this point he is being
escorted to Rome for his execution, so it is not 'in theory'). This
is not the only example of this, by any means, but the first that came
to mind - due to some other research I am doing.
I do not mean to say that we should go about seeking death. But we
should understand that it is temporary - as are all the evils that
occur before it.
What percentage of eternity is a century?
God has given us freedom of choice - here - so that we can learn how
to choose. We can see (live) the consequences of our collective and
individual choices - here, now. This is an opportunity to 'get it
right' by the method we most love - trial and error, obedience,
reasoning, etc. depending on the individual person - here and now.
We can choose to attempt to restore our likeness to God, or choose to
move further away. God has warned us about the consequences of these
choices, but he respects our choices and does not force us to do one
thing or the other. But the point is that the effects of our
individual and collective choices - the evil that we do, or is done to
us - will pass. The lessons we learn and the changes we make within
ourselves will remain. This changes the focus from acting to avoid
death into acting to improve ourselves. Off from collecting material
things and onto spiritual things. With that shift in focus, there is
also a shift in how we look at the duration of evil.
God did not cause these evils, but he did put a limit (death) on how
long each of us has - either how long we have to endure them, or how
long we have to cause them. This is no amusement park. It is a
battlefield - there are a lot of images of this in the Gospels and the
Epistles, where we are told to put on armor, run a good race
(competition), hold fast etc. This battlefield is not for God, but
for us. We are fighting an internal battle to take mastery of
ourselves, or to become slaves of ourselves. God could probably "will
it", but then 1) it would be done by force, and 2) we could always
blame him for it, as we didn't do it ourselves.
>
> Also I don't know which of the many Christian cults you follow.
I am Orthodox.
-V
duke
RC priests did not lead the protest, by definition.
BTW, I don't have adverse feelings against protest_ers. My Church, the Roman
Catholic Church, openly professes them to be Christian Chruches.
My words to you are to caution you to be careful that you are not sealing your
eternal fate with satan in so far as you openly deny most of the teachings of
the Lord God. And that's a direct result of your decision to become a
protest_er.
duke
>On Dec 16, 10:58�am, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Dec 15, 12:37�am, duke �wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >> >The journalists were quoting what they had been told by scientists or
>> >> >what they had read in of the writings of scientists.
>> >> That's what I said. �Scientifically, we can set the age of the universe at some
>> >> 13.7 billion years and the earth at 4.5 billion years.
>> >That is what Evolutionary scientists state. I believe that Creation
>> >Scientists have just as much right to state their investigations.
>> Let's just say that God did not use black magic in his ways, but instead natural
>> evolution and natural events.
>God didn't need 'black magic' nor 'white magic', God is ominipotent
>(all powerful)
>omniscient (all-knowing). omnipresent (always present), eternal,
>everlasting
And he created the universe and all in it and then turned it over to evolution.
And when it was time to reveal the new testament to mankind, he himself became
man, fully man who had an un-revealed divine nature, to show mankind the way to
the Father. No black magic, only a man giving complete obedience to the Father.
>> I'm perfectly willing to consider other opinions. Remember, gladys, you are the
>> one that professes Ep 2:8-9 can only be taken one way - YOUR way - and no other.
>Not My way. It is the New Testament way.
>Not of works means just that. We are saved BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH.
>Have you 'got it now'???
It's "thru faith that Jesus is the only way", not that of works. Remember, it
best not be faith "in" Jesus, because you openly reject what Jesus taught Pope
Peter and the Apostles.
Have you got that by now?
>>But the proper statement is that we both have beliefs, not
>> information, that does not agree.
>Beliefs and information are one and the same thing; they may be
>correct or they may be incorrect.
Your way leads you to believe that your sins are of no consequence. Satan
smiles at you today.
>> >And Jesus said that as we pray say 'Our Father, ... Forgive us our
>> >trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us'.
>> And I concur totally. �But.....we are still asking God, not telling God what he
>> is to do. �
>But when we pray the Lord's prayer, as given above, won't God forgive
>us our trepasses without having to go to a RC priest and repeat them
>in the Confssional as there is no teaching concerning that in the
>New Testament????
The Lord's Prayer addresses our trespasses against other people, not against
God. Tresspasses against God are forgiven and absolved in the confessional.
John 20:22-23. In the Lord's prayer, you don't even have to address your
specific wrongdoings like you do in the confessional. Gosh, but it must be
easy to say a blind prayer and expect that all is forgiven. There's only one
problem. Satan loves those that think that.
>The teaching is 'confess your faults one to another
>and pray for each other that you may be healed'
>(A) Christian friend (friends) is/are the most valuable friend(s)
> that we can have.
For me, it's God.
Gladys, no matter how hard you try, you cannot escape from what Jesus told the
apostles on that 1st Easter Sunday night.
John 20:19-23 (New International Version)
Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were
together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among
them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his
hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending
you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them,
they are not forgiven."
The first time God breathed on mankind was to give him physical life (Genesis).
The second time, John 20:19-23, is to give mankind spiritual life when he sent
the Apostles out to forgive sins, or NOT to forgive them.
duke
>On Dec 12, 10:37�am, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
>wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 11:02�am, duke �wrote:
>
>> > Well, ask him.
>
>> You have tried to tell me that you have a greater knowlsdge of God.
>> Why don't you ask Him
>
>I don't believe God has spoken to, or ever will, to either one of
>you.
Then you're not a Christian.
>Dear God, if you're out there, please enlighten Gladys and/or Duke.
>Oh, and please copy in aus.religion.christian
The Dukester, American-American
duke
<swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Gladys, your knowledge and understanding of scripture is so lacking, it's funny.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:52:29 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 16, 12:59�pm, theo wrote:
> >> On Dec 13, 3:18�am, duke wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, "s...@ozemail.com.au"
> >> > >Yes, I became a Protestant through circumstances, not through
> >> > >considered choice. And have attended in a number of Protestant
> >> > >denominations in my life, and in one Roman Catholic church
> >> > >possibly in 1968 with a relative.
> >> > >My life's experiences brought me to advocating unity among
> >> > >Christians early in 1976
> >>
> >> > Then why did you turn to a protest movement?
> >>
> >When, you Duke, come to realise why priests of the RC Church led
> >the protests, your attitude to Protestants will most likely change.
> >Gladys Swager
>
> RC priests did not lead the protest, by definition.
>
> BTW, I don't have adverse feelings against protest_ers. My Church, the Roman
> Catholic Church, openly professes them to be Christian Chruches.
>
� Then why does the RCC claim that LdSaint church baptisms and ordinances
are invalid?
> My words to you are to caution you to be careful that you are not sealing your
> eternal fate with satan...
� Sister Dominica would have whacked you good for this one Duke -- proper
nouns are always capitalized.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:56:50 -0800 (PST), theo
<theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 12, 10:37�am, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
> >wrote:
> >> On Dec 12, 11:02�am, duke �wrote:
> >
> >> > Well, ask him.
> >
> >> You have tried to tell me that you have a greater knowlsdge of God.
> >> Why don't you ask Him
> >
> >I don't believe God has spoken to, or ever will, to either one of
> >you.
>
> Then you're not a Christian.
>
� maybe not Duke, but every person that I've ever met who claimed to talk
to God ended up up loosing his/her sanity bigtime.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:22:19 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> Gladys, your knowledge and understanding of scripture is so lacking,
it's funny.
>
>
� your expecting Gladys to be up on the RCC's often bizarre exegesis of
Scripture is hilarious Duke.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> >When, you Duke, come to realise why priests of the RC Church led
> >the protests, your attitude to Protestants will most likely change.
> >Gladys Swager
>
> RC priests did not lead the protest, by definition.
>
Roman catholic priest. However, He came to believe that
Transubstantiation
was incorrect and xomplained. tha tdid not mae him popular with the
leaders of the RC Church in England. Although he protested and was
called
to a Church Council (trial) he was unable to attend as he took a
stroke and
died. Priests of teh RC Church couldn't leave it at that, they dug up
his bones,
burnt them to ashes and threw the ashes in the River Swift that flowed
into
the River Thames and out to the North Sea. and from there....
Martin Luther was ex-communicated by the hierarchy at Rome - 'do as we
say,
or good-bye!' He stuck to his guns and so the Lutheran Church was
formed. .
I can't help. but wonder if teh flurry of World Youth Days from the
mid 1980's
is a means to try to limit the effectiveness of the 500th anniversary
of
the Protestant Reformation in 2017AD
> BTW, I don't have adverse feelings against protest_ers. My Church, the Roman
> Catholic Church, openly professes them to be Christian Chruches.
> My words to you are to caution you to be careful that you are not sealing your
> eternal fate with satan in so far as you openly deny most of the teachings of
> the Lord God. And that's a direct result of your decision to become a
> protest_er.
>
What do you mean by that? Does it mean that Protestants can be
Protestants
provided we don't make any complaints about the RC Church and its lack
of
agreement with the New Testament scriptures???
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> Gladys, your knowledge and understanding of scripture is so lacking, it's funny.
>
Duke, Your knowledge of scripture is from your mentors in the RC
Church who
have not disclosed to you, if they do know the truth, that through the
centuries
there have been additions in practices and interpretations given by
the hierarchy of the RC Church.
The closed RC school system is used to indoctrinate the future priests
and nuns
so that they will always adhere to 'the Party Line'.
You can't accept that in some of its teachings the RC Church is not
scriptural.
But we have gone through all of that in previous postings.
I wish you God's belessings at this Christmas time.
But please, give the postings a rest until the New Year. That will
save you
continuing to reinforce your brain, and may give some time for your
suconscious brain through God's leading time to sort out the issues
that
have been presented to you.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
A little bit of light comedy for Christmas. Thank you Gladys.
>Gladys Swager
=-=-=
Barry
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
duke
>In article <tt5ii5d3i9jkoipsp...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:52:29 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 16, 12:59�pm, theo wrote:
>> >> On Dec 13, 3:18�am, duke wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>> >> > >Yes, I became a Protestant through circumstances, not through
>> >> > >considered choice. And have attended in a number of Protestant
>> >> > >denominations in my life, and in one Roman Catholic church
>> >> > >possibly in 1968 with a relative.
>> >> > >My life's experiences brought me to advocating unity among
>> >> > >Christians early in 1976
>> >>
>> >> > Then why did you turn to a protest movement?
>> >>
>> >When, you Duke, come to realise why priests of the RC Church led
>> >the protests, your attitude to Protestants will most likely change.
>> >Gladys Swager
>>
>> RC priests did not lead the protest, by definition.
>>
>> BTW, I don't have adverse feelings against protest_ers. My Church, the Roman
>> Catholic Church, openly professes them to be Christian Chruches.
>>
>� Then why does the RCC claim that LdSaint church baptisms and ordinances
>are invalid?
The LDS denies the divinity of the merely human Jesus Christ.
>> My words to you are to caution you to be careful that you are not sealing your
>> eternal fate with satan...
>� Sister Dominica would have whacked you good for this one Duke -- proper
>nouns are always capitalized.
I don't see a proper noun.
Barry OGrady
And he misspelled capitalised.
>The Dukester, American-American
=-=-=
Barry
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
duke
>On Dec 17, 4:27�am, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> >When, you Duke, come to realise why priests of the RC Church led
>> >the protests, your attitude to Protestants will most likely change.
>> >Gladys Swager
>>
>> RC priests did not lead the protest, by definition. �
>You do not know history. John Wycliffe in England was a very respected
>Roman catholic priest. However, He came to believe that
>Transubstantiation was incorrect and xomplained. tha tdid not mae him popular with the
>leaders of the RC Church in England. Although he protested and was
>called to a Church Council (trial) he was unable to attend as he took a
>stroke and died.
When he changed his mind, he invalidated his vows. And dying with sin on our
soul is the chance we all take. God to confession regularly.
>Priests of teh RC Church couldn't leave it at that, they dug up
>his bones, burnt them to ashes and threw the ashes in the River Swift that flowed
>into >the River Thames and out to the North Sea. and from there....
He didn't feel it. You're just bitter because he was cremated.
>Martin Luther was ex-communicated by the hierarchy at Rome - 'do as we
>say, or good-bye!'
He made vows to God and then changed his mind.
> He stuck to his guns and so the Lutheran Church was
>formed.
>> BTW, I don't have adverse feelings against protest_ers. � My Church, the Roman
>> Catholic Church, openly professes them to be Christian Chruches.
>> My words to you are to caution you to be careful that you are not sealing your
>> eternal fate with satan in so far as you openly deny most of the teachings of
>> the Lord God. �And that's a direct result of your decision to become a
>> protest_er.
>What do you mean by that? Does it mean that Protestants can be
>Protestants provided we don't make any complaints about the RC Church and its lack
>of agreement with the New Testament scriptures???
>Gladys Swager
People that have faith in Christ don't reject what he taught us. Jesus
personally taught Peter and the Apostles who taught Pope Linus who
taught.........Pope Benedict.
Your boys left 400 years ago and started teaching heresy to those that taught
................ gladys.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� If the name of a place is given, it for damn sure better be capitalized
-- or WHACK!
duke
You haven't met a lot of Catholics then, rl. We never loose [sic] it when we
talk to God.
duke
>In article <7m7ii5hr3lrjnpoji...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:22:19 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Gladys, your knowledge and understanding of scripture is so lacking,
>it's funny.
>� your expecting Gladys to be up on the RCC's often bizarre exegesis of
>Scripture is hilarious Duke.
It's solid scripture in all bible versions, rl. That's why I don't understand
her rejecting so much of it.
duke
>On Dec 17, 4:54�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Gladys, your knowledge and understanding of scripture is so lacking, it's funny.
>>
>Duke, Your knowledge of scripture is from your mentors in the RC
>Church who have not disclosed to you
My knowledge of scripture is right out of the bible, gladys. The difference is
that we Catholics accept it for what it says, and you protest_ants try to decide
for yourself if you agree with God, and you usually don't.
>if they do know the truth, that through the centuries
>there have been additions in practices and interpretations given by
>the hierarchy of the RC Church.
Nope, no change in interpretations. WE can't as we got them directly from
Jesus.
>The closed RC school system is used to indoctrinate the future priests
>and nuns so that they will always adhere to 'the Party Line'.
There you go, another ridiculous statement with no support what so ever. And
you have NEVER been able to show any.
>You can't accept that in some of its teachings the RC Church is not
>scriptural.
Your problem is that you fail to accept much of what IS in the bible.
>But we have gone through all of that in previous postings.
Yes, to now avail for people like you that are desperate to ignore scripture.
>I wish you God's belessings at this Christmas time.
>But please, give the postings a rest until the New Year. That will
>save you continuing to reinforce your brain, and may give some time for your
>suconscious brain through God's leading time to sort out the issues
>that have been presented to you.
Gladys, I must continue to do the Lord's work. I know that you, as a
protest_er, do not understand that, but it's our lives as Catholic Christians.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:43:44 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <me7ii5dm4bkfg2tkk...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:56:50 -0800 (PST), theo
> ><theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Dec 12, 10:37�am, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> On Dec 12, 11:02�am, duke �wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Well, ask him.
> >> >
> >> >> You have tried to tell me that you have a greater knowlsdge of God.
> >> >> Why don't you ask Him
> >> >
> >> >I don't believe God has spoken to, or ever will, to either one of
> >> >you.
> >>
> >> Then you're not a Christian.
> >>
> >� maybe not Duke, but every person that I've ever met who claimed to talk
> >to God ended up up loosing his/her sanity bigtime.
>
> You haven't met a lot of Catholics then, rl. We never loose [sic] it when we
> talk to God.
>
� None of those who say they talk to God were aware of losing it.
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:48:19 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <7m7ii5hr3lrjnpoji...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:22:19 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
> >> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> Gladys, your knowledge and understanding of scripture is so lacking,
> >it's funny.
>
> >� your expecting Gladys to be up on the RCC's often bizarre exegesis of
> >Scripture is hilarious Duke.
>
> It's solid scripture in all bible versions, rl. That's why I don't understand
> her rejecting so much of it.
>
� You are preconditioned by the one true church. She wasn't. You still
claim that Galileo was wrong.
Barry OGrady
>On Dec 12, 5:17�am, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
>wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 8:08�am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > What was the Protestant Reformation?
>> >http://www.gotquestions.org/Protestant--Reformation.html
>>
>> Hope it will come on your monitor now.
>> Gladys Swager
>
>Nope.
You are probably using an LCD monitor.
You may need to connect a CRT monitor for Glady's urls to come onto.
>Theo
Barry OGrady
>On Dec 16, 5:38�am, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >We can't say that just being provided with all that we need would be
>> >enough. � Each of us has additional desires beyond just our needs, and
>> >any lack of those would create unhappyness. � Further, it is often the
>> >case that when we achieve one desire we are happy for a short time and
>> >then find another thing to desire. � Some of our desires are for rare/
>> >hard to get things so when they have those they get a sense of
>> >accomplishment and/or pride over their fellow beings, as they now have
>> >something that everyone wants but does not have. � If everyone were to
>> >have that thing, then it would be neither rare nor hard to get, so
>> >therefore not desirable. � Finally, some of our desires are for things
>> >that are not good for us, or that may be harmful to others. �Yet they
>> >are still desires and would bring unhappyness if not fulfilled. � Some
>> >would even wish to "be" God (or replace him).
>>
>> >If we remain as we are, even an almighty God would not be able to make
>> >"all be well with us" - because of us. � But this is an aside,
>> >actually.
>>
>> An almighty God could change us so that we would not desire that which
>> would harm ourselves or others.
>
>I can change a regular truck into an electric car, given enough time
>(and money). From one perspective, this may seem like a good idea -
>green, and all that - but what if I actually needed the truck to haul
>things?
If you were an almighty God you would easily make it do both.
>Bringing the point to this discussion: God made us, as we are, for a
>purpose. This included the ability to reason, and to make decisions
>based on that reasoning. Removing some part of this - yes, including
>the desire aspect - would make us less than we are.
Removing undesirable and harmful traits would be a big improvement.
>> >> If God was almighty he could have what he wants.
>>
>> >At most, you can only say that *no force* could prevent an almighty
>> >God from having what he wants. �However, this does not exclude
>> >internal prevention/restraint. � A loving almighty God would be
>> >obliged to restrain himself from forcing his ways upon someone (like
>> >us).
>>
>> A loving almighty God would feel compelled to "force" on us things
>> that are good for us. As it is we have many harmful things forced on us.
>
>You are saying that the ends ("good") justify the means ("having it
>forced upon you"). I do not agree with that. The means are as much
>a moral decision as the ends you are trying to achieve.
Not applicable to an almighty God.
>One more thing, there are plenty of times where we must choose between
>*two evils* - say to remove a tumor by operation, or to allow it to
>grow/spread and possibly die. The operation to remove the tumor
>certainly will cause pain - and thereby we would call it "evil", yet
>it is done to prevent a greater "evil" (death). By your logic, the
>government should *force* the operation on the person with the cancer,
>regardless of their desires.
Sometimes the government does "force" things onto people if it is
determined they are not competent to choose.
God forces harmful things on us so why not good things?
Good parents force their children to stay away from harmful things.
By your logic young children should be free to wander onto busy
streets and to ingest poison that looks like cool drink.
>> >I suppose it would be customary at this point for you to ask "why" or
>> >"how can that be so, God is almighty" etc. � Quite simply: it is
>> >necessary. � An almighty God would easily be able to create
>> >automations that would do exactly what he wanted. � For the most part,
>> >we are able to do that with computers today. �Programming a computer
>> >to say "I love you" is empty, while having a child say this to you is
>> >touching because it is real. � I assert that without the ability to
>> >have reasoning and freedom of choice, any expressions of love would -
>> >like the computer - be false. �And without the ability to love, we
>> >would not be able to appreciate being loved.
>>
>> So a loving God would never command us to love?
>
>I'm not sure how you got this out of what I said, I am sorry for being
>unclear. A loving God wants us humans to genuinely love each other
>and Him as well. We cannot have genuine love without the ability to
>choose to love or not. (ie: it is not really love if you are merely
>forced to act as though it is - that is what the computer example
>above was about).
What about Jos 22:5, Mark 12:30-31, John 13:34, John �15;12, Rom 13:9,
1John 3:23 and others where we are commanded to love?
>> Would it be wrong if God gained the love of us all by being lovable?
>
>Not at all. One of the best ways of teaching is to set an example.
Yet God is not lovable, unless you consider you consider causing/allowing
suffering on a huge scale to be an act of love.
>By forcing someone to *be* something they are not, what sort of
>example is that? And, how do you force someone to love?
God may not know how to be lovable so he resorts to commanding love.
Mark 12:30
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this
[is] the first commandment.
and many others.
>> God could improve our lives dramatically by removing things that cause us
>> distress, such as illness and depression. We spend much of our lives just
>> staying alive. There are plenty of non-lethal challenges to amuse us.
>
>Aha! The last two sentences here are very significant. There is a
>lot to discuss in regards to those..
>
>First, it looks like you are not fully understanding the Christian
>concept of death. (I am not intending to call you non-Christian, or
>non-anything, with that.) Your view of what is "good"/"evil" and
>even the "purpose of life" would therefore be focused entirely upon
>the here and now. If that is true, you see the entire measure of our
>existance based upon our lives here on earth - with judgement and
>afterlife being nebulous. This would certainly lead to making
>"staying alive" - in all of its forms - the top priority of our lives.
>
>Please tell me if I am not close on that.
You are very close. The thing is, everything that makes "you" exists
in a machine we call the brain, therefore when brain activity ceases
you won't exist anymore. Thus there is nothing to go anywhere or
carry on.
>One of the things that Jesus came to do was to remove the fear of
>death.
Why did Jesus fail?
>This allows us to put our lives here on this earth into a
>larger perspective. If you read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch,
>especially the ones to the Romans (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/
>anf01.v.xii.html, chapter 5 is a particularly good illustration), you
>see that he is looking forward to his death (At this point he is being
>escorted to Rome for his execution, so it is not 'in theory'). This
>is not the only example of this, by any means, but the first that came
>to mind - due to some other research I am doing.
>I do not mean to say that we should go about seeking death. But we
>should understand that it is temporary - as are all the evils that
>occur before it.
I suppose it helps some people but for others it could cause them
to waste the one life they get.
>What percentage of eternity is a century?
To make the question relevant it should be restated as
What percentage of a persons lifetime is a century?
For most it would be over 100%.
>God has given us freedom of choice - here - so that we can learn how
>to choose. We can see (live) the consequences of our collective and
>individual choices - here, now. This is an opportunity to 'get it
>right' by the method we most love - trial and error, obedience,
>reasoning, etc. depending on the individual person - here and now.
>We can choose to attempt to restore our likeness to God, or choose to
>move further away. God has warned us about the consequences of these
>choices, but he respects our choices and does not force us to do one
>thing or the other. But the point is that the effects of our
>individual and collective choices - the evil that we do, or is done to
>us - will pass. The lessons we learn and the changes we make within
>ourselves will remain. This changes the focus from acting to avoid
>death into acting to improve ourselves. Off from collecting material
>things and onto spiritual things. With that shift in focus, there is
>also a shift in how we look at the duration of evil.
I'm disappointed that God uses such an error prone method rather
than simply creating us with all that we need.
>God did not cause these evils,
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these [things].
>but he did put a limit (death) on how
>long each of us has - either how long we have to endure them, or how
>long we have to cause them. This is no amusement park. It is a
>battlefield - there are a lot of images of this in the Gospels and the
>Epistles, where we are told to put on armor, run a good race
>(competition), hold fast etc. This battlefield is not for God, but
>for us. We are fighting an internal battle to take mastery of
>ourselves, or to become slaves of ourselves.
What sort of God creates enemies for us and himself?
>God could probably "will
>it", but then 1) it would be done by force, and 2) we could always
>blame him for it, as we didn't do it ourselves.
If God wants to avoid blame for bad things all he has to do is prevent them.
>> Also I don't know which of the many Christian cults you follow.
>
>I am Orthodox.
I had a look on Wikapedia and it sure looks like a weird one.
Essentially though, you have been indoctrinated to believe God can do
no wrong and you are to protect God's reputation.
duke
It's not a problem with Catholics.
duke
For the reason he was kicked in the butt, yep.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Dec 17, 4:54 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> Gladys, your knowledge and understanding of scripture is so lacking, it's funny.
>
> >Duke, Your knowledge of scripture is from your mentors in the RC
> >Church who have not disclosed to you
>
> My knowledge of scripture is right out of the bible, gladys.
The Bible (New Testament) does not teach
* Mary as the Mother of God. that she remained a virgin, that she was
perfect
(Immaculate) in her own conception, that she was taken bodily into
heaven
after her death (assumption), that is she now prays for us in
heaven
* that Peter was the first Pope (leader of the Christians from Rome)
* that only certain Christians are saints and can be designated as
such with
that title
* that after this life we will be assigned to Purgatory - a time of
great pain to
bring us to perfection, that can be lessened by Indulgences
(prayers by
the priests)
* that only ordained persons can be priests. Peter wrote to Christians
in an area
that is modern-day Turkey and told them that they were 'a holy,
royal
priesthood (1 Peter 2, 5 . 9)
* that sins were to be only confessed to priests
* that scapulars worn would give protection
* that the Bible should be withheld from the laity on an Index of
Forbidden Books
* that the Bishop of Rome would have ascendancy over all other bishops
* that the bread and the wine becomes the actual physical body of
Jesus Christ.
> The difference is
> that we Catholics accept it for what it says, and you <Protestants> try to decide
> for yourself if you agree with God, and you usually don't.
>
And there are rulings that were made and changed,
* such as cremation forbidden
from 1870 to 1965 (dates as I am aware of them) with the change to
allowing
Requiem Mass from the latter date,
* the Bible could be restored to the laity
from 1966 with the publication of the Jerusalem Bible that was sold in
serial
form through bookshops and newsgaents.
In NSW, Public School teachers, myself included, demonstrated new
methods
at Goulburn. late 1950's and 1960 - possibly later. State Aid that was
not taken
in 1880 on orders from the Vatican was agitated for in 1962 with a
shut-down of
R>C schools in that
area and the pupils marched to Goulburn Central to demonstrate that
the NSW
system could not accommodate them demanding that State Aid should be
given,
I had been encouraged after a testing of my class by an Inspector who
could have been
Irish Roman Catholic to take a position in another school that had
been assessed as
A level, but later I found there had been a manipulation of the
Inspection.
At the same time the Mistress at Goulburn had been encouraged to take
another
appointment which allowed the appointment of a RC Mistress -
the teacher whose class I had taken in 1958;
perhaps even the
NSW Inspector who had told us he was Roman Catholic had been
involved.
All who were in that situation would now be retired, perhaps some
deceased.
But as a Christian (Protestant) I have learnt 'that all things work
together for good
to them that love the Lord" Romans 8 : 28
* The change of the meaning of 'hageos' in the New Jerusalem Bible .
(published
1985) to 'God's own people' so that 'saints' can be reserved for
those
canonised by the Pope with a number-in-waiting much greater than the
total
of all the previous centuries beatified by John Paul II.
Oh yes. Vatican II was a council to plan an RC evangelical movement
worldwide to 'trick' those not members of the RC Church that it was
right.
Change from the 'big stick' of the Inquisitions to the 'sweet carrot'
of
grandfatherly Popes patting children on the heads and smiling to TV
cameras.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/rome.html
But let Protestants remember 'by grace are we saved through faith
and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.
Not of works, lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009(•R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >• You are preconditioned by the one true church. She wasn't. You still
> >claim that Galileo was wrong.
> For the reason he was kicked in the butt, yep.
>
Gladys Swager
v1_0
But not BE both, which is the point.
>
> >Bringing the point to this discussion: God made us, as we are, for a
> >purpose. This included the ability to reason, and to make decisions
> >based on that reasoning. Removing some part of this - yes, including
> >the desire aspect - would make us less than we are.
>
> Removing undesirable and harmful traits would be a big improvement.
>
> >> >> If God was almighty he could have what he wants.
>
> >> >At most, you can only say that *no force* could prevent an almighty
> >> >God from having what he wants. However, this does not exclude
> >> >internal prevention/restraint. A loving almighty God would be
> >> >obliged to restrain himself from forcing his ways upon someone (like
> >> >us).
>
> >> A loving almighty God would feel compelled to "force" on us things
> >> that are good for us. As it is we have many harmful things forced on us.
>
> >You are saying that the ends ("good") justify the means ("having it
> >forced upon you"). I do not agree with that. The means are as much
> >a moral decision as the ends you are trying to achieve.
>
> Not applicable to an almighty God.
How do you figure? Power is not morality.
>
> >One more thing, there are plenty of times where we must choose between
> >*two evils* - say to remove a tumor by operation, or to allow it to
> >grow/spread and possibly die. The operation to remove the tumor
> >certainly will cause pain - and thereby we would call it "evil", yet
> >it is done to prevent a greater "evil" (death). By your logic, the
> >government should *force* the operation on the person with the cancer,
> >regardless of their desires.
>
> Sometimes the government does "force" things onto people if it is
> determined they are not competent to choose.
Yes, this is true. However, as you said - it is because they are not
competent. The government does not do this to competent people,
though.
> God forces harmful things on us so why not good things?
Does he?
> Good parents force their children to stay away from harmful things.
This is merely a reiteration of your competency point above. To
answer it, yes - up to a point. Past that point (when a child is an
adult) it becomes bad parenting to force things upon the child. You
are, in effect, insulting that child and acting as though it were
incompetent. And preventing it from growing further. This will bring
resentment at first, then outright hate. Even if you truly know
better...
We have caused our own suffering. As discussed previously, if God
were to force us to be different this would not engender love. But
God has extended to us a lifeline, which we are free to accept or
reject.
>
> >By forcing someone to *be* something they are not, what sort of
> >example is that? And, how do you force someone to love?
>
> God may not know how to be lovable so he resorts to commanding love.
I can't remember anything exactly like this, but I am sure that when
my parents didn't let me eat all that candy that I wanted before
dinner, I thought that they were the most unloving parents ever.
They ruined my world. Hated me. etc.
Now I know better. It wasn't so much about the candy and dinner - but
about the habits that I was developing. At some point during my life
I realized that not everything that we think is a "good thing" is
really good for us. But as a child I did not have the experience nor
rational process to see that.
>
> Mark 12:30
> And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
> all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this
> [is] the first commandment.
>
> and many others.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> God could improve our lives dramatically by removing things that cause us
> >> distress, such as illness and depression. We spend much of our lives just
> >> staying alive. There are plenty of non-lethal challenges to amuse us.
>
> >Aha! The last two sentences here are very significant. There is a
> >lot to discuss in regards to those..
>
> >First, it looks like you are not fully understanding the Christian
> >concept of death. (I am not intending to call you non-Christian, or
> >non-anything, with that.) Your view of what is "good"/"evil" and
> >even the "purpose of life" would therefore be focused entirely upon
> >the here and now. If that is true, you see the entire measure of our
> >existance based upon our lives here on earth - with judgement and
> >afterlife being nebulous. This would certainly lead to making
> >"staying alive" - in all of its forms - the top priority of our lives.
>
> >Please tell me if I am not close on that.
>
> You are very close. The thing is, everything that makes "you" exists
> in a machine we call the brain, therefore when brain activity ceases
> you won't exist anymore. Thus there is nothing to go anywhere or
> carry on.
Yet, I suspect you do not totally accept this. Otherwise, why waste
what little time we have for life arguing about things that make no
difference?
I am guessing you have doubts because of hearing about near death
experiences, the phantom limb thing, perhaps ghosts. Something like
that. Something that cannot be easily explained via nature.
Sadly, this is not something that I can help with.
>
> >One of the things that Jesus came to do was to remove the fear of
> >death.
>
> Why did Jesus fail?
He did not. I don't accept the "I'm saved... zap... la la la la
everything is wonderful la la la" type mindset that seems to have
crept into Christianity. It is a struggle to get to the point where
the fear of death is removed.
Paul speaks of "crucifying" the old man - crucification is not a quick
death. It is slow, and death occurs by suffocation.
Here, this may help: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/maimonides/guide.vii.xi.html
The specific verse you cite is actually discussed about midway.
Note that I am still reading through his treatise, and there are some
things in it that I would not agree with (not in the chapter that I
have given, though).
>
> >but he did put a limit (death) on how
> >long each of us has - either how long we have to endure them, or how
> >long we have to cause them. This is no amusement park. It is a
> >battlefield - there are a lot of images of this in the Gospels and the
> >Epistles, where we are told to put on armor, run a good race
> >(competition), hold fast etc. This battlefield is not for God, but
> >for us. We are fighting an internal battle to take mastery of
> >ourselves, or to become slaves of ourselves.
>
> What sort of God creates enemies for us and himself?
WE are our own enemies. We fight within ourselves. And we fight
for.. peace.
I have been told that in many cases people who experience anxiety
attacks get caught in a "circle of (anxious) thoughts" that they
cannot break out of. Their body reacts to this, and generates
adrenaline, which then causes more general anxiety - that adds energy
to the anxious thoughts... and this feeds back on itself until the
person is pretty much in a panic attack.
However, if the person were able to 'break' the chain of thought,
would that not at least stop the escalation?
Here's something that I heard of a few years ago. It was
"discovered" in 1924 by the medical profession. Of course, monastics
had been practicing something similar for long before that... But
hey, that was religious and there is an artificial separation of
religion and science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy
>
> >God could probably "will
> >it", but then 1) it would be done by force, and 2) we could always
> >blame him for it, as we didn't do it ourselves.
>
> If God wants to avoid blame for bad things all he has to do is prevent them.
>
> >> Also I don't know which of the many Christian cults you follow.
>
> >I am Orthodox.
>
> I had a look on Wikapedia and it sure looks like a weird one.
>
> Essentially though, you have been indoctrinated to believe God can do
> no wrong and you are to protect God's reputation.
Not really. I personally would have no problem with God forcing
"good" on us. But I do understand that he loves us too much to do
that - which you will probably see as a paradox. For me, the key to
resolving this is to understand that use of force diminishes both love
and each of the parties.
But yes, you are correct in one point: each of us has a set of
'filters' if you will - and we view the world and process information
about it according to those filters. Some of those filters are set
by what we believe in - be it God, science, or just ourselves - some
of them are set by our "personality". Our processing is also
affected by those things - it can create a reinforcement loop.
Understanding that we do this is one of the parts of gaining mastery
of ourselves. If we are (unbeknown st to us) modifying data on the
way in - then we have a blind spot, and are not truly in charge of
ourselves.
And, yes, I am sure that these are setup/modified by indoctrination.
However, this neither makes them right or wrong by itself.
-V
v1_0
wrote:
> The Bible (New Testament) does not teach
[ ... ]
> * that the bread and the wine becomes the actual physical body of
> Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 11
"26": For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do
shew the Lord's death till he come.
"27": Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of
the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord.
"28": But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread,
and drink of that cup.
"29": For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
"30": For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many
sleep.
Now, why is a symbolic "act of remembrance" causing people to be weak,
sickly, and die (sleep)? And to be damned?
Let's look at what happened when Jesus first enacted this. It's in
John 6
51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat
of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give
is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Now, the Jews are having a hard time believing it.
52: The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this
man give us his flesh to eat?
Note that Jesus doesn't say "hey, sillies, I am speaking in a
parable..." he says:
53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no
life in you.
54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me,
and I in him.
Now, I have been told by someone who reads the Greek that he uses the
word "gnaw" (eat) there.
Further on, the disciples are having a hard time with it still:
60: Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said,
This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Note that the disciples have no problem understanding what he has
said. They are are saying 'how can he expect us to do that'.
61: When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he
said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Again, Jesus doesn't correct them. He reinforces it even further,
saying that the words he is speaking are are spirit and life.
Some disciples still can't deal with it and leave. I guess this is
true even to this day. But wait, let's see the verse:
66: From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more
with him.
Notice. John, Chapter 6, verse 66. Does that number look
familiar?
�R.L.Measures
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:56:19 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <sqnki51sdsgi5s0bo...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:48:19 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <7m7ii5hr3lrjnpoji...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:22:19 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
> >> >> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Gladys, your knowledge and understanding of scripture is so lacking,
> >> >it's funny.
> >>
> >> >� your expecting Gladys to be up on the RCC's often bizarre exegesis of
> >> >Scripture is hilarious Duke.
> >>
> >> It's solid scripture in all bible versions, rl. That's why I don't
understand
> >> her rejecting so much of it.
> >>
> >� You are preconditioned by the one true church. She wasn't. You still
> >claim that Galileo was wrong.
>
> For the reason he was kicked in the butt, yep.
>
� Duke talking to God is okay but Galileo talking to God is heresy?
duke
Wonderful experiences.
duke
>> >> Gladys, your knowledge and understanding of scripture is so lacking, it's funny.
>> >Duke, Your knowledge of scripture is from your mentors in the RC
>> >Church who have not disclosed to you
>> My knowledge of scripture is right out of the bible, gladys. �
>The Bible (New Testament) does not teach
>* Mary as the Mother of God. that she remained a virgin, that she was
>perfect (Immaculate) in her own conception, that she was taken bodily into
>heaven after her death (assumption), that is she now prays for us in
>heaven
?? Then why did the new Christians in 33AD believe these if not from Jesus?
>* that Peter was the first Pope (leader of the Christians from Rome)
?? Scripture confirms his assignment, and he was also Pope when in Jerusalem,
Antioch, and Constantinople.
>* that only certain Christians are saints and can be designated as
>such with that title
?? Scriptural. Those dying in the grace of God, like Mary, go direct.
>*that after this life we will be assigned to Purgatory - a time of
>great pain to bring us to perfection, that can be lessened by Indulgences
>(prayers by the priests)
?? Scriptural.
>* that only ordained persons can be priests. Peter wrote to Christians
>in an area that is modern-day Turkey and told them that they were 'a holy,
>royal priesthood (1 Peter 2, 5 . 9)
?? Not a priest on the order of Melchizedek unless Holy Orders is taken.
>* that sins were to be only confessed to priests
?? Scriptural.
>* that scapulars worn would give protection
?? Scripture faith.
>* that the Bible should be withheld from the laity on an Index of
>Forbidden Books
?? The Pope tells us to read the bible when on vacation.
>* that the Bishop of Rome would have ascendancy over all other bishops
?? The Pope is Bishop of Rome, not vice versa..
>* that the bread and the wine becomes the actual physical body of
>Jesus Christ.
?? Scriptural.
>> The difference is
>> that we Catholics accept it for what it says, and you <Protestants> try to decide
>> for yourself if you agree with God, and you usually don't.
>And there are rulings that were made and changed,
>* such as cremation forbidden
>from 1870 to 1965 (dates as I am aware of them) with the change to
>allowing
?? Doctrine.
>Requiem Mass from the latter date,
?? See Purgatory.
>* the Bible could be restored to the laity
>from 1966 with the publication of the Jerusalem Bible that was sold in
>serial form through bookshops and newsgaents.
??
<silly personal life snipped>
�R.L.Measures
duke
I suspect he was talking to satan.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Dec 18, 1:59 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > The Bible (New Testament) does not teach
> > * that the bread and the wine becomes the actual physical body of
> > Jesus Christ.
>
> 1 Cor 11
> "26": For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do
> shew the Lord's death till he come.
> "27": Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of
> the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the
> Lord.
> "28": But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread,
> and drink of that cup.
> "29": For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
> damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
> "30": For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many
> sleep.
>
But that does not mean that some persons were 'weak and sickly'
because
they did not believe that the bread and the wine had changed into the
actual
body and blood of Jesus Christ. Worthiness is not based
on one's attitude that the bread and wine has changed but on his/her
changed
attitude towards others.
So therefore the Headmaster of a Primary school (R,Catholic) who had
allowed
the Infants Mistress (Presbyterian) to place twenty of the worse
behaving children
in classes in the Primary department of that school so she could gain
an A-level
Inspection would surely be unworthy.
(wonder what the priest said if he confssed)?
Or the Deputy Principal (R.Catholic)
who, after 'confessing' to me what had happened but if I reported it
to anyone
he would say that I was stating a lie would surely have been unworthy.
(You
shall not bear false witness - well he was willing to do that!), had
they followed
with the Mass on
the next/subsequent Sunday(s) would they have been worthy or
unworthy??? .
> Now, why is a symbolic "act of remembrance" causing people to be weak,
> sickly, and die (sleep)? And to be damned?
>
If the 'act of remembrance', as you call it, was done in good faith in
Jesus
Christ surely that act of remembrance was more acceptable to God than
for either of the two mentioned above, one of whom is deceased, the
other
I do not know.
Isn't there a false security that observances performed as determined
by the
RC Church have a merit of themselves towards one's payment for the
debt of
guilt (sin)??. .
>
Was Paul incorrect when he wrote (Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9):-
For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves,
it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast.
> Note that Jesus doesn't say "hey, sillies, I am speaking in a
666 - But it is foolish to assocate 666 from Revelation with a verse
in the gospel
of John that can be written as 666.. That is 'clutching at a straw'.
I won'r know until I am in Eternity why it was that I had contacts
with some members
of the RC Church who were very difficult in their attitudes to
Protestants, but in respect
of two of them, I was given reliable information that when a Roman
Catholic person
was in the leadershp position their attitude changed completely. And,
in hindsight,
the situation was deliberately organised for political/religious
reasons.
However, it appears to me that if actions are taken that will further
the interests
of the RC Church it is acceptable to those involved, and any
adversities experienced
by a Protestant - well, just too bad!
However, in a state of shock (won't go into details) I was taken to
the Headmaster's
home, given a brandy, told to pray to Mary (a picture of her on the
wall) which I
refused to do, fell into a sleep of being in a desolate area with a
voice I believed was
fron God asking me if I wanted Christians to be taken out of the world
before or after
the Tribulation. I debated the issue and would have gladly chosen the
first proposition,
but reason prevailed and I chose the second despite the difficulties
involved. At that
I woke out of the 'nightmare'
And so a little more than thirty-five years later
I am debating these issues with you.
Rturn to the RC Church? No! Intead the hierarchy of the RC Church
needs to
acknowledge that it was responsible for the division that came with
the
Protestant Refomation as some modern Protestant groups have to revise
the
interpretations and practicises which they have imposed.
Gladys Swager
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� If Satan told Galileo that God's Holy Church was wrong about an
earth-centric universe, and that Copernicus was right, Satan deserves to
be commended,
swa...@ozemail.com.au
<snip - with apologies too much>
> > >• for Gailileo?
>
> > I suspect he was talking to satan.
>
> • If Satan told Galileo that God's Holy Church was wrong about an
> earth-centric universe, and that Copernicus was right, Satan deserves to
> be commended,
>
accepting
Aristole's and Ptolomy's geo-centred universe was wrong. -
Copernicus and Galileo were led by God in their scientific research
to
realise the fallacy of that thinking.
If the scientific world of that day had stayed with the thinking of
Aristarchus
the controversy would not have existed.
http://www.varchive.org/ee/orbit/arisam.htm
There is a lesson here in the present controversy of scientific
creationism and
evolutionary theory.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3009
Gladys Swager
�R.L.Measures
<d7cf21f7-41be-4073...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
"s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 8:03=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> <snip - with apologies too much>
> > > >=95 =A0 for Gailileo?
> >
> > > I suspect he was talking to satan.
> >
> > ....... If Satan told Galileo that God's Holy Church was wrong about an
> > earth-centric universe, and that Copernicus was right, =A0Satan deserves =
> to
> > be commended,
> >
> It was not Satan who told Galileo the RC Church was wrong in
> accepting
> Aristole's and Ptolomy's geo-centred universe was wrong. -
> Copernicus and Galileo were led by God in their scientific research
> to realise the fallacy of that thinking.
** try convincing Duke Gladys. Good luck!.
>
> If the scientific world of that day had stayed with the thinking of
> Aristarchus
> the controversy would not have existed.
> http://www.varchive.org/ee/orbit/arisam.htm
>
> There is a lesson here in the present controversy of scientific
> creationism and
> evolutionary theory.
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3009
>
> Gladys Swager
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
dolf
On 21/12/09 1:47 PM, •R.L.Measures wrote:
> In article
> <d7cf21f7-41be-4073...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
> "s...@ozemail.com.au"<swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 21, 8:03=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
>> <snip - with apologies too much>
>>>>> =95 =A0 for Gailileo?
>>>
>>>> I suspect he was talking to satan.
>>>
>>> ....... If Satan told Galileo that God's Holy Church was wrong about an
>>> earth-centric universe, and that Copernicus was right, =A0Satan deserves =
>> to
>>> be commended,
>>>
>> It was not Satan who told Galileo the RC Church was wrong in
>> accepting
>> Aristole's and Ptolomy's geo-centred universe was wrong. -
>> Copernicus and Galileo were led by God in their scientific research
>> to realise the fallacy of that thinking.
>
> ** try convincing Duke Gladys. Good luck!.
http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/metaschematic.jpg
Pythagorean Geomancy as Mother of the Gods: The performing of the Office
of the Moon in association to the Sun, has its natural conception as
Pythagoras first found out about the XLII Olympiad, which was of Rome
the 147th year {ie. Caesar Augustus, came to rule 700 years after
Romulus founding} in a chronological emulation associated to the
planetary worship of Venus: "before morning he takes the Name of Lucifer
(Eous or Eosphoros 'dawn-bearer' and Phosphorus 'light-bearer'), as
another Sun bringing on day; on the other side, shining at Sun-set it is
called Vesper (Hesper), as proroguing light". In magnitude, they thought
it exceeded all the other stars, and was of so great splendor, in that
this star only casts a shadow; whence it has diversity of Names; some
call it Juno, others Isis; others Mother of the gods. By the Nature
hereof, all things are generated upon the Earth; for, at either rising,
it scatters prolific dew, supplying not only the Conceptions of Earth,
but likewise stimulating all living creatures." [The Doctrine of
Pythagoras, Sciences Preparative to Philosophy, History of Philosophy,
1687 ed, p 539]
http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/artificalquaternary.gif
"In this consideration we are not able simply to announce, because of
the proportions and the particular and mystical results which are
produced in another fashion [as Pythagorean planetary metaschema], from
the Quaternary of these same lines. And thirdly, we will show that there
exists within Nature certain useful functions determined by God by means
of numbers, which we have happily obtained and which are explained
either in this theorem, or in others, contained in this little book.
Finally, we will insert other things in an opportune place which, if
they are conveniently understood, will produce fruits most abundantly."
[John Dee 1564 CE, Our Canon of Transposition (metathesis) -- The
Hierogylphic Monad to Use of Planetary Symbols, p 41]
http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/HorizonOfEternity.gif
"I tell thee, O King, this operation will be useful unto thee in many
circumstances, whether in the study of nature or in the affairs of
government of men; for it is that which I am accustomed to use with the
greatest of pleasure in the Tziruph {ie. A set of combinations and
permutations of the Hebrew letters designed to show analogies and
preserve secrets} or Themura of the Hebrews.
I know that many other powerful numbers may be produced out of our
Quaternary, by virtue of arithmetic and the power of numbers. Yet he who
does not understand that a very great obscurity has by this method been
illuminated by those numbers, which I have drawn out which have nature
and distinction amongst such a multitude, will not be able to estimate
their meaning, which is obscure and not to the point. How many will find
in our numbers the authority which we have promised for the weight of
the Elements; for statements regarding measurements of time; and for the
certainty of proportions which may be assigned to the powers and forces
of things? All this you should study in the two preceding diagrams in
respect to this new Art; to wit, we have here established a rational
cause by virtue of which the Quaternary with the Decad, in a certain
manner, terminate the numerical series." [John Dee 1564 CE, Our Canon of
Transposition (metathesis) -- The Hierogylphic Monad to Use of Planetary
Symbols, p 44]
dolf
On 21/12/09 1:47 PM, •R.L.Measures wrote:
> In article
> <d7cf21f7-41be-4073...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
> "s...@ozemail.com.au"<swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 21, 8:03=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
>> <snip - with apologies too much>
>>>>> =95 =A0 for Gailileo?
>>>
>>>> I suspect he was talking to satan.
>>>
>>> ....... If Satan told Galileo that God's Holy Church was wrong about an
>>> earth-centric universe, and that Copernicus was right, =A0Satan deserves =
>> to
>>> be commended,
>>>
>> It was not Satan who told Galileo the RC Church was wrong in
>> accepting
>> Aristole's and Ptolomy's geo-centred universe was wrong. -
>> Copernicus and Galileo were led by God in their scientific research
>> to realise the fallacy of that thinking.
>
> ** try convincing Duke Gladys. Good luck!.
According to a chapter titled 'Sciences preparative to Philosophy' on
page 523 of the 1687 CE fascimile edition of the History of Philosophy,
the onomantick number-heteros (marriage) doctrine of Pythagoras
considered Number as propositionally measured ethical conduct mirrored
within natural phenomenon as the incommensurate product and Intellectual
Property of the ineffable Divine Mind: "Number is of two kinds, the
Intellectual (immaterial: ecclesiastical, metempiricial and sapiental)
and the Sciental (ternary quantitative: measured and weighed, by
algorithm having magnitude or spatial extent). The Intellectual is that
eternal substance of Number, which Pythagoras in his Discourse
concerning the Gods asserted to be the principle most providential of
all Heaven and Earth, and the nature that is betwixt them. Moreover, it
is the root of Divine Beings, and of Gods, and of Daemons.
This is that which he termed the principle, fountain, and root of all
things, and defined it to be that which before all things exists in the
Divine Mind; from which and out of which all things are digested into
order, and remain numbered by an indissoluble series [as hierarchy and
yet was within imminent jeopardy:] {ie. "And this is the inscription:
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of each. MENE:
God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it; TEKEL: You have been
weighed in the balances, and found wanting; PERES: Your kingdom has been
divided, and given to the Medes {measure; habit; covering} and the
Persians {that cuts or divides; a nail; a gryphon; a horseman}." [Daniel
5:25-28]}
For all things which are ordered in the world by nature according to an
artificial course in part and in whole, appear to be distinguished and
adorned by Providence and the All-creating Mind, according to Number;
the Exemplar being established by applying (as the reason of the
principle before the impression of things) the number pre-existent in
the Intellect of God, maker of the world. This only in intellectual, and
wholly immaterial, really a substance according to which as being the
most exact artificial reason {eg: COMMONWEALTH and its technological
(Deus ex machinas) relationship to the Grapple Homoiotic Noumenon as
intellectual property and hypostatic metashematizo of homoousion}, all
things are perfected: Time, Heaven, Motion, the Stars, and their various
revolutions." [Pythagoras (580-500 BCE), Photographic Fascimile 9th
Section, 1687 edition, The History of Philosophy, p 523]
http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/metaschematic.jpg
http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/artificalquaternary.gif
http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/images/HorizonOfEternity.gif
>> If the scientific world of that day had stayed with the thinking of
�R.L.Measures
<dolf...@grapple.id.au> wrote:
** logorrheic