Fighting Two Fronts

[Thief]

God does not hide anything from anyone. He granted us several of His attributes, but not the one of eternal life. This is understood from Genesis 3:22, when he cast man out of the Garden of Eden, it was so that he would not eat from the tree of life and live forever. So, there is no mystery in the denial of eternal life to man. We have only to study the Scriptures and try to understand what God has determined for man.

Your quoting techniques will lead third parties confused as to who said what.

And you are confusing eternal life...physically....
with eternal life....spiritually.

 

[Ben Masada]

Your quoting techniques will lead third parties confused as to who said what.

And you are confusing eternal life...physically....
with eternal life....spiritually.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant to say that when God cast out Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, the purpose was so that Man would not eat from the tree of life and live forever. That's all. No other reason. And if I am confusing eternal life physically with eternal life spiritually, what did God mean in Genesis 3:22? Better yet, I am sure that you believe that Jesus resurrected from the dead. How did he come out of the tomb, in his physical body or just spiritually? Think before you answer, that he drank and ate for 40 days with his disciples just like before he had died. Okay, now go ahead. I am all ears.

 

[Ben Masada]

I don't want to belabor this but:

Unifying mass and energy

The most famous work of Einstein’s life also dates from 1905 (a busy year for him), when he applied the ideas of his relativity paper to come up with the equation E=mc2 that represents the relationship between mass (m) and energy (E).
In a nutshell, Einstein found that as an object approached the speed of light, c, the mass of the object increased. The object goes faster, but it also gets heavier. If it were actually able to move at c, the object’s mass and energy would both be infinite. A heavier object is harder to speed up, so it’s impossible to ever actually get the particle up to a speed of c.
Until Einstein, the concepts of mass and energy were viewed as completely separate. He proved that the principles of conservation of mass and conservation of energy are part of the same larger, unified principle, conservation of mass-energy. Matter can be turned into energy and energy can be turned into matter because a fundamental connection exists between the two types of substance.

Read more: Einstein's Special Relativity - For Dummies​

Please ignore the fact the info comes from a For Dummies site...I just wanted something concise and quick.​

I have no problem understanding the relationship or connection between mass and energy. But being mass the concentration or density of matter, energy cannot be produced without matter. The other way around is illogical. Now, that matter expands under the speed of light, it could be a reason to explain the expansion of the universe. BTW, I have just watched a feature in the History channel that it is still unknown how the universe expands. It means, we are still dealing with a theory. Last but not least, to bring the issue to the reason why we are debating, the point is that whatever you have researched so far does not explain what Einstein has proved with his formula E=mc2. It does not prove that the phenomenon has existed from eternity to eternity. It must have had a beginning to justify the end with massive explosions in the universe of body-matters whose mass has expanded beyond their capacity under the speed of light. My point still stands that the universe reveals the handiworks of God, according to Psalm 19:1.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ad hominem and a red herring. I'm not asking you to explain the atheist position, I'm asking you to explain your own.


I disagree, but it's a moot point since many (most?) atheists don't refer to the universe as "eternal".


Are you operating under the assumption that anyone who honestly seeks will arrive at the same conclusions that you did?

I am not sure you are really interested in the explanation of my position. When are atheists ever ready to consider the position of Theists? And if most atheists don't refer to the universe as eternal, logically, it had a beginning. How far is this position from considering the possibility of the Creator? And with regards to your last question, it's a possibility. Don't you honestly think so?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I have no problem understanding the relationship or connection between mass and energy. But being mass the concentration or density of matter, energy cannot be produced without matter. The other way around is illogical. Now, that matter expands under the speed of light, it could be a reason to explain the expansion of the universe. BTW, I have just watched a feature in the History channel that it is still unknown how the universe expands. It means, we are still dealing with a theory. Last but not least, to bring the issue to the reason why we are debating, the point is that whatever you have researched so far does not explain what Einstein has proved with his formula E=mc2. It does not prove that the phenomenon has existed from eternity to eternity. It must have had a beginning to justify the end with massive explosions in the universe of body-matters whose mass has expanded beyond their capacity under the speed of light. My point still stands that the universe reveals the handiworks of God, according to Psalm 19:1.

I am sorry I do not get the gist of what you are saying.

This universe indeed has a beginning and an end...it is finite in all respects...however it is not the only universe to exist...if this is the only universe in all of existence then there must be a God.
But the evidence of zero point energy suggests that other universes do exist..possibly within black hole singularities...possibly in other branes.
Dark matter may also provide evidence...gravitons from other branes...if the normalising of infinities is valid.

 

[Masourga]

You all seem to be writing (with confidence) without a clue as to what you are talking about. I give no credit to anyone who talks about "definitive" this and "certain" that when proposing the size/constraints/origin of the universe using only the knowledge humankind has so far gathered. It's dumb.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not sure you are really interested in the explanation of my position. When are atheists ever ready to consider the position of Theists?

You know, you might find you get better results with people if you weren't so quick to prejudge them.

And if most atheists don't refer to the universe as eternal, logically, it had a beginning.

No, it doesn't mean this.

Not accepting one claim doesn't mean that you necessarily accept the opposite claim. You can simply acknowledge that you don't know.

How far is this position from considering the possibility of the Creator? And with regards to your last question, it's a possibility. Don't you honestly think so?

No, I don't. I think that different people can honestly come to many different positions depending on their starting assumptions and the facts they have available to them.

 

[LuisDantas]

If to believe in God is not important to you, why are you wasting your time in this forum?

Because one has little to do with the other, of course.

I know that either God exists or not, either the universe exists or not, nothing will change in my way to live my life.

Actually, God does exist. As a belief. In fact, as a whole family of beliefs, since there are so many conceptions of God.

But it is important to me to know if I have been mistaken all my life.

Mistaken about what? Belief in God?

So far, no help is coming from Atheists or from Science.

Well, IMO that is one of the main roles of Religion - to teach people how not to be so dependent on the belief of God.

 

[kylixguru]

No gnomon, Jews do not proselytize. People are too concerned about a good reward in the afterlife and we have nothing to offer them but a cold grave that will turn them into nothing but dust.
Ben

The part you seem to forget is that dust is what man is created from.

Do you believe what Job said in chapter 19:

25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
​

Have a nice day!

 

[Thief]

Sorry for the confusion. I meant to say that when God cast out Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, the purpose was so that Man would not eat from the tree of life and live forever. That's all. No other reason. And if I am confusing eternal life physically with eternal life spiritually, what did God mean in Genesis 3:22? Better yet, I am sure that you believe that Jesus resurrected from the dead. How did he come out of the tomb, in his physical body or just spiritually? Think before you answer, that he drank and ate for 40 days with his disciples just like before he had died. Okay, now go ahead. I am all ears.

All ears...and nothing else.....

having acquired the knowledge of good and evil.....
Man became spiritual.
No longer just another animal.
'...they have become like us....'

The garden had served it's purpose.

 

[Ben Masada]

I am sorry I do not get the gist of what you are saying.

This universe indeed has a beginning and an end...it is finite in all respects...however it is not the only universe to exist...if this is the only universe in all of existence then there must be a God.
But the evidence of zero point energy suggests that other universes do exist..possibly within black hole singularities...possibly in other branes.
Dark matter may also provide evidence...gravitons from other branes...if the normalising of infinities is valid.

All universes have had a beginning and an end. In fact, I have watched another feature about other universes existing simultaneously. That's a theory which could never become a fact, unless you mean galaxies. Galaxies yes, there are many but all parts of the same universe. And with regards to black holes, another Cosmologist in the same program said it could be an illusion. There is nothing 100 percent sure about black holes. And for dark matter it constitutes no evidence of other universes. It is part of the same universe as physical objects or particles that emit little or no detectable radiation. It is postulated to exist only because of unexplained gravitational forces observed on other astronomical objects.

BTW, I don't understand why we are discussing Cosmology. I am not an expert in Cosmology and this is not the issue at hand. The subject is Theology. I believe in the Creator and you don't. And we just can't prove to each other why I do and why you don't.

 

[Ben Masada]

You know, you might find you get better results with people if you weren't so quick to prejudge them.

Not accepting one claim doesn't mean that you necessarily accept the opposite claim. You can simply acknowledge that you don't know.

Okay, I am Jewish, different from the religious one only in terms that I interpret the Bible metaphorically. I do believe in God, but God for me is a Spirit, and Incorporeal
at that. Therefore, with none of the anthropomorphic characteristics of the religious Theists and Atheists.

Now, when you say that one simply acknowledges that he does not know, does it mean you don't know that God exists? It could be that He does? Have I read you right? If it's so, that's new to me. I have debated many Atheists. They usually know just one thing: That God does not exist, which dooms the debate to become just a wasting of time.

 

[Ben Masada]

Because one has little to do with the other, of course.

So, it is important for you to believe or not to believe in God, right?

Actually, God does exist. As a belief. In fact, as a whole family of beliefs, since there are so many conceptions of God.

Which conception of God has a little to do with your way to find it important to believe in God?

Mistaken about what? Belief in God?

Nop. But with the right conception of God. Disappointed?

Well, IMO that is one of the main roles of Religion - to teach people how not to be so dependent on the belief of God.

I thought othewise. That dependence is rather too cherished by religions.

 

[Ben Masada]

The part you seem to forget is that dust is what man is created from.

Do you believe what Job said in chapter 19:

25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
​

Have a nice day!

No, I haven't forgotten it. It is written in Ecclesiastes 12:7. "And to the dust he will return." And what Job said in 19:25-27 is all related to his physical condition. This text in the KJV has been tempered with. In the original in Hebrew it says as follows:
25 - But I know that my Vindicator lives; and that at the end He will testify on earth. It means that Job believed in God in spite of what was happening to him. And that at the end of his condition God would testify of Job's faith in Him.
26 - This, after my skin will have been peeled off. But I would behold God while still in my flesh. This means that Job was sure of his survival and that he would continue serving God as before.
27 - I myself, not another, would behold Him; would see with my own eyes; my heart pines within me. Job is speaking of his allegiance to god still in his flesh.

Yes, I do believe in Job 19:25-27 but according to the originals in Hebrew.

 

[Ben Masada]

All ears...and nothing else.....

having acquired the knowledge of good and evil.....
Man became spiritual.
No longer just another animal.
'...they have become like us....'

The garden had served it's purpose.

Absolutely not. You know the meaning for the expression "all ears." That I am ready to listen to whatever you have to say.

So by having acquired the knowledge of good and evil, man became wiser. The first thing he learnt was that he didn't know anything. That he was completely naked. He had not been just another animal. He obeyed God although unaware of the real meaning of His will. Then, in "they have become like us," it means with God's attributes. Since not all God's attributes had been granted to man, God would remind us in Genesis 3:22 that also the attribute of eternity had not been granted to man. So, he could not live forever. He would have to die. It means that Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden not because they ate from the tree of knowledge but because they could not eat from the tree of life.

 

[kylixguru]

No, I haven't forgotten it. It is written in Ecclesiastes 12:7. "And to the dust he will return." And what Job said in 19:25-27 is all related to his physical condition. This text in the KJV has been tempered with. In the original in Hebrew it says as follows:
25 - But I know that my Vindicator lives; and that at the end He will testify on earth. It means that Job believed in God in spite of what was happening to him. And that at the end of his condition God would testify of Job's faith in Him.
26 - This, after my skin will have been peeled off. But I would behold God while still in my flesh. This means that Job was sure of his survival and that he would continue serving God as before.
27 - I myself, not another, would behold Him; would see with my own eyes; my heart pines within me. Job is speaking of his allegiance to god still in his flesh.

Yes, I do believe in Job 19:25-27 but according to the originals in Hebrew.

I can see how that interpretation can be derived. I'll give this a much closer look. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of some good materials on deciphering things from the original Hebrew?

I am not inclined toward seeing it this way because it doesn't calibrate with a "big picture" tapestry that I see woven throughout holy writ. If there is nothing of Job that survives his physical death that is ever brought into a fleshly body again, his existence is meaningless to himself.

Is the original Hebrew written in such a way that a person can legitimately read it either way? I know in a pure technical sense, if there isn't surrounding context, much of what we say in the English language has points of ambiguity leaving room for variant readings. I would like to understand the nature of Hebrew and the degree to which this might make things difficult to pin down precise meaning. If that difficulty is less present than it is in the English language, that would be quite helpful.

Also, if your interpretation is correct, how was what Job prophesied actually fulfilled in his immediate lifetime while still in his flesh rather than him speaking of living a life that he was assured gave him a place to live in the flesh (again) when God the Father had His advent in the flesh as well? Are you implying the Father lived in the flesh in the days of Job so that Job could behold Him in his flesh?

That's the biggest point of difficulty you will have to overcome to get me to believe your interpretation is the original intended meaning.

ADD: Job focused distinctly on the flesh and seeing with his own (fleshly) eyes God Himself in the latter-days. Is that in the Hebrew or not because I think you really would have to do violence to Job's words to turn it into what you say it is saying.

Have a nice day!

 

[kylixguru]

No, I haven't forgotten it. It is written in Ecclesiastes 12:7. "And to the dust he will return."

Have you ever considered looking at the phrase "to the dust he will return" in this manner?

I view Man or Adam as our Father and our God. The speck of "dust" from which Adam was created was an ordinary individual man like you or me. The entirety of creation as I see it pertains to people. This is why, for example, Isaiah used a mountain as a metaphor for a nation. It was just a very big pile of dust.

So, when Adam is told "from dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return" this can be understood that Adam would come back again in the same manner as before. In other words, Adam would have a second coming. He would transgress, fall and die, but unto another speck of dust (a man such as you or I) he would return. Then, our dear friend Job would also "return to dust" and behold his God with the eyes of his own flesh in the latter-days, which is when Adam is scheduled to have His advent in the flesh.

Just food for thought...

Have a nice day!

 

[Ben Masada]

I can see how that interpretation can be derived. I'll give this a much closer look. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of some good materials on deciphering things from the original Hebrew?

I am not inclined toward seeing it this way because it doesn't calibrate with a "big picture" tapestry that I see woven throughout holy writ. If there is nothing of Job that survives his physical death that is ever brought into a fleshly body again, his existence is meaningless to himself.

I don't see why. Everything in Job survived the physical death. His body recovered its previous condition and he was doubly blessed in everything, in propriety, in children and in health. Nothing meaningless about such an existence.

Is the original Hebrew written in such a way that a person can legitimately read it either way? I know in a pure technical sense, if there isn't surrounding context, much of what we say in the English language has points of ambiguity leaving room for variant readings. I would like to understand the nature of Hebrew and the degree to which this might make things difficult to pin down precise meaning. If that difficulty is less present than it is in the English language, that would be quite helpful.

I like to use the version in English rather than try to translate from the Hebrew, unless I notice a strong discrepancy, and unless I am dealing here with someone who speaks only in Hebrew.

Also, if your interpretation is correct, how was what Job prophesied actually fulfilled in his immediate lifetime while still in his flesh rather than him speaking of living a life that he was assured gave him a place to live in the flesh (again) when God the Father had His advent in the flesh as well? Are you implying the Father lived in the flesh in the days of Job so that Job could behold Him in his flesh?

I am not implying anything of the sort. My God is not like the anthropomorphic god of religions. The real God, Who is an Incorporeal Spirit would never reveal Himself in the flesh unless in a vision or dream. (Numb. 12:6)

That's the biggest point of difficulty you will have to overcome to get me to believe your interpretation is the original intended meaning.

I don't see why. I think that the problem is that you have in mind the anthropomorphic god of religions and I have the exoteric God of Jesus, according to John 4:24.

ADD: Job focused distinctly on the flesh and seeing with his own (fleshly) eyes God Himself in the latter-days. Is that in the Hebrew or not because I think you really would have to do violence to Job's words to turn it into what you say it is saying.

Not in the latter days but at the end of his ill condition, because he knew he would survive it. That's how it is in the Hebrew. This of latter days is an attempt at tempering with the text with the intent to insert Jesus in the picture.

 

[Ben Masada]

Have you ever considered looking at the phrase "to the dust he will return" in this manner?

I view Man or Adam as our Father and our God. The speck of "dust" from which Adam was created was an ordinary individual man like you or me. The entirety of creation as I see it pertains to people. This is why, for example, Isaiah used a mountain as a metaphor for a nation. It was just a very big pile of dust.

So, when Adam is told "from dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return" this can be understood that Adam would come back again in the same manner as before. In other words, Adam would have a second coming. He would transgress, fall and die, but unto another speck of dust (a man such as you or I) he would return. Then, our dear friend Job would also "return to dust" and behold his God with the eyes of his own flesh in the latter-days, which is when Adam is scheduled to have His advent in the flesh.

Just food for thought...

Have a nice day!

Yes, as you say, just food for thought. The truth is that no one will ever return. Remember Genesis 3:22. Return for what, to die over and over again? Because forever none will live. Tha's the Word of God.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, it is important for you to believe or not to believe in God, right?

As a strictly personal right, sure it is. It doesn't make much of a difference externally, nor is it supposed to.

Which conception of God has a little to do with your way to find it important to believe in God?

I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean. Generally speaking, I don't find belief in God important.

The only true exception happens when people use their belief in God as justification for otherwise unacceptable behavior.

Nop. But with the right conception of God. Disappointed?

I wasn't particularly hoping for anything, except for clarification. In that respect I am still disappointed. I really don't know what you mean.

I thought othewise. That dependence is rather too cherished by religions.

Not religions proper, IMO. Some forms of degeneration that claim to be religion, instead.