Jump to content

Justus

☆ Silver Patron ☆
  • Content Count

    521
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About Justus

  • Rank
    Skeptic

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canst say for sure, dam things keeps moving, but at least it keeps coming back to the same spot or I would be totally lost.
  • Interests
    Phasmalogy TM
  • More About Me
    How much does a scientist make per theory? Here's one on the scientific mystery regarding which came first, the chicken or the egg? My theory is the Cock, a doddle dew.... so to speak. TM

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    the Holy Ghost

Recent Profile Visitors

577 profile views
  1. I wasn't the one asking for proof, yet is written prove all things. But if I recall correctly the context was that an adulteress generation would seek after a sign but none would be given them except except the sign of Jonas. Transcendent??? I can't say i have encountered anyone who used that particular reference to God but by chance did they tell which personage of their triadic God was transcendent?
  2. I would say because you are gay if you don't say finger....not that there is anything wrong with that.....
  3. Thank God for global warming or that pork chop wouldn't be cooked, you do know were salamanders come from...
  4. LOL, I forget you BG generation like to joke. It is sad it one can't look out their window and see Eden especially when they taught themself how to read. But I guess if man has the ability to teach himself how to read then it is easy to see why those who couldn't might not see the humor in the flat earth.
  5. By the statement 'in it's beginning' are you inferring to a specific point at which the universe came into physical existence or are you referring unto 'the beginning' like written in Genesis? The reason I ask is I am a little confused by the inference of potential energy since the beginning of the universe would necessitate that space would have first appeared since matter requires space in order to physically exist. So there first must be space for energy to emerge into existence within right? While energy is commonly defined as being the potential work, or ability of self-animation by mass, it is held that energy is transferred between atoms. While nothing suggests that energy exists without mass but they do claim that energy can occupy space separate from mass. However, nothing indicates that energy could exist prior to mass, so that would mean that mass would would have also be present at the time energy emerged into space albeit separate from mass wouldn't it?
  6. Benny Hinn sells the 'free gospel' to those who don't buy the truth however the gospel isn't free unless one doesn't place any value in the truth, so true prosperity is not defined by how much treasure one gathers but rather how they gathered it and how long they keep it.
  7. LOL, that wasn't exactly what I said but I wish I had because you actually said it better that I did. Yet the cyclical motion of mass is not time, but rather the way we measure time. But more importantly, time is reflective of the finite nature of the universe which is another way of saying it is quantifiable. Exactly, anything which changes in substance or form has a finite nature and the characteristic of the finite is it quantifiability By cyclical motion I am referring unto the recurrent motion having the same duration. That period from the beginning of motion until it returns to the same position is the measure of time. However the motivator of time is the finite nature of the universe. Since the nature of the universe is finite, that represents that every living thing in the universe is reflective of that nature. Having a beginning of existence, all living things will have an end of existence therefore time is merely the measurement of that period.
  8. ' Well, time began when matter emerged into existence The 'big bang' is said to be the result of all space, time, matter and energy that exists in our universe rapidly expanded from a highly condensed state. So time did exist before the big bang, yet it has been 14.5 billion years since the big bang, if you subscribe to the Catholic doctrine of the primordial atom published in scientific form. However, the hypothesis doesn't address how the primordial atom originated, only how it changed into the current form.
  9. Actually my comment was that there is no reason for a clock when it can not be turned back to 0. I guess the same reason the linear measure of time needs the cyclical motion of mass in order to be known. If you don't have a cyclical motion of mass, being that expanse between two points then you can't measure time which is the reason you don't need a clock if it never can return to zero.
  10. Well, if the clock disappears then you got to absolute zero and if you never quite get to zero then there isn't any reason for there to be a clock.
  11. Can't help but ask if you view theology as no more than a tool? The reason I ask is that IMO science in the same class as theology, each being a discipline in the study of knowledge in their own respective fields. Science being the discipline based upon the study of the laws of nature while theology being the discipline based on the study of the doctrine of Christ.
  12. So when you first believed the scriptures were true you must have done some type of inquiry before just accepting them as the truth didn't you? It would stand to reason that if you did then obviously there was some defect in your reasoning which resulted in your professing faith in the Gospels before claiming something was true when you are claiming that they are full or errors. So if you didn't make any inquiry into the scriptures before accepting them as being true then leaving behind doctrine of Christ then how are your conclusions any less subjective than before if you do know what the doctrine of Christ is other than what you believe from reading a book. By the way, believing something is not the same as having faith. Belief is the hope something is true without any underlying substance to support the belief is actually true while faith is the underlying reason(s) for the expectation that something is true being the evidence that supports the hope in that which is unseen actually being true. Good question since Christians will say they are are saved by their faith in the word of God yet faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Son of God but of course they don't hear that yet it is written in John 5:25 that the time will come when they that hear shall live.
  13. I think it is a bluff since you can find more lawyers with ethics than you can find Christians with principles. (Just saying, there are some that are going to follow the LORD no matter what the truth is.)
  14. Do you think that believing something is the equivalent of having faith? YES! There's the answer. What a load of BS, it might be true that is what those who consider themselves to be true christians believe, but it sure indicates that they are those who maketh and loveth lies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.