sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Jesus was no more immune to pain or death than you are. You can live for all time, too.those tiny pinpricks are nothing to someone immune to death, and can live for all time.
No sacrifice.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus was no more immune to pain or death than you are. You can live for all time, too.those tiny pinpricks are nothing to someone immune to death, and can live for all time.
No sacrifice.
Both must be engaged. One should go to the person one has hurt and ask forgiveness. One should also go to God and ask forgiveness, for it is ultimately God's creation that is hurt. This isn't about law. It's about relationship, and maintaining relationships in love.the point is a Chrisitan making atonement to God for harm he did to a human, does NOT redress any such sin to teh hurt human.
It's like suing someone for pain and suffering they caused you in an accident. and the government getting all the money.
In real life, the person who suffered gets the money. get it yet?
Atonement to God for such sin is totally pointless.
But i cant walk on water,Can i.Jesus was fully human, too. Just like you.
Originally Posted by idea
I believe God is omnipotent - evil exists for free will to exist / for us to be refined / to be tested / to gain appreciation etc. etc. He allows it to exist temporarily for the above reasons - but does not cause evil, nor is evil a part of God.
(New Testament | 1 John 1:5) God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Are you saying that free will exists temporarily?
both Matthew and Luke corroborate in their respective 17th chapters that Jesus is quoted as saying that, if we have faith the size of a mustard seed, we could move mountains.But i cant walk on water,Can i.
i got a human father,my father is human as i.
i cant heal the blind,Can i.
i cant heal the leper,Can i.
i cant heal the paralytic,Can i.
i cant ressurrect the dead,Can i.
i cant....icant............
AM I JUST LIKE JESUS
The laws of the universe. It acted in an orderly fashion. Expanding outwards.
This doesn't make sense? It is directly related to energy input, entropy cannot decrease in any system without energy input. Therefore unless that energy input is based on probability then it is not probabilistic. What is the probability of energy being put into the universe and how is it calculated?
Yep!
What purpose are you talking about? You talked about circulatory systems and all that and now you added in this "purpose"?
All of the parameters that permit life. That's the point, you are adding value to a universe that permits life, you think that inherently more valuable than a universe that does not. Remove that value and what conclusions can be drawn? Well, this universe is just as likely to occur as any other universe and subsequently the argument of design applies to every universe in the exact same way. No matter what exists or what laws control what exists someone can say that those laws and that existence is "precise" and therefore could not exist without being designed by intelligence. This renders the argument from design meaningless.
And this further demonstrates my point. You are envisioning that our universe is the white ball. Why? Why isn't it one of the black balls? Simple, you think it being life permitting is valuable and it distinguishes our universe from all of the others.
Funny how according to your argument, every universe is just as special based on the exact same method of calculation. Why is life permitting entropy levels any different to non-life permitting ones? How does that make our universes necessarily designed and other universes not so?
"If it will contain life". Why does it have to? The subjective value and meaning you put on life's existence is not explained by your argument, it is just assumed.
But you said that life couldn't come about through natural processes? Are you saying that evolution and abiogenesis is potentially true? That intelligence came from non-intelligence? Because I could have sworn you've said the exact opposite all of this argument. Do you believe that the natural processes of the universe caused life and intelligence directly that God had no more hand in it than creating the natural forces of the universe? If so, I don't know what we're arguing about.
What you are doing is unveiling your unrealistic expectations and your reliance on ignorance. If we don't know exactly how life came from non-life or intelligence from non-intelligence or even whether it could well it must not have! It must have been God! That's what your arguments have amounted to, you haven't put anything forward, you've just asserted that science can't answer the question.
Because that's exactly what it did. This goes a long way to demonstrating the possibility of intelligence originating from non-intelligent organisms. it doesn't show that it's true and I never claimed that it did but it certainly shows potential and possibility.
And I plan to again, it's off topic and pointless to discuss due to your unrealistic expectations. You won't get an answer and you don't want one.
What really doesn't matter is whether God was content in his being, without time God would be as he always was when time began God was capable of change. Before time, God was not, he could not cause himself to move, to think, to create. God relied on time's beginning to do anything.
Because thinking is a form of change and it takes time. Without time, thinking cannot be done.
Of course. Without time, how could one be aware of time?
Saying perfectly still is meaningless in this situation, you have no option but to be still, without time you cannot move, think or do anything.
How could you begin to move your leg though? Without time, the thought process that goes into moving your muscles does not occur, time has to exist prior to your movement, prior to the thought of your movement.
They think they know. They couldn't all know because there are many different theories that conflict with each other. And I don't think any of them actually know.
It is fine to say, "I don't know." Scientifically speaking, emperically speaking, nobody knows.
Perhaps your faith isn't what it needs to be, if you "can't...?"
both Matthew and Luke corroborate in their respective 17th chapters that Jesus is quoted as saying that, if we have faith the size of a mustard seed, we could move mountains.
Peter healed people and cast out demons.
Peter began to walk on the water, until he began to doubt.
Jesus said that we would do greater things than he.
Jesus had disciples. A teacher teaches disciples what he knows. Yes, Jesus expects that we will become as he is.
LOL, dude, for the fifth time. If I have been sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity (in a timeless state), there is no before or after i began sitting. If you take away these temporal terms, you are left with timelessness. If I begin to move my leg, that is the first change. There were no moments leading up to me moving my leg, but there is moments after. So after I move my leg, time begins.....1,2,3,4,5,6,etc (these are seconds). The #1 represents the first distinguishable point on the time scale. This present moment relative to the expansion of the universe is 13.7 billion years.
Jesus was no more immune to pain or death than you are. You can live for all time, too.
Both must be engaged. One should go to the person one has hurt and ask forgiveness. One should also go to God and ask forgiveness, for it is ultimately God's creation that is hurt. This isn't about law. It's about relationship, and maintaining relationships in love.
Get it yet?
You believe one thing -- I believe another. I'm just stating my position. Points don't remain, unless you can prove that "I'm wrong." I submit that all die and are reborn. I submit that even Jesus died and was resurrected. That's my stance. It's no more "bunk" than yours.No I cannot live for all time, that's dogma bunk. And Jesus was immune to death. He rose. You're not going to rise. Points remain.
I don't believe in substitutionary atonement, so you're preaching to the choir here. This isn't "my dogma."No, both aren't engaged. You Christians do NOT stress that the person hurt must be appeased. Your vicarious atonement, you believe, suffices. It's not like we're not familiar with your dogma. God has no direct involvement and still demands the money, in my comparison. he's not involved at all. How can an action harm an omnipotent being? You lot keep trying to swap whether God is a man or a God, depending on how badly you want someone punished. Love does NOT keep track of offenses, therefore, god does not love you.
Jesus is fully God. Jesus is fully human.
Philippians 2 would disagree with you.I have read this sentence several times already. However, how should one interpret it?
At first glance, being fully human includes being imposed to several limitations while the same doesn't happen to a fully God being.
I can't believe you are still into this after all this time.
To say that you have been sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity you have to use the present perfect continuous. This is not timelessness.
You are sitting, this is an action happening. You can not conjugate any verb when you want to describe a state of everything being timeless. Otherwise you contradict yourself.
Philippians 2 would disagree with you.
Apparently, Jesus wasn't limited by mortality. Apparently, God is limited by our ability to choose.
So, if i have been sitting perfectly still for eternity, there was never a moment leading up to my sitting, nor was there ever a moment to proceed my sitting,so how the heck is my "sitting" state an act of time??? Before you try to deal with anything else, you need to deal with this. In order to continue something, you have to start something, and this is just not the case here.