can you do this....

Originally posted by jaywill
Um ... There's no other way.

Steady State theory has been pretty much rejected by the science community for now.

The irony is that you probably think that the Creator doesn't care about such things.

The resurrection of Christ is God's answer to all kinds of decay, corruption, death, wearing out, wearing down, fizzling out, scattering, burning ...[text shortened]... fail to grasp the universal significance of the resurrection of the Son of God in the Bible.

If you weren't serious I'd think you were joking. That was, though, the funniest thing I've heard all day. Considering it's 8:50 PM here in this part of the world as I write this, that's saying something.

Originally posted by scherzo
If you weren't serious I'd think you were joking. That was, though, the funniest thing I've heard all day. Considering it's 8:50 PM here in this part of the world as I write this, that's saying something.

Maybe the reason you think it is funny is because of your modern thought.

The modern thought of many is that life is an accident, and that mankind is just an accident. We are here from some purposeless random "selection" of some kind on a second rate planet circling a second rate star for no reason.

So when someone says that the resurrection of Christ has to do with the creation your indoctrinization of the random meaninglessness of humanity causes you to have a belly laugh.

Perhaps it seems ridiculous to you that we are here for a purpose and that creation is for us rather than we being here aimlessly by accident.

I think it is good to give at least some equal time to what the Bible teaches at some point in life.


Why do you care if the universe will continue on forever or not? Just curious?

===============================

That's why I'm asking you to humor us and demonstrate, just as an example, of how these verses analytically reveal a flaw in some modern cosmological theory. As I see it, they have no bearing whatsoever; their truth values and the truth of any modern cosmological model appear to be completely independent to me, so I'm asking you to show me why this is not so.

=====================================

Correction. I did mention something about Steady State. That is a model.

If you understand that whatever hypothetical "model" of the unverse you propose it would still be a part of "creation" then you should realize there is a connection.

In case you are not clear about what the Bible would mean by "creation" it would include:

" ... all things ... created, in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible ... all things ..." (See Col. 1:16)

Creation would include these words of John's Gospel might help you:

"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into being which has come into being." (John 1:3)


Whatever "model" you would like to propose to arrange all things into, it is still creation. Therefore Romans 8 is related to its existence.

Zechariah 12:1 says "Thus declares Jehovah who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him."

We may propose different hypothetical "models" of how the earth and the heavens are stretch forth or what is thier structure, age and final destiny. As far as the Bible is concerned it is all the creation of Jehovah God regardless.

So "creation" sums up all the things created regardless of man's imagined model, true or false.

I think the connection is clear concerning God's plan for resurrected sons of God and the release of all creation from its anticipated decay.

If we are not clear about it Paul seems to say that creation itself is clear in a way. It groans eagerly awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God.


This is a Spirituality Forum. If you or anyone is surprised that I gave a reply connected to spiritual matters than perhaps you all need to take the question of this discussion somewhere else. Maybe the Science Forum is where you all really need to take the discussion if my somewhat spiritual reply seems out of place.

Originally posted by scherzo
Only 16 billion years?

😳 I was tired.

Originally posted by jaywill
Maybe the reason you think it is funny is because of your modern thought.

The modern thought of many is that life is an accident, and that mankind is just an accident. We are here from some purposeless random "selection" of some kind on a second rate planet circling a second rate star for no reason.

So when someone says that the resurrection of Chris ...[text shortened]... n life.


Why do you care if the universe will continue on forever or not? Just curious?

…We are here from some purposeless random "selection" of some kind…

I think it is just possible that you may have slightly misunderstood Darwinian evolution :

Evolution is “purposeless” but it isn’t completely “random”. If it was completely random then natural selection would not favour some characteristics over others and then neither we nor anything else would evolve. There is inevitably some randomness and chance involved but, rather than being like the throw of balanced dice, it is more like the throw of very heavily weighted dice. Natural selection has some limited predictability in its overall eventual effect as it heavily biases selection of those characteristics that help us to survive and pass on our genes.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Our universe may end, but I don't believe time can--if anything has no beginning nor end, it must be time.

actually time has a beginning, it was the big bang. and if the universe collapses into itself then it has an end too.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Hey, what do you know!

Romans 8:26: "And lo, I do say unto you, the curvature of the universe is a property quantum-bound with the resurrection of Jesus."

my damn heretic orthodox church torn that verse out of the bible coz i can't find it. this be satan's work bent on keeping us from seeing the light of knowledge.

Originally posted by jaywill
Maybe the reason you think it is funny is because of your modern thought.

The modern thought of many is that life is an accident, and that mankind is just an accident. We are here from some purposeless random "selection" of some kind on a second rate planet circling a second rate star for no reason.

So when someone says that the resurrection of Chris ...[text shortened]... n life.


Why do you care if the universe will continue on forever or not? Just curious?

so the modern thought of many, the pattern of thought that constantly makes you challenge the knowledge previously obtained so it be updated and improved is indoctrination.

but the pattern of thought proposed by people who take the bible seriously and literally that says the word of god is absolute, beyond questioning and all the bible is the word of god is freethinking.

now try and read this aloud and if you cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, call me and i will draw you a picture.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===============================

That's why I'm asking you to humor us and demonstrate, just as an example, of how these verses analytically reveal a flaw in some modern cosmological theory. As I see it, they have no bearing whatsoever; their truth values and the truth of any modern cosmological model appear to be completely independent to me, so I'm ...[text shortened]... o take the discussion if my somewhat spiritual reply seems out of place.

spirituality doesn't mean you use god to explain scientific matters. when asked if god explains science in the bible you must answer honestly no. not look for verses that have none to slight connection the the scientific matter and present them as indisputable proofs

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
..... when asked if god explains science in the bible you must answer honestly no .....

WHAT !!!!
The Bible has all the answers.
You just need the right interpretation ... 😀

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…We are here from some purposeless random "selection" of some kind…

I think it is just possible that you may have slightly misunderstood Darwinian evolution :

Evolution is “purposeless” but it isn’t completely “random”. If it was completely random then natural selection would not favour some characteristics over others and then neither ...[text shortened]... avily biases selection of those characteristics that help us to survive and pass on our genes.[/b]

Thanks Andrew,

This verbose reply is not only addressed to you but to Scribbles and another poster. My question to you is towards the upper end.



While I think about that, I didn't how you (Andrew) proposed an answer to eatmybishop's original topic question. Here it is:

==========================================

accept the universe goes on forever, it has always been there, has no start or end.... it is timeless...

can your mind accept that..?

=============================================

If you believe in the eternal pre-existence of the universe how would this Darwinian "favour" that you spoke of work?

If you believe that the universe has existed in the forever previous - how did this "weighting" come about.

I will accept "We haven't figured that out yet." as a reasonable reply.

If that is your reply please don't be totally close minded if I offer some alternative explanations based on my faith.

Now I got a raised eyebrow from Mr. Scribbles and a hardy belly laugh from another poster because I tied this matter to the resurrection of Christ.

This is a Spirituality Forum, so I assumed that the topic proposal would have something somehow to do with spirituality. Otherwise I think it may belong on the Science Forum.

Anyway, I said that:

1.) I did not believe that the universe always existed.

2.) I could accept that it always will exist given that it receives some help from an important historical event I believe in - the resurrection of Christ.

Scribbles has trouble seeing any connection. Well, for one Jesus strongly implied that His words were so stable and permanent that they would outlast even the physical universe:

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away." (Matt. 24:35)

To me this means that the teaching and promises of Jesus Christ as to their significance and faithfulness are more likely to endure than heaven and earth, ie. the physical universe.

This thought is repeated elsewhere in the Bible. That is that the words of God are more stable and eternal than the physical creation. So to me it is no joke.

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away."

I consider also these words from the prophet Isaiah (this is a Spirituality Forum on which the question was posed for discussion)

" Lift up your eyes to the heavens, And look upon the earth beneath; For the heavens will vanish like smoke, And the earth will wear out like a garment. And those who dwell there will die in like manner;

BUT (my emphasis) ... My salvation will be forever, and My righteousness will not be abolished." (Isaiah 51:6)

What this tells me is that the the promises and salvation of the Creator of the universe is MORE stable and permanent than the physical creation itself. God informs us that it is more likely to collapse and wear out before His word and His salvation is.

To make a long story short (if it is not already too late) the resurrection of Christ (as an vital component of God's salvation and God's righteousness) is needed to sustain the future eternal existence of the universe.

We do have His promise of creating a new heaven and a new earth. Maybe God will throw away the old physics and create some new laws. I don't know really. But He sees the need to re-create a new heaven and a new earth "in which righteousness dwells" And this is done through the resurrected Christ.

"For I am now creating new heavens and a new earth, And the former things will not be remembered nor will they come up in the heart,

But rejoice and exult forever, in what I create ... For I am creating Jerusalem as an exultation and her people as a rejoicing ... The wolf and the lamb will feed as one, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent's food; They will not harm nor destroy in all My holy mountain." (See Isaiah 65)

Then we see the new heaven and new earth in the climax of the Bible, Revelation as a place for the capital New Jerusalem as the entity of the resurrected saved which match Christ as His Bride and Wife for eternity. The point being that the universe is the stage upon which this plan of God to be fulfilled. So God needs an eternally sustained creation:

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away ... and I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." (Revelation 21:1,2)

Some of this is symbolic. But the essence of it is that this environment of the new heaven and new earth is needed for the eternal plan of God to have a corporate expression of the marriage and union of God and man. This is a matter of His righteousness which He said must outlast even the creation. He must fulfill His eternal purpose for man and keep His word of promise of salvation.

So, next time you consider the permenance of the Milky Way or of Andrameda galaxy you can consider the more permenant salvation of God throught His resurrected Son Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by jaywill
Thanks Andrew,

This verbose reply is not only addressed to you but to Scribbles and another poster. My question to you is towards the upper end.



While I think about that, I didn't how you (Andrew) proposed an answer to eatmybishop's original topic question. Here it is:

[b]==========================================

accept the universe g ...[text shortened]... permenant salvation of God throught His resurrected Son Jesus Christ.

the kingdom of god cannot exist in this universe. the laws must be changed. whether the laws are changed or an entirely new universe is created is irrelevant. what matters is that you cannot use the bible to describe this universe. and of course all your long post depends on the fact that the jesus man and his religion is the one valid religion. maybe buddhism is or islam.

you cannot hope to have a decent logical conversation, even in spirituality if you insist on not only bending the universe to fit the bible which is foremost written by jewish shepherds 2000 and more years ago but you also insist on explaining the universe basing your view solely on the bible when you don't know if it is the only correct religion.

logic should apply in spirituality also. for me this forum is not about quoting from the bible, but expressing views from a spiritual point of view, whether it is muslim, jewish or hindu. there is a difference between saying that jesus is the son of god and saying that genesis describes the beginning and the apocalypse exactly how the universe will end.

if i am claiming the easter bunny exists i am no longer spiritual. when i have proof that the earth is 4 billion years and still claim that god made the world only 6000 years ago i am no longer spiritual.

==============================
the kingdom of god cannot exist in this universe.
=====================================

The question was about can one's mind accept or not certain proposals. I am expressing what is in my mind.

Above here what have you done that I have not? Isn't this an expression of your opinion about the matter?

============================
the laws must be changed.
==============================

Here you express your reasons for your belief. Why can't I express my reasons about mine?

=======================================
whether the laws are changed or an entirely new universe is created is irrelevant.
====================================

This seems a bit contradictory. You just said the laws must be changed. Now you say it is irrelevant.

I am opened to hear your opinion. But try to make it consistent and don't forbid me for presenting my logic in the way I choose also.

=======================================
what matters is that you cannot use the bible to describe this universe.
===================================

I don't see why not. I may not be able to discribe what is on the dark side of the moon with a Bible passage. But generally speaking one can use the Bible to talk about the universe.

I think your statement is blantantly false. A description of the universe does not have to be an exhaustive discription, otherwise no human language of any kind would be able to "describe the universe."

=========================================
and of course all your long post depends on the fact that the jesus man and his religion is the one valid religion. maybe buddhism is or islam.
========================================

Well, no position is the easiest to defend. Why are you annoyed because I have chosen a position on a world view?

I never said that there was no truth whatsoever in Buddhism. I believe to a degree there is. I never said that there is absolutely no truth in Islam. To a degree there is.

Actually I never said that Christianity as a religion has the only truth either. You rarely if ever hear me mention Christianity. I am a seeker for truth. I am not here to preserve any "anity". That may mean a lot of different things to different people.

=======================================
you cannot hope to have a decent logical conversation, even in spirituality if you insist on not only bending the universe to fit the bible which is foremost written by jewish shepherds 2000 and more years ago
========================================

Your prejudicial statements above don't seem to encourage much logical conversation either.

First of all shepherds were not the only ones to write the New Testament of the Bible. Luke was a medical physician. And Paul was a renown Jewish scholar. He wrote 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Matthew was a tax collector. John was a fisherman as was Peter.

As to the Old Testament you have writers who were military generals, governors, kings, poets, statesmen, farmers, priests.

Did you mention logical discussion? Concerning the Bible try some logical research into authors of the 66 books rather than random bias and ignorant statements.

======================================
but you also insist on explaining the universe basing your view solely on the bible when you don't know if it is the only correct religion.
=========================================

I would not use the word "solely". In this particular point that I am making I am applying the Bible as might be expected on this Spirituality Forum.

I do not mean that we should not continue studying cosmology or astronomy. I am simply giving my reasons for my thoughts on the initial question which I think is my right to do so.

==========================================
logic should apply in spirituality also.
====================================

I am waiting to see some from you in this post.

Eatmybishop asked what our minds could accept or not. I give my reasons for my answers and why certain passages in the Bible influence the way I think.

You say "Can't do that." Says who?



========================================
for me this forum is not about quoting from the bible,
======================================

That's nice for you. You may find it a waste of your time to read my posts. I will quote the Bible without the slightest sense of shame that I should not.

Get use to it or ignore me.

=========================================
but expressing views from a spiritual point of view, whether it is muslim, jewish or hindu.
========================================

I haven't stopped any Hindus or Jews or Muslims from expressing their convictions. If I have show me where.

Only when some Muslim like ashosney ( I think ) made statements about NT teaching with which I did not agree were made did I debate him.

You haven't caught me forbidding ANY Muslim or Jew or Buddhist or Hindu from coming here and thumping their books as I do the Bible.

I usually only comment if I find a statment that I consider a false representation of the teaching of the Bible. No one here I don't think has ever said "Christians Only Here"

If I ever do, ask the Moderators of the Forum to send me a warning.
Otherwise let me speak too like anyone else.

====================================
there is a difference between saying that jesus is the son of god and saying that genesis describes the beginning and the apocalypse exactly how the universe will end.
=========================================

Now you are engaging me in Bible talk. However, I am not sure what you mean.

I don't think a short paragraph can deal with this concept of yours here.

Hey! Now that's one effective way to shut me up.

============================================
if i am claiming the easter bunny exists i am no longer spiritual. when i have proof that the earth is 4 billion years and still claim that god made the world only 6000 years ago i am no longer spiritual.
===============================================

This paragraph assumes that I hold to a 6,000 year old universe.

You didn't ask me. Maybe some Young Earth Creationists has a reply for you here. I am an Old Earth Creationist type.


To the initial Discussion Questions on this Spirituality Forum.

1.) I don't accept that the universe always was in existence.

2.) I can accept that in some form it always and forever will continue, but not unrelated to the resurrection of Christ and His accompanying salvation.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================
the kingdom of god cannot exist in this universe.
=====================================

The question was about can one's mind accept or not certain proposals. I am expressing what is in my mind.

Above here what have you done that I have not? Isn't this an expression of your opinion about the matter? ...[text shortened]... nrelated to the resurrection of Christ and His accompanying salvation.[/b]

you only use the bible to describe the universe. and the bible doesn't say how a star is born or how fusion works. it simply states that there was day and night before the sun was made.

how can you call logic posting from a single source random verses that could be interpreted in quite a few number of ways.

you are free to express your view. i didn't denied it. i denied your claim that the bible explains the world. your so called renowned scholars and physicians believed the earth was flat. that should be enough argument against your mighty scientists. how can they have a basic grasp of what the universe is like? and don't try and sell the holy spirit idea to me. paul was a man who didn't even met jesus but he perhaps had the most influence on christianity of the apostles. perhaps he made more rules than jesus. and you constantly quote from his writings.

a description of the universe to have any value other than literary must carry some understanding some knowledge. saying that there will be a magical kingdom someday, in which there would be some laws of physics(other than today) and the lamb and the wolf would sing karaoke as friends is not really a description of this universe. which was the point we were discussing. if the main source of your arguments can be interpreted in more than one way, you cannot possibly present one of that interpretations as true and still expect to be logical.

you are being spiritual not logical. logic is not vague and cannot be interpreted in many ways. if you expect me and others who think that the bible contains mostly not a single shred of valid scientifical fact to be debating you on logic, then you must bring your arguments from other sources as well. to be receptive to reason. and to stop using "the bible says so". or you could say that logic is not your domain, that scientific facts are too trivial for you and that you prefer spirituality. and yes, i will ignore you then.

Just a note, Almost no one throughout history since before the Greeks thought the world was flat, this is a myth, a popular myth, enshrined in many films and even some textbooks, but still a myth.