I was taught (by Catholics) that Jesus is both the Son of God and God. It sometimes seemed they went out of their way to make it 'beyond understanding'...
Upvote
0
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.
I was taught (by Catholics) that Jesus is both the Son of God and God. It sometimes seemed they went out of their way to make it 'beyond understanding'...It looks like a branch of Catholicism, would that be right? I'm pretty sure the Catholic teaching does not teach Jesus is God, but only the Son of God, from what I've been told.
Plants beget plants.I was taught (by Catholics) that Jesus is both the Son of God and God. It sometimes seemed they went out of their way to make it 'beyond understanding'...
you clearly did not read the bibleThe idea that God is an immaterial spirit is a myth concocted by theologians. You won't actually find that concept in the Bible.
you keep trying to avoid the subject and the point. you cannot even respond correctly to the post. that is not point the point is that based on the know physics scince that predict what is possible. the nature of the universe is not fixed but changable. I believe that is the 1st law of Thermodynamics: energy is neither created or destroyed it simply changes form. you know that and should know that. any look for God should be equal to or greater then that Law. you know that is what I am saying. this tread is about looking for the scientific evidence for God. any look for god in the natural must begin with those laws and be equal to or greater then them. this points us to what we are looking for and where to begin. that is what I said and you are well aware of that. you are avoiding because you are running from something.There really wasn't any point in discussing the technological similarities between some Star Trek technologies and some related things we can accomplish. (Transport of material object from point to point is not feasible and even close to the "teleportation" experiments being done in atomic physics.)
you keep trying to avoid the subject and the point. you cannot even respond correctly to the post.
that is not point the point is that based on the know physics scince that predict what is possible.
the nature of the universe is not fixed but changable.
It is one of those laws. Conservation of energy. The ordinal number doesn't matter much.I believe that is the 1st law of Thermodynamics: energy is neither created or destroyed it simply changes form.
you know that and should know that.
any look for God should be equal to or greater then that Law. you know that is what I am saying.
this tread is about looking for the scientific evidence for God.
any look for god in the natural must begin with those laws and be equal to or greater then them.
this points us to what we are looking for and where to begin. that is what I said and you are well aware of that.
Oh really? And you know this how?you are avoiding because you are running from something.
it would be helpful if you would respond to the post instead of talking about you. I am not accusing you of anything. I am observing you behavior and how you keep avoiding the subject. just like now. just answer the post and stop taking offence. stop making everything personal. your behavior is what I am talking about not your motiveIt would help if you stopped accusing me of stuff and just get to your argument...
because I can observe your behavior and and compare it with other people and there common behavior and how they respond and realize that something is not normal. it's called science. based on the patterns that emerge I can see that your response falls outside of the norm and fall well with in the abnormal responses and the habits of those who are avoiding questions. Why I don't know. thats how sicence worksOh really? And you know this how?
I think you got what I was trying to say for the most partIt depends on what you mean. Do things in the universe change? (Yes) Does the overall universe change? (Yes) Does our understanding of the universe change? (yes) Do the laws of the universe change? (Not as far as we can tell.)
bingo, that is what I am saying and that is the being that is described in the Bible and since this is a Christian forum the Bible is what we look to for guidance when we want to understand God.This statement does not it within my comprehension, unless you are saying you want a god that is greater than the universe (and could violate or change laws)
that is called in the scripture "idolatry" you make a god to suit yourself because you are either unaware of who God is or you don't like the God described there.and I don't see any need for that.
that is subjective. that is based on what one wants to see and the assumption made by the individual and what they will or will not accept.And so far it has come up blank.
That's certainly one way to look for a god scientifically.
because I can observe your behavior and and compare it with other people and there common behavior and how they respond and realize that something is not normal. it's called science. based on the patterns that emerge I can see that your response falls outside of the norm and fall well with in the abnormal responses and the habits of those who are avoiding questions. Why I don't know. thats how sicence works
God birthing Himself and than killing Himself to appease Himself because His creation didn't live up to His own high standards?God ...
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
bingo, that is what I am saying and that is the being that is described in the Bible and since this is a Christian forum the Bible is what we look to for guidance when we want to understand God.
I'm not interested in idols or gods of any kinds. I have no need for any such things. It is not a matter of liking or not liking the god you (and others here) describe, but rather not finding it to be plausible.that is called in the scripture "idolatry" you make a god to suit yourself because you are either unaware of who God is or you don't like the God described there.
Isn't He wonderful!God birthing Himself and than killing Himself to appease Himself because His creation didn't live up to His own high standards?
I feel certain I was taught there were only five Holy Sacraments, too(?) I looked it up, and that defintely doesn't seem to be in keeping with nowadays Catholicism(?)Yes, that was my experience. I was told 'Jesus is God' and took it as something I was supposed to accept, but I'm not sure what I would have said if asked whether I believed that Jesus is God...
Who took you there to meet this "creepy dude"?My 'awakening' came with realising I was making up sins to satisfy the creepy dude inside the confessional booth!
Abdus Salem was a devout Muslim (couldn't find a Christian but as a religion example he will do.)Weinberg said:
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
So what links these individuals with polar opposite views; they both won the Nobel Prize in Physics for their work on Electroweak Theory.Salam said:
The Holy Quran enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah's created laws of nature; however, that our generation has been privileged to glimpse a part of His design is a bounty and a grace for which I render thanks with a humble heart.
"Thou seest not, in the creation of the All-merciful any imperfection, Return thy gaze, seest thou any fissure? Then Return thy gaze, again and again. Thy gaze, Comes back to thee dazzled, aweary." (Quran 67:3–4) This, in effect, is the faith of all physicists; the deeper we seek, the more is our wonder excited, the more is the dazzlement for our gaze."
I suppose you think it's just as bad that I wear glasses then. God gave me imperfect eyesight, I shouldn't try to change what he deigned to give me!Of course not because God doesn't make mistakes, he created us and we are fearfully and wonderfully made just as we are. Satan is at work in the world in a big way but only Christians can see it.
Genesis 1:14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:Because Astrology is a form of sorcery according to Gods word. People predicting their own futures, dabbling in the occult, etc is not what God wants.
You missed the point.Yes because brothers and sisters in Christ are meant to uphold each other and keep the peace. We symbolise the body of Christ, we're not supposed to be divided. Atheists coming against the word of God is a different story, we're meant to tell the truth that is in God's Word.
This isn';t university.So, if I give an "brief" overview of an author/book/source I've read or used, you'd prefer for me to not used the specific terms that author/source used? I don't remember that being a requirement when I when to uni. But maybe your university was different?
Cosmogony - the study of how the universe came into being.Hyers wasn't trying to "prove" that the Bible is divine or inspired. He was actually explicating his point in support of the fact that he didn't think that Creationism should be taught in the classroom. He wasn't offering "evidence" for belief; he was offering evidence that the Bible is, as he put it, "Cosmogony, not Cosmology."
You don't seem to get what I'm asking.But I get it. You place a high priority on discussions about scientific evidence, so a book by an author who favors science over religion in the science classroon isn't going to be of any interest to you.
Why should I have any expectations about what it should mean? That would only serve to bias my opinion.What position are you expecting?
The idea of Humanity starting from two people who existed some 6000 odd years ago is one that can be tested.As far as I'm concerned, if the Bible is reported to be a literal, inerrant, inspired "history," then it's game over by chapter 2, maybe even by chapter 1.
What is there left to test when I already can't get over or through the conceptual WALL that Adam and Eve aren't, and never were, historical persons, Kylie?
That's like me saying, "Star Trek has been right about several things, so I'm just going to accept Star Trek as correct. Do I need to check every episode, every series?"Do I need to question [or test] the rest of the Bible after that, chapter by chapter, book by book?
So your mother, who cared for your soul, took you to a priest, who cared for your soul, and you think this guy, who was doing his work, was "creepy"?My mother.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?