Can God love? (Part 1)
+15
agoodman
tlttf
astra
trevorw2539
Ivan
astradt1
blueturando
sickchip
polyglide
Phil Hornby
Adele Carlyon
bobby
Shirina
oftenwrong
Greatest I am
19 posters
Page 12 of 25
Page 12 of 25 • 1 ... 7 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 18 ... 25
Can God love? (Part 1)
First topic message reminder :
Can God love?
We are told that the mythical bible God is love or the epitome of love.
Archetypal Jesus said that we would know his people by the love, deeds and actions they showed others.
Jesus gave us examples of the deeds and works. Feed the poor, love all our neighbours, do not sin and many others.
Love then, seems to Jesus, to be something that must be shown by deeds, actions and works to be alive and true love. Love, like faith, without works is dead. Both St. James and Jesus agree on this.
It follows then that if God is not doing something to show this love then the love for man expressed in scriptures is wrong and God cannot love.
You are in the image of God. When you love someone you show them that love by works and deeds. This is how the recipient of that love knows it is there and that allows for reciprocity. You will agree that without reciprocity, true love cannot exist between two individuals. We must do things for each other for true love to exist.
Imagine what those you love would think if you never did anything to express your love. Imagine what you would think of the love of others towards you if they never did anything to show they loved you. See what I mean. Love always must have deeds to be real and true and reciprocity must be at play.
Love then has no choice but to be expressed if it is true love.
We are told that God loved his son so much that he planned to have him sacrificed even before the earth was created. This human sacrifice or any other human sacrifice, voluntary or not, is immoral and the notion that it is good to sacrifice an innocent victim to give the guilty believers a free ride into heaven is a completely self-gratifying notion and is completely immoral. One does not show love for someone by having them sacrificed for the sins of others when God himself stated that we are all responsible for our own salvation and cannot put that responsibility of the shoulders of a scapegoat Jesus.
Does love need deeds and works to be expressed?
Have you seen God express his love for us lately?
Regards
DL
These following speak to this issue if you wish to view them.
[youtube]
Can God love?
We are told that the mythical bible God is love or the epitome of love.
Archetypal Jesus said that we would know his people by the love, deeds and actions they showed others.
Jesus gave us examples of the deeds and works. Feed the poor, love all our neighbours, do not sin and many others.
Love then, seems to Jesus, to be something that must be shown by deeds, actions and works to be alive and true love. Love, like faith, without works is dead. Both St. James and Jesus agree on this.
It follows then that if God is not doing something to show this love then the love for man expressed in scriptures is wrong and God cannot love.
You are in the image of God. When you love someone you show them that love by works and deeds. This is how the recipient of that love knows it is there and that allows for reciprocity. You will agree that without reciprocity, true love cannot exist between two individuals. We must do things for each other for true love to exist.
Imagine what those you love would think if you never did anything to express your love. Imagine what you would think of the love of others towards you if they never did anything to show they loved you. See what I mean. Love always must have deeds to be real and true and reciprocity must be at play.
Love then has no choice but to be expressed if it is true love.
We are told that God loved his son so much that he planned to have him sacrificed even before the earth was created. This human sacrifice or any other human sacrifice, voluntary or not, is immoral and the notion that it is good to sacrifice an innocent victim to give the guilty believers a free ride into heaven is a completely self-gratifying notion and is completely immoral. One does not show love for someone by having them sacrificed for the sins of others when God himself stated that we are all responsible for our own salvation and cannot put that responsibility of the shoulders of a scapegoat Jesus.
Does love need deeds and works to be expressed?
Have you seen God express his love for us lately?
Regards
DL
These following speak to this issue if you wish to view them.
[youtube]
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh,
Why do you not believe God exists?
Why do you not believe God exists?
Mel- Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Deep within many of us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
Mel- Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I think perhaps a more pertinent question is:
Why do you believe its the Christian God that creates this feeling?
Why do you believe its the Christian God that creates this feeling?
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
"Why do you believe its the Christian God that creates this feeling? "
That IMO would that not be a Rhetorical question?
For example--"Is the Pope Catholic?"
That IMO would that not be a Rhetorical question?
For example--"Is the Pope Catholic?"
Mel- Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Deep within many of us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world.
What makes you believe there is something beyond this life ?
Someone beyond this world could be an alien.
We can deny this knowledge intellectually,
Believing God exists or believing there is something beyond this life is not knowledge in any intellectual sense.
but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious.
If it was obvious, God's existence would be a scientific fact or a logical conclusion, it is neither, hence my original question.
Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
This is known as a logical fallacy, there are many things the majority used to believe that have been proven to be false, appealing to the majority is not a reliable reason to believe in anythng.
Primitive humans left Africa some 70,000 years ago and colonized the world, they took with them their primitive explanations( unseen agents) for natural phenomena.
You forgot to mention why You believe God exists.
I am an atheist for many reasons, lack of evidence and reason just to name but a few.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I am a Christian for many reasons to which you obviously would not understand being an atheist. I am unable to prove God exists just as you are unable to prove he does not.
There is little more to be said Tosh.
There is little more to be said Tosh.
Mel- Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
A person's adherence to a Religion may simply be a result of where they were born geographically, which slightly undermines most of the argument about "conviction", "belief" or "faith".
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I am a Christian for many reasons to which you obviously would not understand being an atheist.
Mel there is really no need to be so defensive, my understanding of Christianity dwarfs your own, all I am asking is for you to provide just one of the many reasons why you believe God exists. It is not a trick question.
I am not asking you to prove God exists.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
"provide just one of the many reasons why you believe God exists."
Tosh you are very sensitive -"no need to be so defensive"
"my understanding of Christianity dwarfs your own" Really??
So many things exist in this world and yet as you know are invisible.
Ask yourself why are we here on earth, such complex beings in existance
is beyond comprehension.
Tosh you are very sensitive -"no need to be so defensive"
"my understanding of Christianity dwarfs your own" Really??
So many things exist in this world and yet as you know are invisible.
Ask yourself why are we here on earth, such complex beings in existance
is beyond comprehension.
Mel- Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
There appears to be a misunderstanding regarding the relationship between God and the Devil.
The Devil said he could turn everyone against God, God said he could not.
God has given the Devil a certain amount of time to do so.
There is no limits so far as I can determine as to what the Devil can do to carry out his intentions but they are obviously all targeted towards attempting to put God in as bad a light as possible.
God will and has on many occasions given help to those who ask to be protected from the Devil's attentions but his help has to be asked for.
The understanding of the above will enable the understanding of all the ills of the world and they have nothing to do with the loving God.
The Devil said he could turn everyone against God, God said he could not.
God has given the Devil a certain amount of time to do so.
There is no limits so far as I can determine as to what the Devil can do to carry out his intentions but they are obviously all targeted towards attempting to put God in as bad a light as possible.
God will and has on many occasions given help to those who ask to be protected from the Devil's attentions but his help has to be asked for.
The understanding of the above will enable the understanding of all the ills of the world and they have nothing to do with the loving God.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
So many things exist in this world and yet as you know are invisible.
Ask yourself why are we here on earth, such complex beings in existance
is beyond comprehension..
Things that are invisible and exist are detectable, they are identified by their properties, unfortunately God has no properties to detect nor identify with.
Complex things exist because of evolution, your argument would look rather silly some 4 billion years ago.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
There appears to be a misunderstanding regarding the relationship between God and the Devil.
Not accordng to you, its simple, God does all the good things and the devil does all the bad things.
The reason God created the devil to do bad things was to make us choose good, its almost like a child's fairytale.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
God will and has on many occasions given help to those who ask to be protected from the Devil's attentions but his help has to be asked for.
Tell that to 6 million Jews who prayed Christians would not gas them.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:God will and has on many occasions given help to those who ask to be protected from the Devil's attentions but his help has to be asked for.
Tell that to 6 million Jews who prayed Christians would not gas them.
Tell that to 6 million Jews who prayed Christians would not gas them.
When did that happen, Tosh?
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Tell that to 6 million Jews who prayed Christians would not gas them.
Christians did not gas 6 million Jews.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote "Complex things exist because of evolution"
Who started evolution?
"Things that are invisible and exist are detectable"
No, thought is invisible and not detectable. Many things that are now detectable were not centuries ago. God will become detectable at the time of his choosing, not yours Tosh or anyone elses.
Who started evolution?
"Things that are invisible and exist are detectable"
No, thought is invisible and not detectable. Many things that are now detectable were not centuries ago. God will become detectable at the time of his choosing, not yours Tosh or anyone elses.
Mel- Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:So many things exist in this world and yet as you know are invisible.
Ask yourself why are we here on earth, such complex beings in existance
is beyond comprehension..
Things that are invisible and exist are detectable, they are identified by their properties, unfortunately God has no properties to detect nor identify with.
Complex things exist because of evolution, your argument would look rather silly some 4 billion years ago.
Only if you have the right science to detect them. We don't have the science to detect 'spirits' In fact we don't know what, or if, they are. Apart from those distilled by man.
We detect things by machines built for that purpose. How do we design a machine to detect that which is beyond our understanding. Our senses detect things by the means evolution has given us. Those senses are limited to detect that which we 'know' exist, even as is science is limited.
God may have properties, but not the sort we can detect, at least at the moment.
trevorw2539- Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Complex things exist because of evolution…
The existence of complex things belies macro-evolution.
Second law of thermodynamics:
Second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy of the system—in a process known as "thermalization".
- Guggenheim, E.A. (1985). Thermodynamics. An Advanced Treatment for Chemists and Physicists, seventh edition, North Holland, Amsterdam, ISBN 0-444-86951-4.
- Kittel, C. Kroemer, H. (1980). Thermal Physics, second edition, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, ISBN 0-7167-1088-9.
- Adkins, C.J. (1968). Equilibrium Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, London, ISBN 0-07-084057-1.
- Kondepudi D. (2008). Introduction to Modern Thermodynamics, Wiley, Chichester, ISBN 978-0-470-01598-8.
- Lebon, G., Jou, D., Casas-Vázquez, J. (2008). Understanding Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics. Foundations, Applications, Frontiers, Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-3-540-74252-4.
- Chris Vuille; Serway, Raymond A.; Faughn, Jerry S. (2009). College physics. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. p. 355. ISBN 0-495-38693-6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
Shannon entropy:
… in statistical mechanics entropy is defined from information theory, known as the Shannon entropy. In such instances, the second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system so as to result in the natural entropic dissolution of the system itself. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
Entropy:
entropy
NOUN
1. measure of disorder: a measure of the disorder that exists in a system
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+entropy&qpvt=entropy+definition&FORM=DTPDIA
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Of course I believe that all the evils of the world are as a result of the influence of the Devil.
God's intention was that mankind would and could have enjoyed a full and enjoyable life had mankind adhered to the manner he said would provide the ideal for a full and loving life.
I doubt very much if we are aware of 1% of that which is involved in both life and death along with all other aspects of the earth and the universe.
If you take the giant strides made in technology during the past 100 years
and consider just of what real benifit the vast majority of the results have had on the quality of the majority of the worlds population's lives, I feel the only conclusion one can come to is very little.
We have been to the moon. why? when we are making such a mess of the earth and we cannot understand 99% of what the earth involves.
The vast majotity of the present day technology is as a result of devising means of destruction and self preservation rather than anything else.
God must be suffering on our behalf and looking forward to the day he can put the Devil where he belongs.
God's intention was that mankind would and could have enjoyed a full and enjoyable life had mankind adhered to the manner he said would provide the ideal for a full and loving life.
I doubt very much if we are aware of 1% of that which is involved in both life and death along with all other aspects of the earth and the universe.
If you take the giant strides made in technology during the past 100 years
and consider just of what real benifit the vast majority of the results have had on the quality of the majority of the worlds population's lives, I feel the only conclusion one can come to is very little.
We have been to the moon. why? when we are making such a mess of the earth and we cannot understand 99% of what the earth involves.
The vast majotity of the present day technology is as a result of devising means of destruction and self preservation rather than anything else.
God must be suffering on our behalf and looking forward to the day he can put the Devil where he belongs.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
.Christians did not gas 6 million Jews.
Texas,
The fact these Christians sinned does not alter the fact they were Christians, Christians are not beyond sin.
John 1:8, "If we say that we have no sin,we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Who started evolution?
We do not know " how " the universe or life began, but science is working on these questions, a number of hypothses exist but as yet no proof, this gap in our knowledge is not evidence of God, it is evidence we do not know unless you have evidence to support your claim, God did it.
"Things that are invisible and exist are detectable"
No, thought is invisible and not detectable. Many things that are now detectable were not centuries ago. God will become detectable at the time of his choosing, not yours Tosh or anyone elses..
Thought is detectable and measurable, it is an electro-chemical impulse transmitted through neurons and synapses in your brain, neuroscience and MRI scans are not a hidden secret.
Many things that were thought to exist centuries ago have proven to be false, an argument from ignorance is hardly a convincing argument or evidence.
You still have not told me why you believe God exists.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
If you take the giant strides made in technology during the past 100 years and consider just of what real benifit the vast majority of the results have had on the quality of the majority of the worlds population's lives, I feel the only conclusion one can come to is very little.
This is just crazy talk now, Polyglide. I know you don't want to hear it, and I know nothing I say is going to divert you from a historically inaccurate, even romanticized view of a pre-technology world, but the facts are the facts -- and I have tried to give you many of them.
One of those facts which you apparently disregarded is that we are living in one of the most peaceful times in human history. I'm sure to one of those poor people caught up in one of the few war zones left in the world might have a hard time believing that, but MOST of the world's population is at peace!
And technology has done wonders for our society. Yes, there are downsides to it, as well, but by and large it has been good. I'm sure as hell glad that I don't live in a world where something as simple as being near-sighted would make you useless, leaving you either dependent entirely on your family or you go out and beg. I'm glad that a simple cut or a mosquito bite will most likely not kill me. I'm thankful that I don't have to have surgery with no anesthesia. I'm thankful that childbirth is no longer a dangerous, often deadly undertaking. I'm glad that I don't always live on the very edge of survival - one bad harvest, one harsh winter away from death. I'm glad that I don't have to spend from sun-up to sun-down toiling in the fields with an oxen and wooden plow just to eke out enough food to last through the winter. I'm glad that we don't have to rely on fire as our only source of heat and light. I'm glad that I can get in my car or on a plane and see the world instead of dying within 10 miles of where I was born seeing little more of the world than the edge of my crop field. I'm glad we went to the moon and now send probes to learn about the wonders of the solar system -- so I don't have to cower in fear of an angry, wrathful God every time the thunder booms. I'm glad that I don't have to live in fear of plagues and horrible sicknesses whose only cure was blood letting, leeches, and scented candles. I'm very thankful for my air conditioning and central heating so I don't boil in the summer and freeze in the winter. I'm glad that I can write this post and communicate with someone all the way across the Atlantic at the speed of light. I'm glad that we live in a world filled with books that are, in turn, filled with knowledge; and I am glad that I am literate so that I may read those books. I'm even glad for the entertainment I have so that, when I'm alone, I have something to do other than knit sweaters in utter silence like a good little oppressed female - which I would have been just 100 years ago. I'm glad that my lifespan isn't 35 so that I might enjoy the life that I have and grow wiser with age.
Perhaps you would eschew all of the marvels that we possess so you can go back to some romanticized ideal of agrarian life -- like the kind pushed on the covers of Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlets. But following a plow around until I drop dead from a disease or become infirm through age is not a life I would want, and I am glad that is not the life I have. Were it not for modern medicine, I couldn't even imagine the kind of pain I would be in day after day after day. I'm sure I would have put a gun to my head long before now ... oh wait, no guns. I suppose I would have to fall on my sword, assuming I was wealthy enough to possess one.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Only if you have the right science to detect them. We don't have the science to detect 'spirits' In fact we don't know what, or if, they are. Apart from those distilled by man. We detect things by machines built for that purpose. How do we design a machine to detect that which is beyond our understanding. Our senses detect things by the means evolution has given us. Those senses are limited to detect that which we 'know' exist, even as is science is limited. God may have properties, but not the sort we can detect, at least at the moment. .
How do you know God or spirits exist if both are undetectable ? This is the problem with starting with a fixed conclusion with no supporting evidence, if we judged the effectiveness of the scientific method on its inabiliy to disprove every bare assertion then it would render it worthless, unfortunately for your case, science works and has been proven to work. A rational person would proprtion the evidence in favour of the method and against the bare assertion.
The God hypothesis claims all evidence supports it and no evidence disproves it, care to tell me what tools would be sufficiet to prove or disprove God's existence ? If God is untestable then claiming we have insufficient tools to test it seems somewhat illogical.
Last edited by Tosh on Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Of course I believe that all the evils of the world are as a result of the influence of the Devil.
How do you determine what is evil ?
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
"Thought is detectable and measurable"
Ok Tosh, what am I thinking NOW. Can you tell me?
If I were standing next to you and about to speak, would you see hear,or know what I might be thinking or going to say?
I believe in God as I feel his presence. He has answered my call many times.
Try it when you have a real problem Tosh, you may find you need it at sometime in the future. It will not work if you have no faith though, therefore perhaps not a good idea and a waste of your time.
Ok Tosh, what am I thinking NOW. Can you tell me?
If I were standing next to you and about to speak, would you see hear,or know what I might be thinking or going to say?
I believe in God as I feel his presence. He has answered my call many times.
Try it when you have a real problem Tosh, you may find you need it at sometime in the future. It will not work if you have no faith though, therefore perhaps not a good idea and a waste of your time.
Mel- Posts : 1703
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
The existence of complex things belies macro-evolution.
Texas,
You cannot accept the existence of complex things validates micro-evolution but belies macro-evolution, its the same process but over a longer period of time. You insist on a higher level of proof for macro-evolution than science, in fact you are insisting on an unachievable level of proof, and that is disproportionate and irrational. I have provided you with the scientific case for macro-evolution, you are unable to provide me with any evidence that contradicts this scientific theory. Your unwillingness to accept the theory is not proof the theory is unproven.
It has been some time since the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been used in an evolution argument, there is a very good reason for this, its pure bunkum, there are many examples of self-organization and self-assembly in nature, nature is not a closed or isolated physical system but an open system( external energy from the sun is constantly raining down upon the earth).
Last edited by Tosh on Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:05 pm; edited 3 times in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
There is an attractive simplicity to the conviction that whatever you don't believe in doesn't exist.
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
There is an attractive simplicity to the conviction that whatever you don't believe in doesn't exist..
Rationality can best be summed up in two words, evidence and logic, I would suggest it is rational to bellieve or disbelieve based on the presence or absence of evidence and logic.
Those that believe in the existence of something in the absence of evidence and logic are irrational, the antithesis of this is rational disbelief, simple really.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Mel,
Pop your head into a MRI scanner and not only will it measure and detect your thoughts, but in some cases it will tell you what you are thinking before your consciousness becomes aware of it, there is a delay of up to 4 seconds.
Your consciousness is a crowd of observers, it just sounds like only one voice.
Thought is detectable and measurable"
Ok Tosh, what am I thinking NOW. Can you tell me?
Pop your head into a MRI scanner and not only will it measure and detect your thoughts, but in some cases it will tell you what you are thinking before your consciousness becomes aware of it, there is a delay of up to 4 seconds.
Your consciousness is a crowd of observers, it just sounds like only one voice.
Last edited by Tosh on Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:50 pm; edited 3 times in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Those who complain about the evils of technology best look at the hisorical statistics for life expectancy and infant mortality.
In the Bronze age the average person did not see 40 and one third of all childbirths led to the death of the mother or child or both, nature is brutal, thanks to a less than intelligent designer.
In the Bronze age the average person did not see 40 and one third of all childbirths led to the death of the mother or child or both, nature is brutal, thanks to a less than intelligent designer.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I believe in God as I feel his presence. He has answered my call many times.
The human mind is extremly susceptible to delusion, hallucination and illusion, it is an unreliable guessng machine, hence the need for an objective method of determining what exists.
Your senses are easily fooled, especially if you have been brainwashed or are in need of psychological support.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Our DNA is a survival instruction manual, our consciousness is an extension of this, it is why people want to believe in life after death, your mind encourages you to deny death because it removes the fear of death.
Fear is not an advantage in a savage world of life and death, immortality is death denial and morality is death avoidance, add the two together and you get religion.
Evolution explains everything, God explains nothing.
Fear is not an advantage in a savage world of life and death, immortality is death denial and morality is death avoidance, add the two together and you get religion.
Evolution explains everything, God explains nothing.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Is there a spell check on this forum ?
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tell that to 6 million Jews who prayed Christians would not gas them.
When did that happen, Tosh?.
Are you a holocaust denier by any chance ?
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
There is no spell check here. I suggest you write your messages in 'Word' and check the spelling there, then transfer them here.
Please don't post questions like that in the middle of a thread. The suggestions board would be a more appropriate place, and I think you'll find that your question has already been answered there.
Please don't post questions like that in the middle of a thread. The suggestions board would be a more appropriate place, and I think you'll find that your question has already been answered there.
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Please don't post questions like that in the middle of a thread.
Don't blame me it was Satan's fault, Mel and polyglide will understand.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:Texas,Christians did not gas 6 million Jews.
The fact these Christians sinned does not alter the fact they were Christians, Christians are not beyond sin.John 1:8, "If we say that we have no sin,we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Scot,
Thank you for verifying the fact that Christians did not gas 6 million Jews. The beasts that exterminated 6 million Jews and 5 million Slavs, Romanis, and other precious human souls did not have “the truth”, Jesus the Christ (“I am the way, the truth, and the life”) in their hearts.
In fact, these beasts, individually and collectively, exercising their freedom of choice into which they were created (“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them”), chose to deny within them the likeness of their Creator and and to embrace within them the likeness of Satanas, diabolos, the adversary, the divider.
These beasts were not Christians, willingly and committedly giving their lives to YHVH Elohim, their Creator, through Y’shua Moshiach, Jesus the Messiah, of whom the father said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”
The beasts heard not the Son of God. Christians seek Jesus’ voice and hear him. The beasts were not Christians.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Evolution explains everything…
Does macro-evolution explain Big Bang? I suppose Darwinists might posit that the incalculable, incomprehensible power by which existence has been exploded into existence evolved from an amoeba wiggling in the “primordial soup.”
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:15 pm; edited 2 times in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Strange how some demand a massive amount of evidence or proof about evolution but need no evidence or proof that god exists.....
But then again they do talk about Blind Faith...........
But then again they do talk about Blind Faith...........
astradt1- Moderator
- Posts : 966
Join date : 2011-10-08
Age : 69
Location : East Midlands
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:Texas,The existence of complex things belies macro-evolution.
You cannot accept the existence of complex things validates micro-evolution but belies macro-evolution…
Ye Ol’ Scot,
I can and do “accept the existence of complex things validating micro-evolution while simultaneously belying macro-evolution.
The former is proven fact, verified via empirical data obtained from multiple sources and via replicable applications (the Russian bomb-sniffing dog “fabricated” within the last two decades by intentionally interbreeding jackals and domestic dogs comes readily to mind).
The latter remains unproven conjecture, verified neither by empirical data nor replicable application.
Please do not present bones in the dirt as proof of macro-evolution. Bones in the dirt are proof of bones in the dirt and nothing else. Presuming that current dating processes are accurate (which is presumption and not proven fact), bones in the dirt are evidence (not proof) of the appearance and disappearance of various plant and animal species over a presumed period of time. Notice that the phrase “appearance and disappearance” is not equivalent to the term “macro-evolution.”
Tosh wrote:
… its the same process but over a longer period of time.
If and when you, or any Darwinist (ideologue that adheres to the ideology of Darwinism) prove the factuality of macro-evolution via empirical data and replicable application, I shall readily get on board the Darwinism/macro-evolution bandwagon, the resident band of which blares out its falsehoods so loudly as to desensitize absolutely the ability of the bandwagon’s passengers to hear and process truth.
Perhaps y’all (the bandwagon’s passengers) can resurrect Brother Carl (“billions and billions of stars”) to deliver the news to me. I rather liked Brother Carl; I’d enjoy his company.
Until then, as a “truthist”, I’ll stick to the truth.
Tosh wrote:
You insist on a higher level of proof for macro-evolution than science…
Au contraire. I insist on a level of proof consistent with science. For example, since you insist upon labeling macro-evolution a theory, I insist on the same level of proof demanded by his physicist, mathematician, and astronomer peers of Brother Al when he presented his Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity to the worldwide scientific community.
In other words, I insist upon macro-evolution equivalents of gravity measurably bending light (the famous eclipse), Big Bang (a logical conclusion of the General Theory, confirmed by Hubble’s data, and scads of data gathered since then which compellingly evidence Big bang), a Hiroshima or three (kinda sorta verifies e=mc2, doncha think?), and a few SSNs cruising eight hundred plus feet under the ocean’s surface right now, the survival of the officers and sailors therein dependent upon the one hundred percent guaranteed replicable nature of e=mc2.
Tosh wrote:
… you are insisting on an unachievable level of proof…
This is not an unachievable level of proof for Brother Al’s General and Special Theories of Relativity.
It is Darwinists’ insistence upon labeling their conjecture (in my opinion, fantasy conjecture) a theory that puts y’all between a rock and a hard place. I suggest that y’all “come clean” and admit that Darwinism, macroevolution, is conjecture rather than theory, and that, absent the blind faith of the faithful and their concerted, combined efforts to prop up the untenable Darwinism ideology through the years, Darwinism would have long since been cast into the dustbin of discarded “scientific” fantasies wherein resides the flat earth “theory.”
Tosh wrote:
I have provided you with the scientific case for macro-evolution…
And the “scientific case” for macro-evolution sorely lacks any trace of the application of scientific rigor in its formulation.
Tosh wrote:
… you are unable to provide me with any evidence that contradicts this scientific theory.
I have slightly altered the above text that I might address it. My alterations are underlined below.
Tosh wrote:
… you are unable to provide me with any evidence that contradicts this nonscientific conjecture.
You are unable to provide me with any evidence that confirms this nonscientific conjecture.
Tosh wrote:
Your unwillingness to accept the theory is not proof the theory is unproven.
I have slightly altered the above text that I might address it. My alterations are underlined below.
Tosh wrote:
Your unwillingness to accept the conjecture is not proof the conjecture is unproven.
Your willingness to accept the conjecture is not proof that the conjecture is proven.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
It has been some time since the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been used in an evolution argument…
Au contraire. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been used unto my sight and hearing numerous times (most recently, Wednesday 15 August 2012) within the past two and three quarter decades to belie macro-evolution.
Tosh wrote:
… there is a very good reason for this, its pure bunkum…
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is scientific law. Darwinism is “pure bunkum.”
Tosh wrote:
… there are many examples of self-organization and self-assembly in nature…
These “examples of self-organization and self-assembly in nature” provide compelling evidence of intelligent design in nature and intelligent design of nature. Moreover, the intelligent designer thereof, due to his ability to accomplish that which contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, demonstrates mastery over a scientific law so compellingly that a mere human such as me contemplates his accomplishments with awe and a sense of wonder.
Tosh wrote:
… nature is not a closed or isolated physical system…
Au contraire. See below.
Tosh wrote:
… nature is… an open system( external energy from the sun is constantly raining down upon the earth).
You have just verified the fact that nature is an integral part of the universe, which is a closed system, and has been a closed system since existence was exploded into existence b’r’shythe, at the singularly, in the beginning. Since that moment of the creation of all that is, was, and ever will be within space/time, including space/time itself, nothing has been created or destroyed, only altered.
Guest- Guest
Page 12 of 25 • 1 ... 7 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 18 ... 25
Similar topics
» Can God love? (Part 2)
» Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)
» What now for Labour? (Part 1)
» Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)
» What now for Labour? (Part 1)
Page 12 of 25
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum