[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ everything ok pat?[/quote]
Thank Irish, yes. It was my wife, abdominal pain and vomiting…Thought it was gall blatter, but looks like a virus…Thanks for asking.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ everything ok pat?[/quote]
Thank Irish, yes. It was my wife, abdominal pain and vomiting…Thought it was gall blatter, but looks like a virus…Thanks for asking.[/quote]
uugghh, horrible way to spend a night. Hope she feels better soon
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ everything ok pat?[/quote]
Thank Irish, yes. It was my wife, abdominal pain and vomiting…Thought it was gall blatter, but looks like a virus…Thanks for asking.[/quote]
Glad to hear that she is ok.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ everything ok pat?[/quote]
Thank Irish, yes. It was my wife, abdominal pain and vomiting…Thought it was gall blatter, but looks like a virus…Thanks for asking.[/quote]
Very good to hear it’s nothing too serious.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
<<< As far as I can tell those who adhere to the reformers is growing. I for instance was raised baptist and at 24(which was not that long ago) changed my view on alot of things. I would say you are right in the sense that the leading movement is the heresy brought forth by the word of faith movement. I would say people like RC Sproul, Hank hanegraff, and a few others are leading the charge toward a more reformed belief.[/quote]
Don’t even get me started on the word of faith deal. That IS heresy. Straight up.
I do hear tell of a trend toward the doctrines of grace among more historically Arminian people, but maybe it’s where I live. I sure don’t see it. I see the reformed denominations creeping into permissive liberalism.
It can seem counterintuitive to our fallen mind, but the Almighty sovereign God of Isaiah 10 wielding His way with the King of Assyria is where the power is.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It was originally thought up by Aristotle in the form of the Prime Mover, he was looking for a logical explanation for why things move given that for something to be in motion, as far as he was aware, something had to set it in motion what he actually came up with was that energy caused motion. This idea was later developed by Plato. A thousand years or so later, thinkers of the time took the idea and applied it as a ‘logical’ proof that there is a God. It is nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Aristotle wasn’t explaining only motion he was explaining causation. But Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, Plato wasn’t smart enough to even borrow it. It is a proof of something with God like properties. Only thing that can posses a God like quality is God.
[/quote]
It is not proof of something with godlike properties. It is proof of something that was at the time beyond the comprehension of the person doing the speculation.
Quentin Smith would be a good place to start.
[quote]
Firstly, why must I necessarily believe that and secondly, why is that in any way a proof of God. It is just a proof of something we don’t currently understand, in the same way as a few hundred years ago we didn’t understand why the Sun rose and set or the stars sparkled in the night sky.
Finally quantum fluctuations are outside of cause and effect chains because they are independent of time. The formulae work perfectly in reverse.[/quote]
Time is not a necessary component of causal relationships. There is no evidence anywhere in the universe of anything that sits outside the causal chain. Things not understood are not things uncaused.
I’ll answer more later, I just spent all night in a fucking hospital.[/quote]
Ok back to Aristotle’s cosmology. Now, Aristotle knew several things when making his argument. He knew that causes necessitate their effects. He knew as you follow the causal chain you all things have commonality with each other, that all things share properties with one anther, and that this process could not go on forever with out being a logical fallacy of begging the question. This was not an ad hoc band aid, it was carefully considered, linear logic. It literally solves an equation. As Einstein was able to postulate the existence of black holes by pure math and reason, so Aristotle was able to ‘see’ an uncaused-causer.
Quintin Smith, don’t know much about him. But what little I read, he isn’t breaking any new ground and arguing cosmology from a singularity doesn’t remove the Unmoved-mover, Uncaused- cause. I don’t see where he proves said singularity is an uncaused-causer.
In any event, I am present the arguments and not merely dropping names which I could do easily as well. So if you are going to mention a person who refuted an argument, please at least present the argument. I don’t feel like digging up obscure people’s works to try and find what they said about a certain topic.
If you do not believe that all that exists came from something that exists, the only other option is to believe that it came from that which does not exist.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I wouldn’t go that far (though I do take your points) I think that the multiverse theory is more rationale than there being a God as described in the bible. I also think that it is more internally consistent than the God of the Bible.
Also remember that I have not accepted the existence of a multiverse. I just accept that the theory seems to stack up. If a better theory comes along I am open to it. The same is not true of religious believers for whom doubting the gospel is a sin.[/quote]
I like your intellectual honesty - its refreshing.
I will disagree with one point though - God never said that we could not question our beliefs - in fact we are encouraged to constantly challenge and test them to see if they are true. It is another classic misconception about God that He is somehow afraid of human questions.
My dad is fond of saying that “did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurs to God?” It is his way of stating that God welcomes our challenges and questions, and even our anger and frustration.
I fear you have been taught some pretty sad ideas about Christianity. You’ll find the reality is much different than that . . . you’ve accepted some of the worst oversimplifications and mischaracterizations of our beliefs . . that saddens me.[/quote]
Yes and no. There are parts of the bible where god appears open to questioning and there are parts where he goes all smitey on people for daring to doubt his word.
On the whole though it is the Church that is terrified of anyone questioning its tenets, not God and that is an important distinction.[/quote]
Which church is this? A faith not open to scrutiny is not a solid faith.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< Seriously, I came to Christianity via studying the Tao. In seeking to understand the Tao, I discovered the nature/reality of God separate from the revealed truth of the Bible, but in the revealed truth of the Bible I discovered the character of God. The character of God as revealed in the Bible matched the nature of the Divine that I found in the Tao. >>>[/quote]Romans 1:18-20:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”[/quote]
…so the wicked receive their punishment in heaven. That’s nice, but it’s not doing us down here a lot of good, is it?
[/quote]
From, not in
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< exactly so. I do not agree with Calvin - but the disagreement is one based on our understanding of how (or the mechanisms by which) God accomplishes His work of salvation - not on the need, manner or application of that salvation. >>>[/quote] You’re cuttin it tight here,[quote]IrishSteel wrote:The foundational doctrines of the gospel are plain and on those we agree 100%.[/quote] But as far as I know I still agree.[quote]IrishSteel wrote: but since I do not come to Christianity through a protestant tradition,[/quote]Ya done pretty good there oh slippery one. I went back and forth a few times =] (In fact I still have a question mark blinkin in the back of my mind.)[quote]IrishSteel wrote: This is all based on the acknowledgment that there are absolute truths that cannot be altered and on those we find complete agreement.[/quote]Like I say, near as I can tell we do. I also agree that thus far it was much wiser to be non confrontational. This is indeed the perfect illustration of the answer to Ephrem’s question. We are about as far apart as it is possible to get and still consider each other as having a seat in the invisible church of the actually redeemed. Before this comes up, yes I am well aware that many in my “camp” are not as gracious as I am, lol.
[/quote]
You know me, Tirib - biblical literalism all the way.
The saddest part is that in response to some of the ungracious members of that “camp” I was just as ungracious in return. Definitely failed my Lord in that behavior . . .[/quote]
I am also not a Calvinist but I enjoy some of the apologetic material that James White puts out, though I lean towards biblical literalism as well. Glad to hear your wife is ok pat.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you do realise that other christians say the same thing but may very well believe things you won’t agree with?
[/quote]
So?[/quote]
…when one believer interprets scripture differently from you but has similar religious experiences that tell him that he is on the narrow path of righteousness, imo that can mean two things:
…either god does not care about the fine print, only that you believe or beliefs excite parts of the brain and create experiences that are separate from the truth of those beliefs…[/quote]
Tradition = Catholic Peer Review for issues of revelation.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< You know me, Tirib - biblical literalism all the way.
The saddest part is that in response to some of the ungracious members of that “camp” I was just as ungracious in return. Definitely failed my Lord in that behavior . . .[/quote]
Just to be clear I wasn’t talking about anybody here in this forum. I mean many reformed thinkers who I believe are quite justifiably rough on your “camp” take that last step into categorical absolutism regarding the soteriological state of all individuals therein. A step I cannot bring myself to take and a thing about which I’m overjoyed in your case. I can almost see the somewhat sour, but chuckling look on your face reading this post. I can’t but be honest brother =]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you do realise that other christians say the same thing but may very well believe things you won’t agree with?
[/quote]
So?[/quote]
…when one believer interprets scripture differently from you but has similar religious experiences that tell him that he is on the narrow path of righteousness, imo that can mean two things:
…either god does not care about the fine print, only that you believe or beliefs excite parts of the brain and create experiences that are separate from the truth of those beliefs…[/quote]
Or it could mean that each believes the other to be wrong. Yet, neither feel the need to kill the other.
LOL - and I was not referring to any one here either. Yes, I got quite the chuckle - thanks for that!
Wow, I thought Judaism was complex. No clue what any of you are talking about.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Wow, I thought Judaism was complex. No clue what any of you are talking about.[/quote]
Read the New Testament and come back and tell us what you got out of it. There are underlying topics that all Christians beleive, for example, Trinity, death burial and ressurection of Jesus, Faith through Grace in Jesus is the only way to heaven, the Bible is the inspired word of God. Things we might disagree on, for example, predestination, Actual time of a day in Genesis 1, Should the Pope be the end all of scriptural interpretation.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Wow, I thought Judaism was complex. No clue what any of you are talking about.[/quote]
Have you read the Kabbalah, any of the Midrash or GOOD GRACIOUS HEAVENS MAN, the Talmud? This is Dr. Seuss doctrine were talkin about in this thread. I’m kidding, but not really.
Seriously though, the life and death parts of Christianity can be a expressed in a few sentences, maybe less.
Yep - God . . . God makes man . . . . man sins (disobeys) . . . man dies (separation from God) and will be separated from God for all of eternity once he physically dies . . . God sends himself as a sacrifice to pay for man’s sins . . . Jesus (God) is resurrected from death to prove that God can save all mankind and has accepted Jesus’s sacrifice for our sins . . . man chooses to place faith in Jesus for the atonement of his sins . . . man dies, is resurrected and spends eternity in fellowship with God . . . so that all future generations could understand this simple message it is recorded in the inspired word of God as begun by moses and continued through the apostles . . . .
I tried to keep in a few sentences . . .
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
<<< As far as I can tell those who adhere to the reformers is growing. I for instance was raised baptist and at 24(which was not that long ago) changed my view on alot of things. I would say you are right in the sense that the leading movement is the heresy brought forth by the word of faith movement. I would say people like RC Sproul, Hank hanegraff, and a few others are leading the charge toward a more reformed belief.[/quote]
Don’t even get me started on the word of faith deal. That IS heresy. Straight up.
I do hear tell of a trend toward the doctrines of grace among more historically Arminian people, but maybe it’s where I live. I sure don’t see it. I see the reformed denominations creeping into permissive liberalism.
It can seem counterintuitive to our fallen mind, but the Almighty sovereign God of Isaiah 10 wielding His way with the King of Assyria is where the power is.[/quote]
well I do live in Texas, so pregressive liberal churches are frowned upon here. Although I wish we could do away with lakewood and the heresy that comes out of there.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Yep - God . . . God makes man . . . . man sins (disobeys) . . . man dies (separation from God) and will be separated from God for all of eternity once he physically dies . . . God sends himself as a sacrifice to pay for man’s sins . . . Jesus (God) is resurrected from death to prove that God can save all mankind and has accepted Jesus’s sacrifice for our sins . . . man chooses to place faith in Jesus for the atonement of his sins . . . man dies, is resurrected and spends eternity in fellowship with God . . . so that all future generations could understand this simple message it is recorded in the inspired word of God as begun by moses and continued through the apostles . . . .
I tried to keep in a few sentences . . . [/quote]
You could of just copied the Apostles creed and said just about the same thing.
I am biased though. I like the writing style of the creed and its simplicity.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Yep - God . . . God makes man . . . . man sins (disobeys) . . . man dies (separation from God) and will be separated from God for all of eternity once he physically dies . . . God sends himself as a sacrifice to pay for man’s sins . . . Jesus (God) is resurrected from death to prove that God can save all mankind and has accepted Jesus’s sacrifice for our sins . . . man chooses to place faith in Jesus for the atonement of his sins . . . man dies, is resurrected and spends eternity in fellowship with God . . . so that all future generations could understand this simple message it is recorded in the inspired word of God as begun by moses and continued through the apostles . . . .
I tried to keep in a few sentences . . . [/quote]
ROFLMAO!!! You sir are a master of ecumenical diplomacy. A real peace keeper LOL!!! I’m laughing, but I’m serious.
As you no doubt predicted I would “adjust” the phrasing in a couple spots, but I’ll sign on with this.