Defining a 'True Christian'?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-8.htm

Heaven above earth

http://bible.cc/exodus/20-4.htm

Heaven above

http://bible.cc/isaiah/55-9.htm

Heaven is higher than earth.

Guess we need an artistic interpretation of “higher” and “above” to avoid admitting that the bible says Heaven is in the sky?[/quote]

You do know that heaven(s) has multiple meanings right? I mean it is english.

“I am going to the store.” <-a place that sells shit.
“I need to store my grain for the winter.” < - a place to put shit…

If you cannot tell the difference between something referring to the sky of the stars in the sky, versus God’s realm. I can’t help you.
In any event, none of those quotes says God lives in the sky…

342

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
http://bible.cc/psalms/103-11.htm

“For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him”

What do we call the place above the earth, Pat? Oh, right. Sky.[/quote]

Where in the Bible does it say Heaven is in the sky?

Everything is above the earth. This verse again is talking about being humble. However, you want to get technical? The sky is the upper atmosphere of the earth, why would Jews and Christians limit their God or Heaven to the upper atmosphere of the earth?

343

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-8.htm

Heaven above earth

http://bible.cc/exodus/20-4.htm

Heaven above

http://bible.cc/isaiah/55-9.htm

Heaven is higher than earth.

Guess we need an artistic interpretation of “higher” and “above” to avoid admitting that the bible says Heaven is in the sky?[/quote]

Sky = upper atmosphere. Since we’re getting technical.

344

Pat, I’m glad you made that point and agree 100%. in my opinion, there’s no such thing as the supernatural. There is only the natural universe, which we me or may not yet understand.

Actually, science is both inductive and deductive. You can start with an a priori hypothesis and make specific deductive predictions based on that hypothesis, or you can conduct “kitchen sink” science where you build the explanation inductively from existing data. Both deduction and induction are critical to the scientific method.

Logically, if something has existed forever, it is impossible for it to have a cause. Cause and effect REQUIRE the linearity of time. Think about it. You can’t have cause and effect in a timeless state, because in order to be an effect it must be preceded by a cause.

Why can’t you say it just is? Why not accept the possibility that quarks, bosons, etc. have always existed?

345

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m glad you made that point and agree 100%. in my opinion, there’s no such thing as the supernatural. There is only the natural universe, which we me or may not yet understand.

Actually, science is both inductive and deductive. You can start with an a priori hypothesis and make specific deductive predictions based on that hypothesis, or you can conduct “kitchen sink” science where you build the explanation inductively from existing data. Both deduction and induction are critical to the scientific method.

Logically, if something has existed forever, it is impossible for it to have a cause. Cause and effect REQUIRE the linearity of time. Think about it. You can’t have cause and effect in a timeless state, because in order to be an effect it must be preceded by a cause.

Why can’t you say it just is? Why not accept the possibility that quarks, bosons, etc. have always existed?[/quote]

Science says the Universe is 13.5 billion years old…that is not forever.

346

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m glad you made that point and agree 100%. in my opinion, there’s no such thing as the supernatural. There is only the natural universe, which we me or may not yet understand.

Actually, science is both inductive and deductive. You can start with an a priori hypothesis and make specific deductive predictions based on that hypothesis, or you can conduct “kitchen sink” science where you build the explanation inductively from existing data. Both deduction and induction are critical to the scientific method.

Logically, if something has existed forever, it is impossible for it to have a cause. Cause and effect REQUIRE the linearity of time. Think about it. You can’t have cause and effect in a timeless state, because in order to be an effect it must be preceded by a cause.

Why can’t you say it just is? Why not accept the possibility that quarks, bosons, etc. have always existed?[/quote]

Because as stated, it doesn’t matter. Contingency is time independent. Lot’s of things exist infinitely that does not remove their dependence. Back the to the math example. 2+2=4, it is true, was true and always will be true. For it to be true you need numbers and computation. What are numbers? Where did addition come from? What makes it true?

It needs stuff to make it true, that stuff needs other stuff, that stuff needs other stuff and other stuff and other stuff.

347

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m glad you made that point and agree 100%. in my opinion, there’s no such thing as the supernatural. There is only the natural universe, which we me or may not yet understand.

Actually, science is both inductive and deductive. You can start with an a priori hypothesis and make specific deductive predictions based on that hypothesis, or you can conduct “kitchen sink” science where you build the explanation inductively from existing data. Both deduction and induction are critical to the scientific method.

Logically, if something has existed forever, it is impossible for it to have a cause. Cause and effect REQUIRE the linearity of time. Think about it. You can’t have cause and effect in a timeless state, because in order to be an effect it must be preceded by a cause.

Why can’t you say it just is? Why not accept the possibility that quarks, bosons, etc. have always existed?[/quote]

Science says the Universe is 13.5 billion years old…that is not forever.[/quote]

Saying it has been 13.5 billion years since the big bang is very different from saying matter and energy are 13.5 billion years old. Many scientists believe in fact that the big bang was only one in an infinite series of expansions and contractions of the universe.

348

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m glad you made that point and agree 100%. in my opinion, there’s no such thing as the supernatural. There is only the natural universe, which we me or may not yet understand.

Actually, science is both inductive and deductive. You can start with an a priori hypothesis and make specific deductive predictions based on that hypothesis, or you can conduct “kitchen sink” science where you build the explanation inductively from existing data. Both deduction and induction are critical to the scientific method.

Logically, if something has existed forever, it is impossible for it to have a cause. Cause and effect REQUIRE the linearity of time. Think about it. You can’t have cause and effect in a timeless state, because in order to be an effect it must be preceded by a cause.

Why can’t you say it just is? Why not accept the possibility that quarks, bosons, etc. have always existed?[/quote]

Science says the Universe is 13.5 billion years old…that is not forever.[/quote]

Saying it has been 13.5 billion years since the big bang is very different from saying matter and energy are 13.5 billion years old. Many scientists believe in fact that the big bang was only one in an infinite series of expansions and contractions of the universe.[/quote]

Actually that is under contention now…

349

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m glad you made that point and agree 100%. in my opinion, there’s no such thing as the supernatural. There is only the natural universe, which we me or may not yet understand.

Actually, science is both inductive and deductive. You can start with an a priori hypothesis and make specific deductive predictions based on that hypothesis, or you can conduct “kitchen sink” science where you build the explanation inductively from existing data. Both deduction and induction are critical to the scientific method.

Logically, if something has existed forever, it is impossible for it to have a cause. Cause and effect REQUIRE the linearity of time. Think about it. You can’t have cause and effect in a timeless state, because in order to be an effect it must be preceded by a cause.

Why can’t you say it just is? Why not accept the possibility that quarks, bosons, etc. have always existed?[/quote]

Science says the Universe is 13.5 billion years old…that is not forever.[/quote]

Saying it has been 13.5 billion years since the big bang is very different from saying matter and energy are 13.5 billion years old. Many scientists believe in fact that the big bang was only one in an infinite series of expansions and contractions of the universe.[/quote]

That still begs the question, what set it in to motion?

350

Of course it’s under contention…nobody is claiming the universe MUST have started with a big bang. It’s a theory, not a law, which is why we don’t make definitive statements.

What about the possibility that it has always been in motion, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions? If that is the case, there was no need for anyone to set it into motion.

My point here isn’t to prove beyond doubt that the universe started with a big bang. I’m just contending the idea that there are no viable alternate explanations for the existence of the universe.

I seriously don’t understand why people are having such a hard time accepting even the possibility that matter and energy have always existed.

351

[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course it’s under contention…nobody is claiming the universe MUST have started with a big bang. It’s a theory, not a law, which is why we don’t make definitive statements.

What about the possibility that it has always been in motion, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions? If that is the case, there was no need for anyone to set it into motion.

My point here isn’t to prove beyond doubt that the universe started with a big bang. I’m just contending the idea that there are no viable alternate explanations for the existence of the universe.

I seriously don’t understand why people are having such a hard time accepting even the possibility that matter and energy have always existed.[/quote]

I am just saying that the accordion universe theory is in dispute, the math involved is showing something different…

Hey FL, this is somewhat unrealted, but if you have few minutes I’d like you to check out the E8 theory by Garret Lisi…He is a theoretical physicist on the outs with most of the academic world who is turning the current status quo of ‘Theories of everything’ on their head. I’d like to know what you think. Intuitively to me it makes much more sense than string theories…but that’s my opinion…

352

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-8.htm

Heaven above earth

http://bible.cc/exodus/20-4.htm

Heaven above

http://bible.cc/isaiah/55-9.htm

Heaven is higher than earth.

Guess we need an artistic interpretation of “higher” and “above” to avoid admitting that the bible says Heaven is in the sky?[/quote]

Sky = upper atmosphere. Since we’re getting technical. [/quote]

Nope, because we’re not “getting technical”. When the people writing the bible said “heaven” they clearly meant up in the sky, “sky” being above the earth, including what we now call “space” (Much the same way people say “all the stars in the sky”)

353

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course it’s under contention…nobody is claiming the universe MUST have started with a big bang. It’s a theory, not a law, which is why we don’t make definitive statements.

What about the possibility that it has always been in motion, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions? If that is the case, there was no need for anyone to set it into motion.

My point here isn’t to prove beyond doubt that the universe started with a big bang. I’m just contending the idea that there are no viable alternate explanations for the existence of the universe.

I seriously don’t understand why people are having such a hard time accepting even the possibility that matter and energy have always existed.[/quote]

I am just saying that the accordion universe theory is in dispute, the math involved is showing something different…

Hey FL, this is somewhat unrealted, but if you have few minutes I’d like you to check out the E8 theory by Garret Lisi…He is a theoretical physicist on the outs with most of the academic world who is turning the current status quo of ‘Theories of everything’ on their head. I’d like to know what you think. Intuitively to me it makes much more sense than string theories…but that’s my opinion…
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/garrett_lisis_new_e8_paper[/quote]

I agree, if there wasn’t any dispute it would be a law rather than a theory. Just pointing out that there are very viable theories currently being investigated, and yet to be investigated, showing that the universe doesn’t require divine intervention in order to exist. I think it is far from a foregone conclusion that a god must have created the universe.

Thanks for the link. I find the idea of a unified theory fascinating, and wouldn’t be surprised if the nature of matter and the forces of the universe can ultimately be expained by such a theory. It’s very cool stuff, and only underscores our current state of abysmal ignorance.

354

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-8.htm

Heaven above earth

http://bible.cc/exodus/20-4.htm

Heaven above

http://bible.cc/isaiah/55-9.htm

Heaven is higher than earth.

Guess we need an artistic interpretation of “higher” and “above” to avoid admitting that the bible says Heaven is in the sky?[/quote]

Sky = upper atmosphere. Since we’re getting technical. [/quote]

Nope, because we’re not “getting technical”. When the people writing the bible said “heaven” they clearly meant up in the sky, “sky” being above the earth, including what we now call “space” (Much the same way people say “all the stars in the sky”)[/quote]

Even though you are not getting technical, I hope you do not mind if I do get technical. There is a big difference between the theological Heaven or Paradiso and the heavens as referred to as the sky.

I love when people tell me what I believe. Let me ask you a rhetorical question, what does the Catholic Church (which I hold steadfast to) teach on the location of Heaven?

Nothing, because it is not revealed by God, yet.

If you look at Genesis 1, you can see that Heaven was above the Earth, and below the clouds. Basically Adam and Eve lived in Paradise, where heaven was in Genesis 1; However, with original sin, the ruler of the world was cast out of the world and at the same time Adam and ever were cast out of Paradise. Now, Heaven is called paradise, and is described as paradise. So, make your own conclusions, Heaven was above Earth and below the clouds. However, that has changed. There might be some folk discipline that people say Heaven is in the skies, but that is not theologically sound doctrine.