Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Javier_Vierja

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Yes, its on page 159 of Chrtine Garwood's Flat Earth hardback.  Specifically, it says: "Universal Zetetic Society members included an archbishop, a major-general, several counts and colonels, the eminent Anglican clergyman and Bible scholar Ethelbert William Bullinger, and the senior moderator in natural science at Trinity College Dublin, Dr Edward Haughton."

Thank you for the information you provided.
OK, thanks. I would like to know her sources, but I guess I should have to contact her for that.
Indeed.  The particular passage is uncited.

2
Yes, its on page 159 of Chrtine Garwood's Flat Earth hardback.  Specifically, it says: "Universal Zetetic Society members included an archbishop, a major-general, several counts and colonels, the eminent Anglican clergyman and Bible scholar Ethelbert William Bullinger, and the senior moderator in natural science at Trinity College Dublin, Dr Edward Haughton."

OK, thanks. I would like to know her sources, but I guess I should have to contact her for that.

3
Feel free to ask and I'll look it up.  Include the full citation, if you don't mind. 

OK. The page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger#Theology

The citation is under Theology, and it is "According to Christine Garwood, he was also a 'flat earth' supporter, a member of the Universal Zetitic Society".

Thanks.

4
Hello, I want to consult something in that book, do you know whether it's in PDF somewhere?

Try your local library. If that doesn't work, Demonoid (if you have an account) or Pirate Bay. Or, more legally, start a thread here or in the Lounge asking someone to summarize it. (Although, the RIAA would still call it illegal...)

It wasn't my intention to do something illegal, besides, I see that the book's price is from $1 used and $4 new, but I don't live in the US, and I don't think I'll find it in my city.

I just wanted to verify something that I read at Wikipedia, the article is citing this book as the source and I wanted to see what it actually says (and the basis that the book's author had to say that).

5
I don't want to read the entire book, I just want to consult something.
May be someone who has the book can tell me what I want to know.

6
Hello, I want to consult something in that book, do you know whether it's in PDF somewhere?

7
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 12, 2006, 10:39:13 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Whether or not they are true is up to debate

I don't know if it is really up to debate. You can accept it or reject it, or you can think about it, but up to debate... What can we debate?

Quote
You take their truth as a premise; we do not.

OK, that's fine with me, I have no problem.
But if someone ask me if I think the bible has facts, I'll answer, and I'll answer with what I believe the bible has, and they are not facts.

Quote
Instead, we ask you to justify your use of these propositions as truths.

I think that I already explained how it works.

Quote
"And on the third day, He rose from the dead, and revealed himself to his disciples," or whatever -- is that a true statement?

Well, I believe this is not a lie, and it is talking about something that heppened.

Quote
What evidence do you have to support it?

Did you read what I already wrote to you in all my posts?

Don't you realize Erasmus that you are not (and anybody is) the one that will say how the things must work? Sometimes the things are not as we supposed they should be, or as we expected, so we must pay attention to the infortmation that is provided to us and decide what we accept and what we do not accept.

Ask yourself what are you looking for.
If you are looking for scientific information of the existence of God, all you'll find are "the things made".
If you really need more, you have to ask God about that; because from me, I cannot povide more, and even less through a forum.

If you think it is like discussing with the flat earthers, I mean, because we have free time and it more entertaining than watching TV, in a discussion almost without purpose, I am not interested.
If you are interested because you would like to know more because you would like to believe in God (even when it may cause some shame to you to recognize it), I'll try to provide what I can, the answers that I have.
So...
If it is not anything of that, why are we talking about the bible?

8
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 12, 2006, 07:10:07 PM »
Quote from: "6strings"
I'd still like to know whether or not you find it acceptable to cite scripture in an argument of facts, and if so, why?


The scripture contains truths, not facts.
But it talks about facts that may be considered historical facts by one that considers it as a source of truths (I mean, that believes what it says).

But what do you mean, for example?

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Mathematics, anyone?
« on: February 10, 2006, 12:14:41 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
An ever-accelerating body increases in mass (as observed from any inertial reference frame)

That's the error. You are not observing from any inertial reference frame, but from the object's frame. The force is constant, as the perceived acceleration on that frame.

(I thought we were agree about that from a post that I posted several days ago, the one that you commented that you had been discussing the same thing in other thread)

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Mathematics, anyone?
« on: February 10, 2006, 09:27:21 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Well I wouldn't quite call it "fine", since it does in fact demand an ever-increasing force to propel the Earth....

It demands an ever increasing velocity, but the force is fixed.

11
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 10, 2006, 04:31:40 AM »
Quote
So if you believe in God, then the bible is right? Fair enough.

It is not so simple, it doesn't work this way.

BTW, what is right or wrong doesn't depend on what you believe. I believe that the truth is something objective.

An analogy: if someone believe that the earth is flat, and another one believe it's round, and a third person believe it is a cube, the earth doesn't change its shape for each person.

"God exists and the bible has the Word of God", if it's right, it is right for everybody, and if it's wrong, it's wrong for everyone.
But like in the shape of the earth issue, not everybody believes the same thing (I thought nowadays eveybody thought  it was round until I found this forum).

Quote
But, you said I first need to believe that God exists (Hebrew 11:6) but that means I need to believe a quote from the bible first.

Not necessarily from the bible. You need to believe that God exist, it doesn't say you must do it from the bible; furthermore, in the other versicle it says "from the things made", it doen't say from the bible.

Look, here, it explains a way a person can start to believe in the bible.

12
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 09, 2006, 03:52:19 PM »
cheesejoff: and what makes you think that the bible is trying to prove something? Anyone said that?
The bible has information from someone that's telling you how the things are, you can accept the information or reject it, nothing else is involved.

Quote
The difference between trusting God and your mother is that if your mother said "I exist" it would be very easy to believe since you can see quite clearly that see she exists

It's very clear to me that you didn't get the point. Please read my posts (specially the last ones) in the topic "People believe what they want to believe" (it is on the Other Alternative Science section) and then re-read my last post in this topic".
I can't explain all about how this things work in just one post, so, if you read all the post I pointed, you'll have more chances to understand what I meant in here.

Quote
But when God says it then it's harder to accept because you don't have any proof of him existing in the first place

Yes, you cannot believe anything that is supposedly from God if you don't believe that God exists.

First you need to belive that God exist (Hebrews 11:6), and about the proof, the only proof are the things made (Romans 1:20).
So, take it of leave it. No problem, you are free to believe whatever you want or makes more sense to you.

Quote
so you believe that he exists based on the fact that you trust him, and the only reason you trust him is because you believe he exists

No, you first believe He exist, then may be you will know Him and after knowing Him for a while you may start to trust Him (please read the post I pointed for further understanding).

Quote
Don't get me wrong, most Christians do a lot of good for the world, but you are still believing without conclusive evidence.

And yes I'm aware that that's what most religions are about, believing without it being proven

In fact, there are proofs, but after you believe.

Quote
and it's up to you if you want to do that.

Yes.

Quote
But then what makes Christianity right and Judaism wrong? Or the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, or even bigfoot?

Well, check the information presented by everyone and decide. And about Christianity, don't take the first doctrine that you hear to be Christian's doctrine as if it really was, examine what people says (I actually don't know of any so called Christian religion that teaches the bible doctrine right, but they teach mostly their own ideas, anyway in some parts they are right).

Quote
Please bear in mind I have nothing against Christians or indeed anyone of any religion. I actually have respect for the good that most religions do. Except, of course, for Christian fundamentalists who seek to destroy others rights and freedoms.

OK, that's right.

Look cheesejoff, If someone really wants to know more because perhaps he is interested in knowing God and believe in Him (and later to Him), I'll do all I can to try to help him and provide the information that I have and I know. But if someone is just trying to argue with the only purpose to show that the bible is wrong, I am not going to lose my time on that (it doens't seem to be your case, and I don't say it is the case of anyone that was asking or questioning here either).

13
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 08, 2006, 05:50:38 AM »
OK, seeing that Cinlef don't post the versicles in question, I'll post a couple that I think can be interpreted to do what he is pointing.

Here is a versicle when Jesus was praying to God: John 17:17

For Jesus, the Word of God was the truth.

The origin and nature of the scripture:
2 Peter 1:20-21
Here the scripture is describing how we have the scripture now, and the way we must study it.
Here is an example about how it was written: Jeremiah 36:4

OK. Now think. Did you have in your life an experience like this?:
Suppose that you are talking with your mother or a very close friend, and she/he says: "would I lie to you? I am telling you the truth".
Is that a valid thing for her/him to say? It depends entirely in the confidence that you have to that person. It depends on affections, how much you know the person, what kind of relationship you have, etc.
You can't say that to an stranger, you can't say that to someone that don't know you at all. If you try to validate what you are saying to an stranger with your own words, it would be "full circular logic", but if the two persons already know each other, it may be different.
When your mother says that, it is because she is trying to make you think about all she did for you and how much she loves you; so, if you are unsure if she may be laying to you on the situation, she is making you realize that with all she did for you in the past and all the love she has shown to you, it is quite unlikely that she is going to lie to you now, causing an damage.
It is entirely based in the quality of the relationship that you already have with the person.

So, may be that you already have been studing the scripture and you realized that it have something divine, but you are not certain about its origin, and you have been heard that it expresses thoughts of men with hight moral or something like that. Well, then you have the answer in the scripture itself: it didn't come from any man's mind.
You also have the validation from people that are already living this, like me (may be you disregard this, I don't care).

Let's see the example of the versicle where Jesus was praying. Suppose that someone already knows some of the bible teaching, but he/she is asking himself/herself what is the truth. OK, there you have the answer to what the truth is, and what Jesus Christ considered to be the truth.

The person can still don't believe that, because once you start to believe, you don't lose free will, a person can believe some scriptures and other not, of course it is not the best to do (and also it is not coherent).
Different is the case when you don't understand something in the scripture. You can't believe something that you can't understand.
And the reasons why someone is not able to understand some parts of the scriptures may be a lot. Nobody understand all.

So, summarizing, this kind of things make sense only when there are already confidence, not when the person hearing or reading distrust to the one speaking.

14
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 08, 2006, 04:44:29 AM »
cheesejoff: I know perfectly what he means, we've been talking a lot already (better read all the posts).

15
OK Erasmus. If you are planning a trip and you would like to visit South America, I invite you to Argentina. We could talk a lot for sure.
My English is not so good spoken as it is written (that is already far from perfect but I think you can understand), but anyway we will understand each other, I'm quite sure.

I didn't verify the time, but the last post took me more than two hours to write.
I have read all your last post, and I could answer many things you said there (and also in the two links to Wikipedia), but not all. Anyway it is my hope and will to have more answers in the future.

16
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 06, 2006, 04:31:51 PM »
Well, I'm a bit fatigued too, but if we want to go deeper with this, then let's go. Please tell me what are the bible verses that in particular you are talking about (logical fallacy), then I'll try to answer, if I know, why are these verses there.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / The continuous work of the few
« on: February 06, 2006, 11:06:51 AM »
Quote from: "bullhorn"
The reason I cannot believe that the earth is round is becuase I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise.


OK, if you need evidence then walk and go to a museum, ask for the Foucault pendulum, stay there at least four hours, see how the pendulum moves. Then ask someone in the museum why the pendulum moves, they will say: that's because the earth is spinning.
If you still don't believe, and you think that's part of the conspiracy and there is a electromagnet at the bottom of the pendulus,  then make your own pendulum.
You'll need a wire of at least 100 feet, and a place even highter. Then bind the wire there.
Then, hung something of about ten ponds bind to the other extremity of the wire.
Wait and see how the pendulum moves and make an explanation. If you don't find an easy explanation with the flat earth model and want to try an explanation with the round earth model, I suggest you to read about Coriolis force.

At least I gave you something to do that is much easier than going to space, and it's not expensice either.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / The continuous work of the few
« on: February 06, 2006, 08:10:28 AM »
bullhorn:

If you really believe that the earth is flat and there is a big conspiracy I suggest you to open your mind to alternatives ideas. I'm not saying to believe all the science if you think that we have been deceived, but open your head to consider that you can be wrong.

It is more likely that you may be laughing right now because I am taking you seriously, but if you really believe that the earth is flat, please don't get offended with what I am going to say, but consider to go to a psychologist or psychiatrist, if everything is OK no problem, if not, may be you can get help in this way.

19
Quote from: "Erasmus"
As far as I know, God never sat down with pen and papyrus and wrote any biblical passages. In fact, he was never directly responsible for any verse, book, edition, translation of the bible -- there was always some human intermediator. In most cases, we have no idea who this intermediator was, and in many of the cases where we have some idea, there are serious doubts as to the veracity of the claim that so-and-so wrote the Book of Such-and-such.

All right.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
All you have is the assurance of humans that God is indirectly responsible for the biblical text, in that he put words into somebody's head and that person wrote them down. What you haven't got is any reason to believe any of the following:

I have reasons, I'll write about them below.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

1) That the message was in the form of explicit sentences, and not just a general idea.

2) That the person who got the message wrote it down himself, instead of passing it along orally.

3) That the people who passed it along orally, or the person who finally did write it down, didn't change it, reinterpret it, or forget parts of it and make up stuff to fill in the holes, as this occurred.

4) That the people who translated the book from whatever language it was written in didn't change the meaning, either in error or intentionally.

5) That the early Church, as a result of its constant internal power struggles and disagreements over what should be taken as canonical and what was apocryphal or even heretical, actually maintained any of the original text.

6) That early Israelite tribes, as a result of their constant internal power struggles, actually maintained any of the original text.

7) Any way of checking any of points 1-6.


1) I believe that's correct.
2) Also correct.
3) It was not orally.
4) That happened sometimes. Translations are not inspired by God.
5) I believe that didn't happen.
The original texts are supposed to be lost (may be because they got too old and were not readable any more), but that's not sure, the Vatican may have texts that the rest of the word don't have access, so we cannot be sure what is lost and what isn't.
6) Similar to 5)

Quote from: "Erasmus"
So basically, why do you have any faith in what the Bible says at all?

OK, This is the "big question".

I see to ways that could help to answer this question.
A) To explain why the human are now in such a problem.
B) To explain in practice what can someone do to solve this problem.

B) is practical while A) is more intellectual and also will have the same problem, because I'll explain A) with what the bible says; but at least you'll have a logic that explain what happen (may be you could like to call it "a theory", but for the one that already believe, it is not just a theory).

So... I'll start with B):
After God revealed his Word, He didn't go on vacation. He is still working. He is a spiritual being, nor matter neither energy, spirit is another thing. Spirit is in another level, but spirit can interact with material level.
From the material level there is no way to see spirit: you cannot put spirit in a particle accelerator and see something. You cannot take a tester and measure spirit. I don't know for sure if the physics will ever be able to see spirit interacting, but it is more likely not.
Of course, you can say: but why do you think that? OK, I learned all that after what I'll explain as the "practical" of point B).

The practical thing is: someone that really want to know the truth, that has the questions:
I) Why there is this universe?
II) Why we live? What is life's purpuse?
III) Is there a God?
IV) What is the truth?
V) What do I do here?
VI) What happen after death? Is there anything or is it the end?

And the more important one (at least in practice), but it's not a question: If there is a God I want to know Him.

People that has an internal power that diligently think and seek for these answers, people that internally whould like to believe that God exist, will find the answers.
Because God is seeing that situation and attitude, and He sees the interest of the person and the problem that he/she has to believe.
The experience of the person may vary from one to another, it is something very personal, but God will do what's necessary to help you to convince (whatever is needed for you, every person is different and require different things to be convinced).
For example: some people in a situation may pray: "if there is a God, please help me with "something", and he got an answer that it would be very unlikely to happen otherwise.
But it is only for some people, because other ones will think: may be it was a coincidence, or may be it was my mind interacting with the environment, etc. So they would need another thing to be convinced.

I am not telling you my own experience because it was something personal, but I am trying to extract the general truth involved. But better let's see what is what God himself says about that in the bible:

Matthew 7:7-8
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."

After crossing that line (a cliff, if you prefer) and you start to believe, now other things are available to you.
When someone start to believe (He need to believe specifically at least Romans 10:9-10) he receives holly spirit, and it allows a direct comunication with God (impossible before).

But at this point I'll start with point A):

At Genesis 1 God created the man, and they (Adam and Eve) had three parts: body, soul and spirit. Body is physical, soul is the life, and spirit is the part that had a direct conection with God (because God is spirit).
So, the man had three parts, two of which were for comunicating with the world, the environment, all that you can see, hear, taste, etc with the five senses, and the other part, the spirit was for comunicating with God.
(I can give you all the bible scriptures to show you that, but it would be too long to put all here now).

God said: don't do something, because when you do that you will die. But you can see that they didn't die physically when they did that, but what happened is that they died spiritually, they lost the third part, the spirit. So they became just body and soul, without spirit.
They still could have comunication with the environment (because they didn't lose body and soul), but not with God directly thru the spirit as they used to have. They became limited to the five senses to acquire information. When God said "you'll die" it meant to lose the holy spirit part.
I can explain more about what happened there but I am trying to keep it short.

Then God inmediately promised a redeemer (remember omniscience in the other thread? God has the solution to any given situation, at the moment). God promised a solution to this situation, He had a plan to solve that (and also to solve other things).

The consecuences of losing holly spirit were critical. After that every time that God wanted to comunicate with someone He needed to do something physical, like the burning brier to Moses and other examples.

Also when some people believed, He put holly spirit on them, but conditionally. Some people in the old testament, mostly prophets, had holly spirit on them, but if they went appart from God, they lost the holly spirit.
In this way they could comunicate with God directly, as Moses and other prophets did.
Jesus Christ also had holly spirit on him, and he received it only when he started his ministry, not before.

Look: Ephesians 2:1,5
Why the bible says that we are dead (before we believe in Jesus Christ), if we are in fact alive? Because we have not spirit. We are dead spiritually, without spirit.
What does this of "transgressions and sins" means? This is not talking about something that you did, it is talking about the consecuence of what Adam did. We all now are born spiritually dead as a consecuence of what Adam did. It was not a punishment from God, but is is how the things works, spiritually are also rules, like in other fields. Because, if it was a punishment, then why God endeavors in changing all that with a redeemer? God doen't punish people, He is good, and He always try to help the people.

OK, let's see. Then when someone accept Jesus Christ, he receives holly spirit. He/she again has three parts: body, soul and spirit.
The person with spirit now has the possibility of direct comunication with God. (That's why the veil of the temple was broken when JC died. meaning direct access to God now - a priest is not needed any more to be intermediary with God as it used to be in the old testament, because in the OT the common people didn't have spirit on them -)

As an ilustration I'll say that the holly spirit is like a radio receiver. The waves are there, but you can't here anything... unless you have the proper receiver.
God is there, but people don't have the receiver - holly spirit - to comunicate with Him. Of course you can pray, but it is only a one way comunication in such a situation.

After you receive holly spirit, the receiver, then you have the tool that allow you to understand spiritual things.
Look: 1 Corinthians 2:14
The "natural" man is the term the bible uses to refer to the man without spirit.
It is very important this verse, please read it.

see also: 1 Corinthians 2:15
The spiritual man (with holly spirit, and using it) can understand spiritual things and of course also natural things.

But this man is already on the other side, he crossed the line that can be crossed only believing.

There is a problem to the man too scientist, that only believe what he sees, because he won't see spirit, never. But as I already said, God himself will help to anyone that really would like to know Him and believe. He would do whatever is necessary for you.
But one warn:
Don't try to force God into something: for example demanding some miracle or a demostration.
The one with the problem is you, not God. The one who need help to believe are you. So be humble in front of God.
God sees your attitude, your heart, and He will answer to you.
James 4:6
God will do what He knows is necessary, but don't try to command God in some direction that you think is what you need (or you want).

After you can believe in JC and receive holly spirit, there will be a direct comunication, so God can reveal things to your heart and guide you to know and understand the truths in the scripture.

Of course I know I didn't cover all here, but at least I tryed an explanation.

Life gets another dimension with God. You pass from a "flat" life to a three dimension life (of course it is a figure).
It is something similar as in the Matrix movie: do you want to take the blue pill or the red one?
Life don't get a paradise instantly, but you awake to another reality that always was there: the spiritual reality. You'll also see a lot of problems that you didn't see before, even though they were there all the time you didn't realize of the spiritual nature involved behind them.
Of course, the best of all is God's blessing (and to have a relationship with Him), and to know the truth, at least some of them, it can't be priced, and worth all. I am not regretful of what pill I took.

So, going back to your questioning of the bible, I think that the information to "cross the line", I mean the information needed to receive the holly spirit - and by the way, this is the moment when we become son of God, not when we are born from our natural parents - is clear enough: to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord, and to believe that God rised him from the death. After that we have the holly spirit, the tool to help us, along with studying the scripture, to discover the truths there, even with the translations and copys and all the problems that you pointed above.

20
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 05, 2006, 04:09:43 PM »
Quote from: "Cinlef"
I believe I understand what you mean.
However when exactly did you show that using the Bible to justify belief in the Bible is not a logical fallacy?

The bible doen't say the bible is infallible, it says that the Word of God is.
And they are not the same thing.
(The post I still have to answer to Erasmus in the other thread is about that subject)

But you still could argue: God says that all He says is truth. OK, if you wonder where the truth is, that's the information that you need.

But if you are not sure if you can trust what God says because you are not sure if He is a liar or not, well, you have a problem.
Besides, God doen't have any supeior stage to validate what He says, you have reached the top there, there is no more over him.

A similar situation is this one: Hebrews 6:13
"When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself"

21
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 05, 2006, 03:32:10 PM »
Quote from: "Cinlef"
Wait I'm still confused (I'm not being sarcastic you have sincerely lost me)

OK

Quote from: "Cinlef"
1.Are you saying that saying that the deeper truths of the Bible require prior knowledge of the Judaeo Christian beliefs to be understood? This would be a valid point

No.
That's also right but not for deeper truths, may be a very simple truth is hided because an orientalism is used, and a deeper truth is written in "plain text". It is necessary to study Judaeo belief and customs to understand some text, but not necessary they are deeper.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
2. Are you saying only Christians can see the truth of the Bible? That would be evidently invalid as the Bible is used to convert people by showing them the truth which is what CAUSES THEM TO BELIEVE.

That's more close to what I said.
Not the whole bible text is to convert people, some books in the bible are specifically written to people that already are believers.
But I was going even further: not all the books and sections for believers are for all the believers, some are for mature believers.

Look how the bible define different groups of people: 1 Corinthians 10:32
Jews, Gentiles, the church of God

1 Corinthians 1:1-2
"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, to the church of God in Corinth"

Galatians 1:1-2
"Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me, to the churches[/] in Galatia:"

1 Thessalonians 1:1
"Paul, Silas[a] and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you"

We also need to know what means "the church" in the bible. The Greek word is ekklesia and means "the ones called" or "people called to the same purpose". And they can be called for anything, for instance in a verse: in Acts 17:5 the word "mob" is the same Greek word ekkesia. But in the other context it refers to the people believer, that have common interest in Christ and God. Ekkesia is not a temple. For temple there is another word in Greek.

Look: Galatians 1:13
Paul didn't persecuted a temple, but people, the believers.

So, every time that in the bible one read "the church of God" is talking of the believers.

Romans is a book where some sections are for "still not christians".
1 and 2 Peter are books that are for believers, but they were juds still celous for the law (of Moses).

The whole Old Testament is not for the ekkesia (for us) but for the people of Israel.

One can learn form something that was not written to him? Of course. If you open a letter that was not for you, you can learn some things, but there are things that are not for you (if you read "tell to your sister something" in that letter, you don't have to do that because it is not for you, but in the whole content you can also understand something useful for you).

You now can say: But I believe that people are the same for God thru time, and God doens't change with time. That's right, but circunstances change.
For example, now after Jesus Christ work, the circunstances have changed because of what he attained for us.
Can we learn from the old testament? Yes. Is it for us? No.

I wrote above: "not all the books and sections for believers are for all the believers, some are for mature believers"

1 Corinthians 2:6
"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature"
This section, this wisdom is for the mature.
Can a non-mature read it? Yes, but he won't fully understand.

It is the same: if you want to learn to multiply, first you have to learn to add. If you want to learn mathematical analysis, first you need to learn to add and multiply (and even more). Can a person that doens't know to multiply to read about mathematical analysis? Yes, but he won't understand very much.

With spiritual things it is similar. Spiritual things are not magic, and have some rules like other things. It is not that God is making difference among the people, but the people are in different stages and need to learn different things because they aren't still capable of understanding the other ones.

1 Corinthians 3:1
Hebrews 5:12
(please read the verses)
Some truths are for mature, it doen't mean that other can't read them, but they won't understand much.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
Also while I being Catholic do accept the Bible as a source of truth you haven't presented any argument for why someone who isn't a Chritian (or in the case of the Old Testament; Jewish or Christian) should accept the Bible as a source of truth. Which I believe is what 6strings and Eramus and logic are getting at.

Yes, that's right. I still didn't say anything for that purpose.
But all this discussion came because I wanted to explain that it is not a fallacy. It is not a fallacy because that part is not for people that still don't believe. Can they learn something with this? Yes, but it is not intended to convince them about the validity of the bible, they can learn that the bible says for itself that the Word of God doesn't fail and that it is the truth.
It doen't say that in the sense: look, it says that it is the truth, so it must be. It would be a fallacy to try to convince someone in such a way.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
Their point is that as this isn't a Judaeo-Chritian forum you must show why the Bible should be accepted as true

If it was their point I'll try to do my best, but I repeat, I just explained why it wasn't a fallacy, not more.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
(since people on the forum dont make the same assumption as regards to its truth as you do).

Yes, but they (and you) asked, and I answered.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
However until you prove to them that its a valid source they are totally within bounds to say you citing it proves

I'll prove nothing. But I'll explain what is the mechanism in all this.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Javier_Vierja wrote:
All is "true", ... It is just the thuth,

My question, "Why do you believe it?" or "How do you know it's the truth?" still stands.

Yes, I know Erasmus. I'll answer to that in the other thread.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Javier_Vierja wrote:
They need a previous state of knoledge to understand some of the truths.

This is what I was refering to as the Gnostic viewpoint.


Well, you could think on a similarity in that point, but I'm not gnostic. The verses that I exposed above show what I meant in what I said before.
I am not very familiar with all the ideas behing the gnosis, but AFAIK I don't share much.

I'll write about what you asked, but later (I'm a bit tired right now).

22
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 05, 2006, 12:02:58 PM »
Now who is becoming enraged is me!

You still don't understand.

For example: You can write in a bokk "the table is white", and in another section of the same book "the table was painted white with the X technique", and in another part you can explain about light spectrum and wavelenght, refraction, and even deeper explanations.

All is "true", but not all the sections are intended for the same people. One is for a child, the other is for people that understand about painting, and the other is for more advanced in physics.

I don't mean that the contained in the bible is true for someone and not true for others. It is just the thuth, but is not wrote to everybody, just because they can't understand it. They need a previous state of knoledge to understand some of the truths.

23
Quote from: "Cinlef"
Man first off just as you cannot believ theologians solely because they are theologians you cant dissmiss them sololy because they have fame there arguments must be judged on there own merits.

The only authority is the Word of God in the Bible, not what a man could think, including me of course. So, if what a man says in according to what the bible says, believe that, otherwise, don't believe the man but believe the bible.

And the merits must be merits based in finding truths in the bible, not others. The merits can also be showing how they exercised power of God in practice, not to suffer and other things that are not the will of God.

(please select the bible version that you trust better)

Corinthians 2:13

1 Corinthians 2:1,4-5

Colossians 2:20-23

Quote from: "Cinlef"
Your logic implies that there are somethings that God does not know.

Yes, YES.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
Since God is omniscient

God's omniscience consist in that He has the solution to a situation in any given circunstance, not that He knows the future.
BTW: the words omniscient and omniscience I don't remember to appear in the bible.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
also since God reveales the future many times to prophets in the Bible that would also indicate he knows the future.

To know some things of the future it doen't mean that you know all. I already explained that two times.
We being just human, also know some things of the future. God with infinite more capabilities, can know more and more accurate. But He doesn't know things that depends on your free will. But not everything is free will, there are many things and also human behaviour that are cause-effect, that can be predictable with all the information required for the case.
Another case are the things that He predicted because He is (or was) going to do.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
Simple enought for you?The random elemment is our free will.

I made a comparison, I didn't say "it was" free will. It was only an ilustration with something that even when it's different, there are points in common.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
Your objection to this as I understand it seems to be that if God knows I will choose to get drunk near a cliff due to this fall to my death and He does nothing then He is in esence killing me.Which would make God evil. Since He isn't I loose. Correct?

He is not killing you, but obviously He doesn't care about your life.

But anyway, this brings another subject. Because in fact, even not knowing the future, God can realize that something wrong is going to happen. That's why we need to be in communion with God, and as close as possible (it is not the only reason). So we open the door to God to help us.
We need to believe that God's will is to protect us, and He'll do it any time we need. We need to believe that the death is an enemy (not a friend that brings you to God presence), and we need to believe that God is good, not evil, without darkness: 1 John 1:5
And we need to be prudent, that's all our part. God doens't fail doing his part.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
Type 2 isnt really evil. Sure the world is dangerous and filled with pain but who said it was supposed to be paradisical?

It is important to check what you are believing with the bible:
God's first intention was putting the mankind in a paradise (Genesis 1 and 2).
But the ground became "cursed": Genesis 3:17
The ground became cursed not because God cursed it, but it was a consecuence (with another cause - I can explain it better -).

Quote from: "Cinlef"
Without type 2 evil there would be noi virtues no suffering means no compassion no danger means no courage, no poverty no charity. Okay

And the problem is...?
If it is a problem you better don't go to heaven (in the future).

Quote from: "Cinlef"
Thus God may know I'm going to reject Him and do evil things but if he interferes then he's focing me to love him and forced love is no love at all.

May know or may not know. Anyway it is correct that He doen't force anybody, and it wouldn't be love if He does it.

1 Timothy 2:4
It is not a force, but a wish of God.
Based also on this verse, we can expect from God to clear us all this subject (about what He knows of the future) better than we know now. And also on this other verse: 1 Corinthians 14:33

24
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 05, 2006, 03:54:29 AM »
Quote from: "6strings"
Quote
I wasn't talking about the Sun revolving around the Earth there, I was just (off topic) replying to what logic! said about the bible being logically fallacious.

That's because you misunderstood what he said, Javier.
He said that using the Bible to prove it's own infallibility is a logical fallacy, because it's circular reasoning, as the reasoning to make it infallible necessitates that it be infallible before it tries to prove its infallibility.


I think you misunderstood what I said, please read my last two posts again.

Quote from: "logic!"
But that's preposterous. Truth is truth. What is in the bible is either true or false. It can't just be true for Christians.

The truth is the truth, but those truths were not spoken to everybody.

25
Quote from: "Cinlef"
Your assuioming that God perceives time in basically the same way as you. He doesn't. God created time so He is (for lack of a better term) outside of it. Since He is omnisicient past present and future are irrelevant to him (he knows what has happened what is happening and what will happen.)

Well, this reasoning is accepted in many religions, but it is not in the bible.

What is time? Time is movement. The past existed, but it doesn't exist any more, the future don't exist (but will exist hwen it becomes present), it is only taht the present exist.
Yes, I know you'll say it is this way only for us, but not for God.
Let's assume this as correct. God being outside the time, He sees all at the same time. Then He knew before you was born (and much earlier) what you'll do in 10 years, or tomorrow, or in a minute (for example: are you going to reply to this or not? can you decide that? God knows already it? Can you change that?).

Then... what can you decide today? Nothing at all.
Let's suppose that God knows that you are going to have an accident. Why He doens't warm you to avoid it?
Of course, the reigions that are not based in the Holly Scripture will invent some ideas, like the death is a friend (the blible says very clearly that it is an enemy) or that you go to heaven when you die (the bible don't say that, you'll go after the resurrection).
If God would know that something bad was going to happend to you and He does nothing, the He would be evil.

In the other hand, if God already know what you are going to do, you don't have any choice to choose what to do, that's simple logic.
The theologians may invent any dark and not understandable explanation, but it doens't make them true.
I know that God is so great and He is far from human capabilities, but He gave us a brain to think logically, not to believe things only because the one who said that is fameous.

If anyone, including God, knows the future, then, the future in some way already exist.
Then, time travel may be possible, etc.
Then, what is the game that God is playing, when He offer salvation to someone that He already knows that will reject?
BTW, quite boring that game.
I could ask a lot os questions, like: why did He create Lucifer, if He knew that he was going to sin and damage all the humanity?

Of course, the religious people and theologians will answer again to those questions with a lot of dark explanations, impossible to believe if you think well.

If you make something, it doen't neccesary mean that you are excuded in all ways of you created.
The time as it exist for us may be created, but it doen't necessary mean that there is not time and has no effect for God.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
My big objection to NArrow PAth Pilgrils whole view of the elcet is that it assumes that people are damnned because they ask God gfor the grace to resist sin and are refused.

Yes, but this point of view is more logical if God knows the future (Calvinist and Lutherans think more or less this way).

Quote from: "Cinlef"
See that is bullshit as it would make God cruel.

Of course, it is what I pointed above.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
In fact people are damnned because they never ask for divine grace or never repent. Chrits sacrificed himself to redeem humanity and purchase all mankind a chance at salvation.

That's right.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Perhaps he simply sees all possible futures, but doesn't know which one humans will choose.

That's another possibility, it would be something according to superstring theory.
But if we care only of this universe, then He doesn't know what tou are going to do.

I already thought about that in the past.
So... in some universes I'll be saved, and in other not? And all Javier_Vierjas saved will go to the same heaven, or to different heavens...?
It is pretty weird... but I can't say that it is not valid thinking...
(May be you only wrote it for fun)

Quote from: "Erasmus"
I suspect that he knows how things will turn out in the end, however. Basically, with him and his kid as the winners over evil and doubt, and the people who sided with him hanging out with him in a new, combined heaven+Earth. (Obviously he thinks this would happen; why else would anybody side with him if he wasn't going to be the winner?) Since the end state is fixed (and thus, free will is not relevant in the very end), the possibilities become constrained near the end; as you go farther back (closer to the present), however, there are more possibilities. Doesn't mean he doesn't know what they all are, however.


I don't think that the free will will change at the end (but may be, I don't know for sure).

In a big mix of randomness, you can still know quite well how the whole thing will behave.
For example, in physics: in a gas, you can't physically know how each individual molecule will move, but you can know quite well how the whole mass of gas will do. You can't tell exactly where an electron will be at a specific time, but you can tell where a planet will be.

But that reasoning make me wonder what happen with the people with much power (and I don't mean presidents, but spiritual power), can they change things more than what God took into account?

26
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 04, 2006, 02:37:18 PM »
I don't know if you (both) really understood what I meant there.

There are plenty of individuals in very different stages, for example:
a) People that are not interested in anything beyong physical things, atheist.
b) People that believe or may want to believe in spirituality, but rejects the bible.
c) People that may want to believe in spirituality, including the bible.
d) People that already knows and believe some things of the bible.
e) People that knows more than d), and understand more, and believe more.
f) There are some other variants, people that believe some things but not other ones, people that has been misinformed (they are the great majority), etc.

The bible is not intended for everybody, but for c) to f)

But what I was trying to explain was: not the whole bible is for c) to f), some parts are for c) and other parts for d), etc.

The part that talks about its infallibility is not for a) and b) (almos none of the bible is for them).

Quote from: "Erasmus"
Sounds to me like you're saying that the Bible is a good source of truth

Yes, it is.
But not just reading the bible, it is neccessary to study quite well it.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
as long as you already believe that it's perfectly fine to accept claims blindly

blindly? Who said blindly?

Anyway I understand your point, but an explanation about it would require to write a lot (if you are interested I would).

Quote from: "Erasmus"
purely on the basis of some authority; claims that neither you nor anybody else has any means of verifying or falsifying.


Yes, God is not compliant with the scientific method.
It is one of the major problems of humanity.
I can explain why it is this way, but only if you are interested.

Quote from: "Erasmus"
You don't even have any way of knowing whether the words in the Bible were ever uttered by your god. Basically, the only support you have for your beliefs are the beliefs themselves. Don't you see anything... flimsy about this attitude?


Before believing, no. After believing, yes, I have a method.
(another thing that requires explanation).

Cinlef:
I wasn't talking about the Sun revolving around the Earth there, I was just (off topic) replying to what logic! said about the bible being logically fallacious.

27
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why A Geokinetic Became A Geocentrist
« on: February 04, 2006, 01:22:48 AM »
Quote from: "logic!"
May I point out that using the Bible as evidence of the infallibility of the Bible is logically fallacious?


1) The bibles are not infallible because they are translations of the original revelation, thus they may contain some errors. The Word of God is.

2) The evidence presented there about its infallibility is not for non-believers, but for people that already recognized the nature of what they are learning.
I mean, it is for people that already believe some things (contained in the Word of God), but they are still not sure (or don't know) what is the nature and features of the Word of God; so, the Word of God itself teaches its own nature.

28
Cinlef:
I fully agree with your point of view of the first sentences you wrote, but I have another opinion about the last ones:

Quote from: "Cinlef"
Your making the mistake of assuming that if God knows everytrhing you dont make choices. but Statement A does not follow Statement B. While God is all knowing and knows whether or not I wil ultimatly choose to be (crudly) good or evil I make those descision.


If God or anyone else could know the future, it would be incompatible with free will. Think about it. The two ideas are not reconciliable.
And it is the major foundation of the predestination doctrine. If God knows what you' re going to do, then there is not free will (it would be something mechanical).

The confussion comes because in fact God knows some things about the future, but because some things follows a mechanical working, even in men's behaviour. For example: if He sees you are hungry, He realizes you are going to eat (it is just a coarse example).
He also knows some other things because He knows what He plans to do.
But He doesn't know everything about the future, and He doen's know a lot of things that depends on your will, your decisions.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
YOu watching someone rob a bank does not mena you MADE them rob a bank.

Part true, but if you have the power and the abilities to do something to prevent that and you do nothing, it makes you in some way responsible, or at least "not a very good person".
Unless... you can't do anything. I believe that God is tied to some rules He stated in the past, and now He has to respect them.
It is a vast subject and it would require a much longer explanation.
It have to be with some rights God confered in the past (to Adam and to Lucifer), and now He have to respect them. But I also believe that at the time that He confered that rights, He didn't know (at least for sure) that the things were going to be such as they are now (He didn't know that Adam was going to sin, and (before) Lucifer was going to betray Him).
That's the very nature of free will, and also love: freedom.

Quote from: "Cinlef"
See God isn't bound by time as we are he perceives all creation as an simultaneous now

God perceives the time in a different way that it is for us, but it is not simultaneous. Time is much faster for God than it is for us.

If you are going to reply, please use your own authority (not what someone else said).

29
Announcements / Re: Goodfriend
« on: January 30, 2006, 06:15:27 AM »
Quote from: "tigerhawkvok"
OK, not really the place for it here, but I should point out that in my debates I've been able to introduce skepticism into a hardline creationist guy.

What do you think you can prove/demonstrate/show wrong about creation?

30
Quote from: "NarrowPathPilgrim"
If your beliefs aren't worth defending they aren't worth believing.

The truth doesn't need defense, the lies do.

Only one more thing, and just for Erasmus:
Even when I still don't know many scriptures (and no one knows all them), I know quite well maaany of them, and I can tell you that the same thing NarrowPathPilgrim did with physics, astronomy and logic in the other thread is what he is doing with Bible scriptures.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4