Just for a moment, let's put aside any characteristics of God and try and answer the "is there?" question. The basic equation behind Einstein's theory (we build our atomic bombs on it) is that matter and energy are inter-changeable. At the moment we are very good at turning matter into energy - just ask the inhabitants of japan if in doubt. If therefore energy had to be generated to produce matter, is it not logical that the source of that energy could be reasonably called "God"?
Originally posted by medullah Just for a moment, let's put aside any characteristics of God and try and answer the "is there?" question. The basic equation behind Einstein's theory (we build our atomic bombs on it) is that matter and energy are inter-changeable. At the moment we are very good at turning matter into energy - just ask the inhabitants of japan if in doubt. If therefore ...[text shortened]... uce matter, is it not logical that the source of that energy could be reasonably called "God"?
In the Eastern Orthodox churches, there is a differentiation between God's essence (or God as essence) and God's energies, which we see operating in the cosmos. I really can't expand more on that, since I am still studying it...
Originally posted by medullah ... At the moment we are very good at turning matter into energy - just ask the inhabitants of japan if in doubt. If therefore energy had to be generated to produce matter,...
Keep in mind that the destructive energy of the exploded atomic bomb is due to the motion of particles of matter. The damage it does is due to the extremely high speed of plutonium nuclei, electrons, neutrons, iron nuclei (from the steel shell of the bomb, which gets vaporized in the early part of the explosion) and so on.
Today I came upon a website. It's a pretty long read, but I think it might be of interest to some of the more thoughtful believers here at RHP. The heading of the item is 'Why I Am No Longer a Christian."
Originally posted by Paul Dirac Today I came upon a website. It's a pretty long read, but I think it might be of interest to some of the more thoughtful believers here at RHP. The heading of the item is 'Why I Am No Longer a Christian."
I continue to await Darfius' retraction of his accusation that I told a deliberate falsehood in discussing Matthew 27: 32. His statement was:
I like how you add "of the Guard's Barracks" as if it is anywhere in the book of Matthew. How do you know where they came out of? Why couldn't they have been coming out of Jerusalem proper? Lie #1.
As spelled out above, the Gospels make clear that the Roman guards led Jesus from the Praetorium, which is a word capable of several interpretations all military in character. One would be the "Guard's Barracks" although it is possible it meant "Pilate's Palace" as he was a military governor. Clearly there is no falsehood in using one translation over another. And in any case, it is clear where they were coming from, so Darfius is simply wrong to assert otherwise.
Therefore, his "Lie#1" statement is a false accusation and if he had a shred of common decency he would retract it.
I notice that Darfius and others of his Fundamentalist views have a tendency to simply walk away from discussions when they are proven wrong rather than admitting their error. This is another characteristic of theirs which shows their obvious weaknesses in debate skills as well as their lack of common decency towards others. Not very "Christian" behavior is it, Darfius?
Originally posted by no1marauder I notice that Darfius and others of his Fundamentalist views have a tendency to simply walk away from discussions when they are proven wrong rather than admitting their error. This is another characteristic of theirs which shows their obvious weaknesses in debate skills as well as their lack of common decency towards others. Not very "Christian" behavior is it, Darfius?
With all due respect no1, this is kinda rich coming from you.
Originally posted by pcaspian Originally posted by no1marauder [b]
I notice that Darfius and others of his Fundamentalist views have a tendency to simply walk away from discussions when they are proven wrong rather than admitting their error. This is another characteristic of theirs which shows their obvious weaknesses in debate skills as well as their lack of common dec ...[text shortened]... behavior is it, Darfius?
With all due respect no1, this is kinda rich coming from you. [/b]
Well, some might say you didn't finish the "Deaf" debate to its completion and that was just a few days ago. Personally I felt this was the case, but couldn't really be arse to push the issue. Either way just assume that if he doesn't care to respond to your direct questioning more than once, he probably realises the error of his ways.
Originally posted by pcaspian Originally posted by no1marauder [b] How so?
Well, some might say you didn't finish the "Deaf" debate to its completion and that was just a few days ago. Personally I felt this was the case, but couldn't really ...[text shortened]... ng more than once, he probably realises the error of his ways.
[/b]
I would disagree with your assessment of the "Deaf" thread; I pretty much answered all your questions, but you were attempting to take the discussion into my personal views of the morality of other people's actions whereas I had already said I was interested in discussing legal issues, not personal moral beliefs. Therefore, what you wanted to discuss was more relevant to Nemesio's posts than mine so I left it to you two as I did not feel I had anything more relevant to say.
Here, Darfius directly accused me of lying. Since I did not, he should retract the accusation. Should he not want to reply to my posts that's his prerogative, but he should have the common decency not to "bear false witness" against me; I read somewhere that that is "un-Christian".
Originally posted by no1marauder I would disagree with your assessment of the "Deaf" thread; I pretty much answered all your questions, but you were attempting to take the discussion into my personal views of the morality of other people's actions whereas I had already said I was interested in discussing legal issues, not personal moral beliefs. Therefore, what you wanted to discuss was more relevant to Nemesio's posts than mine so I left it to you two as I did not feel I had anything more relevant to say.
Fair enough, however you would have to view it from another's perspective. Both Ivan and I were never under the impression your view was purely one of a legal stance.
eg: "I prefer not to dance. The people in this thread wanted a deaf child and they "engineered" it to increase the chances that the child would be deaf. I believe that you stated that was wrong; if I am incorrect merely say that you don't think that it was wrong. If you do think it was wrong, explain to me why deaf people "of course" should be able to have children knowing that they are increasing the risks of deafness in their children, but that it was "wrong" for this couple to do the same thing."
Ofcourse I can find undertones of legality in some of your threads in that post, however your retreat from the "moral" aspect of the argument using the excuse of not being a philosopher would lead me to believe you seldom hold or post opinions based on your moral code. I wasn't under the impression your opinions on RHP were mostly based on the legal aspect of morality.
Here, Darfius directly accused me of lying. Since I did not, he should retract the accusation. Should he not want to reply to my posts that's his prerogative, but he should have the common decency not to "bear false witness" against me; I read somewhere that that is "un-Christian".
Indeed you are correct. Should Darfius believe he accused you falsely, he should apologise. Amuzingly that is a trait of Darfius, Ivan and I; irrespective of our 'allegiance' we are still able to oppose each other's views infront of a "wolfpack" member 😉 Just keep in mind it may be difficult to admit your error to someone you dislike greatly.
Originally posted by pcaspian [b/]Originally posted by no1marauder I would disagree with your assessment of the "Deaf" thread; I pretty much answered all your questions, but you were attempting to take the discussion into my personal views of the mora ...[text shortened]... be difficult to admit your error to someone you dislike greatly.
You raise a fair point; I will look over your last post in the "Deaf" thread and respond to it later tonight although I believe in the post cited I was merely responding to your attempts to discuss morality whereas I only started posting in the thread to respond to some assertions that the couple in question face some legal sanction, criminal and/or civil. I will attempt to make my position clearer there, however.
EDIT: I don't ask Darfius to apologize as I doubt it would be sincere and thus would be meaningless; a simple retraction of the statement that I told a deliberate falsehood in my post would suffice.
Originally posted by no1marauder You raise a fair point; I will look over your last post in the "Deaf" thread and respond to it later tonight although I believe in the post cited I was merely responding to your attempts to discuss morality whereas I only started posting in the thread to respond to some assertions that the couple in question face some legal sanction, criminal an ...[text shortened]... simple retraction of the statement that I told a deliberate falsehood in my post would suffice.
Well, I will apologize. I did not completely understand what was meant by the word. I was in error.
I still do not believe that Simon carried it the whole way, because that was not the practice of the Romans, to find someone else to carry the cross. I believe due to Jesus' weakness, Simon was summoned.
Unless you can find another source of someone other than the victim carrying his cross?
is there a god?
13 Mar '05 16:21
Back to Top