Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[Subduction Zone]

There is no more of a need for a "personal interpretation" of the Bible than there is for what you just wrote. Your intended message does not require any "personal interpretation" beyond knowing the commonly accepted definition of simple words. I trust my reply is equally clear. We may not agree, but I think it fair to way we know each other's position and it didn't require any agonizing over the meaning of simple words and statements.

All in all, this whole idea of "interpretation" is blown way out of proportion. There is actually a verse that makes all of this quite clear:

2 Pet 1:20,

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
​

Of course there are personal interpretations. That is all that you have. Most other Christians will disagree with your strained interpretation, but then most disagree with the interpretations of others. That is what makes them personal.

Your personal interpretation is of a lying and quite often evil God. Why would any rational person believe it?

 

[rrobs]

Your being overly optimistic trying to convert anyone without a coherent view of science, and attached to an ancient worldview of Creation. Even if you do change to believe in contemporary science, your efforts are still hopeless.

I believe in Creationism in harmony with science, without the conflicts of ancient world views.

One needs a Phd in science to be a Christian?

I believe true science is in perfect harmony with creationism. God is the energy that moved over the singularity and caused it to expand into our universe. I believe that any science that does not acknowledge that is a science built on sand. That explains why half of what science thinks is later proved false. I know the train of thought that says science is continually getting better, but who is to say the "better" will in the future also be proved wrong? Science is limited, that's all I'm saying.

 

[rrobs]

Of course there are personal interpretations. That is all that you have. Most other Christians will disagree with your strained interpretation, but then most disagree with the interpretations of others. That is what makes them personal.

Your personal interpretation is of a lying and quite often evil God. Why would any rational person believe it?

OK, so I interpret your words to be saying you are very sorry for ever having doubted anything I've said. Well, you are finally beginning to see the light. I'm glad for you. Which church will you attend tomorrow?

Come on now, if we all did that there would be no way whatsoever to carry on a meaningful conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so I interpret your words to be saying you are very sorry for ever having doubted anything I've said. Well, you are finally beginning to see the light. I'm glad for you. Which church will you attend tomorrow?

Come on now, if we all did that there would be no way whatsoever to carry on a meaningful conversation.

I see that reading comprehension appears to be a problem for you. That is a common trait among those that make the error of interpreting the Bible literally.

 

[rrobs]

I see that reading comprehension appears to be a problem for you. That is a common trait among those that make the error of interpreting the Bible literally.

Well if I can't take the scriptures literally, why should I take anything you say literally? I'm free to give whatever esoteric meaning I want about the things you write and you mine. We might as well just be saying, "banana, banana, banana" to each other. Then we could interpret each other's words as it suits our own purpose. Real communication is not like that and neither is the Bible. Not sure why that is such a hard concept to grasp.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if I can't take the scriptures literally, why should I take anything you say literally? I'm free to give whatever esoteric meaning I want about the things you write and you mine. We might as well just be saying, "banana, banana, banana" to each other. Then we could interpret each other's words as it suits our own purpose. Real communication is not like that and neither is the Bible. Not sure why that is such a hard concept to grasp.

One needs to try to apply reason to any communication. The problem with a literalistic approach to the Bible is that it makes God a liar, evil, and vain. And that is just a beginning.

Earlier you said that you approached the Bible with the same logic that scientists use in their work. That is commendable.

So what reasonable test based on the merits of your own beliefs could refute your beliefs?

 

[ppp]

True, but there is something in Genesis 1:22 about that.

No. There isn't. There is nothing there that says what your wife specifically thinks about your anatomy specifically.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hopeless??? Did you not get the part where I said every Christian was at one time not a Christian? Clearly there is hope for any non-Christian becoming a Christian.

Not so 90%+ Christians are born and raised in Christian families and peer groups.

You should have been there to hear my diatribe against God, the Bible, and Christians not even 24 hours before I got born again. You would have loved it!

No problem I know people personally who believe they had a transformation from atheist to Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, Buddhist, and others, from atheism and other beliefs. These claims are anecdotal and personal, nothing less and nothing more, and, of course believers who became non-believers like atheists and agnostics. Topic of another thread.

The problem here is an irrational non-scientific view of our physical existence based on ancient scripture and an ancient world view.

Selectively accepting science when it fits what you 'believe' is loaded with contradictions.

 

[rrobs]

One needs to try to apply reason to any communication. The problem with a literalistic approach to the Bible is that it makes God a liar, evil, and vain. And that is just a beginning.

I trust you understand there is a difference between the time before Jesus was raised from the dead and the time after that event. Do you think that may be relevant to the fact that the God described in the NT is different that how He is described in the OT? Could it be that Jesus brought new light that explains the apparent contradiction? Hint: yes it does.

You feel free to bring up the description of God in the OT as a liar, evil, and vain and yet you ignore the NT declaration that He is light and love, that He wants all people to be redeemed from death. That is not honest research. You must include all verses.

For now, I'll simply tell you there is a perfectly logical reason for the difference. See if you can figure it out. It's note very complicated, so you may be able figure it out on your own. If not, and you are sincerely interested, I'll point you in the right direction.

 

[rrobs]

Not so 90%+ Christians are born and raised in Christian families and peer groups.

90%? I have a small company I call Blind Statistics, otherwise called BS. I'd come up with the figure you gave by dividing the number of gays in San Francisco with the number of cowboys in Dallas. That would probably get as close to the actual number as your 90%.

But however many were born into Christian families, none of them were born Christians. The other consideration is that not all who call themselves Christian are necessarily Christian in the scriptural sense.

No problem I know people personally who believe they had a transformation from atheist to Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, Buddhist, and others, from atheism and other beliefs. These claims are anecdotal and personal, nothing less and nothing more, and, of course believers who became non-believers like atheists and agnostics. Topic of another thread.

Good point, but the scriptures are not dependent on people becoming one thing and then another. That's people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I trust you understand there is a difference between the time before Jesus was raised from the dead and the time after that event. Do you think that may be relevant to the fact that the God described in the NT is different that how He is described in the OT? Could it be that Jesus brought new light that explains the apparent contradiction? Hint: yes it does.

You feel free to bring up the description of God in the OT as a liar, evil, and vain and yet you ignore the NT declaration that He is light and love, that He wants all people to be redeemed from death. That is not honest research. You must include all verses.

For now, I'll simply tell you there is a perfectly logical reason for the difference. See if you can figure it out. It's note very complicated, so you may be able figure it out on your own. If not, and you are sincerely interested, I'll point you in the right direction.

No, I am not ignoring anything. I am aware of the endless self contradictions in the Bible. No need for you to point out some of them to me. By the way I am still wondering about this claim of yours:

. I didn't always believe that, but once I approached it with the same logic we use in science, I saw it bigger than real life.

Were you just blowing smoke there? You dodged a more than reasonable question earlier. What test based upon the merits of your belief could possibly refute your beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

90%? I have a small company I call Blind Statistics, otherwise called BS. I'd come up with the figure you gave by dividing the number of gays in San Francisco with the number of cowboys in Dallas. That would probably get as close to the actual number as your 90%.

But however many were born into Christian families, none of them were born Christians. The other consideration is that not all who call themselves Christian are necessarily Christian in the scriptural sense.


Good point, but the scriptures are not dependent on people becoming one thing and then another. That's people.

Wow, you might want to work on those logic skills a bit. When people are born into Christian families they are indoctrinated from birth. That was probably the case with you. Very few people who claim that they were "not Christian" actually were Christian all along. They were merely not hyper-Christians. Now that is my own term so I suppose that I should define it. By the term "hyper-Christians" I mean those that reject the sciences because reality conflicts with their religious views. And of course those that abuse the Bible by constantly taking verses out of context and reinterpreting the Bible to suit their purposes. For them I often have to remind them that quote mining is an error since the Bible claims 15 times that "there is no God".

 

[shunyadragon]

90%? I have a small company I call Blind Statistics, otherwise called BS. I'd come up with the figure you gave by dividing the number of gays in San Francisco with the number of cowboys in Dallas. That would probably get as close to the actual number as your 90%.

But however many were born into Christian families, none of them were born Christians. The other consideration is that not all who call themselves Christian are necessarily Christian in the scriptural sense.

Like all religions, 90% plus of all believers are born and raised, and have the religion of theory parents and peers.

Good point, but the scriptures are not dependent on people becoming one thing and then another. That's people.

Neither do the diverse many conflicting beliefs and their conversion from one to the other. They remain only anecdotal and personal claims, nothing less and nothing more.

 

[shunyadragon]

One needs a Phd in science to be a Christian?

. . . and one does not even have to even have a college degree to simply read and understand all of the basics of science.

I believe true science is in perfect harmony with creationism.

NO! You have demonstrated in all your posts you only selectively agree with science when it agrees with your religious agenda.

God is the energy that moved over the singularity and caused it to expand into our universe.

That is in harmony with most Theists including myself, but you unfortunately depart from here and make an irrational non-scientific argument for the nature of our physical existence.

I believe that any science that does not acknowledge that is a science built on sand.

Science remains neutral to religious beliefs, especially those from an ancient perspective that has no relationship to the knowledge of science today.

That explains why half of what science thinks is later proved false. I know the train of thought that says science is continually getting better, but who is to say the "better" will in the future also be proved wrong? Science is limited, that's all I'm saying.

That is not what your saying in very conflicting statements non-scientific confusion as far as science goes. If you consider the recent 20th and 21st century evolving body of knowledge this is not only totally false, but your lack of knowledge of science, and unwillingness to understand science as it is. For example Newtonian physics is still valid to day and the foundation of o physics today, but the evolving knowledge explains the nature of our physical existence beyond Newtonian Physics. Science is, of course, limited to Methodological Naturalism, but your knowledge and argument based on a religious agenda that rejects science.

What is changing and evolving is the increase in the knowledge, and not fundamental knowledge, A phony 'arguing from ignorance' is not constructive in understanding science as it is, and not how you want it to be.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I have a lot to look forward to, while I'm alive And at some point I will cease to exist (die). I'm OK with that.
On the other hand...It's really sad that your God needs so many angels in heaven that he continues to kill little children by giving them cancers.
Your wrongness could be that you worshipped the wrong god. Perhaps Shiva (or whoever or whatever) will punish you more harshly for believing in a false god than me for believing in no god.
Ya never consider that, do ya?
Pray away. It'll just be more proof that prayers are no more than the cigar smoke you spoke of.
I have a hard time believing that you, as a child, did not get an extensive introduction into god or gods or God.

I wonder where you got the idea that people become angels?. That is Not what the Bible teaches. Not a Bible teaching.
Adam and Eve were never offered to become angels.
Adam and Eve were only offered everlasting life on Earth. Earth was Not a stepping stone to becoming an angel.

Satan, Not God, challenges all of us as Satan challenged Job. - Job 2:4-4
'Touch our flesh.....' ( loose physical health ) and we would Not serve God.
Both Job and Jesus under adverse conditions proved Satan a liar and so can we.
The word Father means: Life Giver Not Life Taker.
God can give those little children a return to life via the resurrection as promised in the Bible.
It is the bad conditions that apparently give you a hard time believing.......
It is these very bad conditions that prove how accurate the Bible God is - 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13
The 'healings' Jesus performed were a small sample, a preview, a coming attraction of what he will do on a GRAND global scale.
'Healing' for earth's nations is what Jesus' coming one-thousand year reign over Earth is all about - Revelation 22:2

 

[ratiocinator]

God is the energy that moved over the singularity and caused it to expand into our universe.

Wow. Look, it's okay to be ignorant of science, many people are, but to be ignorant of science and then try to lecture other people about it, is just daft.

I know of no serious cosmologists who think that the singularity (which is what happens to the equations of GR) corresponds to an actual physical thing, but that's rather trivial compared with the "God is the energy..." bit. You do realise you've just turned your god into a property of things in the universe and that said property can only continue to exist for as long as the universe exists and its laws do not change?

See here: Questions on the big bang expanding universe. #560.

 

[rrobs]

No, I am not ignoring anything. I am aware of the endless self contradictions in the Bible. No need for you to point out some of them to me. By the way I am still wondering about this claim of yours:

Were you just blowing smoke there? You dodged a more than reasonable question earlier. What test based upon the merits of your belief could possibly refute your beliefs?

You've accused me several times of ignoring your questions. Are you yourself held to different standards, because there is no shortage of unanswered questions on your part? You should be sure you are not an offender of the things of which you accuse others. Your protests ring pretty hollow.

 

[rrobs]

Wow, you might want to work on those logic skills a bit. When people are born into Christian families they are indoctrinated from birth. That was probably the case with you. Very few people who claim that they were "not Christian" actually were Christian all along. They were merely not hyper-Christians. Now that is my own term so I suppose that I should define it. By the term "hyper-Christians" I mean those that reject the sciences because reality conflicts with their religious views. And of course those that abuse the Bible by constantly taking verses out of context and reinterpreting the Bible to suit their purposes. For them I often have to remind them that quote mining is an error since the Bible claims 15 times that "there is no God".

All your opinion. None of it has any factual evidence. Funny that it comes from a scientist like yourself.

 

[rrobs]

Wow. Look, it's okay to be ignorant of science, many people are, but to be ignorant of science and then try to lecture other people about it, is just daft.

I know of no serious cosmologists who think that the singularity (which is what happens to the equations of GR) corresponds to an actual physical thing, but that's rather trivial compared with the "God is the energy..." bit. You do realise you've just turned your god into a property of things in the universe and that said property can only continue to exist for as long as the universe exists and its laws do not change?

See here: Questions on the big bang expanding universe. #560.

Random thoughts. It's amazing the things people come up with to demonstrate their hate for those who hold different views, particularly Christians. It reminds me of the verse that says Jesus did nothing but good and yet the people demanded his death.

The fact is, the scriptures say believers will be attacked by those who are ignorant of the truth. I'm just glad the days of burning Christians at the stake are over. Otherwise I feel confident I'd see your face among those cheering on as the fires were lit. The scriptures tell us to rejoice when attacked. It just adds more proof to the infallibility of the scriptures, so thanks for the confirmation!

 

[ppp]

Random thoughts. It's amazing the things people come up with to demonstrate their hate for those who hold different views, particularly Christians. It reminds me of the verse that says Jesus did nothing but good and yet the people demanded his death.

When someone points out that you are ignorant on a subject it is not analogous to them hating you or demanding your death. You are throwing a temper tantrum. Don't be a brat.