Fleeing to Mars not of God

[ViaCrucis]

Actually is was correct for some people who put the heavens or science first and foremost. I guess that makes the claim he was bearing false witness false and your claim is bearing false witness.

The accusation made was the worship of the sun and moon. Studying natural phenomenon is not worship. Microbiologists don't worship amoeba, anthropologists don't worship neanderthals, and automechanics don't worship cars.

So, no, the charge of bearing false witness is not bearing false witness. The fact remains that it was a false charge in an act that was being uncharitable.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hans Blaster]

How would you suggest?

Its not my claim to prove. My point was none of the things you wrote about it have anything to do with the truth of the "virgin" claim. None.

Or do you feel you have no need to support slandering the word of Joseph, Mary and God? Have you some reason to claim the apostles who spoke and even lived with Mary were liars?

I have no reason to consider the opening chapters of Matthew or Luke to be factual.

Do you question that they had to flee to Egypt? (as the prophesy said, He came 'out of Egypt)

yes

Do you have reason to claim there was no star that wise men followed to the manger motel?

Yes. That's not how stars work. A lighted drone hovering over Joseph's home in Bethlehem would be a better model. Actual celestial objects are so far away, that they would not behave as described when the "wise men" got close. (And the star is not associated with the manger. They are in different versions of the story. There is no star in Luke and no manger in Matthew.)

Do you have reason to question the life and miracles of Jesus, that confirmed this? No.

Yes. an utter lack of positive evidence.

You have nothing but doubts with no basis in fact that impinge the words of some of the most holy people in history.

Why should I consider them "holy"?

Men do not get to rewrite history just because they have some beef with a crooked religious church or something.

It's got nothing do with the sex abuser shuffle they were running. It is about the lack of evidence for the "truth" of it.

 

[truthpls]

I believe in the Virgin Birth, so I don't know why you are accusing me of believing that it was a sexual thing. I was arguing that the stories of Krishna, Horus, etc aren't virgin births. Because the mothers weren't virgins. Did you even read my post?

-CryptoLutheran

I agree. Mary was a virgin. Since you already know this, the definition and etc I posted would not be needed in your case. But I figure it doesn't hurt to drive home a good point, since there are oodles of cynics, naysayers and bible bashers afoot here

 

[truthpls]

The accusation made was the worship of the sun and moon. Studying natural phenomenon is not worship.

When people want to flee earth or put weapons in space that is not 'studying natural phenomena' so much as putting science before God and man, putting it above.

Microbiologists don't worship amoeba, anthropologists don't worship neanderthals, and automechanics don't worship cars.

In some cases of course they do. If people make some lab covid or plague in a lab, they are not putting man or God first. If anthropologists peddle the old age no creation evolution fables called science falsely, of course they are putting it first above God. Some people also call obsession with cars worship example:
"An accurate definition of worship is ‘extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem’. The car enthusiast who spends all their money on car parts and time watching car races; worships cars."

Everybody Worships - Oasis Church

Everybody Worships I love the quote Adam shared last Sunday about worship from late author David Foster Wallace: “There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.” It’s common for us to think that ‘worship’ is what we do only on Sunday...

oasischurch.com.au

So, no, the charge of bearing false witness is not bearing false witness.

I can't agree. Mankind puts all sorts of things first above God.

I guess we don't agree on that one

 

[truthpls]

Its not my claim to prove.

Or to question

My point was none of the things you wrote about it have anything to do with the truth of the "virgin" claim. None.

All. So there

I have no reason to consider the opening chapters of Matthew or Luke to be factual.

And we have no reason to believe your baseless doubts carry weight

yes

Yes. That's not how stars work. A lighted drone hovering over Joseph's home in Bethlehem would be a better model. Actual celestial objects are so far away, that they would not behave as described when the "wise men" got close. (And the star is not associated with the manger. They are in different versions of the story. There is no star in Luke and no manger in Matthew.)

No, many things were called stars in that time. If a star in the sky hovered over Bethlehem and was seen by wise men far far away, it was not some 'drone'.

"
Balaam finds God’s speech taking over once again, but this time, Balaam utters a prophecy about some great king coming to Israel in the distant future:

I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; A star shall come forth out of Jacob, And a scepter shall rise out of Israel. (Num 24:17)

Let’s unpack the symbolism in this prophecy. The scepter is a royal staff, symbolizing a king who will one day come to Israel. And according to this prophecy, a star will be the sign of the king’s coming. So when the magi see the star in the direction of Israel, their coming to Jerusalem in search of a king would make perfect sense to the first century Israelite—it’s just what Balaam had prophesied long ago"

A Star Shall Come Forth Out of Jacob: Celebrating the Epiphany - St. Paul Center

stpaulcenter.com

Yes. an utter lack of positive evidence.

That is what you display when offering baseless doubts

Why should I consider them "holy"?

How you consider things is not the be all end all in this matter

It's got nothing do with the sex abuser shuffle they were running. It is about the lack of evidence for the "truth" of it.

The plot thickens.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Or to question

I can question whatever I want, including your religious claims.

All. So there

From your earlier post

"He went on to prove He was God by healing probably tens or hundreds of thousands, feeding tens of thousands from a few crumbs, walking on water, making scores of gallons of wine from water,"

None of those things, even if true, prove his mother was a virgin. (And sentences end with periods. Please use them. I had to cut your "sentence" somewhere because the entire multi-line paragraph was not broken into sentences.)

And we have no reason to believe your baseless doubts carry weight

With you, I would concur.

No, many things were called stars in that time. If a star in the sky hovered over Bethlehem and was seen by wise men far far away, it was not some 'drone'.

The same problem exists for anything outside the atmosphere from a moon to a planet to a comet.

"
Balaam finds God’s speech taking over once again, but this time, Balaam utters a prophecy about some great king coming to Israel in the distant future:




Let’s unpack the symbolism in this prophecy. The scepter is a royal staff, symbolizing a king who will one day come to Israel. And according to this prophecy, a star will be the sign of the king’s coming. So when the magi see the star in the direction of Israel, their coming to Jerusalem in search of a king would make perfect sense to the first century Israelite—it’s just what Balaam had prophesied long ago"

A Star Shall Come Forth Out of Jacob: Celebrating the Epiphany - St. Paul Center

stpaulcenter.com

I am not interested in symbolism.

That is what you display when offering baseless doubts

Doubt about evidence-free claims is not baseless.

How you consider things is not the be all end all in this matter

All I am saying is calling them "holy" is just an assertion of your religion. I have no reason to accept it.

The plot thickens.

 

[truthpls]

I can question whatever I want, including your religious claims.

In your heart and head, yes, of course. The historical fact of Christ is better documented that Napoleon I hear.

From your earlier post

"He went on to prove He was God by healing probably tens or hundreds of thousands, feeding tens of thousands from a few crumbs, walking on water, making scores of gallons of wine from water,"

None of those things, even if true, prove his mother was a virgin. (And sentences end with periods. Please use them. I had to cut your "sentence" somewhere because the entire multi-line paragraph was not broken into sentences.)

Yes, His proving He was God and that Scripture twas true seals the deal

With you, I would concur.

The same problem exists for anything outside the atmosphere from a moon to a planet to a comet.

Not a problem, just a difference in culture and times in what is named a certain name. Obviously neither God not wise ancient men had the same concept and definition of 'star'

I am not interested in symbolism.

Doubt about evidence-free claims is not baseless.

Then show the basis. For example what evidence do you have to call Mary and Joseph and the apostles liars?

All I am saying is calling them "holy" is just an assertion of your religion. I have no reason to accept it.

The definition of holy actually is known. What God sets apart is holy. He set them apart.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In your heart and head, yes, of course. The historical fact of Christ is better documented that Napoleon I hear.

You should listen to better informed people, because that was a really bad example you chose.

Yes, His proving He was God and that Scripture twas true seals the deal

None of those things imply or require maternal virginity. That was the thing at issue.

Not a problem, just a difference in culture and times in what is named a certain name. Obviously neither God not wise ancient men had the same concept and definition of 'star'

I listed the other things that were sometimes referred to as "stars" in those times. None of them "move" in the way described by "Matthew".

Then show the basis. For example what evidence do you have to call Mary and Joseph and the apostles liars?

What? I said I wasn't interested in symbolism. I'm still not. As for your "liars" claim, we don't have any testimony from those people that we could even call "lies".

The definition of holy actually is known. What God sets apart is holy. He set them apart.

I don't think anything is "holy" and I have no reason to.

 

[truthpls]

You should listen to better informed people, because that was a really bad example you chose.

Many sites suggest just that, but others disagree. But if Napoleon did exist, he verified Jesus anyhow! I can't lose for winning!

"
1
Napoleon Bonaparte - On the Divinity of Jesus Christ, at Saint Helena - 1820
“I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a
man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between
Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of
other religions. That resemblance does not exist. There
is between Christianity and whatever other religions
the distance of infinity...”
“The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature,
with a power that conquers all that oppose it.”
“Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish
this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength
nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me
most; I have often thought of it. This it is which proves
to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ.”
“If you do not perceive that Jesus Christ is God, very
well, then I did wrong to make you a general."

https://www.loganchristianfellowship.com/uploads/3/8/9/7/38975341/napoleon_bonaparte_-_thoughts_about_the_christ.pdf

None of those things imply or require maternal virginity. That was the thing at issue.

Yes fulfilling Scripture as He did requires it big time

I listed the other things that were sometimes referred to as "stars" in those times. None of them "move" in the way described by "Matthew".

Who cares about other lights? That one moved! It was not your run of the mill star

What? I said I wasn't interested in symbolism. I'm still not. As for your "liars" claim, we don't have any testimony from those people that we could even call "lies".

The fact that Mary was a virgin actually is mentioned by apostles.

I don't think anything is "holy" and I have no reason to.

God separating some people does not require your approval or knowledge. All we need to do is try to believe

 

[Hans Blaster]

Many sites suggest just that, but others disagree. But if Napoleon did exist, he verified Jesus anyhow! I can't lose for winning!

"
1
Napoleon Bonaparte - On the Divinity of Jesus Christ, at Saint Helena - 1820
“I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a
man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between
Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of
other religions. That resemblance does not exist. There
is between Christianity and whatever other religions
the distance of infinity...”
“The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature,
with a power that conquers all that oppose it.”
“Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish
this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength
nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me
most; I have often thought of it. This it is which proves
to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ.”
“If you do not perceive that Jesus Christ is God, very
well, then I did wrong to make you a general."

https://www.loganchristianfellowship.com/uploads/3/8/9/7/38975341/napoleon_bonaparte_-_thoughts_about_the_christ.pdf

This is pathetic. (BUt, frankly, I expected nothing better.)

Yes fulfilling Scripture as He did requires it big time

Only through selective editing.

Who cares about other lights? That one moved! It was not your run of the mill star

It clearly wasn't a star.

The fact that Mary was a virgin actually is mentioned by apostles.

Where do they testify to this? (And how do they know?)

God separating some people does not require your approval or knowledge. All we need to do is try to believe

Belief is all you have.

 

[Gene2memE]

(Also, it would be possible to position satellites in space that fire purely kinetic weapons--"kinetic energy" weapons--that would be simple iron rods of maybe a hundred pounds each that would gain the energy of a 500-lb bomb through gravity acceleration. Such a crow-bar launching satellite could be easily disguised and undetectable even in use. But it would still be illegal under current international space treaties.)

'Rods from God' is one of those ideas that sound great, until you actually start looking at the practicalities of it.

When you consider the number of satellites you'd need for reasonable (not even global) coverage, the limits on the accuracy of such a system, the responsiveness/timeliness as a platform, the flexibility as a platform, the limited number of realistic targets and the sheer amount of stuff you'd need to put into orbit it very quickly becomes totally impractical.

The basic costs of just getting the things built and into orbit have been projected in the $300 to $500 billion range.

Also, as it turns out if you want use a kinetic energy weapon against hardened targets, there are much better earth-bound options. You can get about 95% of the desired effect for a fraction of the estimated cost if you use a B-1B, B-2 or even an F-15E to drop 2,000 lb + class hardened bombs from above 45,000 ft.

And, if you want something that is going to produce kilotonnes of TNT equivalent, well that's what nuclear weapons are for.

 

[Hans Blaster]

'Rods from God' is one of those ideas that sound great, until you actually start looking at the practicalities of it.

When you consider the number of satellites you'd need for reasonable (not even global) coverage, the limits on the accuracy of such a system, the responsiveness/timeliness as a platform, the flexibility as a platform, the limited number of realistic targets and the sheer amount of stuff you'd need to put into orbit it very quickly becomes totally impractical.

The basic costs of just getting the things built and into orbit have been projected in the $300 to $500 billion range.

Also, as it turns out if you want use a kinetic energy weapon against hardened targets, there are much better earth-bound options. You can get about 95% of the desired effect for a fraction of the estimated cost if you use a B-1B, B-2 or even an F-15E to drop 2,000 lb + class hardened bombs from above 45,000 ft.

And, if you want something that is going to produce kilotonnes of TNT equivalent, well that's what nuclear weapons are for.

I don't know why people think that space is a great place to keep weapons. The cost of changing orbits alone is a problem.

 

[truthpls]

This is pathetic. (BUt, frankly, I expected nothing better.)

Only through selective editing.

Through understanding actually. It let's us know what is what

It clearly wasn't a star.

Yes it was a star. Don't blame me if the definitions of modern science did not apply. Nor will they apply in the glorious future coming soon. Nor, I daresay, do I think they actually apply even now

Where do they testify to this? (And how do they know?)

John 3:11
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness

John looked after Mary when Jesus died. He knew first hand, and if it were not true, we would not have the record we have.

Belief is all you have.

It is all we need. Doubt all you have

 

[Hans Blaster]

Through understanding actually. It let's us know what is what

Yes it was a star. Don't blame me if the definitions of modern science did not apply. Nor will they apply in the glorious future coming soon. Nor, I daresay, do I think they actually apply even now

Celestial objects of no kinds move as does the "star" of Matthew. Period. I don't need to rely on modern scientific definitions.

John 3:11
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness

That sentence doesn't even make sense. I don't even know what the context is or why I should care.

John looked after Mary when Jesus died. He knew first hand, and if it were not true, we would not have the record we have.

It is all we need. Doubt all you have

Doubt is more useful. It prevents believing in things that are not true.

 

[RDKirk]

'Rods from God' is one of those ideas that sound great, until you actually start looking at the practicalities of it.

When you consider the number of satellites you'd need for reasonable (not even global) coverage, the limits on the accuracy of such a system, the responsiveness/timeliness as a platform, the flexibility as a platform, the limited number of realistic targets and the sheer amount of stuff you'd need to put into orbit it very quickly becomes totally impractical.

The basic costs of just getting the things built and into orbit have been projected in the $300 to $500 billion range.

Also, as it turns out if you want use a kinetic energy weapon against hardened targets, there are much better earth-bound options. You can get about 95% of the desired effect for a fraction of the estimated cost if you use a B-1B, B-2 or even an F-15E to drop 2,000 lb + class hardened bombs from above 45,000 ft.

And, if you want something that is going to produce kilotonnes of TNT equivalent, well that's what nuclear weapons are for.

I didn't say it was practical, I said it was possible. And it wouldn't be much harder than the constellation of GPS satellites that the military put into orbit (about 80 have been launched, about 30 are active). I'm not going into specific details on accuracy, responsiveness and such...I'll just say it is imminently possible and has been for decades...there's nothing new about any of the science. There isn't even anything about the basic aspects that hasn't been done experimentally.

The US does have the current capability to drop 500 pounds of high explosive on any given square meter of the earth's surface within eight hours of a presidential directive, but their are considerations. Obviously a manned aircraft can't be sent into many areas, and missiles are often overkill, such as the case when Tomahawk missiles were used in an attempt to assassinate Osama bin Laden in the late 90s.

A "Thor's Hammer" system would be a niche weapon in such circumstances, and essentially a stealth weapon...the rods are unlikely to be tracked in the short drop from orbit.

But, again, my point wasn't to claim anything more than possibility.

 

[truthpls]

Celestial objects of no kinds move as does the "star" of Matthew. Period. I don't need to rely on modern scientific definitions.

Yes there is one kind that does. The throne of God as in Eze 1. The Father looking down on the birth of His Son makes a lot of sense to me.

That sentence doesn't even make sense. I don't even know what the context is or why I should care.

That was a verse about apostles telling of what they saw and knew. That trumps your wild speculation.

Doubt is more useful. It prevents believing in things that are not true.

And from believing what is true. It leaves one in some foggy state where they do not know what is true or real or not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes there is one kind that does. The throne of God as in Eze 1. The Father looking down on the birth of His Son makes a lot of sense to me.

Not a celestial object.

That was a verse about apostles telling of what they saw and knew. That trumps your wild speculation.

Was it about the mother of Jesus?

And from believing what is true. It leaves one in some foggy state where they do not know what is true or real or not.

Better to be uncertain than to be certain and wrong.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In some cases of course they do. If people make some lab covid or plague in a lab, they are not putting man or God first. If anthropologists peddle the old age no creation evolution fables called science falsely, of course they are putting it first above God. Some people also call obsession with cars worship example:

As a Christian who doesn't subscribe to conspiracy theories and who embraces and accepts actual science, I find your examples poor. Evolution is part of God's creation, that's the ordinary Christian response to the science of evolution. The earth is billions of years old, evolution happens, and those are observable facts based on the evidence.

If you are going to force people to choose between believing in Jesus and accepting objective facts about reality, you are giving people an ultimatum that tells them that following and believing in Jesus Christ requires they turn their ability to think off. On the contrary, for the last two thousand years of Christian tradition the Church has lifted up the use of reason, of thinking, and has not demanded that people ignore or reject science. It has only been in the MODERN era that a minority of Christians have created a false dilemma, and thereby trouncing on the faith of millions of practicing disciples of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[truthpls]

Not a celestial object.

Why not? If God came from the heaven of heavens to this heaven over earth, in what way would the starship or whatever we want to call it not be celestial?

Was it about the mother of Jesus?

If anything in the gospels was not true they would have spoken up big time. The contrary is true

Better to be uncertain than to be certain and wrong.

One man in the bible had a better attitude about that. He said
“I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” Mk 9:24

 

[truthpls]

As a Christian who doesn't subscribe to conspiracy theories and who embraces and accepts actual science, I find your examples poor. Evolution is part of God's creation,

Not when evolution is stated as the reason we are here rather than just some aspect of life of created beings.

that's the ordinary Christian response to the science of evolution.

No, the Christian response is to believe God created us and the heavens and the earth. Adapting, evolving, healing, eating, reproducing etc etc are just things that happen with created life.

The earth is billions of years old, evolution happens, and those are observable facts based on the evidence.

The earth is a little over 6000 years old. Evolution does happen. So what? It is not why we are here. Cart, meet horse

If you are going to force people to choose between believing in Jesus and accepting objective facts about reality, you are giving people an ultimatum that tells them that following and believing in Jesus Christ requires they turn their ability to think off.

No, The mere fact that adapting and evolving goes on does not mean we need to toss out Genesis or God or choose to not deal with realty.

On the contrary, for the last two thousand years of Christian tradition the Church has lifted up the use of reason, of thinking, and has not demanded that people ignore or reject science.

Me either, just the fables that falsely are called science.

It has only been in the MODERN era that a minority of Christians have created a false dilemma, and thereby trouncing on the faith of millions of practicing disciples of Jesus Christ.

Part of the practice is believing God and Scripture and comprehending that the wisdom of man is foolishness compared to Him.