Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
LOL!!! I have found that to be true as well, wmfights!
The difficulty is "objectivity" seems to be hard to come by these days; it seems many people either have something to sell, or an ax to grind....
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the "objective" creation actually, in truth, was made by God -- and the dissenters know this very well, deep down. But they deeply resent having to acknowledge this, for "subjective" reasons. If you know what I mean....
To me, this is a flight from reality, from the very truth of being, in order to construct a "second reality," which cannot stand, because it is determined to exclude an indispensible sector of reality from its model. One cannot edit the world down into something more to one's liking without losing truth.
God will not be mocked. But humans will be deluded.
FWIW, in the discussion about Angels procreating I happened to read this:
1 Peter 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
I don't believe these "sons of God" were fallen angels. It is more likely that this is the intermarriage between believers and non-believers and the offspring were non-believers.
LOLOL xzins!!! You so funny!
In the void, in the nothing, there is no space and there is no time. There is no causation. There is no principle of activity or animation. There is simply ... nothing. And nothing cannot bootstrap itself into something....
The "eternal universe" model is senseless; for in rejecting the necessity of a beginning, it obviates, or refuses to recognize, that nothing cannot bootstrap itself into something. And yet the universe is there.... Its existence is inexplicable according this model.
The sheer existence of the universe is, to me, the most indisputable evidence that God created it, ex nihilo. It required an "uncaused cause" to get the ball rolling, so to speak.
The reason for that is there cannot be an infinite regression of causes back to a nothing. Nothing causes nothing, and therefore cannot serve as the cause of anything.
I understand now:
Rev.21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
The same light as Gen. 1:3-4 ???
And God said, "Let there be light:" and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness
.......Ping
What is it that disturbs you about an unbounded universe, Editor-Surveyor? Can you state your objection? I'm not being hostile here, or adversarial. I only wish to understand your point of view.
I do not myself see how an unbounded universe "rules out" God's word in any way. What am I missing?
I knew the nephalim would get drawn into this. :-)
I believe these "sons of God" are the believers who began to marry non-believers and their offspring were non-believers. the "giants" in the earth can also be translated "fallen ones". IOW, those that are not believers.
WmFights, thank you and a few others who may not agree with this but you have not closed your mind to it. You are one of the few that has actually asked questions to debate the ideas.
You're welcome. Please do the same. I am convinced that this understanding of different ages and angels procreating with humans is wrong. The reference to the nephalim is the only instance where a possible interpretation of angels procreating with humans exists. Also, your understanding of prior ages is dependent upon the translation of key words. Do you believe that when the vowels were added to the Masoretic text mistakes were made?
Boy oh boy isn't that the truth!
One cannot edit the world down into something more to one's liking without losing truth.
You can if you think of yourself as a coequal, or superior to, GOD. Our post modernist age allows us to elevate our "feelings" above TRUTH, because there is no absolute TRUTH it's all relative to us on a personal level.
I’m a little puzzled.
Does this mean that baptism is nice but not necessary, and sins will be paid for not in the next world but only in this? Would that not mean that Paris Hilton is as pure as the driven snow?
Umm, I didn’t say that.
But yes, three times it is.
In my view, some Christians have a weak or tender or provisional faith which demands some kind of physical evidence - very much like "doubting Thomas" saying he would not believe unless he could thrust his hand in Christ's side.
It is a sad situation when our brothers and sisters in Christ have more faith in the physical world than in God.
But doubting Thomas was an apostle, too. Christ chose him and helped him to believe. And we have the "mind of Christ" (I Cor 2.)
Therefore I assert we must be loving and patient and help one so situated to look and see and lift up his eyes to Christ.
To God be the glory!
The very same 'water' that God said is there.
Remember, this universe is temporary; it is set to terminate "with fervent heat" at the end of Christs millenial reign.
Aye, there's the rub! The people who deny absolute truth leave themselves no solid ground to stand on. They have lost their reason; for absent truth, reason has nothing to do. "Feelings" cannot supply any valid basis by which to order life, personal or social. They will suffer for their own irrationality, in this world or the next. Though they may wield political power and/or influence, this cannot help them in the end. In their arrogance, they do not see this.
May God have mercy on their souls (which many deny even having, poor fools).
Thank you for not accusing me of that. I'm sorry I thought you did. You may be correct in that they use it but it is simply the KJV Bible. Evil people will use anything and twist it to their benefit, as did Satan in the Garden, when he used God's Word.
Just look where these doctrines lead. Then, if you want to be a non-denominational Christian, get yourself attached to a more traditional non-Denominational Church. One that doesn't go off on these insane twisted doctrines that lead to no good
The reason I don't believe it is an "insane, twisted doctrine" is because Christ Himself taught it. In post 2226 I explained where He did that and I'll repeat it here: _________________
Understanding this issue is very important. Of the seven churches in Revelation what did the only two churches Christ approve of do for that approval?
Rev.1:18 I Am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
2:9. (Smyrna) I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich), and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan.
11.He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; 'These things saith He That is Holy, He That is True, He That hath the key of David, He That openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth;
9.Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
To know who the tares (Kenites - sons of Cain) are, is to hold the Key of David in your hand and once you know, understand. That cannot be taken from you. Jesus warns us in those verses that He holds the keys to hell and death so listen to what He is saying. Both of those churches teach who the Kenites (sons of Cain) are and Jesus approved of only those two churches. How many churches today teach that? _______________
It is not a divers and strange doctrine P-Marlowe. Perhaps it hasn't been taught by churches because it wasn't time. Is God opening eyes and ears now because the time is nearing???
Yes, they are facts. There are many species of facts. These are scientific facts. That we are talking about them makes them objective. Some confuse fact with true, which is a confusion of categorical judgement.
The line from Bobby McGee applies, although it's intended otherwise.
It boils down, doesn't it BB, to the something/nothing argument.
We get to have something be in the eternal past or we get to have nothing be in the eternal past.
If nothing, then it gives rise to itself.
If something, then we've got to ask what kind of something could give rise to all else.
(So far as the Ladies nodding in the affirmative -- they might even have nodded a bit too quickly. :>)
God's word says that this universe is bounded. He said that it is expanded between the waters above and below. Genesis describes a creation that is Earth-centered, which is what the current unworkable unbounded universe model is intended to reject. An Earth-centered universe is full of purpose, and full of the glory of it's creator, and subject to his laws; that is what the unbounded folly is imagined to refute.
The thing that I find most amusing is that even in their silly and impossible unbounded universe, when General Relativity is applied, it becomes obvious that the appearance of great age is an illusion caused by the expansion that they all recognize. In other words, they are being most unscientific in relying on that illusion, simply because allowing for passage of billions of years makes an accidental origin of life seem less impossible for those desiring it.
Our job is to observe nature and name things. The better we see nature the more things we see that need naming. If we want to name things meaningfully, we need to classify things, and cosmology is so far the best science we have to classify things we see when we look out into space.
Baptism is a burial(of the old man) not a birth..
Sometimes it takes a number of times to finally put the old boy down..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.