Anyone wanna share conversion stories?
-
given time even albert einstein was proven wrong
-
Originally posted by StriveOn:
Just want to learn more, please dont go personal....
If God has no begining, then God happens to be God, and that's it.
Now at that point when "God happens to be God", can we say that that was the begining, just for argument sake.
And is it not the same as at the point when the Big Bang occurs.
It just happen, with no prior creator or cause.
No worries, I am not taking this personally at all.
God did not happen to be God. God IS. There was never a time where God was not. In fact, God is outside of time. He dwells in eternity, something that we finite beings cannot comprehend.
If the universe just happens with no prior creator or cause, we've got a problem. Millions of dollars are being spent trying to figure out the "moment of creation". Not only that, it is irrational. How can something that is contingent not have a cause? In philosophy God is deemed the NECESSARY being, of which there can be only one.
-
Originally posted by lce:
given time even albert einstein was proven wrong
On some things, but not everything.
-
-----------------
By the way, I am not a fanatical proponent of the Big Bang.
I am open to the various ideas on how the universe (Cosmo) was created.
There was a theory on how the cosmo recycles itself like a doughnut through a black hole mechanism.
At first I take it as Fiction, but as I read more from various sources, it is becoming Non-fiction to me.
------------------
-
Originally posted by StriveOn:
-----------------
By the way, I am not a fanatical proponent of the Big Bang.
I am open to the various ideas on how the universe (Cosmo) was created.
There was a theory on how the cosmo recycles itself like a doughnut through a black hole mechanism.
At first I take it as Fiction, but as I read more from various sources, it is becoming Non-fiction to me.
------------------
We have some things in common.
We agree that the universe was created.
Question is, how?
Most people would go about looking for other "mechanical" answers but it won't do because that which caused the universe to exist must be outside of it. It's time we consider non-naturalistic answers.
Science is pretty much agreed that time space matter had a beginning. So the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial. And since the universe is contingent and need not exist, that which caused the universe to exists must have decided to cause it to exist. It speaks of a choice, a person, with a mind.
Makes sense?
-
there is no benefits to prove everything that is wrong
-
Originally posted by lce:
there is no benefits to prove everything that is wrong
But we don't have to prove EVERYTHING that is wrong.
-
Originally posted by lce:
given time even albert einstein was proven wrong
Albert will not be proven wrong.With the technology that he have back then, it is a marvel he can come up with such theories.
More likely Albert's (and the likes of him) theories will be modified to suit the new discoveries.
-
Originally posted by StriveOn:
Albert will not be proven wrong.With the technology that he have back then, it is a marvel he can come up with such theories.
More likely Albert's (and the likes of him) theories will be modified to suit the new discoveries.
Agreed. In fact the point is that truth is discovered, not created. Our scientific models and theories have to conform to reality, that which is.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
We have some things in common.
We agree that the universe was created.
Question is, how?
Most people would go about looking for other "mechanical" answers but it won't do because that which caused the universe to exist must be outside of it. It's time we consider non-naturalistic answers.
Science is pretty much agreed that time space matter had a beginning. So the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial. And since the universe is contingent and need not exist, that which caused the universe to exists must have decided to cause it to exist. It speaks of a choice, a person, with a mind.
Makes sense?
Dont mean to be mean but..
I like your this post better than the one you quote from the bible.
Please understand my perspective because I am not a Christian. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by StriveOn:
Dont mean to be mean but..
I like your this post better than the one you quote from the bible.
Please understand my perspective because I am not a Christian. Thanks.
I can understand that. But you should know that underlying what I am saying is a Biblical worldview, and I am pointing you in that direction.
You see, I am not asking you to accept the Bible as true. But I am inviting you to, just for the sake of argument and discussion, put on the Biblical lens to look at the world through Biblical glasses. See it from my perspective and see if it makes sense, if not better sense. Ask yourself, if the Bible is true, what would I expect to see of the world?
-
Originally posted by StriveOn:
Albert will not be proven wrong.With the technology that he have back then, it is a marvel he can come up with such theories.
More likely Albert's (and the likes of him) theories will be modified to suit the new discoveries.
Think of it this way. Newtons law of motion back then was supposedly 'complete', but Einstein realised with Netwon, the limitations of his theory, thus Einstein's law of general relativity was based on Newton's law of motion to improve upon his theory. Both are not wrong. Just that Newton's and Einstein's like all scientific theories that only work in a control environment.
Just because they are 'wrong' do not mean they no longer serve any utility value.
Exciting times for science.
-
am baffled why the almighty God needs an agent ie. Jesus, to introduce Him to mankind. where was God all the while before Jesus's appearance?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Think of it this way. Newtons law of motion back then was supposedly 'complete', but Einstein realised with Netwon, the limitations of his theory, thus Einstein's law of general relativity was based on Newton's law of motion to improve upon his theory. Both are not wrong. Just that Newton's and Einstein's like all scientific theories that only work in a control environment.
Just because they are 'wrong' do not mean they no longer serve any utility value.
Exciting times for science.
What is also exciting is that these are discoveries that enable us to understand the manifold wisdom of God, how "God did it". Many like to think that the more we know about science the lesser the need for God. That is not true at all. It's like unravelling a computer software. The more one picks it apart to understand it and reduces it to bits and bytes, one does not say that therefore there is no programmer behind it or that the programmer is not needed. One simply discovers that behind the software is a very intelligent mind.
-
Originally posted by Insg:
am baffled why the almighty God needs an agent ie. Jesus, to introduce Him to mankind. where was God all the while before Jesus's appearance?
Jesus was no agent of God. Jesus was God Himself, the Second Person of the Godhead, to be theologically precise.
Your question is answered by the Bible: "Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe. The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command. When he had cleansed us from our sins, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God in heaven." Hebrews 1.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Jesus was no agent of God. Jesus was God Himself, the Second Person of the Godhead, to be theologically precise.
Your question is answered by the Bible: "Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe. The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command. When he had cleansed us from our sins, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God in heaven." Hebrews 1.
BIC
Jesus is god himself? THen why he always talk to himself? Why he call out to the father like a separate entity and pray to the father like a separate entity?
So when jesus was on earth 100% god, where is the father? How many percent was the father in heaven?
-
why do xtians like to go out of topic in their own forum?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Jesus is god himself? THen why he always talk to himself? Why he call out to the father like a separate entity and pray to the father like a separate entity?
So when jesus was on earth 100% god, where is the father? How many percent was the father in heaven?
What? You professed to be a Christian like me yet ask such questions that show an utter ignorance of the doctrine of the Trinity? -
Originally posted by laurence82:
why do xtians like to go out of topic in their own forum?
Why do atheists like to troll Christian forums? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
What? You professed to be a Christian like me yet ask such questions that show an utter ignorance of the doctrine of the Trinity?BIC
Would love to hear your answer on my questions.
John 20:17 - Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
Jesus is surely calling another entity "God".
"YOUR GOD" is the same as "Jesus' God", who is the Father.
If you trust what the bible says plainly, you will not listen to the trinity doctrine which is a result of reading too much into the text and bad interpretation.
If according to you that Jesus is also God, then shouldnt the verse be "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to Myself (OR "the First Part of Me") and your Father, to Myself (OR "the First Part of Me") and your God.'"
Why must Jesus be so unclear about his identity thereby creating confusion? If Jesus really wanted people to know that He is PART Of God and truly God, he should spell it out very clearly, in order to show people a CLEAR way of salvation.
-
BIC,
why didnt u use the ''value of infinity'' concept to explain why God has no creator?
-
Originally posted by despondent:
BIC,
why didnt u use the ''value of infinity'' concept to explain why God has no creator?
Old habits die hard.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Would love to hear your answer on my questions.
John 20:17 - Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
Jesus is surely calling another entity "God".
"YOUR GOD" is the same as "Jesus' God", who is the Father.
If you trust what the bible says plainly, you will not listen to the trinity doctrine which is a result of reading too much into the text and bad interpretation.
If according to you that Jesus is also God, then shouldnt the verse be "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to Myself (OR "the First Part of Me") and your Father, to Myself (OR "the First Part of Me") and your God.'"
Why must Jesus be so unclear about his identity thereby creating confusion? If Jesus really wanted people to know that He is PART Of God and truly God, he should spell it out very clearly, in order to show people a CLEAR way of salvation.
It is precisely because I trust what the Bible says plainly that I accept the doctrine of the Trinity as revealed truth. I should not listen to you, but to the Bible. Your failed to look at the TOTALITY of Scripture with regards to what is being taught about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.]
It is ABSURD for Jesus to say "I am returning to Myself (or the First Part of Me)" because it is a meaningless statement. Or you wanna try to explain what that means? You are a human being, how many parts are you made up of? Can you answer this question coherently? Your error is in trying to box the infinite God into your neat little mental boxes. For goodness sake go read up some good books on this. Here are a few good ones
The Holy Trinity by Robert Letham
The Forgotten Trinity by James White (see also http://vintage.aomin.org/natureofgod.html)
The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey
Just because you are confused and unlearned does not mean that Jesus is unclear. He did not cause confusion, but He did caused consternation from the Jewish leaders who unmistakenly concluded that He equated Himself with God, in effect claiming to be God. See http://www.bethinking.org/advanced/understanding-the-trinity.htm
Perhaps you have never given much thought to this doctrine, or all other doctrines, at all. Ask yourself, if you want to invent a religion to enslave millions of people (as what atheists like to charge), then why make it so hard for people to believe? Why talk about eternal hell fire, why talk about the Trinity, why talk about faith and grace instead of emphasizing that you need to work your guts out to get to heaven? If the atheist's allegation is true, then the Christians are not doing a good job at all. And why not rewrite the Bible and smooth out all the objections so that everyone will believe? Why not? Can you explain it?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It is precisely because I trust what the Bible says plainly that I accept the doctrine of the Trinity as revealed truth. I should not listen to you, but to the Bible. Your failed to look at the TOTALITY of Scripture with regards to what is being taught about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.]
It is ABSURD for Jesus to say "I am returning to Myself (or the First Part of Me)" because it is a meaningless statement. Or you wanna try to explain what that means? You are a human being, how many parts are you made up of? Can you answer this question coherently? Your error is in trying to box the infinite God into your neat little mental boxes. For goodness sake go read up some good books on this. Here are a few good ones
The Holy Trinity by Robert Letham
The Forgotten Trinity by James White (see also http://vintage.aomin.org/natureofgod.html)
The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey
Just because you are confused and unlearned does not mean that Jesus is unclear. He did not cause confusion, but He did caused consternation from the Jewish leaders who unmistakenly concluded that He equated Himself with God, in effect claiming to be God. See http://www.bethinking.org/advanced/understanding-the-trinity.htm
Perhaps you have never given much thought to this doctrine, or all other doctrines, at all. Ask yourself, if you want to invent a religion to enslave millions of people (as what atheists like to charge), then why make it so hard for people to believe? Why talk about eternal hell fire, why talk about the Trinity, why talk about faith and grace instead of emphasizing that you need to work your guts out to get to heaven? If the atheist's allegation is true, then the Christians are not doing a good job at all. And why not rewrite the Bible and smooth out all the objections so that everyone will believe? Why not? Can you explain it?
BIC
Who is this God that Jesus is referring to, who is also YOUR God?
If Jesus' God the same as your God?
He said his God and your God.
Are they the same? If they are the same God, and you worship your God, does it mean Jesus also worships the same God?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Who is this God that Jesus is referring to, who is also YOUR God?
If Jesus' God the same as your God?
He said his God and your God.
Are they the same? If they are the same God, and you worship your God, does it mean Jesus also worships the same God?
Show me where the Scriptures said that Jesus worshipped God.