- May 12, 2005
- 8,524
- 1,804
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Republican
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Does G-d create evil?
- Thread starter ChavaK
- Start date
johnd
Well-Known Member
Light creates shadows... when opposed.
G-d hardened Pharaoh's heart... by intent or by nature? It is said that the same sun that softens the wax hardens the clay.
For there to be the choice to love and serve G-d there has to be the option not to...
Evil is not so much a creation but a result from choosing not G-d's way...
Upvote
0
Eben Abram
Member
Shalom ALecheim
Subtle word use, if you realize it.
Create Evil? Well Yes, and no.
But as in
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
JohnD brought a greek philosophy Light creates shadows... when opposed.
But, in the quote it says Light is formed and Darkness created, I cannot say Light created shadows but the Object did that blocked the light.
The Interesting parallel is the Context of the Scripture as in a nutshell it says I am God, you don't like it tuff and you don't like How I save too bad.
Go read Chapter 45, good stuff.
But for creating evil the context is salvation.
God give that away by using the words Form Light and then Create darkness
as well as MAKE peace and create evil
Oddly the trail this bread crumb leads I thought John would have seen in the Messianic Implications, these words and the construct of using Create Darkness, Create Evil and the polarity of Form Light and Make peace, are wringers for Messiah.
LOL
God created evil but the implications as above of what God created evil for are so much greater that if you could receive it, He, the ALmighty, is so much greater than our understanding as the ramifications of the chapter apply to all 4 of the visible dimensions and the six that aren't, it amazes me how much more we are still going to discover not only from the "BooK" but from seeing the rest of salvation as it is played out IN ALL OF CREATION.
My question is not if God Created Evil or why, but
What is Evil.
Then
What is Evil according to G-d.
Eben
Subtle word use, if you realize it.
Create Evil? Well Yes, and no.
But as in
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
JohnD brought a greek philosophy Light creates shadows... when opposed.
But, in the quote it says Light is formed and Darkness created, I cannot say Light created shadows but the Object did that blocked the light.
The Interesting parallel is the Context of the Scripture as in a nutshell it says I am God, you don't like it tuff and you don't like How I save too bad.
Go read Chapter 45, good stuff.
But for creating evil the context is salvation.
God give that away by using the words Form Light and then Create darkness
as well as MAKE peace and create evil
Oddly the trail this bread crumb leads I thought John would have seen in the Messianic Implications, these words and the construct of using Create Darkness, Create Evil and the polarity of Form Light and Make peace, are wringers for Messiah.
LOL
God created evil but the implications as above of what God created evil for are so much greater that if you could receive it, He, the ALmighty, is so much greater than our understanding as the ramifications of the chapter apply to all 4 of the visible dimensions and the six that aren't, it amazes me how much more we are still going to discover not only from the "BooK" but from seeing the rest of salvation as it is played out IN ALL OF CREATION.
My question is not if God Created Evil or why, but
What is Evil.
Then
What is Evil according to G-d.
Eben
Upvote
0
johnd
Well-Known Member
My point was only that whatever casts shadows does not create them... the light does. Before a light is turned on... where are the shadows in darkness?
It can also be said that if evil is no a result and is a creation then the evil G-d created would be that which was laid upon the suffering servant on the cross.
Isaiah 53: 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the LORDs will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Other than that, it has to be theresult of not following / choosing God, and what could be more Jewish or Messianic than that?
It can also be said that if evil is no a result and is a creation then the evil G-d created would be that which was laid upon the suffering servant on the cross.
Isaiah 53: 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the LORDs will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Other than that, it has to be theresult of not following / choosing God, and what could be more Jewish or Messianic than that?
Upvote
0
Eben Abram
Member
Shalom Alecheim
You know me John, I disagree.
G-d did not create Evil for this reason:
it has to be theresult of not following / choosing God
Why?Because He does not specifically say why he created evil, he talks more about his sovereignty in creating evil than he does in why.
Objects do not cast shadows.
Objects intersect light.
The intersection of perceived interdiction of object to source we state as shadow, but is it.
Is it really?
Quantum physics will likely get technical but a particle with properties in a dimension is subject to that dimension which in the module of light, it does not cast a cast a shadow as the BAD English defines it as poorly contructed when we say a Man casts a giant shadow.
The light did not, the absence of the illumination is not the creation of a shadow but the description of a reality where the degree of illumination is not measured in the same degree.
Why so Technical?
Messiah said, I am the Light of the World. If you define an object of blocking light to be creating a shadow you denigrate creation and neglect the fact that to you there is shadow, but in sciences, the light still exist and does in fact have properties in the shadow.
Remember He said, Who can make light dark and darkness light, ot a a crooked path straight or straighten what the Lord has made crooked.
Not only is there a Messianic Significance, but also a obvious read and frankly a lot fuller explanation of physics by modern appreciation of the new designs ideology the recognizes things like dark mass etc.
In it, Light exists. That is why it is called Light. Darkness exists that is why it is called darkness. Shadow exists that is why it is called shadow.
Once thought all shadow must have source of light behind an object that obscures, the proof is now, no.
Shadow, darkness, etc have physical properties in a dimensional reality we connect to in the effect of it on our senses.
Messiah hinted at this in this way, If your eye be full of light..........
God created Evil for evils sake.
What that means, no offense, you do not know, for it is more than highly likely evil is a technical; term of an existant condition on another plane or dimensional reality that invades our 4 d's here and we know in part as we can only see in part and know of the foour dimensions we live in.
Given he chose not to tell us WHY he created Evil, I can speculate as to WHY he allows Evil to exist and influence us.....
But again, it is how you are defining evil and that IS a VERY deep subject.
But God did create it.
Eben
You know me John, I disagree.
G-d did not create Evil for this reason:
it has to be theresult of not following / choosing God
Why?Because He does not specifically say why he created evil, he talks more about his sovereignty in creating evil than he does in why.
Objects do not cast shadows.
Objects intersect light.
The intersection of perceived interdiction of object to source we state as shadow, but is it.
Is it really?
Quantum physics will likely get technical but a particle with properties in a dimension is subject to that dimension which in the module of light, it does not cast a cast a shadow as the BAD English defines it as poorly contructed when we say a Man casts a giant shadow.
The light did not, the absence of the illumination is not the creation of a shadow but the description of a reality where the degree of illumination is not measured in the same degree.
Why so Technical?
Messiah said, I am the Light of the World. If you define an object of blocking light to be creating a shadow you denigrate creation and neglect the fact that to you there is shadow, but in sciences, the light still exist and does in fact have properties in the shadow.
Remember He said, Who can make light dark and darkness light, ot a a crooked path straight or straighten what the Lord has made crooked.
Not only is there a Messianic Significance, but also a obvious read and frankly a lot fuller explanation of physics by modern appreciation of the new designs ideology the recognizes things like dark mass etc.
In it, Light exists. That is why it is called Light. Darkness exists that is why it is called darkness. Shadow exists that is why it is called shadow.
Once thought all shadow must have source of light behind an object that obscures, the proof is now, no.
Shadow, darkness, etc have physical properties in a dimensional reality we connect to in the effect of it on our senses.
Messiah hinted at this in this way, If your eye be full of light..........
God created Evil for evils sake.
What that means, no offense, you do not know, for it is more than highly likely evil is a technical; term of an existant condition on another plane or dimensional reality that invades our 4 d's here and we know in part as we can only see in part and know of the foour dimensions we live in.
Given he chose not to tell us WHY he created Evil, I can speculate as to WHY he allows Evil to exist and influence us.....
But again, it is how you are defining evil and that IS a VERY deep subject.
But God did create it.
Eben
Upvote
0
dvd_holc
Senior Veteran
Ok, first...the Hebrew begins:
Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.
Now, this is the only time that combination of "Bereshit bara" occurs. Being that this is the first written, one rabbi said that this shows the creation out of absolute nothing. There are only two other times that this bereshit was followed by a verb. So then, God created the darkness, void, and waters...then He created the light...He filled the darkness with light.
Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.
Now, this is the only time that combination of "Bereshit bara" occurs. Being that this is the first written, one rabbi said that this shows the creation out of absolute nothing. There are only two other times that this bereshit was followed by a verb. So then, God created the darkness, void, and waters...then He created the light...He filled the darkness with light.
Upvote
0
Eben Abram
Member
Shalom Alecheim
So..,
G-d created Evil in when he created light?, or when he created darkness, void waters, ?
Eben
Upvote
0
dvd_holc
Senior Veteran
I believe His first act was to create those things (void, darkness, water, etc...) out of nothing. Then He created light and filled the darkness with light and made the darkness and light act has one which created order...
Bara which is translated as create is also translated fill or fatten. In actions, God filled the darkness with light, and He filled heavens and filled the earth. Further, God gave commandment to humans to fill the earth.
Bara which is translated as create is also translated fill or fatten. In actions, God filled the darkness with light, and He filled heavens and filled the earth. Further, God gave commandment to humans to fill the earth.
Upvote
0
Eben Abram
Member
Well, yeah.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bubble fusion, also known as sonofusion, is the non-technical name for a nuclear fusion reaction hypothesized to occur during sonoluminescence, an extreme form of acoustic cavitation. Officially, this reaction is termed acoustic inertial confinement fusion (AICF) since the inertia of the collapsing bubble wall confines the energy, causing an extreme rise in temperature. The high temperatures sonoluminescence can produce raises the possibility that it might be a means to achieve thermonuclear fusion.[1]
Original experiments
US patent 4,333,796,[2] filed by Hugh Flynn in 1978, appears to be the earliest documented reference to a sonofusion-type reaction.
In the March 8, 2002 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Science, Rusi P. Taleyarkhan and colleagues at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) reported that acoustic cavitation experiments conducted with deuterated acetone (C3D6O) showed measurements of tritium and neutron output that were consistent with the occurrence of fusion. The neutron emission was also reported to be coincident with the sonoluminescence pulse, a key indicator that its source was fusion caused by the sonoluminescence.[3]
Shock wave simulations seem to indicate that the temperatures inside the collapsing bubbles may reach up to 10 megakelvins, i.e. as hot as the center of the Sun.[4][5][6][7] Although the apparatus operates in a room temperature environment, this is not cold fusion (as commonly termed in the popular press) because the nuclear reactions would be occurring at the very high temperatures in the core of the imploding bubbles.
The researchers used a pulse of neutrons in order to nucleate ("seed") the tiny bubbles, whereas most previous experiments started with small air bubbles already in the liquid. Using this new method, the team was able to produce stable bubbles that could expand to nearly a millimeter in radius before collapsing. In this way, the researchers stated, they were able to create the conditions necessary to produce very high pressures and temperatures. The sensitivity of the fusion rate to temperature, which is in turn a function of how small the bubbles get when they collapse, in combination with the likely sensitivity of the latter to fine experimental details, may account for the fact that some research workers have reported to see an effect, while others have not.
Taleyarkhan et al also prepared identical experiments in non-deuterated (normal) acetone and failed to observe neutron emission or tritium production. Taleyarkhan claims his interest in bubble fusion began following a post-dinner chat with a friend, Dr. Mark Embrechts, in 1995.
[edit] Oak Ridge failed replication
These experiments were repeated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory by D. Shapira and M. J. Saltmarsh but using more sophisticated neutron detection equipment. They reported that the neutron release was consistent with random coincidence.[8] A rebuttal by Taleyarkhan and the other authors of the original report said that the Shapira and Saltmarsh report failed to account for significant differences in experimental setup, including over an inch of shielding between the neutron detector and the sonoluminescing acetone. Taleyarkhan et al report that when these differences are properly considered, the Shapira and Saltmarsh results are consistent with fusion.[citation needed]
In addition, Galonsky has shown that by Taleyarkhan's own detector calibration the observed neutrons are too high in energy to be from a deuterium-deuterium (d-d) fusion reaction. In a rebuttal comment, Taleyarkhan says the energy is "reasonably close" to that which is expected.[9]
In February 2005, the BBC documentary series Horizon commissioned a collaboration between two leading sonoluminescence researchers, Seth Putterman and Ken Suslick, to reproduce Taleyarkhan's work. Using similar acoustic parameters, deuterated acetone, similar bubble nucleation, and a much more sophisticated neutron detection device, the researchers could find no evidence of a fusion reaction. This work was reviewed by a team of four scientists, including an expert in sonoluminescence and an expert in neutron detection, who also concluded that no evidence of fusion could be observed.[10][11]
In 2004, new reports of bubble fusion were published by the Taleyarkhan group, saying that the results of previous experiments have been replicated under more stringent experimental conditions.[12][13] These results differed from the original results in that fusion was occurring for a much longer time frame than previously reported. The original report only showed neutron emission from the initial bubble collapse following bubble nucleation, whereas this report showed neutron emission many acoustic cycles later. The data, however, was less than stringent insofar as too large a window of measurement was used to determine a coincidence between neutron emission and sonoluminescent light emission. Furthermore, the energy of the detected neutrons was not consistent with neutrons produced from a fusion reaction.
Reports as spectacular as the above arouse a lot of doubt. In March 2006, Nature published a "special report" "silencing the hype" that called into question the validity of the results of the Purdue experiments.[22] The report quotes Brian Naranjo of the University of California, Los Angeles to the effect that spectrum measured in these sonofusion experiments is consistent with radioactive decay of the lab equipment and hence does not reliably demonstrate the presence of nuclear reactions.[23]
The response of Taleyarkhan et al, published in Physical Review Letters, attempts to refute Naranjo's hypothesis as to the cause of the neutrons detected.[24]
Doubts at Purdue University's Nuclear Engineering faculty as to whether the positive results reported from sonofusion experiments conducted there were truthful prompted the university to initiate a review of the research, conducted by Purdue's Office of the Vice President for Research. In a March 9, 2006 article entitled "Evidence for bubble fusion called into question", Nature interviewed several of Taleyarkhan's colleagues who suspected something was amiss.[25]
On February 7, 2007, the Purdue University administration determined that "the evidence does not support the allegations of research misconduct and that no further investigation of the allegations is warranted". Their report also stated that "vigorous, open debate of the scientific merits of this new technology is the most appropriate focus going forward."[26][27] In order to verify that the investigation was properly conducted, House Representative Brad Miller requested full copies of its documents and reports by March 30, 2007.[28]
In June 2008, a multi-institutional team including Taleyarkhan publishes a paper in Nuclear Engineering and Design to "clear up misconceptions generated by a webposting of UCLA which served as the basis for the Nature article of March 2006", according to a press release.[29]
On July 18, 2008, Purdue University announced that a committee with members from five institutions has investigated 12 allegations of research misconduct by Rusi Taleyarkhan. It concluded that two allegations were foundedthat Taleyarkhan had claimed independent confirmation of his work when in reality the apparent confirmations were done by Taleyarkhan's former students and was not as "independent" as Taleyarkhan implied, and that Taleyarkhan had included an additional colleague's name on one of his papers who had not actually been involved in the research ("the sole apparent motivation for the addition of Mr. Butt was a desire to overcome a reviewer's criticism," the report concluded). [30][31] However, in a previous press release in July 2005, Purdue University had said that Butt's replication was independent from Taleyarkhan[32]
Taleyarkhan appealed the conclusions in the report, but this was rejected. He said the two allegations of misconduct were trivial administrative issues and had nothing to do with the discovery of bubble nuclear fusion or the underlying science, and that "all allegations of fraud and fabrication have been dismissed as invalid and without merit thereby supporting the underlying science and experimental data as being on solid ground". [33]
On August 27, 2008 he was stripped of his named Arden Bement Jr. Professorship, and forbidden to be a thesis advisor for graduate students for at least the next 3 years.[34][33]
How does this relate?
I understand the theoreum though I might not go with the conclusions yet.
So in regards to Light and in regards to G-d creating Evil this is?
Eben
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bubble fusion, also known as sonofusion, is the non-technical name for a nuclear fusion reaction hypothesized to occur during sonoluminescence, an extreme form of acoustic cavitation. Officially, this reaction is termed acoustic inertial confinement fusion (AICF) since the inertia of the collapsing bubble wall confines the energy, causing an extreme rise in temperature. The high temperatures sonoluminescence can produce raises the possibility that it might be a means to achieve thermonuclear fusion.[1]
Original experiments
US patent 4,333,796,[2] filed by Hugh Flynn in 1978, appears to be the earliest documented reference to a sonofusion-type reaction.
In the March 8, 2002 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Science, Rusi P. Taleyarkhan and colleagues at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) reported that acoustic cavitation experiments conducted with deuterated acetone (C3D6O) showed measurements of tritium and neutron output that were consistent with the occurrence of fusion. The neutron emission was also reported to be coincident with the sonoluminescence pulse, a key indicator that its source was fusion caused by the sonoluminescence.[3]
Shock wave simulations seem to indicate that the temperatures inside the collapsing bubbles may reach up to 10 megakelvins, i.e. as hot as the center of the Sun.[4][5][6][7] Although the apparatus operates in a room temperature environment, this is not cold fusion (as commonly termed in the popular press) because the nuclear reactions would be occurring at the very high temperatures in the core of the imploding bubbles.
The researchers used a pulse of neutrons in order to nucleate ("seed") the tiny bubbles, whereas most previous experiments started with small air bubbles already in the liquid. Using this new method, the team was able to produce stable bubbles that could expand to nearly a millimeter in radius before collapsing. In this way, the researchers stated, they were able to create the conditions necessary to produce very high pressures and temperatures. The sensitivity of the fusion rate to temperature, which is in turn a function of how small the bubbles get when they collapse, in combination with the likely sensitivity of the latter to fine experimental details, may account for the fact that some research workers have reported to see an effect, while others have not.
Taleyarkhan et al also prepared identical experiments in non-deuterated (normal) acetone and failed to observe neutron emission or tritium production. Taleyarkhan claims his interest in bubble fusion began following a post-dinner chat with a friend, Dr. Mark Embrechts, in 1995.
[edit] Oak Ridge failed replication
These experiments were repeated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory by D. Shapira and M. J. Saltmarsh but using more sophisticated neutron detection equipment. They reported that the neutron release was consistent with random coincidence.[8] A rebuttal by Taleyarkhan and the other authors of the original report said that the Shapira and Saltmarsh report failed to account for significant differences in experimental setup, including over an inch of shielding between the neutron detector and the sonoluminescing acetone. Taleyarkhan et al report that when these differences are properly considered, the Shapira and Saltmarsh results are consistent with fusion.[citation needed]
In addition, Galonsky has shown that by Taleyarkhan's own detector calibration the observed neutrons are too high in energy to be from a deuterium-deuterium (d-d) fusion reaction. In a rebuttal comment, Taleyarkhan says the energy is "reasonably close" to that which is expected.[9]
In February 2005, the BBC documentary series Horizon commissioned a collaboration between two leading sonoluminescence researchers, Seth Putterman and Ken Suslick, to reproduce Taleyarkhan's work. Using similar acoustic parameters, deuterated acetone, similar bubble nucleation, and a much more sophisticated neutron detection device, the researchers could find no evidence of a fusion reaction. This work was reviewed by a team of four scientists, including an expert in sonoluminescence and an expert in neutron detection, who also concluded that no evidence of fusion could be observed.[10][11]
In 2004, new reports of bubble fusion were published by the Taleyarkhan group, saying that the results of previous experiments have been replicated under more stringent experimental conditions.[12][13] These results differed from the original results in that fusion was occurring for a much longer time frame than previously reported. The original report only showed neutron emission from the initial bubble collapse following bubble nucleation, whereas this report showed neutron emission many acoustic cycles later. The data, however, was less than stringent insofar as too large a window of measurement was used to determine a coincidence between neutron emission and sonoluminescent light emission. Furthermore, the energy of the detected neutrons was not consistent with neutrons produced from a fusion reaction.
Reports as spectacular as the above arouse a lot of doubt. In March 2006, Nature published a "special report" "silencing the hype" that called into question the validity of the results of the Purdue experiments.[22] The report quotes Brian Naranjo of the University of California, Los Angeles to the effect that spectrum measured in these sonofusion experiments is consistent with radioactive decay of the lab equipment and hence does not reliably demonstrate the presence of nuclear reactions.[23]
The response of Taleyarkhan et al, published in Physical Review Letters, attempts to refute Naranjo's hypothesis as to the cause of the neutrons detected.[24]
Doubts at Purdue University's Nuclear Engineering faculty as to whether the positive results reported from sonofusion experiments conducted there were truthful prompted the university to initiate a review of the research, conducted by Purdue's Office of the Vice President for Research. In a March 9, 2006 article entitled "Evidence for bubble fusion called into question", Nature interviewed several of Taleyarkhan's colleagues who suspected something was amiss.[25]
On February 7, 2007, the Purdue University administration determined that "the evidence does not support the allegations of research misconduct and that no further investigation of the allegations is warranted". Their report also stated that "vigorous, open debate of the scientific merits of this new technology is the most appropriate focus going forward."[26][27] In order to verify that the investigation was properly conducted, House Representative Brad Miller requested full copies of its documents and reports by March 30, 2007.[28]
In June 2008, a multi-institutional team including Taleyarkhan publishes a paper in Nuclear Engineering and Design to "clear up misconceptions generated by a webposting of UCLA which served as the basis for the Nature article of March 2006", according to a press release.[29]
On July 18, 2008, Purdue University announced that a committee with members from five institutions has investigated 12 allegations of research misconduct by Rusi Taleyarkhan. It concluded that two allegations were foundedthat Taleyarkhan had claimed independent confirmation of his work when in reality the apparent confirmations were done by Taleyarkhan's former students and was not as "independent" as Taleyarkhan implied, and that Taleyarkhan had included an additional colleague's name on one of his papers who had not actually been involved in the research ("the sole apparent motivation for the addition of Mr. Butt was a desire to overcome a reviewer's criticism," the report concluded). [30][31] However, in a previous press release in July 2005, Purdue University had said that Butt's replication was independent from Taleyarkhan[32]
Taleyarkhan appealed the conclusions in the report, but this was rejected. He said the two allegations of misconduct were trivial administrative issues and had nothing to do with the discovery of bubble nuclear fusion or the underlying science, and that "all allegations of fraud and fabrication have been dismissed as invalid and without merit thereby supporting the underlying science and experimental data as being on solid ground". [33]
On August 27, 2008 he was stripped of his named Arden Bement Jr. Professorship, and forbidden to be a thesis advisor for graduate students for at least the next 3 years.[34][33]
How does this relate?
I understand the theoreum though I might not go with the conclusions yet.
So in regards to Light and in regards to G-d creating Evil this is?
Eben
Upvote
0
Meshavrischika
for Thy greater honor and glory
I think He created it because He knew what was to come... He knew what would happen when he set the tree in the garden, and he knew all the rest and the parts we have not seen yet. Just like with the tree, I think He did it to establish himself and us in relationship to Him.
Upvote
0
I think He knew of the different courses/choices everyone of His creatures can make, and if they did not choose His course of action and thought, since He foreknew, it was given the title of evil to separate it from His choices and thoughts which He offered because He knew they would last for eternity.
Upvote
0
O
Observer2008
Guest
i think G-d create desire, free will, a neutral thing.
& give this to human only.
then human by choice create good & evil.
the angels are created like robots to carry G-d's will & mission. human are also another type of creation to carry G-d's will & mission.
the verse says G-d creates evil, means actually thru human.
just like in judaism G-d manages the world of 70 nations thru angels.
& give this to human only.
then human by choice create good & evil.
the angels are created like robots to carry G-d's will & mission. human are also another type of creation to carry G-d's will & mission.
the verse says G-d creates evil, means actually thru human.
just like in judaism G-d manages the world of 70 nations thru angels.
Upvote
0
If angels were like robots.. then they would not vary from their assigned task ...
Aka
Daniel 10:13
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
Two things come clear with this insight...
one.. angels are able to comprehend and handle situations on their own.
two.. this angel decided to remain there with the kings of Persia before coming with the assigned message to Daniel.
Another example.. This is no script/message but an actual reaction to an event..
Revelation 19:10
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
All which show that angels are not robots.
Aka
Daniel 10:13
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
Two things come clear with this insight...
one.. angels are able to comprehend and handle situations on their own.
two.. this angel decided to remain there with the kings of Persia before coming with the assigned message to Daniel.
Another example.. This is no script/message but an actual reaction to an event..
Revelation 19:10
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
All which show that angels are not robots.
Upvote
0
Since the days of Yahshua, Persia has resisted the New Testament message. The 21 days is parabolic for the 21st century AD.
Upvote
0
O
Observer2008
Guest
1) angels are highly intelligent, or programmed. they can handle situations according to their programs. bcz they are spirits, they can comprehend or communicate with spirits & G-d much easier than living human.
2) angels have no physical bodies. thus they cannot experience human concept of good or evil, such as killing or stealing or raping or homosexual.
that's what i mean robots. they are programmed by G-d & cannot alter the program rules or change the result of the programming. human in this aspect are different. they can alter the program of angels & universe thru G-d, thru desire or will of G-d & men. when this is done, we call it miracle, which can break the programs.
the difference caused by men between miracles & witchcrafts are: real miracles are fm G-d, witchcrafts (still in the scope of the universal programs) are from human spirits but not from G-d (in action). i mean G-d creats human, human creats witchcrafts. G-d didnt creat witchcraft. G-d has no mistake in creating human with a free will & salvation. He is perfect. the responsability of action is on human.
conclusion: the world of good & evil is the world of or managed by angels. the universe of YHVH one & only is beyond this universe of angels. there are 2 levels of universes concerning this issue. the lower or programmed universe is created by human when they choose to ignore the will of G-d, & let the universe run by programs alone.
2) angels have no physical bodies. thus they cannot experience human concept of good or evil, such as killing or stealing or raping or homosexual.
that's what i mean robots. they are programmed by G-d & cannot alter the program rules or change the result of the programming. human in this aspect are different. they can alter the program of angels & universe thru G-d, thru desire or will of G-d & men. when this is done, we call it miracle, which can break the programs.
the difference caused by men between miracles & witchcrafts are: real miracles are fm G-d, witchcrafts (still in the scope of the universal programs) are from human spirits but not from G-d (in action). i mean G-d creats human, human creats witchcrafts. G-d didnt creat witchcraft. G-d has no mistake in creating human with a free will & salvation. He is perfect. the responsability of action is on human.
conclusion: the world of good & evil is the world of or managed by angels. the universe of YHVH one & only is beyond this universe of angels. there are 2 levels of universes concerning this issue. the lower or programmed universe is created by human when they choose to ignore the will of G-d, & let the universe run by programs alone.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
