Topic awaiting preservation: The Emaculat Revelation (Page 2 of 3)

OK, ok, here's how it went.

HE breathed in... [then motioned to the angels to watch] ...an absolute vacum of nothingness was created. The whole of creation was within HIM.

The first WORD was more of an explosive belch, kinda like the Big Bang thing. With the breath and HIS WORD was created the material universe in ten dimensions. Thereafter we can only speculate. Most individuals have a hard time putting the fourth dimensional element of time into their world. Sure, they know of moments passing and seasons, but the true nature of space-time eludes even the more clever among us. some visionaries have touched upon it's signifigance. But for the most part, the average human just shrugs and thinks about today or tomorrow.

There may be one or two among the six plus billions here that can understand more than four dimensions... lets be generous and give them a total of six. Even then, fourty percent of reality is unknown to but perhaps a select few.

This leaves the bulk of us plodding along in three dimensions of reality. At best, the moldy rye munching illuminaries of the dark ages, got thirty percent of the reality. This leaves us with not knowing what more than half this world is made of.

This renders the point moot. Meditate, be kind to others, and find GOD within. But let's not really pretend to "KNOW" what is unknowable. And even if one of you have the fortuitous ability to know even a glimmer of what is real, the moment you try to explain it... well... the words have not yet been created with the ability to pass that knowledge on. So, the moment one tries to tell what it is that is the Supreme Reality, that is the moment that begins a false statement.

Ancient Mystics from thousands of years ago and todays researchers are just now starting to agree. One from a macroscopic reality and the other from the quantum. The world exists in a superpositional flux that is changed by the act of observance. Once measured, what was, is no longer... go figure, eh?

It will surely be another millenia or so before any progress is made on knowing the unknowable. Enjoy the mystery and take solace in the words "I don't know". They are the truest words one can speak.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Actually, it does all matter. Either god used a system to create everything (and it is logically explainable), or he just "did it". In the latter case, any kooky theory applies, because god can "do anything". And I mean ANY theory...like that everything is made of marmelade, for example. God is just causing us to perceive it as something else!

Also in the later case, then nothing matters, because god can "just change/redo things" if they don't turn out right. In that case, the entire human race should just commit suicide and get it over with as soon as possible.

However, if the first case is true, then it must be possible to discover and learn the mechanisms behind it all and how it all works. And Science is a much better tool to do this with.

If one takes genesis literally, then one MUST subscribe to the second case. Because god just "did it all" in 6 days (which is impossible according to what we know).

If one takes is subjectively, then the first case applies.

quote:

---

...like that everything is made of marmelade, for example.

---

Oh, come on! We all know everything is made of green cheese. That is a long standing belief.

Marmelade! How stupid!

Hey DL, want to take this discussion to WS's thread about creation and evolution? I would love to discuss it with you in there.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

UnknownComic-Very nice. I had a good laugh or two when I read that intro.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

...like that everything is made of marmelade, for example.

---

Actually, the same molecules and atoms in marmelade are in us, too.

So, WS, in your former case, does the god in question not have the power to change or redo things?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

In answer to this

quote:

---

So, WS, in your former case, does the god in question not have the power to change or redo things?

---

this

quote:

---

a system to create everything (and it is logically explainable)

---

. I think that it is easy enough to "follow" that, and to reasonably come up with a "yes, just as long as it belongs to the system used to create everything and is logically explainable."

In other words, the system that we call "Nature".

And I didn't say molecules and atoms. I know that molecules and atoms are in us, too. I specifically mentioned "Marmelade", and I meant Marmelade. And Marmelade is only "in" you, if you have recently eaten it.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And I didn't say molecules and atoms. I know that molecules and atoms are in us,
too. I specifically mentioned "Marmelade", and I meant Marmelade. And Marmelade
is only "in" you, if you have recently eaten it.

---

ah

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I think that it is easy enough to "follow" that, and to reasonably come up with
a "yes, just as long as it belongs to the system used to create everything and
is logically explainable."

---

So are you then saying that the god in question can only alter the universe if the alterations stay within the natural laws already discovered? This god cannot change things he/she/it/thing has already made outside of his/her/its/thing's own rules that he/she/it/thing made?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

So are you then saying that the god in question can only alter the universe if the alterations stay within the natural laws already discovered? This god cannot change things he/she/it/thing has already made outside of his/her/its/thing's own rules that he/she/it/thing made?

---

...stay within the natural laws already discovered? No, I am not saying this exactly. It would have to include those, yes, but it could also be that there are natural laws that we do not yet know of. It would have to take all that into account.

If one follows the first example.

Otherwise, nothing has any meaning, because god could just decide tomorrow to end it all, or to give cockroaches a chance at salvation - just as long as they don't eat from the garbage of knowledge.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Otherwise, nothing has any meaning, because god could just decide tomorrow to
end it

---

There is an interesting thought now isn't it?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

or to give cockroaches a chance at salvation

---

I doubt He will do that, but who knows? He is God.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

There is an interesting thought now isn't it?

---

Actually, I don't find it all that interesting.

I found it quite interesting that God knows exactly what day, month, time, year, decade, century, millenia that He will end the world as we know it. I can't wait.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

You sir, are a nut.

Actually, I'd be curious to see how Gideon reconciles the notion of free will with predestination. It would be more of a visceral curiousity, because I'm not all that interested enough to try looking up chapter and verse to support either/neither notion.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Not really. If we are still taking what the Bible as truth and not tuning this into a Creation debate (if you have anything about this topic say it on that thread). The Bible makes it clear that God created man one the sixth of seven days (still this is according to the Bible, so please do not argue this on this thread). Meaning that God did create man in His image. I find it interesting that God didn't create woman in His image. He took woman from a rib in man's side. I wonder if that will shed any light on this thread.
.
Jestah-about the wording of the Bible. I take them as God's words. You may not, but the fact remains that not all of the Bible was spoken before written. It is actually the opposite. It was written then spoken. Pauls epistles are letters, not telephone calls.

---

Oh, and IMO, you have to read the Bible in the context of the socio-political situation that it was written and not based on the standards of today's climate. Back then, women were still considered chattel on a slightly higher level than donkeys and goats. So having Jesus show up saying God was female would have pretty much guarantee being ignored.

Also, perhaps I'm wrong, but wasn't the history of most cultures back then oral rather than written? Only the select few (priests, scholars, goverenment officials) could read, so everything else was spoken. Literacy was not a priority to farmers and sheep herders worrying about their crops/flocks.

Gideon, how do you get that woman was not created in God's image when Genesis 1:27 says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them ." Maybe my reading comprehension is off, but that rather sounds like both male and female were created at the same time (from the King James Bible Version). Rebuttal? Or are you going to bring up the second version of the creation story that has Adam's rib being removed to create Eve?

_____________________

coeur de feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

Hmmm...

Genesis 2:7, which took place after God finished resting on the seventh day, says "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,"

and then Genesis 2:22, says "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

So did He maKe us on the sixth day or later?




(Edited by briggl on 12-07-2004 00:57)

Just a brief note on the free will vs. predestination thingy. I will be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers, but I've always understood it as a matter of perspective. Since God is timeless (as WS kindly pointed out above), He sees everything at once. Thus He already knows what we are going to do, so we could say that things have been predestined. From our point of view, though, being unable to see the future, we have free will to do as we please.

That may seem like an attempt at dodging the issue. Just because God knows what will happen in advance, does that mean that those things are predestined? I guess it just depends on how you look at it. A lot of people quite Romans 8:29 as support for predestination, but it is important to read it along with the previous verse:

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the first-botn among many brothers" (rom. 8:28-29, NIV).

The way I see it, this is Paul's explanation of how God has a plan for everyone and how God knows how everything is going to turn out--thus we have nothing to worry about even if bad stuff sometimes happens to us. Simplistic perhaps, maybe not even entirely correct, but that's my take on it. Probably won't satisfy a lot of people, but it works for me.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup | "Hooray for linguistic idiots and yak milk!"

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You sir, are a nut.

---

Heh, not really. I am a person. A Jesus Freak would probably be a better clasification.

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:

So having Jesus show up saying God was female would have pretty much guarantee
being ignored.

---

So are you saying that Jesus lied in order to be political? Not the Jesus I know.

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:

Also, perhaps I'm wrong, but wasn't the history of most cultures back then oral
rather than written?

---

Yes, and that is why Jesus never wrote anything down. There is no acknowledged Gospel of Jesus (not to my knowledge at least and please don't argue with that point.) But, Jesus wasn't stupid. He called fishermen, tax collecters, doctors, and Paul was a pharisee (he could read and write). Tax collectors could read and write, and I believe that doctors could too.

That was in Jesus' time. If you are refering to the Old Testament, then yes, it was oral, but not the torah. Not the Annals. There are many references in the Bible to other written works. Normal people couldn't read and write, but many Jews could. The Jewish nation held high esteem on the reading of the ancient scriptures, that is why many could read. Not all, but many.

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male
and female created he them ."

---

Yup, He made them both in His image (that is why females don't have extra arms, legs, mouths, etc.). But, He made Adam first, then Eve from Adam. Not the other way around. I think there might also be some sneaky thing going on in the translation of the ancient texts that is a little wierd. When you go from singular to plural, I get suspicious.

quote:

---

briggl said:

So did He maKe us on the sixth day or later?

---

Actually, He made Adam (I think Eve too, but I'm not sure about the timing of that) on the sixth day. Later in Genesis was like a thumbnail of the story. It is like Genesis 1 was the chapter headings, and later in Genesis 2:8 God went back and told us what happened in that chapter.

Works for me too Suho. I like it.

Yeah, about that predestination thing. I view it like this:
We have free will to choose what we do. We have that free will in two major choices: we do what God has planned for us (that is our predestination), or we do it our own way. In each major decision are sub-decisions that we make. In the former we have God the Father watching for us in Heaven; Jesus interceeding (I think that is the right word) for us; and the Holy Spirit guiding us in our own body. In the latter decision, we are all alone.

He has certain tasks set up for us on a path of life if we choose it. If we choose the path of death we are on our own.

That is not to say that God will not try, He will send His sons and daughters to try and help, but it is ultimately your choice. You can choose to live in grace or not. I believe that God doesn't want children who are not obedient to Him. He wants those who cheerfully serve Him. Not those who just say,"oh, okay."

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

About the free will topic. What is it that makes you people believe you have free will?

If we can establish that:
1) Everything in the universe, including minds and thoughts, is an arrangement of matter, and
2) All matter is governed by certain physical laws that dictate how the matter will act.
Then it seems that if we could fully understand the physical laws governing nature, then in theory we could possibly discover how all entities would act (including the chemical processes that make thoughts in the minds of all people) and could therefore know exactally what would happen, given any starting event.

With that said, free will seems out of the question enless you:
a) Believe there are not actually definate physical laws governing matter in our universe. (Unlikely, and no evidence for this belief)
b) Believe in substance-dualism (highly unlikely, and absolutely no evidence at all for this belief)

quote:

---

If we can establish that

---

You would have a problem establishing that thoughts are arrangements of matter, for one thing. Not to mention that other parts of your premis might not be agreed to by all.

Not true, Dan. Quantum Mechanics alone belies your assumptions. It is possible to have randomness on a small level, that resembles order on a larger scale.

Thus, it would be possible to have free will and still have an ordered Universe, with natural laws.

It is true that the prevailing theories about quantum mechanics suggest that the laws may be probabilistic, like atomic decay, and electron excitement (although, not all physicists agree on this point, some feel that the belief is based on technological limitations - or errors in the current theories). But I don't see how even probabilistic laws give free will. If we were to take a probabilistic law (example: an event will occur 50% of the time), this would seemingly take us even further away from having free will, not closer. Because not only would we still not be free to control outcomes, but now outcomes would be randomly decided by the laws, and outcomes would still be predictable (we could say that given A, event B would happen with C certainty - this is not freedom).

A lack of inevitability is essential to have freedom, but is not enough in itself to give us freedom.

(Edited by Dan on 12-08-2004 02:09)

Ok, from a rahter non-scientific basis: yes, things are predictable. Whether talking about quantum mechanics, or human behavior.

But because the choices people make can be categorized and predicted with a degree of accuracy has nothing to do with whether the choice was predetermined or chosen freely.

Of course "freely" is a relative term. But this argument could go on and on ad nauseum with no relevant conclusion...

But where is the proof that thoughts are arrangements of matter?

I addressed it in my first post, an immaterial mind is what I called "substance dualism"

quote:

---

If we were to take a probabilistic law (example: an event will occur 50% of the time), this would seemingly take us even further away from having free will, not closer. Because not only would we still not be free to control outcomes, but now outcomes would be randomly decided by the laws, and outcomes would still be predictable (we could say that given A, event B would happen with C certainty - this is not freedom).

---

No, it would take us closer. We don't have to control the outcome - just influence it. Just because outcomes are predictable doesn't mean that they will happen! And that is all one needs for free will.

I suppose if one could calculate ALL the various influences there are, one might come close to a 99.9999 [ad nauseum] % of a prediciton. But there is always going to be that small percentage of error.

Dan, your arguements seem like all science and no spirit. After all, the science of psychology is a spiritual anomoly in itself, because the mind cannot be explained through scienctific law. Free will and choice, they're both entirely subjective. Subjectivity cannot be explained scietifically.

After a lot of reading there are a few points I wish to address and I apologize if some of them occurred a bit further back in the thread.

Creation
Some food for thought:
I think God created time first.
What if this universe is recreated from each instant to the next. Would we know? Think about omnipotence for a second. If God changes things to they will have always been that way then how could possibly know? Maybe yesterday planck's constant was different.

Predictability

Let's take a look at Langton's Ant. This a closed system with very simple rules. The ant (or whatever you want to call it) lives on a chessboard of infinite length and width. The ant follows 3 simple rules:

1.) If it is on a black square, it makes a left turn.
2.) If it is on a white square, it makes a right turn.
3.) As it moves on to the next square, the one where it was reverses color.

You would think that you could predict the ant's action since you know all the rules but a strange thing happens. The ant's first few thousand moves are completely chaotic. After a while though, it begins to build a diagonal highway off toward the edge of the board. The ant does this whether or not you start with an all white board, or with a finite number of black squares scattered around the board.

There is no way to predict that the ant will build this highway without actually going through all the moves needed to get there.

This is one of the tenets of chaos theory. Even simple systems can produce emergent complex behaviour.

The Bible
You know, it's funny how people who are so adamant about arguing about this usually haven't even seen the original aramaic version. Or even the greek version.

And we're not even going to address the issues of the biblical canon.

quote:

---

I addressed it in my first post, an immaterial mind is what I called "substance dualism"

---

No, in your first post, you said:

quote:

---

If we can establish that:
1) Everything in the universe, including minds and thoughts, is an arrangement of matter

---

That is a big IF.

This has not been established at all. It may have been theorized somewhere, but it would be hard to convince most people that our thoughts are arrangements of matter. Our minds, yes of course. But our thoughts? No. Maybe a result of the chaotic interactions of matter, but not consisting of matter.

^Exactly. No one is denying the possibility of your statements (except maybe Gideon). But the obvious fact here is that it's a proclaimation, and not an establishment.

quote:

---

silence said:

I think God created time first.

---

Well, I think that man created time since he has a need for it. God really doesn't need time. He lives outside of it. That is an interesting theory though isn't it? That is the problem with time travel.

quote:

---

silence said:

You know, it's funny how people who are so adamant about arguing about this
usually haven't even seen the original aramaic version. Or even the greek
version.

---

Possibly because they can't read them too well.

quote:

---

silence said:

And we're not even going to address the issues of the biblical canon.

---

Thank you, because that could go on ad nauseam.

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

No one is denying the possibility of your statements (except maybe Gideon).

---

I have a question, isn't the universe supposed to be getting more Chaotic, and turing more and more into heat?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

There is a copy of the "original aramaic version" of the bible extant?

I'll believe that when I see it.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

I have a question, isn't the universe supposed to be getting more Chaotic, and turing more and more into heat?

---

Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics

quote:

---

# The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature.

# There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.

# The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the mathematical treatment of the basic equations of thermodynamics. There is no provision in thermodynamics for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of thermodynamics.

# Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics!

---

*sigh*

In your sarcastic tone Etheist, you are right. There is not a perfect copy of the original texts existant today. There are *many* which are close, and if I remember correctly the Catholic Church is to thank for preserving the original texts as long as they have been preserved (granted they are copies, but the errors are miraculously minimal).

The small amount of errors found have been because of the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have not had the pleasure of seeing them in person, but I have had them related to me by my Latin teacher who loves such things.

Thanks for that link WS. I have a book I have been reading that is very intriguing. It has an argument like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then presents both the Creation view and the Evolution view. I like it because many of the Creation theories are well refutted, while many of the Evolution theories are well refutted. I can give you the name if you would like to learn both perspectives on the issue a fresh. I know you have probably learned them many times before, but why not revist that again? It is Creation Vs. Evolution. Good book.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

I know I said I wouldn't but I can't resist.

If there are no original copies left extant, how can you be sure the copies now available are pretty close copies?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Actually, you shouldn't think that all the originals were copied. At least, the "Q" source hasn't been found yet.

Dead Sea Scrolls Etheist. Those are for the OT. I need to do some research about the NT, but I would expect those to be pretty close to perfect. I doubt that the original letters are extant because of the Roman Persecutions, though.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

The NT seems to be missing the "Q" source, be it that it was in writing, or oral.

Q source?

So far, I have not, in my reading of the Qumran Chronicles, found much to substantiate the bible old or new.

I still maintain if an original were found, compared to the modern-day equivalent it would be almost unrecognizable.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

*sigh*

I posted about this before, I'm sure it's kicking around somewhere here.

Anyway, here it is The Q Source

quote:

---

Q is the name used by scholars to describe a lost source on Jesus' teachings. (The letter is randomly chosen.) It can be reconstructed from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are based on two earlier sources: the gospel of Mark and Q. Stated differently, Q is by definition the material that Luke and Matthew have in common that is not dependent on Mark.

---

The main thing is, we don't know what might have been left out! of the Q source, because we have no copy of it (if indeed the original existed as a written source).

Thanks, WS, my apologies for missing the earlier post, I hope it didnt bring too much angst to repeat it.

I am still highly sceptical of any discussion about the bible which uses as it's base referencet point, the bible itself.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

You make it sound as if this Q source is some end all Holy Grail WS. I don't really know if it is or isn't a precurser to Matthew and Luke. They might have gotten ideas from it, it might have gotten ideas from them. A few things that sounded alarms in my head were: no author, no certain date, relation to the gospel of Thomas, and a few nit picky ones. But something that should not be left out:

quote:

---

Summing up: there is only circumstantial evidence to date Q, but the case for an early date is more convincing than the case for a late date. This suggests that the sayings go back to Jesus - but it is nothing more than a suggestion. It is impossible to establish a 'community' in which Q was the authoritative text (no two scholars agree on this subject).

---

Ehtheist, little question. Are you reading the original texts of the Qumran Chronicles, an English version, or a mixture of the two?

Ehtheist, using the Bible to prove the Bible is not a good avenue for talking to people who are skeptical of most or all of the Bible. It is good for some Christians, but not all. So, in less words, you are right.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.