Originally posted by FreakyKBH😀😀
[b]Space is above the cause-effect law
Really? How so?
but, since this is not mentioned in the "holy scripture" of your religion, which in your opinion is not a religion, you dismiss it and you accept the idea of an intelligent god who "created" the space.
Actually, space is mentioned in the Bible.
Care to take another swing?[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf I was telling you that according to the latest scientific finds and evidence we can obviously support the model known as “inflation”, in which the Hubble expansion was preceded by an exponential expansion lasting about 10-35 sec during which the universe increased in size by hundreds of orders of magnitude, would you were able to think about it even for a nanosec?
[b]Space is above the cause-effect law
Really? How so?
but, since this is not mentioned in the "holy scripture" of your religion, which in your opinion is not a religion, you dismiss it and you accept the idea of an intelligent god who "created" the space.
Actually, space is mentioned in the Bible.
Care to take another swing?[/b]
Furthermore, if you were able to understand that the model of the inflation implies that the greatest portion of the universe that exploded from the same source lies beyond our visible horizon, the farthest distance we can see given the finite propagation speed of light, would you dig it for a min or two just for a change?
Furthermore, would you be able to understand that this rapid expansion flattened out the geometry of the universe in analogy to the surface of a large balloon and then it implied that the energy density of the universe is very close to what it should be if the universe began with zero total energy?
Would you be then able to understand that no energy from outside was required in order to produce the universe, and that the birth of the universe does not violate the law of conservation of energy or any other basic principle of physics?
This theory of reality is just one amongst the many models of inflation that it cannot be verified empirically and at the same time it cannot be falsified. Therefore, for the time being the science and the philosophy cannot provide an answer regarding the origin of space other that the following:
-- “For the time being we are free to assume that the origin of space stands above the Cause-Effect law”.
Of course it would be a further waste of time to back you up with bibliography, so I don't bother.
And then you are coming along, asking blissfully “Really? How so?”, ready to demonstrate once more the illustrious way you place your absurd theological mambo-jumbo in motion. It seems to me that you could never dare to trade your sophisms and your religionism with common sens and scientific facts and evidence. This is you, Freaky, and that’s all😵
Originally posted by black beetleThat's all well and good, but you're once again missing the point.
Your five answers about the nature of your religion prove that you do follow certain physical, psychological and emotional demands that are required from the Christian religion, which are the following:
The Christian religion is founded on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who is (considered by the Christians and by yourself) the son of Go ...[text shortened]... obvious that you do follow a religion although you insist that you do not follow a religion
😵
To be saved according to the Scriptures, one need not 'do' any of the mentioned affirmatives. To be saved, one merely needs to accept that the action executed by Lord Jesus Christ did on the cross was done for them, personally. An exchange, really. However, in this exchange, the unbeliever does nothing more than exchange their absence of life for life itself.
Whatever a person feels about that exchange is inconsequential. So too, is any consideration relative to their beliefs about miracles, the Bible, creation, or any number of other topics. Moreover, any action on the part of the unbeliever is irrelevant--- as is any action on the part of the believer. The only thing that matters in the question of salvation: what do you think of the Christ? One either accepts or rejects the gift. Period.
Contrast that to any fill-in-the-blank religion, wherein adherents have a litany of postures, actions, emotions and etc., which they must fulfill in order to reach the supposedly desired locale.
That being said, a Christian's real worship of the Lord Jesus Christ is an overflow of their proper thinking--- decidedly not a yoke under which they labor. The same is true of all other aspects of a mature believer's functions on this planet.
Swing again?
Originally posted by black beetleIf I was telling you that according to the latest scientific finds... would you were able to think about it even for a nanosec?
If I was telling you that according to the latest scientific finds and evidence we can obviously support the model known as “inflation”, in which the Hubble expansion was preceded by an exponential expansion lasting about 10-35 sec during which the universe increased in size by hundreds of orders of magnitude, would you were able to think about it even ...[text shortened]... onism with common sens and scientific facts and evidence. This is you, Freaky, and that’s all😵
No, not with my feeble mind. Maybe you could lend me a little of your wide canvass, paint me stick figures in the corner to help me figure it all out.
Sheesh.
... the universe increased in size by hundreds of orders of magnitude...
Oh. You mean that universe that is, itself, above cause and effect? That one? I see now.
This theory of reality is just one amongst the many models of inflation...
And, as an added bonus, it is the one you like the most. Of course, it isn't anything other than a theory, has zero impact on life as we live it, and does nothing to answer the most compelling question of the blinded mind: why?
Other than that, it makes for great reading.
Of course it would be a further waste of time to back you up with bibliography, so I don't bother.
As if all the other accolades weren't enough, you're telling me this chief-among-chiefs theory has written a list of books? Wonder of wonders!
Oh, and I see you deftly sidestepped the whole definition/deduction thang I called you on... among other missteps you've made.
After reading now several of your esoteric posts, Sir Beetle, I am beginning to wonder if you'd be able to find hay in a haystack. Keep up the wind, though: I hear Pickett's paying big bucks in an effort to harness that stuff.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSince "one has to be saved" and since you accept this premise and you act accordingly in order to be indeed saved, and since this action is related to your decision to "either accept or reject the gift", when "you accept the gift" as you do, I assume that you accept it with every power of yourself and that you worship the Christian Triune God with every power of yourself, therefore you worship him mentally and physically. So it is obvious that you do follow a religion although you insist that you do not follow a religion.
That's all well and good, but you're once again missing the point.
To be saved according to the Scriptures, one need not 'do' any of the mentioned affirmatives. To be saved, one merely needs to accept that the action executed by Lord Jesus Christ did on the cross was done for them, personally. An exchange, really. However, in this exchange, the unbel ...[text shortened]... true of all other aspects of a mature believer's functions on this planet.
Swing again?
You don't even have the guts to accept that you worship the Christian Triune God😵
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat an efficient argument (again)!
[b]If I was telling you that according to the latest scientific finds... would you were able to think about it even for a nanosec?
No, not with my feeble mind. Maybe you could lend me a little of your wide canvass, paint me stick figures in the corner to help me figure it all out.
Sheesh.
... the universe increased in size by hundreds of ord ...[text shortened]... p the wind, though: I hear Pickett's paying big bucks in an effort to harness that stuff.
😵
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNonsense, so I will reply solely to your "why".
[b]If I was telling you that according to the latest scientific finds... would you were able to think about it even for a nanosec?
No, not with my feeble mind. Maybe you could lend me a little of your wide canvass, paint me stick figures in the corner to help me figure it all out.
Sheesh.
... the universe increased in size by hundreds of ord ...[text shortened]... p the wind, though: I hear Pickett's paying big bucks in an effort to harness that stuff.
The answer to your "why" is obvious: for the time being there is no "because". You cannot grasp it, but that's life😵
edit: "Oh, and I see you deftly sidestepped the whole definition/deduction thang I called you on... among other missteps you've made."
Mind you, in Agora they considered the Sophists (the wannabe ones included) so laughable because a Sophist is indeed a joker.
I did not “deftly sidestepped the whole definition/deduction thang” you “called me on”; I just wanted once more to avoid sandbanging. I never sidestep. I have the power to understand when I am wrong -and then I hold myself fully responsible, I bow and I apologise honestly.
Regarding your argument about your definition and your deduction, my opinion is that a "definition" is a "statement expressing the essential nature of something". Of course there are correct definitions and false definitions as well. A generally accepted (thus non falsified, thus correct) definition of “religion” was offered by our friend rwingett at the thread titled “Define Religion”, and it was the following:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
Another (copy-pasted from a dictionary) generally accepted (thus non falsified, thus correct) definition of religion is the following:
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
And I could continue quoting accurate definitions ad infinitum.
But instead of defining religion properly, you said that “a religion is something man-made, employed with the intent to win the approbation of any form of diety”. Of course I replied you at once that this is just your personal definition of religion and that it is merely a description of how you understand the essense of the noun "religion". So I was clearly implying that your personal definition is not in accordance with the generally accepted (thus non falsified, thus correct) definition -but for the sake of the conversation I accepted it in order to prove you that in fact you have a religion regardless your absurd claims.
Therefore, since your definition is false due to the fact that it does not describe correctly the noun “religion”, your deduction is also false (because it is based on a false definition) although it is “a reasoning process where the conclusion follows from the premises with logical necessity”. All in all, this is just another pathetic sophism of yours.
On the other hand, since there are definitely religions that are not “employed with the intent to win the approbation of any form of diety” as you claim, kindly please educate me; I am eager to know the source that eased you to bring up your personal definition as you expressed it😵
Originally posted by black beetleI'll type this very slowly in hopes that you'll be able to understand it better this time through.
Since "one has to be saved" and since you accept this premise and you act accordingly in order to be indeed saved, and since this action is related to your decision to "either accept or reject the gift", when "you accept the gift" as you do, I assume that you accept it with every power of yourself and that you worship the Christian Triune God with every ...[text shortened]... on.
You don't even have the guts to accept that you worship the Christian Triune God😵
To be saved according to the Scriptures, one need not do anything. One either accepts or rejects the gift. Where's the work in that? Non-existent.
Following salvation, one now continues to make decisions. One will either follow the biblical mandate to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (in whatever varying degrees that may be accomplished)... or not.
Worship of God, while warranted, is not an issue in salvation--- is not an issue with respect of changing one's status from unbeliever to believer.
By your definition, any person giving anything/anyone what they consider to be the respect due them is practising a religion. The germane issue that separates a believer from an unbeliever is not worship, church attendance, tithing, Bible reading, singing or the like. The only issue is whether or not they accept what the Lord Jesus Christ did on the cross. Period. Very unreligious, that.
Originally posted by black beetleMind you, in Agora they considered the Sophists (the wannabe ones included) so laughable because a Sophist is indeed a joker.
edit: "Oh, and I see you deftly sidestepped the whole definition/deduction thang I called you on... among other missteps you've made."
Mind you, in Agora they considered the Sophists (the wannabe ones included) so laughable because a Sophist is indeed a joker.
I did not “deftly sidestepped the whole definition/deduction thang” you “called m ...[text shortened]... ow the source that eased you to bring up your personal definition as you expressed it😵
So tell me: in Agora, was the consensus pro-pasta, or were they more of an anti-pasta kind of crowd?
Exacty what is the point of your drivel? If I take it into a diner and order a cup of coffee, how much will I need to take from my pocket to satisfy the balance?
I just wanted once more to avoid sandbanging.
Oh, I see. You were purposely refraining from underperformance. Well, I must say that most of your ramblings appear to be going the opposite direction, but we'll just take your word for it.
A generally accepted (thus non falsified, thus correct)...
Whoa. You're definitely going to want to brush up on your understanding of that whole concept. I suggest starting with Popper.
But instead of defining religion properly, you said that “a religion is something man-made, employed with the intent to win the approbation of any form of diety”. Of course I replied you at once that this is just your personal definition of religion and that it is merely a description of how you understand the essense of the noun "religion".
"Properly?" Given that the definition offered is gleaned from Scripture, I would dare say that all others in conflict are necessarily the improper ones.
... your deduction is also false (because it is based on a false definition) although it is “a reasoning process where the conclusion follows from the premises with logical necessity”.
Only one small problem with that explanation, is that it doesn't at all fit the conversation from which the terms came from.
All in all, this is just another pathetic sophism of yours.
You really like that word, don't you. Was it on your Word-of-the-Day calendar that you got for your birthday?
On the other hand, since there are definitely religions that are not “employed with the intent to win the approbation of any form of diety”
True, there do exist a very small number of religions that do not acknowledge a diety (other than the self), but that's just a substitution with essentially the same results.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: “To be saved according to the Scriptures, one need not do anything. One either accepts or rejects the gift. Where's the work in that? Non-existent.”
I'll type this very slowly in hopes that you'll be able to understand it better this time through.
To be saved according to the Scriptures, one need not do anything. One either accepts or rejects the gift. Where's the work in that? Non-existent.
Following salvation, one now continues to make decisions. One will either follow the biblical mandate ...[text shortened]... t they accept what the Lord Jesus Christ did on the cross. Period. Very unreligious, that.
This is false; this approach is clearly religious, because a religion is “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion”. Indeed, over here the fundament set of beliefs is described solely in the Scriptures, and in fact you act according to that set of beliefs. Furthermore, at this stage the action of “accepting the gift” is “good work”, whilst the action of “rejecting the gift” is not “good work”. Therefore you follow a religion.
edit: “Following salvation, one now continues to make decisions. One will either follow the biblical mandate to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (in whatever varying degrees that may be accomplished)... or not.”
Exactly. This means that if one follows salvation (which is clearly the religious core belief of every soteriologic religion and also a specific fundamental core belief of the Christian religion), he has to make decisions (and act accordingly, and this is “work” too). So if one follows the “biblical blah blah blah” (ie “something that he believes in and follows devotedly&rdquo😉, in fact he follows the Christian religion, otherwise he does not follow it; therefore, this is “work” too. BTW, “the biblical mandate to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ in whatever varying degrees that may be accomplished” is in full accordance with the following definition of religion too: “a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”. Therefore you follow a religion.
edit: “Worship of God, while warranted, is not an issue in salvation--- is not an issue with respect of changing one's status from unbeliever to believer.”
I understand that in your opinion the worship of God is not an issue in relation with the issue of the salvation, however it remains a core issue because you admit that it is warranted anyway for other perspectives. Therefore, since the worship of God is indeed warranted, even not in relation with the issue of salvation, you follow a religion.
Now, just for a change, be specific: do you in person worship the Christian Triune God, or not?
edit: “By your definition, any person giving anything/anyone what they consider to be the respect due them is practising a religion. The germane issue that separates a believer from an unbeliever is not worship, church attendance, tithing, Bible reading, singing or the like. The only issue is whether or not they accept what the Lord Jesus Christ did on the cross. Period. Very unreligious, that.”
This is false. It is religious to the hilt according to the following definition of religion:
“something one believes in and follows devotedly”. Therefore, since you firmly believe that Jesus died solely in order to offer you the gift of salvation and you follow his specific doctrines in order to be saved (“work&rdquo😉, you definitely follow a religion.
😵
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOf course you would dare it, and you do it all the time -you twist everything in order to serve your personal interests. This is the reason why you do not even have the integrity to admit openly that you worship the Christian Triune God😵
[b]Mind you, in Agora they considered the Sophists (the wannabe ones included) so laughable because a Sophist is indeed a joker.
So tell me: in Agora, was the consensus pro-pasta, or were they more of an anti-pasta kind of crowd?
Exacty what is the point of your drivel? If I take it into a diner and order a cup of coffee, how much will I need to t ...[text shortened]... other than the self), but that's just a substitution with essentially the same results.[/b]
edit: "True, there do exist a very small number of religions that do not acknowledge a diety (other than the self), but that's just a substitution with essentially the same results."
This is false; it is not "a substitution with essentially the same results", because it attributes to the noun "religion" a false definition that you want to use it in order to promote the interests of the Christian denomination that you serve. Your personal definition of the noun "religion" is false, and you know it, and you do it on purpose and not because you are ignorant. This is just another pathetic attempt of yours to twist the reality and to avoid the obvious, ie to reject the fact that you follow the Christian religion.
😵