Zabaware Support Forums
Zabaware Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: rockershaft on May 25, 2007, 05:28:52 pm
-
Is the devil it's own creator?
-
quote:
Originally posted by rockershaft
Is the devil it's own creator?
You pose a good question rockershaft. Do you cause your own downfall if you desire too much for yourself? God may have created the arch angel that was keeper of the garden of eden but Satan (which means resistor) the Devil (which means slanderer) created himself through his own desires. He was perfect to start with. Thank you for listening my friend.
-
Jack,
Do we Americans know how to do it because we learned how to get it done?
Thanks, friend
Paul
-
Jack glad your back on the forums.[:D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by PaleRider
Jack glad your back on the forums.[:D]
rockershaft, please explain further, Palerider, yes I'm back online for now. Glad you noticed buddy.
-
Jack,
Do they play bagpipes in the midwest?
-
quote:
Originally posted by rockershaft
Jack,
Do they play bagpipes in the midwest?
Only if they know the tune my friend.[:D]
-
Well they sure make good Celtics even in Boston.
-
quote:
Originally posted by rockershaft
Well they sure make good Celtics even in Boston.
Just don't see what that has to do with the Devil? But you have a good day my friend.
-
The Devil comes as a roaring lion in the night, watch he does not devour you.
Doesn't it say something like that in the scriptures. It's been a while since I've read the Bible, so my quote might not be word for word.
Another is, he comes as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
These describe the ease of falling from the path of righteousness and love into the ways of self indulgence, greed and hate.
Doesn't that paint a picture of the world we live in today? With our electronic gadgets and advertisements telling us to constantly indulge ourselves because you are worth it. It appears many have been devoured by that lion in the darkness of their empty lives.
Roy.
-
It is easy to get caught up in this world's materialistic ways. But the key to avoiding this is to be happy with what God provides. There is always something better and faster on the market that is going to make what you have look (in your eyes) like crap. But does it still serve it's purpose, or is it not working any longer? That is what divides the needs from the wants. That is just one of Satans tools. Afterall he is the father of the lie. Thanks for listening.
-
What is a paradox?? 2 physicians.
-
I have recently been doing a study about the constant theme in the lies of Satan. From the original Lie to the modern heresies of Christianity, Satan does his more devious work by telling us that we can do things of ourselves which will earn Eternal Reward.
The Adamic Story highlights Satan's primary attempt to promulgate this lie, but it's basis is even earlier. It is, in fact, the lie Satan told himself, the inherent self-deception that caused his rebellion.
Satan believed that he, a created being, should be elevated to the ranks of the Creator as a result of his exemplary skills and service. He was wrong, he rebelled, and his rebellion caused his downfall. He was not so much expelled as he was repelled. Those who are not lifted by God cannot reach God, and Satan refuses to be lifted. He believes he can do it himself.
In his pride, Satan believed he could remake God's creations, the emergent humans, improving them by teaching them to attain Eternity themselves. He was wrong. Those who are not lifted by God cannot reach God, and those in Eden were tricked into believing they could lift themselves by their own efforts. That lie has never been completely eradicated.
Later, Satan tricked the Jews into thinking that they could rule themselves, tried to trick Jesus into rebellion, and spawned the many Heresies of Christianity which teach that by certain actions they can earn Heaven. A faily popular one right now teaches that only those who are baptized using a certain ritual evocation are "true Christians" - in other words, that they can require God to save them by dint of their own special code - that they can earn Salvation, which then God must give them as their legal right. As if God were a vending machine which only their secret coin could operate.
But Jesus and the Early Christians were clear and specific in their assertion that God gives Salvation as a gift, and that not one of us earns it nor can earn it, lest any man boast.
The lie shows up quite often, both in Christians and non-Christians. I can't tell you how many times someone has said to me that they don't need to be a Christain to be a good person, as if being a good person was the goal. Christianity is not a behavior modification program. Good behavior, if it happens, happens because the Saved person wants to behave better to honor God. God will help us with that, but it is not the goal.
Salvation is the goal - being saved from the lie of Satan. So that when the time comes to approach God, we are ready and willing to be lifted by God. Because, as finite creatures, the only way to reach infinity is for infinity to reach us.
Thus endeth the sermon.
-
Well stated, my friend!
-
That is pretty deep. [:0]
Awesome.
-
Bill,
I've been heavily studying the Bible for 12 years now. You make some good points my friend, but, dare I say, you may be talking like you yourself are saved and going to "heaven". But the Bible plainly says that he who endures to the end will be saved. It also says that you must stay on the narrow path to endure. I would love to think that I could be saved through the gift of life that God gives, but that would be assuming something that hasn't happened yet. We all are a work in progress my friend. But I would love to endure to the end and be granted everlasting life on a Paradise earth that Jesus promised the thief to his right while being impaled.
As far as going to "heaven" this thought never has crossed my mind cause God never meant for us humans to have to go to "heaven". That plan was made after Adam & Eve sinned. The seed? Remember that? Only a set number of worshippers of God, starting with the Apostles, are going to "heaven", 144,000 to be exact. But it isn't going to be a picnic for them, they have to be kings and priest for 1000 years with Jesus. That would be a very hard job even if you were perfect.
But yes I do agree with you very strongly about Christendom and the lies it spread through false teachings. Yes Satan was repelled as well. Right down to the earth, with his demons. That is why shortly after that happened World War 1 broke out. And that is why things are going from bad to worse. I know it's not my job to change people but it is my job to tell them what is going to take place soon. I am just glad that I can talk candidly. Thank you for listening.
-
I am not here to dispute your faith. I believe the promise of Christ. You should feel free to believe you can be saved by works. Many people do.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt
I am not here to dispute your faith. I believe the promise of Christ. You should feel free to believe you can be saved by works. Many people do.
Good point my friend. Unsuspectingly you were just part of my works.
Thank you.
-
Didn't Jesus say he who believes in me is saved and the new testament gives a few examples of this. One being the conversation with the two criminals on the cross, when one mocks Jesus and the other says that he is innocent and doesn't deserve to be here but they did. Jesus said through his belief, that day he would be with him in paradise. Another being the woman who believed that she would be healed just by touching his robe and she was and Jesus said you are saved because you believed that he was who he claimed to be, the son of God.
These people wasn't saved by being good or doing any christian acts, one was a criminal dying on the cross and yet would be with Jesus in paradise that very day.
Jesus died for all our sins. So all our evil works are paid for by him or it would be a futile endeavour seeking eternal paradise because we all have sinned and we all are sinners.
Christianity isn't a religion because Jesus condemned religion, it is a faith. A faith in something we have never seen but must believe to acquire the free gift of eternal life. Believe in me and you are saved, said Jesus not do all these things and you are saved. Faith is the power, faith can move mountains.
The Devil's greatest tool is the truth, which he twists and makes flexible. The truth is a rigid thing which can not be bent or it is no longer the absolute truth but we make the truth fit ourselves so we can feel guiltless of our acts and thoughts.
One more point, in the old testament in the land of Nod, when the people where building the tower of Babel. The tower that was to reach heaven and God invoked everyone to speak different languages and the project because of this was abandoned. God said, if man was ever to come together in such union as in Babel, they would become as God. Man finds it hard to love thy neighbour, yet come together as one.
Roy.
-
Roy, I like to use this story to explain how Salvation by Faith works. It is not intended to accurately describe anything, but to show a comparative situation. It's important not to stretch metaphores too far.
Suppose you had a Great-Aunt which you loved and respected very much. But one day you did something you know she would disapprove of in the strongest terms.
So next time there was a get-together at her house, you avoided it. In fact, you found that moving out of town, changing your phone number and not getting in touch with the whole family made you feel a little better. You knew you could not stand to face their disapproval.
This went on for many years.
Then one day your third cousin twice removed came by for a visit. He told you that Great-Aunt Effie forgives you, that they all missed you and wanted you to show up for her Memorial Day picnic.
Do you believe him or not?
If you are sure he is lying to you, showing up at the picnic would be Hell. The whole time you would have to avoid eye contact, knowing your sin, knowing that she knows, and knowing (perhaps mistakenly) that she is just waiting for a chance to dress you down. Each minute would seem an eternity of torture.
If you believe he is telling the truth, then the picnic will be like heaven. It would be paradise to re-establish your affection for her and accept her forgiveness. All your family would be together again and you could move forward from there. A good time would be had by all.
I believe that the smallest of sins is too much for God. Nothing short of pure spottless perfection will do. Passing irritation at your backdoor neighbor for mowing the lawn too early on a Saturday morning spoils that purity as much as being a mass murderer. Just as any number is not infinity, any sin is not innocence. We cannot be sinless enough to approach God. Unless He forgives us.
I believe that God forgives all sin, past, present and future. All He asks is that we accept that forgiveness.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-
Brilliantly said, Bill and I totally and utterly agree with your fine explaination.
Roy.
-
I'd go along with Milton's Paradise Lost, he seems to have done his research and presented a resonable explination. Easy to find on the internet, I've read quite a bit of it, much better than the watered down version I'd read in school.
Carl2
-
Bill,
Again, well stated and nice analogy.
-
I got one question for you all and I want to make you think about this before you answer so you can be truthful with yourselves. Did God's first purpose for the earth change, or did it just get delayed? His first purpose was for humans to be perfect and live on the earth forever and make the whole earth like that of Eden. The Devil tried to stop that but he can't change what is to take place.
Revelations 12-21 speak of what will soon take place in heaven and on earth, so read this with an open mind and try to weed out the false teachings that are so prevelent, like hellfire, salvation through belief in Christ alone, and the rapture. The Devil wants us to believe lies because that will put us blindly on his side at the end of this system. Please my friends, weigh these traditions and doctrines that are in most religions and then read the Gospels and see if it is the same. I am not going to post here again because I don't want you all to get mad at me and disrespect me for what I am telling you. But please if nothing else take this post to heart and look at the religions of today how they are just like what was described in the Bible about the tower of Babel, God is going to stop them too.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jackgephart
His first purpose was for humans to be perfect and live on the earth forever and make the whole earth like that of Eden.
I didn't know that this was His primary purpose. It's good that you told us because it is not stated in the Bible.
Adding to or subtracting from the Scriptures is the historically accepted way to correct the religion of Christ. You should write a new New Testament, they're very popular now-a-days.
-
There are:
1. Less than average or average minds due to more mental defects(very mild to severe retardation).
2. Logical geniuses(less mental defects).
3. Creative geniuses(less mental defects).
4. Combined logical and creative geniuses(even lessor mental defects).
then there are people that were born with retardation but had special abilities like geniuses
that could do math faster than a computer or even count all the bricks making up a building in a couple of seconds and some could do many other things that seemed so amazing.
Geniuses were not just born yesterday, geniuses have
Been around for thousands and thousands of years since the dawn of mankind even the animal kingdom and before mankind.
Even in the days of the caveman, geniuses have walked the Earth and many thousands of them, men and women with 'potential' I.Q's approaching 200 just like today(for that era) but did not have the ability to totally utilize the resources through manufacturing, it was a genius
Who created the arrowhead and the mechanism to shoot it to kill for meat to feed a family or a tribe.
Even chimpanzees have been discovered to use rocks and clubs to kill or defend, chimpanzees have also been discovered in central America to stalk and ambush deer for meat, taking the kill up into the trees to eat of its flesh(National Geographics).
Koko, a domesticated gorilla(now dead) was trained to learn human sign language, the animal trainer and people could have conversations with this primitive beast, Koko was asked one day, how come she liked to paint, Koko said, I am painting my 'dreams', Koko was asked, do you have bad dreams, Koko replied, I have 'nightmares', I watched this on the discovery channel and it severely amazed me that just communication was tapping us into the minds of 'Lessor Man'.
This was amazing, Koko was like watching 'planet of the apes', she was that smart, I think at the time that I had discovered Koko she had a sign language vocabulary of 3000 known words which is about average for humans, some humans don't even use that much of the human language through out life.
To me: the afterworld of 'any kind' was created in the minds of creative geniuses long ago.
since when have agnostics driven a crusade or a jihad and the killing of mass populations or even genocide?
agnostics have been the least of anyones problems on this planet.
Passive to assertive agnostics, I can't speak for the aggressors.
for the most part, agnostics just want to get along because we believe life is prescious and it will be the only time you have to fullfill yourself of what life has to offer.
for which I am an 'assertive' agnostic.
I tend to tip more into natural selection and evolutionary mutation, not all species are so lucky.
Good - o = God
evil + D = Devil
Sincerely Agnostic
Jerry[8D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by onthecuttingedge2005
we believe life is prescious and it will be the only time you have to fullfill yourself of what life has to offer.
A true "capital 'A'" Agnostic doesn't believe that. They admit that they don't know if there is an afterlife or not. That contains the 50% possiblity that there is an afterlife. Usually it's Atheists who believe without evidence that there is no afterlife.
I am technically an agnostic. I don't know if there is a God nor exactly what any putative God wants, but I am always trying to reason it out. I don't dismiss it because I don't know, and I respect those who are sure one way or the other - if they are honest.
I have my beliefs based upon what I have experienced and what I have reasoned out from that, but I don't know anything except what I have experienced within myself. Oddly, I have not started any wars over my beliefs.
Many Atheists and Theists are Agnostic. Most are not, but those who think about their religion, whether Theistic or not, and are honest with themselves, will admit that they do not know - by objective evidence - most of what they believe. Nothing wrong with that, subjective evidence has it's place.
As for wars etc, they are usually not started by religions or the lack of them. They are usually started by sociopaths who want power, often by using religous people as a weapon to gain that power, but more often by using something else.
-
quote:
Good - o = God
evil + D = Devil
Maybe it's:
God + O = Good
Devil - D = evil
makes it sound a lot different.
-
Bows to the forum gods!
sorry about the capital A in agnostics, it never occured to me that it would make a difference, even I am not perfect though at some times my mind escapes me because I know I have mental defects and there is no such thing as a perfect being on this planet.
you guys are great, thanks for letting me speak my mind.
Jerry[8D]
-
nice one Jerry, all is forgiven .... hahahahaha
-
quote:
Originally posted by onthecuttingedge2005
Bows to the forum gods!
You don't have to bow to me, just send gold offerings and sing hosannas to my name.
quote:
sorry about the capital A in agnostics,
Oh, that's just my way of making a distinction between those who just admit they don't know, and those who make a big issue about how they don't know and how they believe it is impossible for anyone to know.
You know, those fanatic fundamentalist type Agnostics... [8D]
-
Have to goto to bed now. You people are so lucky living across there in the past being able to live now those 6 hours I've just wasted...hahahaha
Good night and enjoy,
Roy.
-
I don't know anything about what is true or not. (when it comes to religion) I used to have faith, but it has diminished over the years.
I realized the only one I can depend on is myself.
I am not saying I am an atheist, but I don't consider myself a strong believer. I do want to believe, but it's hard. I guess Satan's plan is working, huh?[V]
-
Bill,
If it wasn't God's primary purpose for creating man and woman perfect, to live on the earth forever, why did he create them perfect to live forever? It was to get praise from and take care of a lower type of creation that was in His image. This statement only makes sense if you think about it without a haughty attitude. When Adam & Eve sinned why were they kicked out of the Garden of Eden? It was because they lost the perfect component that God had given them to live forever. Just like a dented cake pan all they could produce was dented or imperfect humans. This sin that caused death just got worse decade by decade until what we see now just appauls us. And why is sin so bad now (just about as bad as before the flood) that we can't even walk down the street without fear of something happening to us? It is because something is soon to take place just like the flood. (only not a flood)All of this was caused by the Devil, so be mad at him not me. All that info is in the Bible, pick it up, it's a good book if you can understand it.
-
I consider myself 'lucky' and that is it, period.
Sincerely Agnostic
Jerry[8D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by jackgephart
If it wasn't God's primary purpose
I don't pretend to know what God's primary purpose is or is not. I guess that's for those less "haughty" than I.
And I am not angry, why should I be? Your personal interpretation of the Bible doesn't threaten mine. I first studied a similar interpretation (Pentecostal Holiness) almost 30 years ago and it didn't make me mad then either.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt
quote:
Originally posted by jackgephart
If it wasn't God's primary purpose
I don't pretend to know what God's primary purpose is or is not. I guess that's for those less "haughty" than I.
And I am not angry, why should I be? Your personal interpretation of the Bible doesn't threaten mine. I first studied a similar interpretation (Pentecostal Holiness) almost 30 years ago and it didn't make me mad then either.
I didn't say that you were haughty I said that a person or "you" would have to not feel haughty when contimplating God's original purpose.
Good, I hate it when people kill the messenger. My friend we will agree to disagree and move on to a not so wide ranged subject. I had fun. That's what it is all about.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jackgephart
I didn't say that you were haughty
- and I didn't say that you said that I said that you said that... wait a minute...
Many religions believe as you do, Catholics, Islamics and Mormons amoung them. I would never expect you to reconsider based upon my personal beliefs. All I do is express myself, and if anyone asks, express myself more clearly.
-
Hey! Do you all wait until I goto bed before all the discussions start....hahahaha
Roy.
-
Cool then we are done here. You are right Bill, many religions try to understand the deep things of God but without opening a Bible at church it is hard to get the meanings of things. I was going to this unnamed church and I was reaching the point of baptism (eye dropper full of water thing) and I was asking smart questions because I was really wanting to learn. They told me to stop asking questions and just learn what they wanted me to learn. I left shortly there after.
JW's came to my door, I asked the same questions, got real truthful understandable answers, and 12 years later I am still one. JW's are quit different from all other religions in that we use the Bible at every meeting, study the same info all around the globe, and believe that Jesus is God's son not God's himself. I gotta go to work or I'd probably say more. Have a good day Bill and all you other posters.
-
IMHO, I think churches are full of hypocrites. Remember "Love thy neighbor"?? Well, I've been to a couple churches, and every one ignored me and my father and brother. We even asked someone a question and he ignored us.
I am not going to step foot in a church again, unless it's for a wedding or funeral.
And what about the "translations" of the Bible?? Some people tend to interpret the Bible to fit their own personal beliefs and agenda.
How do you know that what the preacher says is an accurate translation of the words in the Bible?? I believe a person needs to read the bible for themselves, and find out the meanings for themselves.
However, one should not try to force his/her beliefs or translations of the Bible on others.
And again, the hypocrites: They dress in their Sunday best, put on a show in church that they are willing to follow the teachings, and then as soon as they go out the door, they start gossiping about people, and going back to sinning.
I admit, I'm not perfect, nor will I ever be, but I don't gossip or put other people down because of their appearance, or background.
But I cannot go to where the hypocrites go. I'd rather study the Bible at home.
-
quote:
Originally posted by markofkane
IMHO, I think churches are full of hypocrites.
I have never met anyone who is not a hypocrite at some level, which means that Churches, bars, schools and laundrymats, if they are full, must be full of hypocrites.
Satan wants you to think that Churches don't work unless every person in them meets the impossible standard he sets for Christians.
IMO, Churches should be the place where people gather to share the worshipping of God. The doctrines of modern Christianity (and other religions) has made them into places where people are taught to think they are right and everyone else is wrong.
The Church I sometimes go to even makes a distinction between those who believe in one type of Creation and those who believe in a slightly different version. God help me if they ever find out that I believe that God may have (or may not have) used Evolution as one of His methods of Creating our current world!
I can't be a Christian unless I believe in the precisely correct version of a symbolic rendition of a certain event. Never mind that Christ told us what will Save us, in clear words. People have to add things and retranslate things and make it into a ritual and exclude as many people as possible. Makes them feel special I guess. Satan is happy.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jackgephart
JW's are quit different from all other religions in that we use the Bible at every meeting
You may need to get out more, many religions use the Bible at every meeting. Not the special edited one you may be familiar with, but the common Bible.
I even spent some time at a Church where no-one said anything except what they read out of the Bible. It was fun in some ways, to know that no-one was injecting their opinion. They just started at the beginning, read the whole thing, chapter by chapter, week by week, and then started over again. People took turns, I seemed to always get those long "begat" chapters...
Personally, I prefer that Church be reserved for Worship, and maybe a nice Wednesday night meeting for teaching.
-
I've noticed that about JWs, they don't like to read from the Holy Bible, only from their specially edited version which makes scriptures not sound the way the original does.
Doesn't it say 'Woe be to him who changes or alters the word' or something like that.
Roy.
Maybe in the JW book it doesn't now .... hahaha
-
Most of people I know (I mean me, on this bad side of the Atlantic)
- are living as agnostics, perhaps because all the holy books (they never read) were written by humans
- become atheist when something unjust and painful happens in their life
- but always remember they are baptized and believe in God, when they have a little service to ask him (or is it just superstition?)
Most of people I know. Maybe I need to meet other people. [:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by ramccoid
I've noticed that about JWs,
Well, not meaning to disparage them specifically, but many religions find different parts of the Bible inconvenient. My personal religion, to which I can never get anyone to donate, attempts to rectify all of the Bible, observed fact, and reason. That, of course, makes me anathema to most religions....
JW's, like Catholics, Pentacostals, Islamics, Mormons, Adventists, and Branch Davidians etc, have to change or remove or specially explain much of the Bible to have it adhere to their beliefs. I prefer to change my beliefs to adhere to the Bible... and common experience and reason. But to each their own.
However, the JWs and Mormons have special documentary problems. Both of them have had relevations straight from God that didn't quite work out. In the case of the Mormons, the special gold tablets written by an Angel just happen to contain some text which is also contained almost word for word in letters written in Europe a decade earlier. Oops. The JWs made that whole series of predictions of the Second Coming which I think they finally gave up on, as well as having to add a whole tier of Salvation to their cosmogeny once their Church population rose over that magical 144000 number. Uh oh...
But, and this is what's important, I probably have my blind spots as well. There are parts of the Bible that I find hard to rectify. My personal religion, while I believe it's more rational, sounds crazy to anyone who doesn't understand sub-atomic and singularity physics.
I have faith that God is merciful rather than nitpicky.
-
I see it as, if you are going to follow the word then you should stick to the word without deviation. The word is the word and it ceases to be that if it is changed and altered like, as you say, so many religions do to suit their own purposes.
Roy.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ramccoid
I see it as, if you are going to follow the word then you should stick to the word without deviation.
Either that or stop calling yourself Christian. Only seems fair. If I was going to be Catholic but not believe in Mass, then I should call myself something other than Catholic.
Or how about I call myself Atheist but redefine it as someone who believes in "A" God... Get it? "A Theist"... Just silly in my book. But no worse than what some people do without blinking.
-
I see myself as a microscopic particle in the vast mystery of the universe. In other words I simply don't know. I'm too insignificant to be able to see and understand the whole picture.
I don't count out the existance of God because I haven't been around since the beginning to be privileged with that knowledge. So I also, can't deny God for the exact same reason.
Records show that Jesus Christ was a real person who performed extraordinary wonders and all his parables and words are absolutely sound. Maybe he really was God in the flesh our saviour ...
Maybe I'm an Agnostian....hahaha
Roy.
-
You guys are very wrong about the Bible thing with JW's. I have and use 3 copies of the king James version, but the New Translation of the Holy Scriptures Bible that we also use is in modern english and not this thy and thoust crap. God didn't write that stuff, King James and his workers did. Superstition of the name Jehovah made the later translators of the Bible take out His name but the New Translation of the Holy Scriptures put back what the scared translators took out. If you don't believe that the Bible is just like the others please do this for me, The next time a witness comes to your door tell him or her that you don't want to take any literature but you want a Bible so that you can compare for yourself just how "different" they are. If they don't give you one right then but have to come back to give you one, after you get the Bible tell them that you are not interested but just wanted to compare Bibles.
If you want to you can even tell them not to call back on you forever and they won't come back. We want to respect the people we visit. Or are you going to just go on hear-say and stories made up by Bill? I love God and can't stop talking about him, but I will defend him through the word.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jackgephart
You guys are very wrong about the Bible thing with JW's.
Well, no, actually we are not. It's well documented, and BTW, I have had a copy of the JW Bible for decades. I studied with the JW's for nearly three years, but they won't let you stay if you dare to disagree with them and I couldn't pretend any longer.
If you really have an open mind, check these verses out and contrast them.
1)John 1:1 (KJV) and John 1:1 (NWT). NWT negates deity of Christ deliberately by adding "a god" to replace "God" when it came to the Word being God.
2) John 8:24, 58 (KJV) to John 8:24, 58 (NWT). NWT negates Christ's deity again by removing the phrases: "I am" (the exclusive name for God) to "I have been"
3) Acts 20:28 (KJV) and Acts 20:28 (NWT). NWT tries to separate God from Christ by adding "Church of God which he has purchased through the blood of His Son" instead of the correct reading: "Church of God which he hath purchased through His own blood".
4) Hebrews 1:6, 8 (KJV) to Hebrews 1:6, 8 (NWT) NWT deliberately changes any notion of deity by removing the word 'worship' and substituting 'do obeisance to' in v6 and instead of having the Father addressing the Son in v8 as "Thy throne, O God...", it has changed the wording to: "God is thy throne".
5) I Timothy 3:16 (KJV) to I Timothy 3:16 (NWT) NWT has removed the word "God" from "God was manifest in the flesh" and substituted: "Who". This is a deliberate attempt to negate deity.
6) I John 5:7 (KJV) to I John 5:7 (NWT) Like many other Bibles, NWT removes the whole verse which states clearly that there are three that bear record in heaven: The Father, The Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one. NWT like the other perversions removes the whole verse and substitutes part of verse 6 and verse 8 into it.
7) Ephesians 3:9 (KJV) to Ephesians 3:9 (NWT) NWT has removed the whole phrase that clearly teaches that the world was created by Jesus Christ, thus trying to remove his role as Creator.
I suspect you will say these are "corrections", and you are welcome to that opinion, but they are purposeful edits nonetheless. The KJV is a more accurate, historical and consistent translation in spite of the fact that you described it as excrement.
I know you have studied your version with diligence but you are not alone. I have studied under many denominations, heritical and orthodox, and also studied several non-Christian religions. I have studied the ancient languages and writing styles. I have worked out the translations of much of the NT for myself and I know pretty much what you believe and how your religion came to advocate those beliefs.
If you believe that your version is more "correct" that's fine with me, but you go further and expect me to agree with you in spite of the easily referenced facts. I won't do that.
If your religion is true, then it will be true no matter what I say. Take comfort in that if you can.
Fortunately, I am certain that God will forgive you for making an innocent mistake, although it's not clear that those who know better but taught you those mistakes anyway are going to avoid the consequences.
-
I totally agree, Bill, the JWs have took some great liberties in their translation of the scriptures.
The whole point of Jesus Christ, was that he was God in the flesh come to earth to speak the truth inperson. He condemned the religious groups of the day, calling them hypocrites and if he was here today would do the same pretty much to all religious organisations and cults.
No one is saying it is wrong to believe, just be careful who is teaching you how and what to believe.
I have great respect and admirence, jackgephart, for your strong faith in the Lord but don't ask me to respect or admire your church and its teachings.
Roy.
-
I also have something to say about JW's:
They would come weekly to study with me and my father.But when they said things that made no sense to me, and they was trying to get us to attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall, we wasn't really into that.
They were making it sound like that being a JW was more important than anything else, that nothing else mattered. And that one day, all the people who followed the teachings of the JW's would inherit the Earth, even the dead would rise again.
I respect those that want to be JW's, but it just wasn't for us.
No Christmas, no birthdays, no blood transfusions, etc.
One thing the JW's said that I hope is true: There is no hell, at least hell fire. A person that does not follow the teachings of the JW's will die, and be dead forever. Sounds good to me. If I am dead, I won't know what I'm missing.[:D]
-
quote:
Sounds good to me. If I am dead, I won't know what I'm missing.
The way the world is turning, you wouldn't be missing much ... hahaha
Roy.
-
Bill,
As I said before, this was fun but we are getting nowhere just name hurling at each others beliefs, so I will take my leave from this thread and I hope you guys will still respect Jack Gephart the person. Thanks for the discussion.
-
Your a cool guy, Jack and I haven't any reason to disrespect you.
All the best my friend,
Roy.
-
I wasn't hurling against anyone's beliefs, I was just stating my opinions on religion as a whole. You can believe anything you want, as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.[:D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by markofkane
You can believe anything you want,
Right, but it's one thing to say, "I believe this" and quite another to say, "The Bible says this". The first cannot be argued against and should be respected, the second is open to verification or disputation.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jackgephart
just name hurling at each others beliefs
I didn't "name hurl" (?) your or anyone's beliefs, and I don't think you insulted mine or anyone else's, but I did dispute your facts. Did you check my quotes? Was I wrong?
Beliefs are beyond debate, but facts should always be checked, analysed and corrected.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt
quote:
Originally posted by jackgephart
just name hurling at each others beliefs
I didn't "name hurl" (?) your or anyone's beliefs, and I don't think you insulted mine or anyone else's, but I did dispute your facts. Did you check my quotes? Was I wrong?
Beliefs are beyond debate, but facts should always be checked, analysed and corrected.
Sorry Bill I've come too far to doubt now. I have been blessed more than I can believe so Homer Simpson can't change my thinking. Sorry.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jackgephart
I've come too far to doubt now.
As I've said, I am not here to challenge your beliefs. But facts are facts.
I've demonstrated that there is a difference between your Bible and the common Bible. Your faith should be able to withstand that knowledge.
But now that you know, be wary of teaching mistakes to anyone.
-
quote:
But now that you know, be wary of teaching mistakes to anyone.
And you as well my friend. End of conversation.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jackgephart
End of conversation.
You keep saying that. You are welcome to withdraw from this conversation, but you do not rule it. The rest of us may want to continue it. It is not, at this point either personal or abusive.
Back to the subject...
There is a difference between expressing an opinion (as you may have noticed, I carefully lable my opinions as such, and often add additional disclaimers) and stating something as if it were fact.
For instance, the above was a statement of fact. I assert there is a difference, and you are encouraged to dispute that statement if you can, by presenting documentation, logic or personal experience etc. Below, I will express my opinion about why that distinction is important, and while you are welcome to express a different opinion, there is no sense in attempting to dispute my opinion. If I am sane, I will change my opinion when you successfully dispute my statement of fact.
In my opinion, many people seem to present their opinion as if it were fact, and conversely claim that any statement of "fact' cannot be challenged on the basis of it being their opinion. Whether this is because of carelessness, ignorance or fear - the result is a blurring of opinion and fact. It's gotten to the point where some people will tell you there are no facts, just opinions.
For instance, recently someone told me that "Global Warming is causing a decline Vermont's Maple Syrup harvest". That's a statement of fact, whether right or wrong. It contains information which can be verified or disputed.
Turns out that while there is a decline in the Maple Syrup crop, most of it is caused by aging trees, and the rest is caused by aging harvesters and unpaid taxes. Further, while the 0.6ºf rise in global temperature is measurable (but still inside the margin of error), there has been no measurable change in our local weather that can be tied to the size of crops. Short of this year's spring crop (A short spring following a hard, cold late-winter, not warming) there has been no significant weather related decline in harvests.
There's more, but the point is that when I demonstrated these facts, he replied, "I have a right to my opinion", which is true, but does not apply to statements of fact. But he claimed that the phrase was an "opinion" and was therefore unassailable by logic, new information or personal experience. Am I the only one who finds this disturbing? Who cares about the durn trees when Global Sanity is at risk?
If he had said, "I believe that Global Warming is damaging the Maple Syrup industry" I would have had to agree that he did seem to believe that. I cannot and would not dispute his beliefs or opinion.
If he were sane, correcting his facts might change his opinion.
Now you know, in part, why I feel the distinction between expressions of opinion and statements of fact is important. While you might be able to dispute some of the statements of fact (for instance, you may have been present for the conversation and might correct me on the dialog or you might look up the temperatures in Vermont and the Syrup crops sizes), you cannot dispute my opinion that I find debates such as this seem less productive and more argumentative because of the smearing of the line between Fact and Opinion.
That last paragraph was largely a statement of fact, not opinion, and you are therefore welcome to dispute it if you can.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt
quote:
Originally posted by jackgephart
End of conversation.
You keep saying that. You are welcome to withdraw from this conversation, but you do not rule it. The rest of us may want to continue it. It is not, at this point either personal or abusive.
Sorry my friend, you misunderstand that I am stopping, I am not telling you to stop anything because I know that only makes you more freaked out. The end of conversation was me ending this discussion about JW's and my views. Sorry for the mix up. This is me stopping the posting now Bill.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jackgephart
I know that only makes you more freaked out.
You've never seen me "freaked out" to any degree. You sure read a lot of stuff that's not there. Hmmm...
I still don't see how you plan to end a discussion in which you are only an occasional participant. If you mean what you did not say, that you intend to stop participating in it, that would be more easily achieved by you no longer participating in it.
-
Last rockershaft's post: five days ago.
Hope he didn't die of laughing.
-
quote:
Originally posted by GT40
Hope he didn't die of laughing.
Who?
-
I, we hope he didn't die of laughing.
I know my English is bad (I need to edit and modify a twelwe words post) and I'm not the most authorized (Starting Member, 8 Posts, now 9) to intrude in this really interesting discussion, where I learnt many things. But I couldn't resist to the pleasure of introducing a taste of (what I hope to be) humour between so serious posts.
I'm not laughing at anyone here, because of my admiration of all the works published by people of this forum. And I respect all opinions and religions (until somebody tries to convert me).
And I think I may be proud of being born in the same country than the great prophet Rael, ambassador for Earth of little green men. [:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by GT40
I know my English is bad
You write better English than many native English speakers. Probably because you try.
I suppose I can be proud that I was born in the land where the most irregular offspring of the great Romantic and Germanic languages was finally tortured to death.
Are the Raelians still around? I had supposed that their comet would have come to get them long ago. [:D]
BTW, in America, the ironic "Who" implies insouciance.
-
quote:
Originally posted by GT40
I, we hope he didn't die of laughing.
I know my English is bad (I need to edit and modify a twelve words post) and I'm not the most authorized (Starting Member, 8 Posts, now 9) to intrude in this really interesting discussion, where I learnt many things. But I couldn't resist to the pleasure of introducing a taste of (what I hope to be) humour between so serious posts.
I'm not laughing at anyone here, because of my admiration of all the works published by people of this forum. And I respect all opinions and religions (until somebody tries to convert me).
And I think I may be proud of being born in the same country than the great prophet Rael, ambassador for Earth of little green men. [:)]
Hi GT40.
your english is rather good, welcome to the forum.
I look at the Universe this way, it is like a big pictogram.
1. The Universe contains mostly vacuum by(99.999% in the known observable Universe).
2. The Universe contains very little matter(less than 1% compared to the known vacuum of the observable Universe).
If you bend things around a bit, the Universe says one thing in a metaphore.
"It means very little(vacuum) and nothing much matters(matter)"
Humans are very good at twisting thoughts around and we as a race give the Universe its own meaning other than what the Universe thinks about us.
this planet, a big blue ball in the Universe is so small even to the size of our own Galaxy that it doesn't even amount to a speck of dust on your desk top, but how can we as a race exist being so puny and once one realizes their actual (matters) in this vast system mean little except in ones own mind.
3. why would the Universe contain mostly vacuum?
to keep life from spreading to quickly(and its matters), specially bacteria which split and divide so rapidly, If bacteria became immortal then the Universe inside a few months would be nothing more than a big ball of bacteria.
the vacuum of space gives rise to stability in its system for life, if the Universe contained no vacuum then the Universe would become to powerful of a black hole without an expanded event horizon and we would die in it's crushing embrace.
so what did the Universe give us?(our space to be who we wanted to be).
jerry[8D]
-
Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once, and space is how we keep it all from happening right in our shirt pocket!
BTW, by definition, our universe is a black hole. The escape velocity of our universe is greater than the speed of light. From outside, we would be indistinguisable from a singularity.
-
So, basically, the universe sucks.[:D]
-
This thread is becoming more and more interesting and very useful to me. After Bill had explained me the difficult subtleties of American language ("Who"), now markofkane incite me to study the nuances of the verb "suck".[;)] I learn many things here, not only about Bible. Thanks to all of you, especially to Jerry, for relaunching the discussion.
So after God, now the Universe. It seems to be the same "problem". And one of their common points is that everybody is right and everybody is wrong. Impossible to verify and prove anything. God exists. Or not. The Big Bang? Why not. But is it God who pressed the red button? And before the Big Bang, what was he doing with his black hole?[?]
According to a part of scientists, after the expansion, if the Big Crunch is possible, our dear Universe could to become this pleasant black hole again.[xx(]
-
There are those that claim God does not exist, because there is no scientific proof. They say the burden of proof lies with the believer.
They also say the sentence "prove he does not exist" is akin to "prove that the spaghetti monster does not exist"
There are those trying to get believers to doubt their beliefs by using "logic" and science. If you cannot feel, touch, smell, hear, or taste something, it does not exist, unless detected by some kind of instrument. I go to board, where there are those who like to tear down believers. Not all, but quite a few. "They have science on their side"
And in this country, and everywhere, Christians are under attack for their beliefs. Maybe not physically, but verbally, and by media.
-
Part of the problem is that people confuse realms which require objective evidence with realms which require subjective evidence.
Most of modern science requires objective evidence, and works to reduce the effect of subjective evidence. It is easy to incorrectly deduce from this that only objective evidence has any validity at all.
But in fact, there are realms in which only subjective evidence is of any value, such as art, religion and interpersonal relationships. No one cares about the number of photons emitted by the "Mona Lisa".
It is true that Objective evidence of God is scarce, but it is also true that at the vanguard of serious science, Subjective evidence fails equally miserably.
While careful objective measurements prove it to be true, it is impossible to subjectively detect the change in the rate of the passage of Time which occurs as one climbs a mountain. Subjective evidence fails here as completely as objective evidence fails to detect God.
The moral of the story is that it is important to be aware of the limitations of your methodology. Failing to do so produces such silly pronouncements as, "If Man were meant to fly he would have wings" and "There is no God".
-
quote:
Originally posted by markofkane
There are those that claim God does not exist, because there is no scientific proof. They say the burden of proof lies with the believer.
They also say the sentence "prove he does not exist" is akin to "prove that the spaghetti monster does not exist"
There are those trying to get believers to doubt their beliefs by using "logic" and science. If you cannot feel, touch, smell, hear, or taste something, it does not exist, unless detected by some kind of instrument. I go to board, where there are those who like to tear down believers. Not all, but quite a few. "They have science on their side"
And in this country, and everywhere, Christians are under attack for their beliefs. Maybe not physically, but verbally, and by media.
Although the big bang is widely excepted as one of the most highly excepted theories of the universe (to mankind), we must be careful in realizing one thing, that we may never know and there is a high probability of the truth never being known, that is this, one day, we may find an edge to the Universe but we will never know if there is another Universe outside this one in the same physical void of space separated by trillions of parsecs of space between each edge .
It is possible, that another Universe may be only trillions of parsecs away outside our own for seeable Universes edge, the light from another Universe would be so weak from the propagation of its light that it would take optical abilities far beyond what it took us to see just the edge of this observable Universe alone.
We 'observe', we see a system and we study it until we can gather enough information about it to give a 'theory' as to how that system works, it is not a guess or a belief, it is an observed and studied conclusion of the result that has enough evidence to be peer reviewed then after it passes peer review it may become a law of physics or science or life, if it doesn't pass peer review and you still hold to it then it becomes a belief until it can get passed.
as far as the facts we seek as scientific minds has nothing to do with 'beliefs', science has nothing against the hypothisis of the existance of God because everything is empirical anyways.
some scientists or phyicsist do talk a lot about God during their discussions about how God makes a system work because most where raised to believe in God along side their family or friends, however it is not safe to enter the word God in a paper being peer reviewed scientifically unless it was a paper trying to prove the existance of God by observable facts.
to say there are 'infinite' Universes would never pass peer review because it can never be proven, how could anyone prove the existance of an 'infinite' God that can't be observed.
Though, I will not say that God doesn't exist, I just don't have as much influence as though's who believe in faith over facts.
Sincerely agnostic.
Jerry[8D]
-
No matter what the human race does in it's entire existence, no matter how great or wonderful it aspires to or not, would change absolutely nothing to the universe.
It's only our arrogance which perceives us as bigger cogs, than we are, in the great machinery of the cosmos; when in fact we are not even a simple single minuscule part of the vast machine in the least.
If the Human Race disappeared into extinction or even the entire Earth diappeared into oblivion, it wouldn't make the slightest iota of difference to the nature of the universe. It would continue to exist and expand regardless.
We must put ourselves into perspective. We are but only parasites living off the life of our host, mother Earth. If the Earth or even the Sun was to change dramatically, we would be exterminated without a care or thought, in the very least.
Our existence is completely in the hands of the cosmos, which makes the universe, God and if there is something beyond the universe it would be the God of God and so on and so on until we reach the utimate God, if an end could ever be reached ...
And on a lighter note, a quote from Douglas Adams, THE HITCH HIKERS GUIDE TO THE GALAXY.
'Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.'
Roy.
-
Is it arrogance to presume that we know so much about the Universe that we can say with assurance that we have no part in the ultimate purpose of it?
For instance, if we are, in fact, the only intelligent life in it, then I would say we are the most important part of it. We would be the only part of the Universe which could ask , "What is the most important part of the Universe?"
If there is any purpose to the Universe, then we are an important part of it, if there is no purpose, then we become the only purpose.
-
No matter what we ask or what answers we discover, doesn't change the whole scheme of the universe. Whether we find more intelligent life or even just basic life or none out there in the cosmos doesn't stop the planets revolving around the Sun or the universe expanding out towards infinity.
These things are on such a greater scale that with even our puny involvement doesn't change anything, it will still go on without us no matter what we think or do.
If there is a grand purpose to the universe then you must acknowledge the existence of God being a supreme being because if there is a reason beyond natural occurrence for all of this universal creation then there must be an intelligence behind it.
Roy.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ramccoid
No matter what we ask or what answers we discover, doesn't change the whole scheme of the universe. Whether we find more intelligent life or even just basic life or none out there in the cosmos doesn't stop the planets revolving around the Sun or the universe expanding out towards infinity.
Well, according to many standard theories, yes, you are right.
But are our theories right? You may remember a conversation we had a few weeks ago about a possible description of the Universe as a 2 dimensional wave front in the Time stream, with all spatial and sub-nuclear compressed dimensions being nothing more than our awareness of the level of energy in different harmonics of that wave. This suggests that without our awareness, Space itself, that which seems to physically separate two events in our Universe, has no concrete existence.
In this description, while the levels of energy will diverge with or without us, the spatial universe appears to collapse into a primal point if we are not here to perceive it.
Again, without us, our Universe would seem to be a Singularity, to wit, a mathematical point which reveals no information and which cannot be meaningfully entered into certain calculations.
Considering the unidirectional flow of time, it is instructive to realize that the furthest possible point in our Universe is infinitely closer than one moment ago in time. There is some finite amount of energy we can apply to reach any current point in Space, but no measurable quantity of effort will decrease to zero the speed of our fall through Time, much less reverse it.
This confirms that Space, while related to Time, is a lower order of manifestation in much the way that Zeus was described as a secondary creation of Khronos (The Heavens were created by Time).
While clearly this is just me ruminating and maundering, it demonstrates that it is only our blithe confidence in our reasoning abilities that demotes us to Universal insignificance. Our Arrogance begets our Humility.
There's something unpleasantly incestuous about that.
-
quote:
Originally posted by onthecuttingedge2005
It is possible, that another Universe may be only trillions of parsecs away outside our own for seeable Universes edge, the light from another Universe would be so weak from the propagation of its light that it would take optical abilities far beyond what it took us to see just the edge of this observable Universe alone.
Well, since "Universe" implies anything which can conceivably affect us in any way, and since gravity seems to be both instantaneous and limitless in it's range, such a conjectural adjacent volume of space would actually be just another part of this "Universe" - in that we would be perturbed by it's distortion of the entire Space-Time field.
But there is an interesting point worth bringing up concerning the observable Universe. I don't remember the actual numbers, so let's just assume ball-park mathematics apply.
We recently were able to resolve images of galaxies composed of "First Generation" stars, presumably the first series of stars formed in our Universe after the Big Bang. The contention is that since these galaxies are about 10 billions light years away, and the Universe is probably 13 billion years old, the light we are seeing is light which left these stars just a few billion years after the begining of the Universe.
There's at least one problem with that.
At the time that light must have left those stars, the distance between Galaxies was only 25% of it's current expansion. In other words, those stars could not have been more than 2.5 billion light years away from the point in space we now occupy (remember: Ball Park Math).
In other words, the light we see now must have passed us, on it's way to the edge of the Universe, 7.5 Billion years ago.
How comes it that we are seeing it now? Either our estimate of distance is all wrong or our measurement of elapsed time is incorrect.
Inquiring minds want to know. I intend to make this number three on the list of insolvable questions I want answered.
1) Why is there something instead of nothing?
2) Why is the Universe lumpy instead of smooth?
3) Does anybody really know what time it is?
BTW, <sing>Happy 500th post-day to me...</sing>
-
quote:
How comes it that we are seeing it now? Either our estimate of distance is all wrong or our measurement of elapsed time is incorrect.
How can we be sure that all these points of light were conceived at the start of the universe. Stars are born and die all the time. Maybe we are seeing light from newer stars that were not around in the beginning and older light has, as you say, passed us by.
Or maybe we can see the back end of light moving away from us. Is that possible? Could that make us feel or give us data to perceive the universe as expanding? Maybe the universe is not expanding but just is.
Roy.
-
Insert Image: (http://www.zabaware.com/forum/uploaded/aladyblond/200761172614_dewit.jpg)
-
you make the forum interesting , thank you!
-
quote:
Originally posted by ramccoid
How can we be sure that all these points of light were conceived at the start of the universe.
We are pretty sure. It's the whole red-shift thing. Doppler shift.
The galaxies are all running away from each other, part of the reason we believe in a Big Bang. The further away they are, the faster they seem to be moving away from us. You can look up Red shift and read details.
So the further away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving, and therefore the redder the light will shift. Calculations can then be made based upon the redness of star light to determine how far away the source is. Analysis of the light from these stars shows two things.
One, it is the type of light that would come from the first generation stars. According to theory, these stars are predominately Hydrogen and Helium, and their final explosions, 10 to 7 billion years ago, are what created the heavier elements we find in the current Universe.
Two, their red light shift corresponds to a galaxy 10 to 7 billion light years away.
The combination of facts convinces us they are 10 to 7 billion light years away.
If they are 10 to 7 billion light years away, their light must have taken 10 to 7 billion years to reach us.
Unless our theories are all wrong.
Explanations for the discrepencies might include:
1) Light travels at different rates in different parts of the Universe.
2) The Universe expands at different rates in different locales.
3) Light and Space were different in the earlier Universe
4) There was more than one center of the Big Bang
5) God did something more marvelous than we yet understand
Etc.
-
I see what you mean. But could time not be as constant as we believe?
As time and space is effected by black holes.
Maybe at the beginning time was slower than at present and gradually built up it's momentum and still is. Which would cause light to move at a lesser speed than it is determined today.
Maybe as the universe expands the quicker time will become. We feel that same effect as we grow older the years pass quicker. It could be that an older universe perceieves time at an more accelerated rate.
Roy.
-
quote:
Originally posted by aladyblond
I love the image, and I have to admit that is almost exactly the way I think.
My lovely wife mentioned to me that I never seem to question my ability to figure things out. When I have a problem or something gets broken, she says my first comment is, "I wonder how I'm going to fix this."
Not, "I wonder if I can fix this".
But can I request that you resize the image? Larger images make it hard for me to read threads. This one now spreads across two monitors.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ramccoid
Maybe at the beginning time was slower than at present
That's one of my theories, but I don't have the math skills to work it out in detail.
Either, Time falls towards mass in an accelerating rate (and therefore, light travels much slower on the flat parts of Space), or the density of the Universe has affected the rate of Time.
Either way, the light from the earliest stars has taken far too long to reach us, unless the mainstream theories are all wrong.
-
quote:
Originally posted by aladyblond
Thanks! [:)]
-
Hi Bill.
do you have a link to the Stars in mention?
also, is there a close enough nebula within 2.5 billion light years of those Stars?
the reason I ask is because old neutron stars can be reborn again if their path way leads them through huge Hydrogen nebula clouds, a neutron star's enormous gravitational pull will trap the Hydrogen around its path until there is enough captured fuel to re-ignite itself.
if we can find enough data I might be able to use my starry night back yard program to plot a course, if the stars are in the catalog then I can virtually visit the stars while looking back at our own sun.
Jerry[8D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by onthecuttingedge2005
do you have a link to the Stars in mention?
That would have to be a hyperspace link![:D]
I was actually talking about Galaxies composed of such stars. At the distances involved, individual stars and gas clouds are beyond our current resolution abilities.
But here is a Science Daily article ("http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070419125240.htm") I found on the team who made the measurements I was talking about. Interesting that they claim the Age/Expansion of the Universe was only 10% of today's, not the 25% I estimated.
Makes the error even worse and harder to explain.
-
Bill,
Maybe the rate of expansion increases directly proportionately with the square of the time. E=MCsquared.
-
What is really going to bake our noodles is this.
Some modern cosmologist are starting to lean towards an infinitely sized universe with no bounds.
If this becomes the accepted theory in Cosmology then that makes us a living species that is infinitely small and that means everything would be the center of the Universe including you and I or even a star a quadrillion parsecs away.
If this becomes the accepted theory then the squared possibility of the existence of life itself becomes unbound whether nature allowed the propagation or even the extinction of those probabilities to exist at a given time!
--------------------------------------------
for those that don't know what a parsec is:
1 parsec is 3.26163 light years.
it takes light 3(years) 2(months) 6(days) 16(hours) 3(seconds) to travel 1 parsec
at 186,282.397 miles per second in a vacuum.
Light speed velocity in Mach is Mach 904,460.4 in a vacuum.
---------------------------------------------
the Stardust sample-return capsule was the fastest man-made object to reenter Earth's atmosphere (~12.4 km/sec / ~28,000 mph relative velocity at 135 km altitude)
On arrival, the capsule was travelling in a nearly flat trajectory, at 12.9 km/s (28,900 miles per hour), which is the fastest re-entry speed ever achieved by a man-made object. As a point of comparison, NASA stated it would be able to travel from Salt Lake City, Utah to New York City, New York in less than six minutes. A large fire ball and sonic boom were observed in western Utah and eastern Nevada.
28,900 MPH is Mach 38.97742 or 8.027778 miles a second.
The first extended broadcast of the human voice was transmitted through the air on December 24, 1906
it is now the year 2007 which means we have been transmitting for 101 years
our radio signals have been traveling in space for a distance of 101 light years or 30.96611 parsecs in what ever direction the radio signal was directed.
If we was to use the fictitious warp speed from star trek we would see this:
http://www.angelfire.com/nj2/startrek/warp1.html
and in case you believe we haven't discovered life somewhere else, you better keep track of this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6341
I 'suggest' you read very carefully!
by the way, I am a member of Seti@Home and the finding of the signal is true.
The answer to traveling these great distances is not speed.
do you still contend that we are the baddest boys on the block?!
I would suggest this part of the solar system remain quiet!
I love baking Noodles!
Jerry[8D]
-
quote:
The answer to traveling these great distances is not speed.
Hi Jerry,
Unless we can reach WARP 10...hahaha
quote:
do you still contend that we are the baddest boys on the block?!
I would suggest this part of the solar system remain quiet!
I agree with that, we don't know what is out there. There could be intelligent life but how would we know if they were friend or foe.
We are just infants technological wise and should a alien species decide to invade, we wouldn't stand a chance. It would be much smarter to keep quiet and stay insignificant until we have developed the means to defend ourselves should things turn hostile.
If we look at the events through world history, it's always the more advanced cultures which swallow up the primative to near or total extinction. The native Indians of the Americas and the Aboriginals of Australia are more recent examples of this process.
So if a more advanced alien culture came to the Earth, they would most likely try to dominate it and eventually suceed in this endeavour. You wouldn't consider a chimpanzee as being equal to a man intellectually and the scale of the champanzee would be us to a advanced alien culture, we would not be tolerated. Probably be enslaved or exterminated.
Very interesting post and articles, thanks Jerry.
Roy.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Julia
You forgot one thing. Gog is the trinity of love force and time.
Actually:
The earliest known reference to "Gog" and "Magog" together is also in the Bible, in the Book of Ezekiel:
2. Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,[3]
3. And you shall say; So said the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, Gog, the prince, the head of Meshech and Tubal.[4]
Here it is not clear (in the Hebrew) whether Gog or Magog are people or places, and different identifications have been made. These are discussed after the text itself. The Interlinear Bible (Hebrew - Greek - English) states 2. as: "Son of man, set your face toward Gog, the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal; and prophesy concerning him."[5]
10. Thus says the Lord "On that day it shall come to pass that thoughts will arise in your mind and you will make an evil plan:"[6]
11. You will say, "I will go against a land of unwalled villages…(FRZ)(FRZ: mostly refers to Iraq as Frz (Unwalled Villages) in the Book of Ester)[7]
12. To take plunder and booty…"[8]
13. Sheba and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions(Persians) thereof, will say to you, "have you come to take a spoil?"[9]
They will be joined by Persians from the East, Phut from the West, Ku****es from the South, and others. We are told that Gog dwelt north of Israel, but there is little else to identify Gog in the passage. Gog and his allies are to attack "a land of unwalled villages" to collect booty, but before attacking Israel itself will be reduced to a "sixth" of their size (Ezekiel 39:2). Their reduced army will be destroyed in Israel, their dead buried in the Valley of Hamon-Gog for all to see and comment on (39:15-17).
------------------------------
Gog was the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal in the land of Magog
for which Gog had a son named Magog, this could be in reference to where or what land Magog was living in.
there is also a reference to Magog being North of Israel.
quote:
one is all and all is one.
I think it would sound better this way:
All for one! and One for all! The Three Musketeers.
quote:
A unified field is a symbol, a model a calculation.
would you have any citations or evidence on the above statement?
quote:
The star of david is 666.
According to some Judaic sources, the Star/Shield of David signifies the number seven: that is, the six points plus the center. The earliest extant Jewish text to mention it is the Eshkol Ha-Kofer by a Karaite named Judah Hadassi, from the 12th century CE:
"Seven names of angels precede the mezuzah: Michael, Gabriel, etc. ... Tetragrammaton protect you! And likewise the sign, called the 'Shield of David', is placed beside the name of each angel."[1]
quote:
666 for eternity is 777.
Can you explain what this above statement actually means?
quote:
God is love
Love is a second hand emotion; Tina Turner.
quote:
all who love continue to evolve
No, all who 'mate' successfully continue to evolve(slowly) with the exception of genetic altering of genes which accelerates 'selected' evolution(fastest).
quote:
false is dust of the past.
I don't believe I understand what you are saying here unless you were trying to recite some poem.
quote:
There are 6 ways to roll a seven
Tell us how it's done?
Jerry[8D]
-
Hi to everyone enthused with this thread.
Warp 1 or the speed of light cannot be achieve by a 'mass' object let alone warp 10 which is technically 10 times more impossible than a mass object at light speed velocity.
The square of energy that is required at these velocities to acquire 1 point over the speed of light makes it impossible to even think about reaching warp 10 fictitiously.
The answer is not using velocity as a crutch to get from one world to another but rather being able to rip or tare a hole into space time itself which should use less energy than a space craft would need to get to light velocity.
A doorway to other worlds linked together by 'quantum entanglement', rip this barrier and the Universe should be wide open.
Now the unknown, how do we rip or tare a hole into space time on a quantum entanglement scale big enough to allow a space craft to enter and exit from point A. To point B without traveling the distance. Theoretically it may take the same amount of energy that every atom the space craft contains in energy equivalence to open a rip or tare in space time to allow a space craft to enter safely without being crushed by a 'closing' rip or tare in space time.
If you are interested in this kind of stuff then I would suggest studying up on negative and exotic type matter and energy which is just into its birth stages at this point but worth reading.
This is about ripping or tearing space time itself and not necessarily a wormhole which you would still have to travel the distance inside the wormhole although the wormholes energy would propel you instead of your own space crafts propulsion systems. And even to control a wormhole one would need to have his/her space craft made entirely of negative matter to keep from being crushed by the wormholes walls.
The big question I have asked myself since I was a child, How do I rip the fabric of space time.
First you must know what the fabric is made of and how it is made before you can even start to develope a theory.
Secondly, One must know all the weakness of the fabric before one can even achieve such a feat of ripping it.
Jerry[8D]
-
Kind of brings us back to the old,"If you were travelling in a craft at the speed of light and turned your headlights on...what would happen?
On a more serious note, last night on the History channel, two PHD's were discussing their latest theories regarding the universe. They contend that our universe is expanding at a much faster rate than previously thought and after (I forget their "exact" number) tens of billions of years the universe is going to "RIP" itself apart starting outward or farthest away and working toward the center.
Eventually everything and everyone will be ripped or torn apart to our basic atoms and the universe will be filled with tiny dust particles.
Don't wait around for this event to happen as they haven't quite ironed out all the kinks as yet.
Interesting stuff!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Art
Kind of brings us back to the old,"If you were travelling in a craft at the speed of light and turned your headlights on...what would happen?
Hi Art.
Since ones space craft could only achieve 99% the speed of light your space craft would still be slower than Photons that do travel at 100% the speed of light therefor your head light beams would out run you.
Your space ship would have to be 'massless' and have 'infinite energy' to approach any acceleration/velocity closer to light speed.
To travel across the other side of the Universe at 99% the speed of light would take billions of years, if you travel at light speed, you will experience a break down of relativity and time dialation and if you travel at the speed of light for around 'one hour' you may experience that when you get back to your family they will have aged a 1000 years.
Using a rip in space time using quantum entanglement I could go to the far reaches of the Universe and be back in time for supper, with 'no time dilation', this means that when I get back, all my family will still exist.
The philosophy behind this is like this.
when one goes to math class you are taught to do math the long way but as you learn more techniques you begin to realize that shortcut math is much faster relative to the long way to do things, the answer to traveling great distances the long way would require to much time, shortcuts are the only answer to getting the answers faster.
a rip in space time experiences 'no time dialation' nore does it experience 'distance' of space.
It is the ultimate shortcut through the Universe.
The answer is: who has the fastest solution to getting the most accurate answer to the correct equasion and getting to the correct answer to the equasion before anyone else can without taking the long way around to find thee solution.
Jerry[8D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by onthecuttingedge2005
Your space ship would have to be 'massless' and have 'infinite energy' to approach any acceleration/velocity closer to light speed.
Massless or have infinite energy, either would do. Both woud be counterproductive (see: Tachyon)
quote:
To travel across the other side of the Universe at 99% the speed of light would take billions of years, if you travel at light speed, you will experience a break down of relativity and time dialation and if you travel at the speed of light for around 'one hour' you may experience that when you get back to your family they will have aged a 1000 years.
Actually the relativity calculations are fairly straightforward and reach Zero at the speed of light. Time starts to slow down (as observed from a bystander at the previous space/time energy level) the instant you start moving, at any speed. The differential is small until a large fraction of the speed of light is reached, but it increases measurably until you reach the speed of light, at which point time stops, your mass reaches infinity, and your dimensions, transverse to your direction of travel becomes infinite while your length along your direction of travel becomes infinitesimal. You become, in effect, a gravity wave.
(See new thread, How does a pancake flop?)
quote:
It is the ultimate shortcut through the Universe.
Several possible methods are conceivable.
Folding Space, which requires high gravity, high energy, or high time. We assume that we don't want to use high time (billions of years, ei: standard movement), we don't, at this point, have high enough energy on tap (Big Bang size energy fields). So that leaves high gravity, which we might acheive if we can learn to manipulate gravity with smaller amounts of energy.
Ripping Space, as you suggest. Also involves high energy. Probably involves having a post at either end, especially of we want an accurate end or want to mend the rip when we are done. So we would have to go to the other end of such a rip, before we can make such a rip. See above.
Removing mass. There are those who suggest that mass is a property separate from the other qualities of matter. Removing the mass from a chunk of matter would cause it to fly off at the speed of light at the slowest.
This avoids the time dialation problem, because although time may still dialate, the total trip is still very short. It may seem like an instant to you, but it would still be only a few minutes to your family.
The problem with high energy travel is that as you increase in speed, your mass increases. Go faster and it takes more energy to increase your speed, because you are "heavier". Go fast enough, and no matter what amount of mass you start with, your mass has become so great that it would require more energy than the Universe contains to make you go any faster. At the speed of light, not at 99%, but right at it, it would require infinite energy.
Unless you start with zero mass. As you know, you can multiply zero as many times as you want without reaching a number. So increasing your speed beyond the speed of light involves applying any level of energy.
Lastly, a method which is almost certainly impossible, is to use the compressed dimensions of sub-nuclear physics. The reason the weak and strong forces do not operate beyond the nuclear level is that they apply to a greater-than-four dimensional universe. Their effect is distributed over a Physical Universe with perhaps 9-27 directional dimensions. Instead of an inverse-squared decrease over distance, they have an inverse-n decrease. So their effect beyond the shell of electrons is minimal, infinitesimal.
But, like all forces, their effect is universal. Inside those compressed dimensions, they reverberate across the whole universe like gravity waves do in our framework.
If we could rotate into those dimensions, then rotate back, we could move across the universe by moving less than the distance of an atom.
A lot closer than "down the road to the chemist's".
-
onthecuttingedge,
"Some modern cosmologist are starting to lean towards an infinitely sized universe with no bounds.
If this becomes the accepted theory in Cosmology then that makes us a living species that is infinitely small and that means everything would be the center of the Universe including you and I or even a star a quadrillion parsecs away."
Infinite runs both ways. In the palm of your hand, and the cosmos.
-
If that holds to be the case, then a paradigm set forth in one
of Hawking's theories would also hold true, that is; if the
universe is infinite, both infinitely large and infinitely small.
Then there would also be the possibility of inifite dimensions
existing in an infinite number of space/time continuum's.
-
This place gets more like Star Trek everyday [;)]
-
I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you very much. [;)] [:D]
Stephen Hawking put forth that theory back in 1975, it was
published in the science magazine OMNI in early 1976.
-
quote:
Originally posted by GamerThom
If that holds to be the case, then a paradigm set forth in one
of Hawking's theories would also hold true, that is; if the
universe is infinite, both infinitely large and infinitely small.
Then there would also be the possibility of inifite dimensions
existing in an infinite number of space/time continuum's.
Hawkings is/was right to a point. The first and true leader is still Einstein and his original theories are still be proven true. NASA just verified another one of his theories and that is gravity bends time and space and they were only using little old earth to prove the facts. Consider then what the call a black hole can do to space.
I have always maintained that black holes are really worm holes and to a point Einstein said the same thing.
Bill
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bill819
I have always maintained that black holes are really worm holes and to a point Einstein said the same thing.
Gee...if only you would have said it first![:D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bill819
quote:
Originally posted by GamerThom
If that holds to be the case, then a paradigm set forth in one
of Hawking's theories would also hold true, that is; if the
universe is infinite, both infinitely large and infinitely small.
Then there would also be the possibility of inifite dimensions
existing in an infinite number of space/time continuum's.
Hawkings is/was right to a point. The first and true leader is still Einstein and his original theories are still be proven true. NASA just verified another one of his theories and that is gravity bends time and space and they were only using little old earth to prove the facts. Consider then what the call a black hole can do to space.
I have always maintained that black holes are really worm holes and to a point Einstein said the same thing.
Bill
If you imploded our Earth's Moon to the size of the period at the end of this sentence you would have a 'small blackhole like distortion'.
Nature does this with super sized stars and implodes to a blackhole point only '3 or 4 city blocks' acrossed (very strong Gravity).
super sized Stars which implode far beyond the Neutron core sizes will become Blackholes if there is enough implosion energy. a Neutron core must be crushed to at least the minimal size of a Moon or smaller down to 3 or 4 City Blocks wide.
Atoms start to become Sub Atomic particle streams right at the edge of this void within the inner side of the Accretion disk, when the particles reach the Blackhole core those particles are converted into high energy Photons and subnuclear particles and then jetted out of the Blackholes core at 0 degrees/180 degrees to the event horizon, these jets are called LASER jets.
Why does the Blackhole jet energy? well, even a Blackhole is not completely efficient at absorbing matter/energy 'completely on time' and any Matter/energy that is not processed on time is LASER jetted at its two poles where the Blackholes Gravity is weakest(path of least resistance).
The strongest gravitational forces of a blackhole are along its accretion disk event horizon curvature.
(http://universe-review.ca/I05-13-blackhole.jpg)
also, a Black holes core 'may not be spherical' but may be more like a 'flattened toroid' aerodynamically because Star implosions are not perfectly spherical in nature which may also indicate why the accretion disk or event horizon itself is a flat toroid to match.
Jerry[8D]
-
Yeah, and I've been saying that for years and will they believe me ?!? [;)]
-
For once I'm speechless.
How the hell did it go frpom religion to to the universe? And how do we actually know how a black hole is created? Text books, researchers? Scientists? Forgive my lack of logical intellect but when did they go up there into the times of space and test and view all these theories?
next you will be telling me some blokes from nasa really went up thjere and landed on the moon with nothing but 1mm thick aluminium foil between them and the radiation?
Or that, why anyone who believes in religion would go to a church when the very notion of a church contradicts the very idea of a 'God'
And that, apparently, over 70% of the population believe in a God, yet strangly enough, only 20% believe in faires, or leprachauns? How odd and hypocritical is that?
And that for desert, depending on your bible studies, The Devil is actually one of God's highest ranking Archangels, and was cast out from heaven for daring to question God's future for the human race.
And if The Devil was cast out for questioning God's methods and reasoning, looking at the world we see before us today...who is actually more concerned with our best interests?
Whats more believable, that an almighty being exists that created everything, then for some reason, forgot we were here for a while or got fed up of us?
or,
That mankind, unable to be without purpose in life or direction, created him ourselves?
And then, to leave you with a brainteaser of sorts, ultimatly we all believe what we want to believe regardless of anything else. Example, what colour is my text in this post?
Anytone?
yes its black of course, but ask yoursself, how do you know its black? Then ask, how do you know abour religion, or the universe, or time travel, or anything else for that matter...
because somewhere at some point, whether by person, book etc, you have been told so....
-
quote:
Originally posted by Maviarab
For once I'm speechless.
I wish I was.
quote:
How the hell did it go frpom religion to to the universe?
I see no difference.
quote:
And how do we actually know how a black hole is created?
the theories evolved from both observation of heavenly bodies and Nuclear and Fusion technology from very intelligent scientist.
quote:
Text books, researchers? Scientists? Forgive my lack of logical intellect but when did they go up there into the times of space and test and view all these theories?
A telescope is a view into the past, astronomers have been sharing data for over a hundred years now and modern astronomers are picking apart the old data and comparing it with new data to give observable conclusions as to how a system functions, Physics also adds to this
by applying it's own conclusion.
quote:
next you will be telling me some blokes from nasa really went up thjere and landed on the moon with nothing but 1mm thick aluminium foil between them and the radiation?
most space missions are carried out on the conical shadow side of the Earth, this is a known fact that by calculating the conic shadow of the earth and orbiting in it one can reduce the radiation exposer time a great deal whether there is a gamma ray burst or not.
the Apollo missions mostly orbited to the Moon inside the conical shadow of the Earth as a shield from radiation.
also, if there is not a severe sun burst(X-Ray, Gamma Rays) the astronaughts on the moon could of survived for quite some time, the time that the astronaughts went to the moon was relatively quiet as far as Sun bursts.
quote:
Or that, why anyone who believes in religion would go to a church when the very notion of a church contradicts the very idea of a 'God'
I don't quite get what is meant here so I'll pass it up.
quote:
And that, apparently, over 70% of the population believe in a God, yet strangly enough, only 20% believe in faires, or leprachauns? How odd and hypocritical is that?
I don't really know where these percentages came from but I wouldn't want anyone bible thumping on my agnostics.
quote:
And that for desert, depending on your bible studies, The Devil is actually one of God's highest ranking Archangels, and was cast out from heaven for daring to question God's future for the human race.
The word Devil is not in my belief system though I will not judge what one must call a bad entity, including human or not.
quote:
And if The Devil was cast out for questioning God's methods and reasoning, looking at the world we see before us today...who is actually more concerned with our best interests?
The devil as far as I am concerned through facts doesn't exist, it is ones own Psychological disorder that is responsiple for ones own actions and actions of others.
quote:
Whats more believable, that an almighty being exists that created everything, then for some reason, forgot we were here for a while or got fed up of us?
If this is what you believe then I will not tread upon this belief so long as mankind benifits from this opinion from a 'good' point of view.
quote:
That mankind, unable to be without purpose in life or direction, created him ourselves?
I am agnostic, my purpose in life is to fullfill my hunger for knowledge related to the facts of nature.
quote:
And then, to leave you with a brainteaser of sorts, ultimatly we all believe what we want to believe regardless of anything else. Example, what colour is my text in this post?
the color of your text is percievable by the cones and rods in the retina of your eye and then translated by your brain as a perceptual image turned right side up.
quote:
yes its black of course, but ask yoursself, how do you know its black? Then ask, how do you know abour religion, or the universe, or time travel, or anything else for that matter...
observable facts is the answer.
quote:
because somewhere at some point, whether by person, book etc, you have been told so....
I never believe everything I read or told unless it was peer reviewed by some of our most outstanding minds.
Jerry[8D]
-
hehe, the answer I knew I would get...
quote:
the theories evolved from both observation of heavenly bodies and Nuclear and Fusion technology from very intelligent scientist.
Theories being the operative word here...
quote:
most space missions are carried out on the conical shadow side of the Earth, this is a known fact that by calculating the conic shadow of the earth and orbiting in it one can reduce the radiation exposer time a great deal whether there is a gamma ray burst or not.
Now is it fact or theory...and ultimatly...according to who?
quote:
The devil as far as I am concerned through facts doesn't exist, it is ones own Psychological disorder that is responsiple for ones own actions and actions of others.
Then surely the same must be said for God and religion?
quote:
the color of your text is percievable by the cones and rods in the retina of your eye and then translated by your brain as a perceptual image turned right side up.
Although scientifically correct, you failed completly (or maybe purposly) to understand my point. Your 'eye' does not know its is black, or blue, or any other colour for that matter. When you were first born, did your 'eyes' tell you a certain colour was black, blue or even green? No it did not and you know that as well as I do. The reason you 'know' it is black has nothing to do with your eyes, and ebverything to do with you were 'told it was black, blue, green etc'
quote:
observable facts is the answer.
Define a 'fact' please...
quote:
I never believe everything I read or told unless it was peer reviewed by some of our most outstanding minds.
And what makes them so right?
What makes us believe something someone in a position of power/knowledge/authority tells us.
I am very sorry, but to blindly believe everything or anything told to us by such people is quite simply, lunacy.
How do therse people know what they know? Have you ever asked yourself that?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Maviarab
hehe, the answer I knew I would get...
Ditto.
I have had bible thumpers say directly to my face with aggression, Dinosaur bones don't exist, they are nothing but a conspiracy to keep me from believing in my God, yet I have not only seen dinosaur bones but have found them myself.
I have had Bible thumpers tell me the Earth has only been around 6000 years, yet there is no evidence of the Earth being so young.
what I am getting at here is this:
it will do me no good to argue my beliefs with yours because you will believe and argue what you see as an issue against your own opinion.
I will keep my peace and hold true to it.
Jerry[8D]
-
heh I take it from that you are not a believer then. Thats fine by me Jerry as I neither believe nor disbelieve the existence of an almighty entity.
Im what you would call firmly on the fence with an open mind to the possibility of either being true (if thats actually provable).
What irks me though, is failure to maybe look a little deeper into the rabbit hole and never question what we are told, for some reason, the majority of us blindly believe everything told us to by someone in authority
Surely the best way to 'learn'...is to question?
-
I strongly suggest that one examine the results of a number of leading scientists, graphics professionals, photographers and camera developers who contend that the US did NOT land on the moon!
A few points were raised:
The extremely thin-walled, lightweight craft would have had to pass through the Van Allen radiation belt and if it indeed did, the astronauts would have received lethal doses of radiation and would have been dead within a few months.
Radiation levels from the sun were at higher than normal levels during that time period.
There are several sources that substantiate this and lots of other proof.
Accept the fact that America / Americans were fooled and told what they wanted us to believe. This was done primarily to save face with the Russians (whos mission to be the first to launch a man in space was also hoxed).
I've also got some swampland cheap in Fla if interested.
:)
-
Heh nice one Art, knew it wouldnt take long for you to appear on a thread like this hehe.
Also, for you conspiracy theorists out there (who me? lol),
Approximatly 3 years ago the Japanese launched a missle that would take extreme close ups of the entire surface of the moon.
Great I hear you cheer, if the USA went there, then the photo's would show the 'remains' of their 'numerous' visits yes?
NO, I have spent many months searching for the 'photographs' produced by the Japanese, and well, trying to find any information on the whole mission is like looking for a needle in the proverbial haystack.
Now I ask...
where are those photographs?
And to further noodle your bake (?), why did NASA try to ban the film Capricorn One?
And then to fry your noodled bake...even the designer of the lunar landing module said it couldnt get there...
Again...left your own conclusions.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Art
I strongly suggest that one examine the results of a number of leading scientists, graphics professionals, photographers and camera developers who contend that the US did NOT land on the moon!
who are these people?
quote:
A few points were raised:
The extremely thin-walled, lightweight craft would have had to pass through the Van Allen radiation belt and if it indeed did, the astronauts would have received lethal doses of radiation and would have been dead within a few months.
exactly how thin were the walls and what course did they take?
quote:
Radiation levels from the sun were at higher than normal levels during that time period.
how many Rads at the time were the astronaughts exposed to? and are you sure they wern't shielded by the Earths conical Shadow?
quote:
There are several sources that substantiate this and lots of other proof.
can you give an old man some clues to where this information exist within scientific fact?
quote:
Accept the fact that America / Americans were fooled and told what they wanted us to believe. This was done primarily to save face with the Russians (whos mission to be the first to launch a man in space was also hoxed).
I see that you do not believe in the power of technology and scientific calculation of safety. check your cell phone, if you have one and see if it ignites Gasoline, if not then we know that the goverment was lying about cell phones igniting a volitile Gas.
quote:
I've also got some swampland cheap in Fla if interested.
:)
yes, and I have some real land available for purchase if you just open your mind enough to look at its value.
I tell no lies, I am a mind of logic, I see no reason to tell lies because it doesn't benifit my post.
did you know that the 'best liers' are those of the creative mind and not the logical?
Jerry[8D]
-
quote:
I see that you do not believe in the power of technology and scientific calculation of safety. check your cell phone, if you have one and see if it ignites Gasoline, if not then we know that the goverment was lying about cell phones igniting a volitile Gas.
Aside from anything else here, this just caught my eye.
Having parents who once owned 2 petrol stations, I have never seen once a mobile phone ignite petrol (gasoline for you yanks hehe)
Not to say it cant happen, but probably not as likely as certain people in 'authority' (see that word again...) would like you to believe.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Maviarab
quote:
I see that you do not believe in the power of technology and scientific calculation of safety. check your cell phone, if you have one and see if it ignites Gasoline, if not then we know that the goverment was lying about cell phones igniting a volitile Gas.
Aside from anything else here, this just caught my eye.
Having parents who once owned 2 petrol stations, I have never seen once a mobile phone ignite petrol (gasoline for you yanks hehe)
Not to say it cant happen, but probably not as likely as certain people in 'authority' (see that word again...) would like you to believe.
incase you weren't observing the laws of volitile gases, heres a post, if you want more then I will be obliged, no problem.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=38d_1183836667
this is a video of a cell phone igniting Gasoline from a distance.
I even have one of a girl who ignited her gas tank at a Gas pump and got burnt but that is a little more detailed than I wish to get into.
anybody with a logical scientific mind would know that a radio wave of any kind can induce an electrical spark, if you don't believe it then it's like playing russian roulette, especially if one is ignorant of all the scientific laws that 'your' supposed God gave but was ignorant to avoid the inevitable outcome called extinction at the Gas pump.
This is what I have to say:
observe the laws that your God did not reveal to you in Nature that were found other than by you to be fact and also those laws he/she gave to you to live by for which you deem to be the word of God to live in peace.
Safety first!
The Laws of Nature.
anyone or anything that does not abide in safety first will become extinct, lets hope the intelligence provides this safety for our future generations.
if not, your genetic outcome will become null and void!
Jerry[8D]
-
As I say, never said it couldnt happen, just that its not as likely as certain people would have you believe.
The odds of being hit by a runaway car are probably more likely, as are being involved in a motor vehicle related accident, yet we all still get into them most days of our lives don't we?
Is that logical?
Interesting article though and vid, thanks.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Maviarab
As I say, never said it couldnt happen, just that its not as likely as certain people would have you believe.
The odds of being hit by a runaway car are probably more likely, as are being involved in a motor vehicle related accident, yet we all still get into them most days of our lives don't we?
Is that logical?
Interesting article though and vid, thanks.
even a runaway car can lead to the extinction of a race and your genetic outcome for the most part.
it's almost like the person that said, lightning doesn't strike twice in the same location, without knowing observable facts.
total hogwash!
Jerry[8D]
-
Lol aye thats true heh.
Btw, on a different note altogether, you ever find out what happend to Don? And while we on it, Rich A, citrine dragon...so many vanished...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Maviarab
Lol aye thats true heh.
Btw, on a different note altogether, you ever find out what happend to Don? And while we on it, Rich A, citrine dragon...so many vanished...
Hi Marius.
I am sorry that I have no understanding of why our great minds have vanished other than they just moved on in some way.
Jerry
-
The imperfect human mind seeks comfort in the denial of external truth.
Dark is the absence of light.
A rose by any other name smells as sweet.
In 1969 Americans landed on the moon.
Truth is in it's own light.
-
Fundamentally Humans learn from nature by observation and interaction of its system and functions.
Humans then try to collect this data and select functions of the system to 'enhance' it so that it becomes 'super' natural, the term super natural can be interpreted in many ways by the observer whether the observer is looking at it from a scientific point of view or a religious point of view.
Eventually, in the future when mankind finds all the ways to genetically select all genetic functions and be able to call from them, then at that time humans will become even more super natural than what nature itself provided.
It is important that humans finds the answers to its own genetic functions because geneticist have discovered that the Human genome is degenerating over time, geneticist say that in 25,000 years
Male humans will become extinct and female Humans will become extinct in 75,000 years if we leave our genetics entirely for nature to select.
Mankind must master its own genetic flaws in order to prevent the inevitable extinction of our own future generations.
Just like mankind, animals will also become extinct by genetic degradation over time, besides all the natural disasters that may of killed most of the dinosaurs, the last remaining dinosaurs probably died off due to genetic degradation.
with the exception of the Mosquitoes that are believed to have evolved around 170 million years ago during the Jurassic era (206–135 million years ago), a very successful species!
Jerry[8D]
-
hi onthecuttingedge2005, yeah i have had religous people tell me that once before , about the dinosour bones being fake and just a bunch of bones people put tohether to look like something ( the ones that actually told me this in the past was mormons ) but i'm sure some other religeons do to . i had always wondered if adam was the first man then why were cave men around or was adam a cave man (which nothing or no one has ever said in religion that i know of ) an very interesting book to read is called "first man then adam " by Irwin Ginsburgh , PH.D. it's a pretty good book hope you can check it out sometime !![:D]
-
Supernatural is Man's view of whatever he cannot understand, or is not familiar with.
Nature is the universe. Man is natural. Life is natural.
-
By Allan Michaels "bkdiscov" (Settle, WA USA) - See all my reviews
Either a whimsical and entertaining fantasy, or a serious and realistic attempt to reconcile science and religion, FIRST, MAN. THEN. ADAM! puts forth the daring idea that Adam and Eve were members of an advanced species from far off outer space who crash-landed their spaceship, effectively stranding themselves, here on a very primative earth occupied by early Homo Sapiens.
Skilled in genetic science, they were able to breed with these early peoples, to produce a long-lived (900 years!), durable and intelligent species from which present mankind is descended!
Dr. Ginsburgh, a Physicist, maintains that the Biblical Genesis story is a true though transformed history of this and following events (with the spaceship as the Garden of Eden and the ship's central computer as the Tree of Knowledge, for example). The shorter lifetimes and growing subsceptibility to disease of each suceeding generation of these early space/earth men and women is stated to be due to continual dilution of the space people's genetic heritage by interbreeding with native earth people.
A large number of occurrances described in Genesis are shown to be consistant with this space origin theory. The description of the origin of the universe given in Genesis, can, according to Dr. Ginsburgh, by giving modern interpretations to some of the terms used in the description, be shown to be entirely consistant with the current Big Bang Theory!
Altogether, this is a stimulating and challenging attempt to reconcile religion and science, and can be read as a serious theoretical proposal, or if this is too hard to accept, as, at least, a very entertaining speculation. Unfortunately, the book is not easy to find...
-
[:D]
Paul: Either a whimsical and entertaining fantasy, or a serious and realistic attempt to reconcile science and religion, FIRST, MAN. THEN. ADAM! puts forth the daring idea that Adam and Eve were members of an advanced species from far off outer space who crash-landed their spaceship, effectively stranding themselves, here on a very primative earth occupied by early Homo Sapiens.
Julia: I'd go with the second; Is it very expensive for a beginner to get started with religion? I am many fine things including entertaining angel, really and truly! I bet you could go on at length about adams.
-
lol!!!!!!![:D][:D][:D]
-
Adult cranial capacity
(range in cm3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chimpanzees 300-500
australopithecines 390-545
early transitional humans 509-752
modern humans 900-1880
Jerry[8D]
-
Paul: We have the strong impression that you and I are sitting opposite each other, that there's a bunch of flowers on the table, that there's a chair there and things like that--they are there in definite positions relative to each other. I aim to abstract away everything we cannot see (directly or indirectly) and simply keep this idea of many different things coexisting at once in a definite mutual relationship. The interconnected totality becomes my basic thing, a Now. There are many such Nows, all different from each other. That's my ontology of the universe--there are Nows, nothing more, nothing less.
Julia: What a bunch of crap is on the internet.