| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
romans120
Moderator
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1774
Local time: 11:30 PM
Location: mid-west
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| LogicX wrote: | I'm getting into this thread kind of late but;
Romans you said that you did not choose to be christian but it was fate or w/e and now you realize you sins. Isn't part of the Christian doctrine that God is a loving God (it says so in the Bible)? How could you justify His predetermining billions of people to suffer for eternity? The only explanation is that God isn't omnibenevolent. Unless you just argue that "oh we can't understand God's love we are just human", in which case I would ask you to stop using the word love in reference to God as it is a human word with a human definition. |
Historic christain doctrine nor the Bible teaches that God is omni-benevolent. God's obviously can not be omni-benevolent because He demonstrates wrath. God's operative attribute that determines His actions is Holiness. Where the mis-conception comes from is the verse in 1 john that states "God is love" the context of the verse however is teaching that the action of atoning for the sins of the elect is the epidemy of love and defines what true love is.
_________________
The Resident Theist
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Raskolnikov
The Axe Murderer
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 1642
Local time: 9:30 PM
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: | | LogicX wrote: | I'm getting into this thread kind of late but;
Romans you said that you did not choose to be christian but it was fate or w/e and now you realize you sins. Isn't part of the Christian doctrine that God is a loving God (it says so in the Bible)? How could you justify His predetermining billions of people to suffer for eternity? The only explanation is that God isn't omnibenevolent. Unless you just argue that "oh we can't understand God's love we are just human", in which case I would ask you to stop using the word love in reference to God as it is a human word with a human definition. |
Historic christain doctrine nor the Bible teaches that God is omni-benevolent. God's obviously can not be omni-benevolent because He demonstrates wrath. God's operative attribute that determines His actions is Holiness. Where the mis-conception comes from is the verse in 1 john that states "God is love" the context of the verse however is teaching that the action of atoning for the sins of the elect is the epidemy of love and defines what true love is. |
Actually in that chapter they are discussing how one cannot love without God, for God is love. (Chapter 4) In the chapter they state only love can be known through god not atonement just in chapter 4 mind you the rest of that book however goes into many things (Mostly atonement) but that chapter specifcally is not about atonement.
_________________
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, underwhich weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, for if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
"The future is not set in stone. The future is what you make it. So make it a good one!"
-Dr. Emmett Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
romans120
Moderator
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1774
Local time: 11:30 PM
Location: mid-west
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Raskolnikov wrote: | | romans120 wrote: | | LogicX wrote: | I'm getting into this thread kind of late but;
Romans you said that you did not choose to be christian but it was fate or w/e and now you realize you sins. Isn't part of the Christian doctrine that God is a loving God (it says so in the Bible)? How could you justify His predetermining billions of people to suffer for eternity? The only explanation is that God isn't omnibenevolent. Unless you just argue that "oh we can't understand God's love we are just human", in which case I would ask you to stop using the word love in reference to God as it is a human word with a human definition. |
Historic christain doctrine nor the Bible teaches that God is omni-benevolent. God's obviously can not be omni-benevolent because He demonstrates wrath. God's operative attribute that determines His actions is Holiness. Where the mis-conception comes from is the verse in 1 john that states "God is love" the context of the verse however is teaching that the action of atoning for the sins of the elect is the epidemy of love and defines what true love is. |
Actually in that chapter they are discussing how one cannot love without God, for God is love. (Chapter 4) In the chapter they state only love can be known through god not atonement just in chapter 4 mind you the rest of that book however goes into many things (Mostly atonement) but that chapter specifcally is not about atonement. |
The surrounding chapters are apart of the context. 1 john is notoriously hard to outline because he does not make any major transitions.
_________________
The Resident Theist
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 7436
Local time: 11:30 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aitm wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | aitm wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | jesusismyhero wrote: | a quark is the smallest theyve ever split an atom into. scientists took the quark put one in New York and one in Chicago. when they spun one the other spun as well
|
I'm bumping this thread because I hadn't seen this comment before.
Does anybody know wtf this guy is talking about? |
The first part, a quark is the smallest theyve ever split an atom into, is misleading. Though protons and neutrons are made of quarks, quarks can never split apart due to the confinement of the strong nuclear force.
The second part, scientists took the quark put one in New York and one in Chicago. when they spun one the other spun as well, might refer to quantum entanglement, which would never happen between quarks. QE can happen when such particles as a neutral pion decays into two photons, which are fired in opposite directions. QE says both particle "know" what will happen to either one, when a measurement such as spin is taken, even if that measurement would take place a galaxy away. |
Joe, yer gonna have to help me on that last part. Is this saying that since the particles act exactly alike that alike behaviors will be noticed or is this saying if one dance the rumba the other a galaxy away will start doing the same? |
I don't know if dancing the rumba fits the bill, but quantum entanglement is weirder than anything you will ever meet.
Consider the two dots at a center point, as particles moving out, and A and B are observers, far far away equal distance from the center:
A ← ●● → B
1) Observer A, called Alice, measures the spin of incoming particle. If it has spin, say up, then she knows that observer B, called Bob, will measure its counter-part particle’s spin to be down.This is like Alice tossing a coin, heads or tails, and say it comes down heads. Her counterpart Bob who is light years away on the other side of the galaxy, who is also tossing a coin, and now his must come out in this case as tails!
2) Not only that, but Alice can choose whatever axis, an infinity of possibilities, along which the particle spin must quantize as spin up or spin down. Now Bob’s particle, on the other side of the galaxy, must also quantize along the same axis. But how does the particle know that?!?
3) Furthermore, a third observer C, called Claude, might be moving towards either Alice or Bob. Suppose that Claude is moving towards Alice, then according to him, she is measuring first, and she decides along which axis the particle spin will quantize. However if at the same time, another observer D, called Donna, is moving towards Bob, then according to Donna, it is Bob who makes the first measurement and he decides along which axis the particle will quantize. Which is the cause and which is the effect? According to Quantum Mechanics, there is no distinction between the two cases.
Can it get any weirder??? |
um.........i dunno......... |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
