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 16 of 25
Page 16 of 25 • 1 ... 9 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 20 ... 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)
I sent you an email Glad you're ok. Oh wouldn't I love for it to be 38 C in England....but it would freak out my beloved pasty white brits Take care, I'm off to Salsa lessons in a moment. x
snowyflake- Posts : 1221
Join date : 2011-10-07
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
RockOnBrother wrote:Tosh wrote:" The earth revolves around the sun.", is a sentence not requiring a " who ".Every sentence requires a “who.”Who-What-When-Where-Why-How exposition of:
“The earth revolves around the sun.”
- Who: The earth.
- What: Revolves.
- When: Now (implied), whenever (implied).
- Where: Around the sun.
- Why: Not addressed.
- How: Not addressed.
Tosh wrote:The earth is a " what " not a " who".•Who: The earth.
Next ?
Truth:
RockOnBrother wrote:Tosh wrote:" The earth revolves around the sun.", is a sentence not requiring a " who ".Every sentence requires a “who.”Who-What-When-Where-Why-How exposition of:
“The earth revolves around the sun.”
- Who: The earth.
- What: Revolves.
- When: Now (implied), whenever (implied).
- Where: Around the sun.
- Why: Not addressed.
- How: Not addressed.
Truth denied remains truth.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
God in the Bahá'í Faith: The Bahá'í writings describe a single, personal, inaccessible, omniscient, omnipresent, imperishable, and almighty God who is the creator of all things in the universe. The existence of God and the universe is thought to be eternal, without a beginning or end
I see the BB made you an ex-believer.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
.Truth denied remains truth.
Inventing gibberish( who is the earth ?) instead of admitting you were wrong is not the Truth in any book, despite your contortions you have failed to demonstrate where I denied the BB theory was true.
Now that my friend is the Truth.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Black holes defy common sense yet they exist nonetheless. Therefore, one cannot apply garden variety common sense to science in all cases. BUT ... you don't see Christians waging campaigns against black holes because black holes do not contradict Biblical scripture. So we're right back to my original premise -- Christians oppose science only when science opposes the Bible. Show me just one example where Christianity opposes science because the science itself is unsound rather than because it contradicts scripture. C'mon, just one little example! I'll wait right here.I do not have to be qualified in anything to have common sense and a realistic approach to the evidence available
Just what credentials do you have that allows you to deem one scientist more qualified than another? I think it's pretty clear that you base those qualifications upon whether or not a given scientist agrees with your own version of religious dogma. If this is not the case, then show me how you make your determination. Again, I'll wait right here.I have asked you to look under the doubters of evolution and you will find scientists far more qualified than those who agree with it and have more evidence that evolution is nonsense than those who believe.
You can keep telling yourself that ... because if you were ever faced with a true expert on evolution, your head would probably explode.So I will not bother to explain because you would obviously not understand although I try to cater for the normal rather than the experts.
This is the kind of statement that really aggravates people. Perhaps if you, yourself, believed in your own words, you would have thought twice about becoming so stubbornly religious. After all, what IS religion other than pure conjecture and speculation repeated over and over?Anyone can reiterate that there is proof of evolution but the facts do not support the statement choose how many times it is repeated, it is pure conjecture and speculation.
LOL! You just can't seem to stop hammering in those coffin nails, can you. Strange, isn't it, how you believe the existence of anti-matter WILL be proven despite how often you claim scientists are wrong. Why are you so convinced that these bumbling, blithering scientists will prove anti-matter exists? Couldn't they be completely wrong about THAT, too? You really need to listen to yourself. Your argument here is essentially saying that "you hope scientists are right because it will show how often they're wrong." Does that really make sense to you? Paradoxes make lousy arguments.When it is proven that there is anti matter then everything the scientists have based their ideas on will have to be totally reconsidered and that is the opinion of themselves.
Yes, yes ... my logic is bad because I disagree with you. Just like scientists are all wrong when they disagree with you. I'm noticing a pattern ...Shirina, your logic or lack of it is beyond belief.
*wistful sigh* If only religion did that. Oh wait, then we wouldn't have religion ...what we should concentrate on is that which we actually know.
Christians believed that people lived to be 900+ years old and then ... suddenly ... they were lucky to see 40. The point is that you're willing to believe in these sudden and inexplicable changes in biology even when the Bible itself doesn't explain them. So who is to say whether "like breeds like" was always true? After all, you DID say:We know all the animal life we have at present or most of it and we know like only breeds like
Yep ... including forms of animal life that acted as bridges between one species and another. Right? Isn't that possible? Huh? *nudge*There could have been many forms of animal life that left no trace whatsoever
Besides, evolution isn't about a lion mating with a platypus and producing dragonflies. It's about genetic mutations that allow a single-celled organism to evolve into increasingly more complex forms of life. The simpler the organism, the more quickly and profusely it breeds, thus ensuring that enough survive the winter (see your other argument) to pass along the mutation to the next generation. You're coming at this from the belief that one singular cell had to produce everything from flu viruses to human beings. That simply isn't how it works. The same species of organism can generate limitless variations of genetic mutations which, over the spam of eons, can evolve into very distinct and separate species.
I'm sure Snowyflake can give you the heads-up on that ... assuming it is worth the effort. Religious dogma is a notoriously tough nut to crack.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Me either. If polyglide wants proof of Satan, well ... there you go.(I don’t deal with the math; I do not want to again see a differential equation for the rest of my life)
My issue with polyglide and, quite frankly, a lot of self-styled "Christians" is that they want all of the religious fairy tales to be true, NOT just the existence of a creator. There is no need for evolution and creationism to be diametrically opposed since one could just as easily believe that this Creator -- or God -- created humanity through evolution. But no. Some people also need to believe in ridiculous stories like Adam and Eve for whatever reason. I personally think that any God that can create a masterwork like evolution is FAR more glorified than some primitive Bronze Age deity that whipped up a human male from a pile of dirt and didn't even have the forethought to wonder how this lone human was going to reproduce. A God working in conjunction with science is FAR more incredible than one who simply used magic willy nilly and then suddenly stopped.
As for stories like Adam and Eve, well, the Bible says implicitly where the Garden of Eden was located ... but has any trace of it ever been found? And where is that angel with the flaming sword God placed there to guard it? There is more than enough reason to doubt, even disbelieve, these primitive legends, but some folks demand that science bends its knee to 4,000 year-old myths, and that I cannot abide.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:God in the Bahá'í Faith: The Bahá'í writings describe a single, personal, inaccessible, omniscient, omnipresent, imperishable, and almighty God who is the creator of all things in the universe. The existence of God and the universe is thought to be eternal, without a beginning or end
Did you read easily accessible actual writings of Baha’u’llah, Abdul Baha, and Shoghi Effendi? I wonder?
Tosh wrote:
I see the BB made you an ex-believer.
No you don’t.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
… you have failed to demonstrate where I denied the BB theory was true.
You, via your words, have denied Big Bang.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:22 am; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Shirina wrote:Me either. If polyglide wants proof of Satan, well ... there you go.(I don’t deal with the math; I do not want to again see a differential equation for the rest of my life)
Shirina,
From an epistle: “Resist diabolos (the devil) and he will flee from you.” Consistency within Y’shua’s teachings, including those transmitted through his apostles, lets the reader see that the power of satan/diabolos is no power whatsoever.
We possess the power to choose to act upon our temptations or to choose to act upon our convictions. When one chooses to walk away from a tormentor, one chooses the latter; when one chooses to “knock the sucker out”, one chooses the latter. For me, choosing the former is choosing to act upon my temptations, and the temptation to do so is the only power satan/diabolos has over me.
My point? Satan/diabolos is irrelevant to me unless I choose to act upon temptation rather than conviction. Now is that sometimes harder than it sounds? Yea buddy. I found out who broke in my apartment awhile back. It took two plus years to let it go.
Shirina wrote:
There is no need for evolution and creationism to be diametrically opposed…
True. I realized that I knew God, YHVH Elohim (although I didn’t have the terminology then) by nineteen years of age; I didn’t doubt macro-evolution until thirty-six years of age. Until then, I had not realized that what I had until then assumed was evidenced for evolution (whole hog) was actually evidence for micro-evolution only. I read Big Red, Irish Red, Outlaw Red, the novel about the Malamute wolf-dog, Vulpes the Red Fox, the novel about the Star the six-toed Red Fox, Call of the Wild, and more books about dogs, wolves, coyotes, and red foxes tan I can remember by the time I left sixth grade, and grew to know the micro-evolution amongst canines before I knew the word “evolution.”
If one is an adult at twelve, bar/bat mitzvah, then for seventeen plus years of my twenty-four years of spiritual adulthood, I had known God and embraced macro-evolution.
Shirina wrote:
… one could just as easily believe that this Creator -- or God -- created humanity through evolution.
True.
Shirina wrote:
Some people also need to believe in ridiculous stories like Adam and Eve for whatever reason.
Blank-slate it for a moment and think about the denial of male supremacy inherent in Genesis 2:8 through the end of Genesis 3. When God walks through the garden calling for Adam, it’s only after Adam disobeyed. And then he jacks Adam up big time after Adam blames Eve for his screw-up.
It’s like men today: “If she had only done so and so, then I would’na had to act a fool and knock her out.” Going left field, my mother didn’t play that with her boy children. As for my Dad and my uncles? Sapphire tore my butt up in an 8th grade classroom. Since neither life nor limb was threatened, had I touched Sapphire, I believe my Dad would have either killed me or made me wish I was dead. And “Lawd Hab Mucy!” And if Dad had said, “I’m just going to call your uncle Isaac and let him deal with you”, I would have tried to hitch-hike to Patagonia.
Far more men today need that message from Genesis 2-3.
Shirina wrote:
As for stories like Adam and Eve, well, the Bible says implicitly where the Garden of Eden was located…
And so, since we’re all from Africa, we’re all African-something. That’s my first reaction, “stealing” from Smokey Robinson’s poem. More importantly, if some grand expedition set out to find Eden and started soliciting funding, not a dime of my money would they get.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Shirina gave an example of a creature deciding it needed protection to get over the winter months and said it deciced to provide itself with the means of doing so.
So let us just see and consider what that would involve.
Firstly the creature would have to be intelligent to realise it's shortcomings, it would have to have hindsight, and knowledge of the following, Physics, Machinery, Biochemistry, Biocoenosis and be able to apply them all.
Now come on Shirina, see the light before the battery goes down.
So let us just see and consider what that would involve.
Firstly the creature would have to be intelligent to realise it's shortcomings, it would have to have hindsight, and knowledge of the following, Physics, Machinery, Biochemistry, Biocoenosis and be able to apply them all.
Now come on Shirina, see the light before the battery goes down.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I will not go into what a mixed up person Tosh appears to be RockOnBrother does it so well.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Firstly the creature would have to be intelligent to realise it's shortcomings
So you're saying that a penguin is intelligent because it knows not to migrate to the Sahara?
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I will not go into what a mixed up person Tosh appears to be RockOnBrother does it so well. .
Yes dear, I know dear, you better get back before the next headcount.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Firstly the creature would have to be intelligent to realise it's shortcomings, it would have to have hindsight, and knowledge of the following, Physics, Machinery, Biochemistry, Biocoenosis and be able to apply them all.
You are priceless, creatures have brains and a memory, the ones which don't work so good don't survive, that is natural selection.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Firstly the creature would have to be intelligent to realise it's shortcomings, it would have to have hindsight, and knowledge of the following, Physics, Machinery, Biochemistry, Biocoenosis and be able to apply them all.
This person's understanding of science is frightening. Here are a list of books:
The Origin of Species (Charles Darwin)
The Beak of the Finch
The Selfish Gene
The Ancestor's Tale
Try this website:
http://suite101.com/article/evolution-the-absolute-basics-a64901
I know you're a Christian and all that and believe the bible to be the inspired word of God and everything in it is 'truth' but honestly don't just click the 'christian' links in Google. Click on some science links and at the very least give yourself a balanced view. Please could you present just one piece of evidence that refutes evolution. I think you're been asked before but you are not responding.
snowyflake- Posts : 1221
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 66
Location : England
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by Tosh on Wed 29 Aug 2012 - 17:36
… created by Yahweh1…
Tosh wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by Tosh on Thu 30 Aug 2012 - 23:41
… the evidence that Yahweh2 created…
Tosh wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by Tosh on Fri 31 Aug 2012 - 8:29
… I do not believe Yahweh3 intentionally created…
- Word not found in Hebrew Bible.
- Word not found in Hebrew Bible.
- Word not found in Hebrew Bible.
I am unaware of this word save for its imprecise overuse in popular 20th Century/21st Century Western culture. Perhaps you are confusing this human-created term with something else.
To clear up any confusion engendered by your use of this basically meaningless “word”, I offer this bit of scholarship.
Moshe (Mosheh) was summonsed to a particular location whereon a bush burned without being consumed. After conversing with and being charged with a responsibility by a voice emanating therefrom, Moshe asked “When B’nai Y’srael ask, ‘What is his name that has sent you?’, what shall I say to them?” And Elohim said to Moshe, “Tell them, ‘[untranslatable, ‘the name’] has sent me to you.’”
The untranslatable portion is nonetheless often “translated”, always inadequately; this “translation”, and the nature of Hebrew characters and the Hebrew language, has led to misconceptions and confusion in several ways.
First, the usual “translation”, noble effort though it may be, cannot convey such an un-encompassable concept with any degree of accuracy. I’ve sat at the “feet” (figuratively) of at least three Hebrew scholars, one a Reform rabbi, one a “lay” Conservative scholar, and one a Christian professor of biblical studies, each of whom, when asked by me one question, routinely consumes an hour or more conveying multiple and layered meanings of the untranslatable term unto a willing learner.
Second, the untranslatable term is written in Hebrew characters. The Hebrew language has no vowels; thus, vowel sounds can be precisely leaned only by hearing the spoken by a fluent Hebrew speaker. Vowel sounds, or lack thereof, have been accurately transmitted down through the centuries voice to ear, so that, for instance, the Hebrew word transliterated “Y’srael”, or more accurately, “Y’sra’el”, has no vowel sound between “Y” and “s”, and the vowel sounds “a” and “e” are separated, thus making “Y’sra’el” a three syllable word containing two vowel sounds.
No such voice to ear pronunciation of the untranslatable term exists today. Perhaps such a pronunciation has never existed; I don’t know one way or the other. I do know that neither my Reform rabbi friend nor my “lay” Conservative friend has ever heard the term pronounced or pronounced the term. Accordingly, there exist no way to enter accurate vowel sounds into the untranslatable term.
Third, as Hebrew to English transliteration is actually Hebrew to English trans-vocalization, sound to sound substitution, the letter “w” has no place in any Hebrew to English transliteration. The consonant sound represented by “w” in English does not exist in Hebrew. While on this subject, the sound represented by “j” in English also does not exist in Hebrew, which is why, as much as possible, I refrain from writing or saying “Jehovah.”
Insofar as I can determine as of 6 September 2012, “YHVH” is perhaps the most accurate Hebrew to Greek transliteration of the untranslatable term. Note that there are no added apostrophes and vowels to convey either (a) vowel sounds or lack thereof, or (b) syllabication based upon those vowel/no-vowel sounds. In fact, unlike almost all other Hebrew to English transliterations, YHWH is not a trans-vocalization, and no assumption that YHVH can be accurately pronounced in 2012 should be made.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
… the BB is neither observable nor replicable…
Phenomena predicted by Big Bang are without exception where, when, and as they are predicted to be.
Tosh wrote:
… there is no eye witness proof…
There is eyewitness proof that phenomena predicted by Big Bang are without exception where, when, and as they are predicted to be.
Tosh wrote:
… transitional fossils are inductive proof of the transition from one species to another…
Bones in dated dirt are proof of bones in dated dirt.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:29 am; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Texas,
I refuse to believe in a deity whose name has no vowels and is unpronounceable, it is Yahweh or the highway.
I refuse to believe in a deity whose name has no vowels and is unpronounceable, it is Yahweh or the highway.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Texas,
I refuse to believe in a deity whose name has no vowels and is unpronounceable, it is Yahweh or the highway.
It is the highway.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Truth is neither established nor disestablished by any status of any type given for any reason to anything by me or any other human.
This is rather unfortunate for your case, truth is a human concept made from human observations by our human consciousness.
There is eyewitness proof that phenomena predicted by Big Bang are without exception where, when, and as they are predicted to be.
There is eyewitness proof that phenomena predicted by Common Descent( modern synthesis) are without exception where, when, and as they are predicted to be.
“Prior to” the “event”, originating at and emanating from the singularity, a point, a location without space-time in which to be located, there is nothing.
Let me educate you on some basic physics, we have no knowledge what is located prior to the event, and without knowledge one can not conclude anything, this includes the condition of " nothing ", we have no evidence " nothing " exists within or without space-time.
The beginning of the universe is the boundary of space-time existence much like the south pole, there is nothing south of the south pole means there is nothing within space-time before the point space time was created, one cannot have a time BEFORE time began.
Some misinterpret this to mean there is nothing outwith spacetime, which is unproven, the claim in membrane theory that somethng can come from nothing is misleading to the layman, it means space time was created by nothing within space time.
Last edited by Tosh on Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:52 pm; edited 2 times in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
The " Kalam " cosmological argument is a logical deduction that God must have created the universe because something cannot come from nothing.
The logical fallacy of this argument lies in the premise that something cannot come from nothing, this principle only applies within our physical cause and effect universe. We do not have any knowledge of causation principles outwith our universe, for all we know spontaneous creation from nothing within space-time may be as common as salt.
The logical fallacy of this argument lies in the premise that something cannot come from nothing, this principle only applies within our physical cause and effect universe. We do not have any knowledge of causation principles outwith our universe, for all we know spontaneous creation from nothing within space-time may be as common as salt.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:“Prior to” the “event”, originating at and emanating from the singularity, a point, a location without space-time in which to be located, there is nothing.
… we have no knowledge what is located prior to the event…
The Big Bang data set compellingly evidences the existence of nothing “prior to” the event.
Tosh wrote:
… we have no evidence " nothing " exists within or without space-time.
The existence of nothing means nothing exists. The existence of evidence of nothing means something exists; thus, nothing precludes the existence of evidence of nothing.
Tosh wrote:
… there is no space-time before the point space time was created…
True.
Tosh wrote:
… one cannot have a time BEFORE space time began.
Time is nonexistent “before” space-time begins.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:34 am; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Phenomena predicted by macro-evolution often are neither where, nor when, nor as they are predicted to be by macro-evolution.
Prove it.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
You lack sufficient capability to so educate me.
Since science cannot educate you my friend then its not my capabilities that are insufficient and lacking, your inabilty to be educated is down to your inconsistent and irrational thinking processes.
Any chance of you demonstrating some intelligence by explaining the micro-evolutionary process( proven) that gives whales legs and toes ?
We have atavistic evidence and proof that even you cannot deny.
I will wait here patiently.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
The Big Bang data set compellingly evidences the existence of nothing, the nonexistence of anything, including space-time, “prior to” the event.
Utter nonsense my friend, but you can prove me wrong by showing me any data we have from " prior to the event ".
Again I will wait here patiently.
3 strikes and you are out, you are not doing very well aganst my giant intellect, are you my friend ?
Last edited by Tosh on Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Texas,
I will hear no more of your nonsense concerning macro-evolution until you explain how micro evolution can give a fish-like species( marine life), legs and toes.
A man of your intellect should have no problem in deducing any further extrapolations.
You have screamed from the highest mountain of truth that micro-evolution is true, and I have just proven micro-evolution is identical to macro-evolution, species transition is only micro evolution over a geater time scale.
Check mate.
I will hear no more of your nonsense concerning macro-evolution until you explain how micro evolution can give a fish-like species( marine life), legs and toes.
A man of your intellect should have no problem in deducing any further extrapolations.
You have screamed from the highest mountain of truth that micro-evolution is true, and I have just proven micro-evolution is identical to macro-evolution, species transition is only micro evolution over a geater time scale.
Check mate.
Last edited by Tosh on Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:13 am; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
A form of religion can survive science if it does not make physical claims, religion is metaphysics and ethics, I have no right to belittle those who belive in a directed universe but I have every right to ridicule those whose beliefs deny standard first grade common khowledge.
Throwing pseudo science around in scholarly Hebrew, while playing semantic games with one of thousands of unproven creation stories, does not make this idiocy more palatable.
Creation science is no science or nonsense no credible scientist believes this utter hogswash.
Throwing pseudo science around in scholarly Hebrew, while playing semantic games with one of thousands of unproven creation stories, does not make this idiocy more palatable.
Creation science is no science or nonsense no credible scientist believes this utter hogswash.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
How can a creation scientist get a degree in biology ?
These people are charlatons, the Elmer Gantrys of the 21 st cenury.
These people are charlatons, the Elmer Gantrys of the 21 st cenury.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Creationism is a serious problem in America, there are nearly 150 million of them, that is a lot of irrational people ruling the world.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Any chance of you demonstrating some intelligence…
There is no chance that I will not demonstrate intelligence.
Tosh wrote:Utter nonsense my friend…The Big Bang data set compellingly evidences the existence of nothing, the nonexistence of anything, including space-time, “prior to” the event.
You may label the Big Bang data set utter nonsense if you choose.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Throwing pseudo science around in scholarly Hebrew…
… this idiocy…
… utter hogswash.
How can a creation scientist get a degree in biology ?
These people are charlatons…
… irrational people ruling the world.
… I have every right to ridicule those whose beliefs deny standard first grade common khowledge.
Your avowed right and implied intent to ridicule those whose beliefs do not meet your approval is noted.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Example 1: Living whales and dolphins found with hindlimbs
"I knew, of course, that some modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor. ... Whales could be born with a little extra lump of bone which evolutionists therefore insisted was a throwback corresponding to a second limb bone.
However, the spectacle of a whale being hauled out of the ocean with an actual leg hanging down from its side was a totally different issue. I don't remember my exact response, but I indicated that, if true, this would be a serious challenge to explain on the basis of a creation model." (Wieland 1998)
- Carl Wieland
Young earth creationist,
CEO, Answers in Genesis - Australia,
Joint CEO, Answers in Genesis International,
Editor, Creation magazine
On October 28, 2006, Japanese fishermen captured a four-finned dolphin off the coast of western Japan, and donated the whale to the Taiji Whaling Museum where it is currently being studied. This bottlenose dolphin has an extra set of hindlimbs, two well-formed palm-sized flippers that move and flap like the normal fore-flippers (see Figure 2.2.2). As with other atavistic structures, these limbs are likely the result of a rare mutation that allows an underlying, yet cryptic, developmental pathway to become reactivated. These limbs are prima facie evidence of the dolphin's four-limbed ancestry, as predicted from the common ancestry of dolphins and other land-dwelling mammals.
Figure 2.2.3. X-ray image of an atavistic tail found in a six-year old girl. A radiogram of the sacral region of a six-year old girl with an atavistic tail. The tail was perfectly midline and protruded form the lower back as a soft appendage. The five normal sacral vertebrae are indicated in light blue and numbered; the three coccygeal tail vertebrae are indicated in light yellow. The entire coccyx (usually three or four tiny fused vertebrae) is normally the same size as the fifth sacral vertebrae. In this same study, the surgeons reported two other cases of an atavistic human tail, one with three tail vertebrae, one with five. All were benign, and only one was surgically "corrected" for cosmetic reasons (image reproduced from Bar-Maor et al. 1980, Figure 3.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms
According to you my friend there is only proven micro-evolution, no such thing as macro-evolution, this means micro-evolution can create hindlimbs and toes on a mammal that swims for a living !!
Since you claim there is no such thing as a transitional species, care to enlighten me why and how micro-evolution gives a whale/dolphins legs and toes for swimming, and what is the difference beween this proof/evidence of micro-evolution and macro-evolution ?
Slamdunk.
Last edited by Tosh on Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:47 am; edited 4 times in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Your error in presuming that I have explicitly or implicitly referenced data from “prior to” the event might possibly be self-corrected by your returning to and carefully reading my previous posts.
You have serious comprehension and deduction problems, may I suggest you read carefully my post my friend. I clearly stated that for you to claim there was nothing prior to the event you would need proof in the form of empirical data, no such data exists.....fact.
You can squirm all you want my friend but please don't tell me you are interested in the truth, you are a full blown creationist trying to bend science to suit your religious beliefs.
The jigsaw pieces of creationism just do not fit, you are sitting at home with a pair of scissors making sure they fit, its really not normal Texas.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
No Shirina, what I am saying and always have done, is that God created all creatures with the ability ande means to follow their place in life as God determined.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
This thread is about God and his ability to love.
Several attempts have been made to show that God cannot love because of certain event
I gave an example of the rabid dog to show that one can love but have to take drastic steps when necessary.
God on several occasions has had to wipe out certain people for exactly the same reason the rabid dog would have to be destroyed, they posed a threat to all mankind as those who followed would be subject only to evil and decadence if this was not done.
As for the example of the Jews being gassed etc; that was done by mankind and not God, as many other such seemingly ungodly occurances have, as usual, you forget the part the Devil is playing in all this.
The state of the world today indicates that we are fast approaching the same state as that when God has had to step in previously.
Several attempts have been made to show that God cannot love because of certain event
I gave an example of the rabid dog to show that one can love but have to take drastic steps when necessary.
God on several occasions has had to wipe out certain people for exactly the same reason the rabid dog would have to be destroyed, they posed a threat to all mankind as those who followed would be subject only to evil and decadence if this was not done.
As for the example of the Jews being gassed etc; that was done by mankind and not God, as many other such seemingly ungodly occurances have, as usual, you forget the part the Devil is playing in all this.
The state of the world today indicates that we are fast approaching the same state as that when God has had to step in previously.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
as usual, you forget the part the Devil is playing in all this.
Do your neighbours know about you ?
I seriously hope you dont go outside and share your beliefs with the public.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
God on several occasions has had to wipe out certain people for exactly the same reason the rabid dog would have to be destroyed, they posed a threat to all mankind as those who followed would be subject only to evil and decadence if this was not done.
As for the example of the Jews being gassed etc; that was done by mankind and not God, as many other such seemingly ungodly occurances have, as usual, you forget the part the Devil is playing in all this.
You seem to miss the simplest of points, God decided not to wipe out a rabid dog called Hitler and 6 million of his chosen people were gassed to death.
Care to explain ?
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I have been discussing theistic beliefs on forums for years, the quality of the arguments put forward by Texas and polyglide are abyssmal and nonsensical.
If I was religious I would class creationists as an embarassment to the Christian faith, they actually diminish its value.
If I was religious I would class creationists as an embarassment to the Christian faith, they actually diminish its value.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
There is something psychologically wrong with those who need to scentifically justify their faith.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
I clearly stated that for you to claim there was nothing prior to the event you would need proof in the form of empirical data…
You have incorrectly stated that I would need that which cannot exist to “claim” that, “prior to” the event, nothing exists. Nothing means absolute absence of something; as “proof in the form of empirical data” is something, “proof in the form of empirical data” cannot exist “prior to” the event.
Tosh wrote:
… no such data exists.....fact.
Nothing exists “prior to” the event. Fact.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Page 16 of 25 • 1 ... 9 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 20 ... 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 16 of 25
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum