• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

I need some help guys...(Only those that are Biblically sound)

Discussion in 'Baptists' started by BigChrisfilm, Jan 25, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BigChrisfilm

    BigChrisfilm Contributor

    +114
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Republican
    Why would you cuss? That doesn't seem like a Godly thing to do. Infact, I think you need to stop worrying about yourself. Athiest are going to hell, and if you think that isn't true, than you stand in direct contradiction of God's Word, and Jesus Christ himself.
     
  2. arunma

    arunma Flaming Calvinist

    +781
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Actually Jacob seems to be well aware of the fact that atheists are going to hell. I'm guessing that's why he objects to writing them off.
     
  3. BigChrisfilm

    BigChrisfilm Contributor

    +114
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Republican
    If, that is what he is saying, I agree. BUT, he should see that I opened a thread that asked others to go over there, and help me out, and he never asked me for the link.
     
  4. JacobHall86

    JacobHall86 Calvin is 500 years old, Calvinism is eternal!

    +255
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    You went with the wrong intentions, and I knew the website.

    Also, you seem to be more upset in the fact that I said the word Hell than the fact that people are dying and going there. Get off your soapbox.
     
  5. JPPT1974

    JPPT1974 Hot Fun in the Summertime

    +9,620
    United States
    Baptist
    Single
    CA-Conservatives
    Focus on Jesus Jacob
    And let Him take care of the
    Rest for you my friend
    Praying for you!
     
  6. Bleach4Blood

    Bleach4Blood Guest

    +0
    Regarding the yecheadquarters site reccomended by BigChrisfilm...

    (Quote)
    I found this site, that exposes the purpose for their site.

    [link to yecheadquarters site removed by me]

    Don't go to that site unless you understand that they have posted many of things they say, but they are un-edited.
    (End Quote)

    I really don't think that site should be recommended to anyone. Not that the various FSTDT quotes and images are so bad in and of themselves (blasphemy aside), but rather the severely damaging image the YECH site's creator gives of Christians across the board.
    An inability to comprehend both direct statements and sarcasm is only the beginning of his/her problems.
    The blatant and obvious twisting of the facts he/she uses, and the fact that the quotes he/she selects are more convincing in many cases that his/her own comments upon them don't help much either.
    The key failing of the site as a whole is the author’s repetitive tendency to use all the misquoting/out of context quoting/incomplete statements and twisted meaning techniques he/she accuses the FSTDT posters of.

    His/her Hitler fascination is quite disturbing to boot, even though the vast majority of the comparisons put forward on the site don't stand up to a first glance, never mind careful consideration.

    Really, that whole site is quite an embarrassment to Christians.

    Examples follow.

    1. 2nd page, picture 1. Clearly a "no Mormons please" logo, not Christian related at all.

    2. 2nd page of the site, the "Klansmen" picture is a statement of tolerance, not the alleged anti-Semitic statement.

    3. 3rd page, Image 1. Claims that atheists are trying to censor the bible, based on one humorous image with no element of censorship (though a strong element of blasphemy). Given the amount of fringe Christians around demanding that schools remove large lists of books from libraries... Well, this isn't going to be a strong arguing point for any Christian group. Note the extremely laboured link to Hitler’s "control the textbooks" quote, and consider in reference to the above fringe elements...

    4. 3rd page, last image... This is somehow proof that evolution is satanic? Evolution may be. I don't much care. But nothing here proves or even suggests anything of the sort)

    5. 4th page, opening. The author declares (out of nowhere) that evolutionists want to ban God. The somehow extrapolates from this to "Evolutionists want to kill all Christians". This level of paranoia benefits no-one.

    6. 4th page. An un-attributed quote saying that science is the search for natural solutions. This is extrapolated to say Christians are banned from science. Not sure how he makes that one work, even if that were a genuine definition of science.

    7. 4th Page, "Stop using Jesus as an excuse" image and interpretation. This is actually a perfectly valid statement, crudely and questionably phrased. There is a problem with various groups using our Lord as a blanket justification for their own hatreds. The interpretation on this site however somehow reads it as claiming all Christians share these hatreds. The word "conform" is used in the sites interpretation, and then used to string together another non-existent link to Hitler.

    8. 5th page in total... Blasphemous images abound. However the reading into these that these "evolutionists" want homeland security to fail... The author here displays a complete lack of logic and an inability to reason. (He/She is also unaware of the difference between porn and obscenity).

    9. 6th page, opening images. The mockery here is of Young Earth Creationists, not God. (Was the earth created 6000 years ago or 60 Billion years ago? Why would we really care? Those touched by the spirit will have faith, those not, can't. No-one is saved by semantic and/or scientific arguments).

    10. 6th page, the table of quotes. Every single quote is out of context. Most are clearly sarcastic in nature. The author either didn't read or couldn't comprehend the arguments being made. While none of this justifies the statements made in these quotes it does leave the author very, very far out on a limb when he/she makes similar points about FSTDT.

    11. 6th page, last image. A nasty, nasty image, but the authors claim that this is an admission that the FSTDT crowd get inspiration from Nazis is pure gibberish.

    12. 7th page, first part. Blatant twisting of the statements, and deliberate miss-understanding expressed in the blue commentary weaken the site still further.

    13. 7th page second part. Obviously biased and loaded questions. No actual desire to ask about the site, and several blatant lies disguised as questions. Very much along the lines of "So, brother, do you still beat your wife?".

    14. 8th page, opening. Clear and chronic failure to comprehend written English in the opening paragraph (no claim that Christians are virii is made) and the concept of humour in the Doonesbury (which cannot be attributed to FSTDT anyway).

    15. 8th Page, closing paragraph. Irrational claim that inventions of scientists who are Christians should be denied to/refused by "evolutionists"... No rational explanation for this one at all...

    16. 9th page. Somehow it is determined that referring to a webpage (FSTDT) for material for a trashy radio show indicates the medias support and fervent belief that the page in question is inviolate truth... No. I don't get it either.

    17. 9th page, closing paragraph. Apparently radio is now an abomination because Hitler used to use it, and anyone using radio is just like Hitler.

    Whoa... rather longer than expected. Sorry for the large blodge of text.
     
  7. SIGMARHO

    SIGMARHO New Member

    66
    +9
    Baptist
    Married
    I may be an exercise in futility to go to the atheist webstites. It will only look like we're going to debate.
     
  8. ikester7579

    ikester7579 Well-Known Member

    +22
    Non-Denom
    That's is because you are defending FSTDT. First post too. Glad you love my site. The one you made such a long post about. Did not know you cared so much that you would take so much time and effort :D .

    Also, if so many don't like the FSTDT site, all you have to do is find out who the host is. Go to that website and look at there service agreement (rules) with their customers. And what kind of rules they have for content, and promotion of attitudes. And you will find that FSTDT breaks about 3 of them. So file your complaints.

    A who is search should give the host to that site.
     
  9. Bleach4Blood

    Bleach4Blood Guest

    +0
    No, Ikester, really, I don't like your site. Please take the time to read my message and look at what you have claimed and written. As you have done here, you ignore the reality of the situation and say whatever springs to your mind. This is the sort of thing which harms Christians and Christianity.

    Why not do it right, and criticize them on genuine issues? If you must quote them and answer them quote and answer what they actually say. Not what you want them to say. I took the time to "proofread" your site and gave a detailed listing of the problems and weaknesses within it. The least you could do, from common courtessy, not to mention honesty, is actually read it yourself and honestly answer as to your sites core integrity and honesty.
     
  10. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +441
    Atheist
    Married

    Yes.

    If you want to see how this works, there is a 2-dimensional analog to this.

    Take an uninflated ballon, and put some little stickers on it. Make them small stickers, as you'll want to put several on it. Distribute them all around the balloon. These stickers are the "galaxies" on the 2-dimensional "universe" defined by the surface of the balloon.

    Now, begin inflating the balloon and notice that the space in between all of the stickers is increasing. Imagine now that you are a 2-dimensional inhabitant of one of the sticker "galaxies", and you're looking out at all the other sticker galaxies. What would you observe? That all the other stickers are moving away from you.

    Turn the balloon around, and now pretend you live in a different galaxy, and ask yourself the same question. Are all the stickers moving away from you? Yes. Choose any sticker anywhere on the balloon - and you'll come to the same conclusion.

    Keep inflating the balloon and see how the stickers keep separating farther and farther apart. And note that no matter which sticker you pretend to be living in, you always make the same observation - all the other stickers look like they're moving away from you.

    Now, it should be pretty obvious that the motion of the stickers away from one another is a result of the space in between stickers expanding - that is, you're literally adding space between each of the sticker galaxies.

    Now, ask yourself this question - where is the center of this expansion? If you're the inhabitant of one of the 2-D sticker galaxies, you might incorrectly come to the conclusion, "I'm at the center, because everything radiates away from me." But you'll notice that's clearly wrong - because you could have said the same from any other sticker galaxy, not just one in particular.

    The actual center of expansion is not anywhere on the surface of the balloon - the center, you can probably already guess, is actually in the center of the balloon, somewhere in the interior where all your air is. But, that is a third dimension - the surface of the balloon comprises only 2 dimensions, but the interior plus the surface comprise 3 dimensions.

    Thus - this is a two dimensional universe expanding in three dimensions.

    How is this analogous? Although it is nearly impossible for our minds to actually envision this physically, we live in a three dimensional universe expanding in four dimensions.

    This "fourth dimension" is not the "time" dimension as envisioned by Einstein, but a fourth spatial dimension that we, as 3 dimensional creatures, are incapable of observing physically.

    And that's how our own universe expands. Space, literally, is increasing between galaxies. It is also expanding between stars, between planets, between individual atoms, etc.

    However, the rate of this expansion on less than a galactic scale is so small as to be nearly insignificant on that scale. Even between nearby galaxies it is fairly small, and the individual motions of galaxies (by gravitational attraction) may be greater than the spatial expansion. For example, the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest full-size galaxy neighbor, is actually observed as moving toward our galaxy. The space between these two galaxies is small enough, and the relative motion of the galaxies toward each other great enough, that we observe this.
     
  11. arunma

    arunma Flaming Calvinist

    +781
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    RealityCheck, clearly you are well versed in physics!

    Alas, I provided Richard with the balloon analogy a few weeks ago, and he doesn't believe it for some reason.
     
  12. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +441
    Atheist
    Married

    He doesn't believe the analogy is valid, or he doesn't believe the balloon will actually behave exactly as stated?
     
  13. arunma

    arunma Flaming Calvinist

    +781
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Given that every point in the universe can be called the center of the universe, he doesn't recognize the meaninglessness of selecting the earth's reference frame as special. Richard is a geocentrist (in case you didn't notice already). He implicitly denies the Newtonian theory of gravity, yet believes that general relativity somehow validates his geocentric beliefs. I don't think he knows that general relativity also predicts the proper orbit of the earth around the Sun.

    I told him earlier that if he believes that the earth is the center of the universe, then it is impossible for him to believe in gravity. He doesn't believe me, maybe you can convince him though.
     
  14. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +441
    Atheist
    Married
    I doubt it. He's 17, and if I recall that age, it's defined by the belief "I know everything, everyone else knows nothing unless they agree with me."

    He'll grow out of that in the next 5-6 years. (Trust me richard, you will... just about everyone does.)
     
  15. spiersdodgerblue

    spiersdodgerblue Senior Veteran

    +204
    Christian
    Married
    Why fret, It's called free choice, God given free choice. I say let them have there den. With all that they read it's not like seeeds are not being planted, whether roots take or not, this is in their court now. Those who are in the faith just keep on being faithful here on the boards and let them take what they want and leave the breaking down of the hardening of the hearts to God.

    And of course always be praying for the unsaved!
     
  16. RichardT

    RichardT Contributor

    +194
    Pantheist
    Single
    Please source evidence of this.
     
  17. RichardT

    RichardT Contributor

    +194
    Pantheist
    Single
    In the book "Geocentricity" by Gerardus D. Bouw, Bouw explains that it wasn't Newton's plan to invalidate any place in the universe as special, or something like that, it's been a long time since I've read it, I'd have to quote it to you.

    "
    Common Misconceptions

    It is generally believed, without evidence, that in the geocentric model the sun, moon, planets, and distant stars all orbit the earth once per day. There is no orbiting involved. What is happening is that the firmament is rotating. Now the nature of the firmament is such that it defines all the physics of the universe, both the local and the universal, protophysics (Chapter 11, page 116). This means that all the “laws” of physics are part and parcel of the firmament and that the firmament acts like a medium for the laws of science. So it is that in a geocentric model the sun, moon, and stars do not gravitationally orbit the earth daily any more than that a molecule in a top gravitationally orbits the center of the top. In the case of the spinning top it is the fibers and material of the top which carry the molecules around the axis of the top. By the same token, in the geocentric model it is the fabric of the firmament which carries the universe about it. A second common misconception is related to the first and that is that the geocentric universe requires that the sun orbit the earth once per year. Again, this is not the case. In a geocentric universe Newton’s (or Einstein’s) laws must be fulfilled just as in a heliocen-tric universe. Newton’s law of gravity states that from the sun’s perspective, the earth must be seen to revolve about it once per year. It matters not to the sun whether the earth actually does so or appears to do so; remember that we are talking about relative motion, not absolute. If the firmament were to possess a wobble (about which we will say later) which carries the sun, planets, and stars about the earth once a year in such a way that the earth seems to describe an orbit around the sun, then the sun and the universe are content that the law of gravity is being satisfied. Remember,the physics of the universe which specify the law of gravity is fastened to the firmament, not the earth or sun. A third misconception is that the speed of light cannot be exceeded.This argument means that if the stars and planets are further away than Saturn, they would be moving faster than the speed of light in their daily motion about the earth. There are two problems with this statement. First, the daily motion is one of rotation, and relativity (which dictates that the speed of light is a speed limit) is said not to apply to rotation. This is claimed because relativity cannot account for the Sagnac effect, an effect which violates relativity’s postulate that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. More practically, though, relativists maintain that in a spinning universe the gravitational field increases as one goes further and further from the axis of rotation. Relativity allows that it is the gravitational field which dictates the speed of light in any part of the universe. Thus the further one goes from earth, the faster the speed of light in a rotating universe. But the true resolution is this: the laws of physics, including any laws about a speed limit, are defined relative to the firmament. It is not the case that the universe is rotating once per day inside the firmament. On the contrary, the firmament does the rotating and the bodies of the universe seldom go much faster relative to the firmament than a few hundreds to a few thousands of miles per second, far, far below the speed of light. Hence, if the speed of light (3x10 10 cm/sec or 186,272 miles per second) is a speed limit in the universe, it is so only relative to the firmament. Because of its tremendous mass and density compared to the material universe, it is a small thing for the firmament to rotate once a day. For rotation, there is no problem with violating the speed of light, even at the most remote edge of the universe. The last misconception we shall look at now is the one which claims that the laws of physics should be different in a geocentric universe than in a heliocentric universe. Time and time again this has been shown to be false. What this misconception claims is that phenomena such as the Foucault pendulum, the stationary satellite, the flight of ballistic missiles, indeed, the very equations on which the space program is based must be different in a geocentric universe. This is the very misconception which Ernst Mach tried to counter in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To understand this, think of it this way. Imagine a non-rotating coordinate system fastened to the center of a spinning globe in the middle of a room. Imagine that somewhere in the room there is a basketball player standing, dribbling a ball. Initially, even though the globe is spinning, the coordinate system is not spinning and we describe the motion of the ball mathematically in terms of the coordinate system attached to the globe. Now imagine that the coordinate system starts spinning with the globe. It should be intuitively obvious that the behavior of the basketball and player is not affected by whether or not the coordinate system is spinning. In other words, just because some imaginary coordinate system is spinning, one cannot claim that the ball should bounce back up, away from the player’s hand. This is the case claimed by Mach and the geocentrists. Geometry is an imaginary concept and cannot be allowed to dictate the physics as a function of the coordinate system. Yet there are those who insist that a geocentric universe must give a different physics. Unwittingly they argue that the behavior of the basketball is different in a spinning coordinate system than in a non-spinning one. Those subject to this misconception have assumed that the coordinate system, the geometry, is the ultimate reality instead of a language used to describe reality. This is the ultimate reality of Plato, but is wrong and borders on idolatry."

    -Dr. Gerardus D. Bouw
     
  18. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +441
    Atheist
    Married

    Link to basic article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_expansion

    Some specifics:

     
  19. RealityCheck

    RealityCheck Senior Veteran

    +441
    Atheist
    Married
    richardT - Regarding geocentrism and Bouw's work:

    However, while many parts of General Relativity have been shown empirically to accurately predict certain phenomenon, such as "gravitational lensing of light", the theory has also been shown to have some major holes in it - most notably, its predictions conflict with the predictions of quantum mechanics, and QM theory has shown to be a better model, again through empirical evidence. The most damaging prediction of general relativity is the prediction of "singularities", which are not possible in quantum mechanics. Much of the current work in these fields is centered on reconciling the two theories, and no satisfactory solution, as yet, has been reached. M-theory is the most promising of the newest theories that resolve these difficulties.

    But back to what the above quote says. Science can only deal with ideas that can be falsified - that is, we can devise a real experiment that produces results that either support the theory or discredit the theory. If something is not falsifiable, then it is not science.

    Do not make the mistake of thinking that "not falsifiable" is the same as "not false." It merely means that the truth or falsehood of a statement, idea, or whatnot cannot be verified by any known means. Intelligent Design, for example, has the same problem. It posits that an Intelligent Designer must exist - however, the existence of such a designer cannot be verified or disproven. Nor has any experiment been devised that would show or deny the existence of such a designer. Therefore, I.D. does not qualify as "science."
     
  20. sister_maynard

    sister_maynard Senior Veteran

    +104
    Methodist
    Single
    US-Others
    If you're going to hint at things then go ahead and put the information up, carefully explaining exactly what you're trying to say. Your site is well-intentioned, but it's riddled with logical fallacies. Someone gave you a nice explanation of how you could strengthen your position; blow it off if you like, but clinging to weak arguments is just silly.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...