Christians are arrogant as ? .
Options
Comments
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »THE PROBLEM WITH REVELATION 8:1 AS WITH ALL OF REVELATION IS THAT IT IS A MYSTERY BOOK and people have interpretated it to mean anything, THE HEAVEN HERE COULD BE REFERRING 2 OF THE 3 because like i explained to you only two of them have time.
Could be. Which heaven is it? You don't know.
But if you don't like that one, take this one:
Revelation 12:7
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon
For a war to break out, there has to be some type of action. Time is a succession of events or actions, whether mental or physical.keep in mind jesus is part of what is called the godhead so he here is praying for himself so yes he knew himself before creation. and there was no time before creation and ? still knew and loved himself because ? can do that
To love something, you have to be familiar with it or conscious of it and consciousness requires awareness and awareness requires knowledge of whatever you are aware of. Knowledge comes by experience and/or education, therefore, some type of time has to elapse before you can be able to love something.
If ? loved himself before creation, that denotes differentiated time before creation, as the Bible says. BEFORE creation.Pay attention to he chose us in him
Ephesians says that ? CHOSE before creation which implies some sort of mental activity going on. In order to choose, you have to first be able to think, and thinking is a succession of mental events, in time.There is a large misconception among atheist that EVERY word in the bible is coming from ? but that is very wrong headed.
None of the words come from ? , because ? does not exist.
I already explained ephesians i am not doing it again so stop bringing it up i explained it to you many pages ago. You keep comparing ? 's consciousness to man and that is ? stupid his consciousness is infinite he requires nothing and needs no experience. ? knows all. we went over all this already and i showed you how your arguments are weak because you do not understand the nature of the ? of the bible. ? knows all things that ever could be will be or is.
revelation 12:7 does not prove time or that ? is trapped by time or even that heaven is run by time as we understand it, only that the angels moved in it, you see ? is omnipotent things are as he wants them to be. ? exist the bible is the word of ? but not every word in it is from ? . which heaven are they taking about? could be space could be the air revelation is symbolic language. -
If angels moved, they can move only in time... in heaven ... the 3rd heaven.. highest heaven of heavens ...
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »You do not believe in science unless it fits your views, current science basically says that the universe came out of nothing but as they define it nothing is really the pontential for something. a.k.a Q.F.
Wrong again, brother man. The scientific view of "nothing" is not really "nothing at all", like theists usually assert.
The “nothing” of the vacuum of space actually consists of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances measurable at the Planck scale—the length at which the structure of spacetime is dominated by quantum gravity. At this scale, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles, thereby producing “something” from “nothing.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=much-ado-about-nothing
Theists claim that ? created the universe ex nihilo, out of pure nothing (nothing at all) which is highly absurd.
That's your problem. You're trying to use science to attack me but you don't understand science. And science disagrees with your ? theory. That's the crazy part.
I am not attacking you. and you clearly DO not understand my post I DON'T CLAIM THAT SCIENCE SAYS THAT THE UNIVERSE CAME OUT OF NOTHING LIKE YOU MEAN IT HERE. SPACE TIME WHICH IS GOVERNED BY QUANTUM PHYSICS CAME OUT OF Q.F'S IN A VACCUM WHICH IS NOT REALLY NOTHING JUST THE POTENTATIL FOR SOME THING THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I I'M POSTING THIS VIDEO. THE NOTHING I TALKED ABOUT IS Q.F WHICH CREATE THOSES PARTICLES YOU SITE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7I3uM-kMPI
I Never claimed that science could prove ? , so you are pulling that out of your ass. i just used science to show you that time and the universe as we know it had a start which defeats your faith in eternally caused existence which has been proven to be not true. how it started and why that is another issue one science has not solved not do i think it ever will. science says we don't know if there is a ? but we know all of creation had a start. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »If angels moved, they can move only in time... in heaven ... the 3rd heaven.. highest heaven of heavens ...
It does not say which heaven and the angels are still not ? and you have no point. -
delete post
-
science says all of creation had a start.
you're on to something, but let's fix it up..science says all of creation our universe/system had a start beginning.
yes, and..?SPACE TIME WHICH IS GOVERNED BY QUANTUM PHYSICS CAME OUT OF Q.F'S IN A VACCUM WHICH IS NOT REALLY NOTHING JUST THE POTENTATIL FOR SOME THING.
you got it! Articulated better, though, here (Read carefully):
The “nothing” of the vacuum of space actually consists of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances measurable at the Planck scale—the length at which the structure of spacetime is dominated by quantum gravity. At this scale, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles, thereby producing “something” from “nothing.”
Nothing is unstable. In his new book, A Universe from Nothing, cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss attempts to link quantum physics to Einstein’s general theory of relativity to explain the origin of a universe from nothing: “In quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=much-ado-about-nothing -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »If angels moved, they can move only in time... in heaven ... the 3rd heaven.. highest heaven of heavens ...
It does not say which heaven and the angels are still not ? and you have no point.
If the 1st heaven is earth's atmosphere; the second, outer space; and the third, home of ? and his angels, then it's pretty safe to say that verse was referring to the third heaven, since lucifer was cast out of it. Remember Satan still had access to the third heaven, even having regular scheduled meetings with ? and his angels:
Job 1:6
One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them.
Job 1:12
The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord
Job 2:1
On another day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him.
Job 2:7
So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head.
Genesis 6:4 says:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of ? went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
sons of ? being fallen angels, they had to have "fallen" for a reason. That reason occurred in heaven, the third heaven.
Also, if angels have names, like Gabrielle, and personalities, and if they dwell in the 3rd heaven with ? , that can only mean that these angels are existing in time and that the 3rd heaven exists in time. -
^^^ edited post
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Roots Oceanic wrote: »If angels moved, they can move only in time... in heaven ... the 3rd heaven.. highest heaven of heavens ...
It does not say which heaven and the angels are still not ? and you have no point.
If the 1st heaven is earth's atmosphere; the second, outer space; and the third, home of ? and his angels, then it's pretty safe to say that verse was referring to the third heaven.
Genesis 6:4 says:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of ? went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
sons of ? being fallen angels, they had to have "fallen" for a reason. That reason occurred in heaven, the third heaven.
Also, if angels have names, like Gabrielle, and personalities, and if they dwell in the 3rd heaven with ? , that can only mean that these angels are existing in time and that the 3rd heaven exists in time.
No it's not safe to say that it's refering to the third heaven because that whole chapter like almost all of revelation is using obscure language, figurative language. the fall of the angels has nothing does not prove time runs in heaven and even if it does time running ANYPLACE in heaven or earth does not constrain ? . BECAUSE LIKE I TRIED TO TELL YOU TIME TO ? IS WHAT HE WANTS IT TO BE. Any way you do not know which heaven and their fall does not mean their literal leaving of heaven, it refers to their sin the chosen change of their nature. ? is everywhere in all the heavens and on earth, so to impy that because the angels seem to be in time so therefore ? is trapped by time also is faulty logic, so you have no point ? is not an angel. -
check the edited post
-
Remember Satan still had access to the third heaven, even having regular scheduled meetings with ? and his angels:
Job 1:6
One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them.
Job 1:12
The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord
Job 2:1
On another day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him.
Job 2:7
So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head.
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »science says all of creation had a start.
you're on to something, but let's fix it up..science says all of creation our universe/system had a start beginning.
yes, and..?SPACE TIME WHICH IS GOVERNED BY QUANTUM PHYSICS CAME OUT OF Q.F'S IN A VACCUM WHICH IS NOT REALLY NOTHING JUST THE POTENTATIL FOR SOME THING.
you got it! Articulated better, though, here (Read carefully):
The “nothing” of the vacuum of space actually consists of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances measurable at the Planck scale—the length at which the structure of spacetime is dominated by quantum gravity. At this scale, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles, thereby producing “something” from “nothing.”
Nothing is unstable. In his new book, A Universe from Nothing, cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss attempts to link quantum physics to Einstein’s general theory of relativity to explain the origin of a universe from nothing: “In quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=much-ado-about-nothing
Once again the nothing he is talking about is not really nothing, and by the way this article is not helping your argument because the bvg theory would still apply to it and i mean come the ? on the comments on that article alone throw shade on the articles premise. All we can say is that either ? created or Q.F CREATED THE UNIVERSE but the universe had a start. do you understand what a Q.F IS ? -
Not only does Job 1 show that ? and heaven exist in time but that ? is not omniscient:
Job 1:7
And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Here, we have ? asking Satan a question, inferring that Satan knew something ? did not: his whereabouts! -
Once again the nothing he is talking about is not really nothing
I know.i mean come the ? on the comments on that article alone throw shade on the articles premise
Scientific American is written by graduates, doctors, scientists, and professors. The comment section is written by who?All we can say is that either ? created or Q.F CREATED THE UNIVERSE
Yeah and the ? theory is highly improbable.
-
I can ask you a question that does not mean i don't know you know the answer. IT'S THE SAME THING ? DID WHEN he asked kane where his brother was. The satan in this story is not the devil. If you want bible answers please put your questions in one post so i can answer more efficiently. remember the bible is written from more than one viewpoint. the only way a human mind especially thounds of years ago could frame the story of job was by using terms such as "DAY" BECAUSE WE KNOW FROM THAT VERY SAME BOOK OF JOB THAT TIME IS NO ISSUE FOR ? . THE book of job is unlike all the other books in the bible it is not meant to be taken literally in other words it is not an account of real things that supposedly happened it's like one long proverb that is there to drive home a point.
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Once again the nothing he is talking about is not really nothing
I know.i mean come the ? on the comments on that article alone throw shade on the articles premise
Scientific American is written by graduates, doctors, scientists, and professors. The comment section is written by who?All we can say is that either ? created or Q.F CREATED THE UNIVERSE
Yeah and the ? theory is highly improbable.
The ? theory is no more improbable than Q.F -
I can ask you a question that does not mean i don't know you know the answer. IT'S THE SAME THING ? DID WHEN he asked kane where his brother was. The satan in this story is not the devil. If you want bible answers please put your questions in one post so i can answer more efficiently. remember the bible is written from more than one viewpoint. the only way a human mind especially thounds of years ago could frame the story of job was by using terms such as "DAY" BECAUSE WE KNOW FROM THAT VERY SAME BOOK OF JOB THAT TIME IS NO ISSUE FOR ? . THE book of job is unlike all the other books in the bible it is not meant to be taken literally in other words it is not an account of real things that supposedly happened it's like one long proverb that is there to drive home a point.
You missed the point. The point is, according to the Bible, Job specifically, ? , the angels, and satan, whoever you want satan to be, were thinking, moving, and talking in heaven (the third heaven). Thinking, moving and talking are all mental and/or physical events done only in time. -
The ? theory is no more improbable than Q.F
The ? theory is very much more improbable.
Get ready cuz I'm about to give you a bottom line whether you like it or not -
Bottom line is THIS:
1. I'm a Buddhist
2. You are a Christian
3. Your Christian Bible depicts a ? existing in time while you take the unorthodox approach and claim that ? is outside time to avoid other problems that arise out of accepting all other biblical descriptions of ? .
4. I believe in an endless succession of causes and effects without any creator ? intervening. This belief is separable from my Buddhist way of life.
5. Science has not disproven any idea of an endless succession of causes and effects. Logically speaking, this idea works.
6. Logically speaking, your ? theory is incoherent and in addition, not backed by mathematics or inferred or observable proof.
-
The ? theory is no more improbable than Q.F
This is a very strange comment. We have evidence, theories, and models that support quantum mechanics. In fact this field produces the most accurate predictions in all of science. To claim something that is known to happen, quantum fluctuations, with the belief in a supreme being as probabilistically similar borders on absurd.
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Bottom line is THIS:
1. I'm a Buddhist
2. You are a Christian
3. Your Christian Bible depicts a ? existing in time while you take the unorthodox approach and claim that ? is outside time to avoid other problems that arise out of accepting all other biblical descriptions of ? .
4. I believe in an endless succession of causes and effects without any creator ? intervening. This belief is separable from my Buddhist way of life.
5. Science has not disproven any idea of an endless succession of causes and effects. Logically speaking, this idea works.
6. Logically speaking, your ? theory is incoherent and in addition, not backed by mathematics or inferred or observable proof.
Just because something is logical does not mean it is real there is no eternal causes of anything. The bible only depicts the ? you believe it does in your ignorant mind. Science has disproved eternal existence and all the theories with the most proof point to that all the others are fantasy when compared.
You have deep misunderstandings of the bible and its ? . -
The ? theory is no more improbable than Q.F
This is a very strange comment. We have evidence, theories, and models that support quantum mechanics. In fact this field produces the most accurate predictions in all of science. To claim something that is known to happen, quantum fluctuations, with the belief in a supreme being as probabilistically similar borders on absurd.
That is a matter of viewpoint, as there are many many different versions of quantum mechanics. And any conclusion we can draw from it are incomplete because quantum theory is incomplete.quantum fluctuations are barely understood and it is all theory. Atheist need to just say we do not know we only think we know then they would have less problems with believers. -
Good day, sir
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »Good day, sir
Bye, and may you find ? . -
What do you consider a 'different version' of quantum mechanics? Other than the standard model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model) I know of no versions.
The standard model is extremely good at explaining the electroweak and strong forces which cover the realm of quantum fluctuations. While I agree that atheists should not claim knowledge that does not exist it is equally flawed to claim knowledge false that does exists.
