1:1 In the beginning God created the heaves and the earth.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Christianity is nothing, if not tolerant. We're all here, right?

You are tolerant. You are prepared to debate. You are here, so am I. This is good practice for the real world.

Now how about dealing with my other posts? You have work to do. I worked hard on your arguments and it is wasted if you do not want to respond. I would especially like your remarks on my response to Hugh Ross since you induced me to watch him. If you are good I will watch his second lecture and respond to that.

Originally posted by finnegan
I did not summarise the link all. I got into providing a link to confirm that the guy exists. But I am no mathematician and no physicist and to me it is Greek. Admit you are the the same. There is a real problem that both you and I have to make sense of claims that are outside our own expertise. Even my alleged arrogance has boundaries.

Nevertheless, ...[text shortened]... bout Zero and Infinity) what matters to me and to the debate was that the laws of physics apply.

I was talking about the link for Emmy Noether.

While I cannot claim expertise in any field, I am nonetheless confident in my general competence to 'get' the conceptual basis for most fields. Could I construct and work out a formula for any and all? Not likely. But can I get the basic gist of the same? I'd like to think so, and thus far, haven't been mystified by any that come to mind.

While Noether's Theorem certainly demonstrates the reality/necessity of zero within a system, it only comments on physical systems. Thus, assuming zero--- or any other formula found within the system--- from outside of the system as a cause of the system is to self-entitle.

Originally posted by finnegan
You are tolerant. You are prepared to debate. You are here, so am I. This is good practice for the real world.

Now how about dealing with my other posts? You have work to do. I worked hard on your arguments and it is wasted if you do not want to respond. I would especially like your remarks on my response to Hugh Ross since you induced me to watch him. If you are good I will watch his second lecture and respond to that.

The Ross link was from jaywill.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I was talking about the link for Emmy Noether.

While I cannot claim expertise in any field, I am nonetheless confident in my general competence to 'get' the conceptual basis for most fields. Could I construct and work out a formula for any and all? Not likely. But can I get the basic gist of the same? I'd like to think so, and thus far, haven't been ...[text shortened]... ithin the system--- from outside of the system as a cause of the system is to self-entitle.

Why is it a defect that this "only applies to a physical system" when your point concerned the laws of physics? You said they do not apply to "nothing." I say they do and indeed they must.

Zero has its own interesting history of course and was long disliked on religious grounds. I suspect it became OK once Christians realized how useful it is for making money.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The Ross link was from jaywill.

Sorry Tweedle Dum, I thought you were Tweedle Dee.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The Ross link was from jaywill.

Freaky, you and I can have a good respectful discussion. I'm not wasting another moment with finnigan. This poster only wants to insult us.

She wants just to needle Christians.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Who then would you submit, from human history, exhibited a higher degree of morality than Jesus Christ ?

Gandhi or Dr Martin Luther King?

Also, a significant portion of Jesus life is unknown. He was born, vanished for thirty years or so and then reappeared and was then dead a few years later. I think it would be a little presumptious to stan ...[text shortened]... le is known about his life. He could have got up to anything in those 'missing' thirty years!![/b]

===============================
Gandhi or Dr Martin Luther King? '
===========================

In the 20th century these were people of high moral reputation.
Have you read what they said about Jesus ? They both greatly looked UP to Jesus.

==============================
Also, a significant portion of Jesus life is unknown. He was born, vanished for thirty years or so and then reappeared and was then dead a few years later. I think it would be a little presumptious to stand him on a pedestal when so little is known about his life. He could have got up to anything in those 'missing' thirty years!!
======================================

sigh

Interesting comment. My response is that the so called "missing years" are rather amazing to me. These were years in which God incarnate lived as a normal boy, adolescent, and young man around people and CREATED NO STIR.

This is no less than miraculous to me. He developed a normal human life and apparently blended in with His townspeople without sticking out too severely. While you regard this as suspect I regard it as marvelously HUMAN.

The few comments Luke makes shows that He was noticable and growing in wisdom and grace and favor with those around Him. But He blended in and created no major impact until he reached the age that the priesthood of a man of God commenced, 30 years of age.

So, these 30 years before His official ministry commenced I regard as preparation. He perfected a perfect human life in a very inconspicuous manner making Him all the more impressive as the Savior of the world.

IF you could just adjust you view I think you could see that God as a MAN, lived for 30 years among men and women, and blended in with them in such a normal way. This is encredible and adds to His stature in my eyes.


Now He reaches the age of 30. He puts away His carpenter tools. He leaves His home. He commences His priestly mission for three and one half years. And the impact is catyclysmic. When He opens His mouth about human life it carries an authority unknown to mankind before or since.

Originally posted by finnegan
Sorry Tweedle Dum, I thought you were Tweedle Dee.

Yes and Tweedle Dee isn't "wasting another moment" with you. Lol!
How very christian...

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes and Tweedle Dee isn't "wasting another moment" with you. Lol!
How very christian...

Well that's something I will learn to live with. Amusing how he uses a gender joke as a put down. As so often it says more about him than about me.

For the record though, while trading fairly trivial banter I have in fact taken his serious comments seriously and given serious replies. I have, for example, watched his recommended creationist science lecture on Youtube and my response is at the least well supported and to the point. He seems unwilling to defend it, which may be for one reason or another.

He throws out a lot of assertions in his comments and sometimes I take it on myself to respond to more than one of them because I can and I have the answers. That is not insulting him - that is engaging with his issues on his terms.

Still I'm glad we sorted out that Tweedle Dee thing. After posting I worried I might have got it the wrong way around and he was Tweedle Dum instead, but I needn't have worried. I got it right after all.

Originally posted by amolv06
Science does have a pretty good idea. However, it would be contradictory to a literal Biblical interpretation.

Science is a method, people have ideas and you know how flawed they are.
Kelly

Originally posted by finnegan
Why is it a defect that this "only applies to a physical system" when your point concerned the laws of physics? You said they do not apply to "nothing." I say they do and indeed they must.

Zero has its own interesting history of course and was long disliked on religious grounds. I suspect it became OK once Christians realized how useful it is for making money.

Why is it a defect that this "only applies to a physical system" when your point concerned the laws of physics?
Are you coming or going? The laws of physics apply to the natural universe. As far as I can tell, her theorem applies to physical systems. It could not, therefore, apply to a non-physical system as far as it is understood currently. Therefore, your application of it in this instance is wrong.

Zero has its own interesting history of course and was long disliked on religious grounds.
Unencumbered as I am of religiosity, I have no such aversion to zero.

I suspect it became OK once Christians realized how useful it is for making money.
Yeah, those dirty, greedy Christians using and making money. Good thing we have solid examples outside of Christianity regarding the proper approach to money, right?

Originally posted by finnegan
Well that's something I will learn to live with. Amusing how he uses a gender joke as a put down. As so often it says more about him than about me.

For the record though, while trading fairly trivial banter I have in fact taken his serious comments seriously and given serious replies. I have, for example, watched his recommended creationist science lec ...[text shortened]... around and he was Tweedle Dum instead, but I needn't have worried. I got it right after all.

So which am I: Handel or Bononcini?

And if you've set your sights on insults, you may wish to re-arm yourself.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Except for Bakunin and Rosa Luxemburg all of them were Christians and said their actions were driven by their Christian conscience.

I don't know if Sophie Scholl or Oscar Romero were the best to ever walk the Earth, but they certainly were better than Jesus. 😉

Apart from these people I also greatly admire Malalai Joya and all the Afghan people th I can provide the quotes for all the other situations. Then you can tell what you think.

======================================
I don't think I have to give you quotes on Jesus being delighted with eternal suffering in Hell for some souls, but if you want I can provide the quotes for all the other situations. Then you can tell what you think.
=====================================

Yes I can tell what you think. You think in a twisted, bigoted, warped, and biased manner.

Let's take Jesus being "delighted with eternal suffering".

So if Jesus was "delighted with eternal suffering" why did He allow Himself, being tortured for six hours, dying that you might be saved from it ?

If Jesus was "delighted with eternal suffering" why did He shed His own blood in His belief, to save you from it?

"For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28)

So since Jesus was delighted to see sinners go to eternal suffering, that He poured out His blood so that ANYONE who would believe His "covenant" would be saved ?

So since Jesus was "delighted" in God damning the sinner, He told the parable of The Prodigal Son, the Good Shepherd, the Women sweeping the dark house for a lost coin. All these parables He told to show that He was eager to see sinners punished ?

So Jesus said "It is not your Father's will that one of these little ones should perish" because He was delighted that they would perish ?

So Jesus said "Fear not little flock. It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" because He was delighted to see sinners punished forever ?


So Jesus prayed in the Garden that He would be faithful to go to the cross, until drops of blood poured at with His sweat, as He resisted His human instinct to save HIMSELF ? So He He said "Not My will, but Yours be done", faithful to the uttermost to His Father that sinners could be saved. And all this He did because He was delighted that sinners would not be saved ?

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ..." was His teaching. It was not that God was so eager to condemn.

Jesus have been called "The Friend of Sinners". Is that because He was delighted to see sinners perish?

Jesus has been called "The Great Physician". Is that because Jesus was delighted to see men continue in the sickness of their sins?

Jesus has been called "The Good Shepherd". Is that because He delighted to see the sheep scattered and lost ?

Maybe the problem is with you? Maybe you are so desperate to continue in your sinful life without any inteference from a righteous God, that you have to rationalize by any means that the enemy is Jesus, who died and rose for your salvation.

Originally posted by jaywill
===============================
Gandhi or Dr Martin Luther King? '
===========================

In the 20th century these were people of high moral reputation.
Have you read what they said about Jesus ? They both greatly looked UP to Jesus.

==============================
Also, a significant portion of Jesus life is unknown. He pens His mouth about human life it carries an authority unknown to mankind before or since.

But you've just made my point, you don't have any idea what Jesus got up to during his life, nobody does. 90% of it, or thereabouts, is missing. To claim nobody has a higher morality than Jesus, when so much of his life is unaccounted for, is simply absurd in my view.

All you've presented is what you think he may have got up to. In short, you have no idea do you?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But you've just made my point, you don't have any idea what Jesus got up to during his life, nobody does. 90% of it, or thereabouts, is missing. To claim nobody has a higher morality than Jesus, when so much of his life is unaccounted for, is simply absurd in my view.

All you've presented is what you think he may have got up to. In short, you have no idea do you?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the noncommissioned years were spent in open debauchery. Might this have been raised by the folks who lived in and around Him?