Thermodynamics

[Guest queen annie]

Apart from the God of the Gaps argument, why are you trying to argue that your interpretation is right?

What is the 'god of the gaps' argument, anyway?

 

I mean, since interpretation is useless, any argument based on it is a total waste of time... and since your post was nothing more than your interpretation of the Bible and Science, you've just managed to show that your post is also useless.

I'm not arguing that what I've said is the absolute ultimate only possible intepretation--I am merely pointing out what has come out of this, for me. I didn't go looking for some sort of interpretation to fit what I might know of any scientific subject--and if I've got the science wrong, then correct me.

 

You scorn other people for not using their ability to reason and compute with their brains. Yet your own opinion blinds you to something I said that doesn't even have an agenda--and whether you realize it or not, is logical and obtained by the power of gray matter. I could care less what you think or believe, but I don't think you have any just cause to just make assumptions because of what other people have said or done--that might seem to be the same thing I'm doing. But I can go all the way with it, so if you feel it's necessary, then try me.

 

There is truth in every thing we can read or otherwise gain understanding from, and anyone can be fooled by the very same source. It's just as blindly stupid to say there is no truth in the bible as it is to say that Adam and Eve didn't have bellybuttons.

 

Now... are you going to re-think your position on this, or are you going to stick to the hypocritical stance that you've just taken?

How is what I've said hypocritical? I posted something about what I've learned--not because of any sort of need to prove anything. I said how I learned it and that's basically all that I intended. If it offends you then that's not my problem--I didn't say anything offensive to anyone nor did I present what I said in some sort of dogmatic fashion. My position is irrelevant to your demands, anyway, because it's not about you or your approval or agreement.

[Guest queen annie]

Yeah.  Well, I don't know if they were the ones to discover the spherical Earth, but they definitely had it long before Europe pulled its head out of it's ass somewhere around the thirteenth or fourteenth century.

I think that the Sumerians knew about the earth being a sphere. This was around 6000 or so years ago. They also 'discovered' the wheel.

[Amanda]

Hello Queen Annie!

 

Unfortunately I've been gone and missed this post's initiation! I'm eager to catch up, although I sense you're far ahead of me (in wisdom) and I am hoping to be understanding the depth of which you write!!!

 

Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.  Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

----------------

Now, think of the TV as your physical body, and the electricity as the Spirit of God, which He breathed into Adam’s nostrils to make Adam a ‘living soul.’  Now, think of the picture on the TV screen as the ‘living soul,’ and the power cord as the ‘silver cord’ written of in Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes 12:6-7 KJV

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 'silver cord' has had me pondering a long time. Thanks.

 

Religious theory is completely divorced from Sciencific theory.  Science never reaches a complete conclusion because it seeks, generally speaking, to divorce itself from things not observable.  Spiritual pursuits are only one half of the whole, and Science provides the other half.  They are not rightly put in opposition to one another, and only through their unity can complete understanding come about.  Religion flatters itself as being Science's rival, but in truth competes in the arena of politics and superstition.

 

From an enlightened perspective, science is actually the observations man is able to make concerning the results of God’s workings:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have felt that science explains God and the Bible moreso.

Concerning the biblical concepts of salvation, life and death, these ideas seek to represent the understanding that the only ‘rescue’ (salvation) from ‘death’ (which is being bound in by the limited perception of material existence as a complete reality) beyond the ‘gates of hell’ (essentially the grave which is inherent within the closed system of organic nature). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow! That's a good way of putting it!

When Messiah said ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Light’ and that no one could reach the Father except through Him, He was not founding a religion, He was not setting the stage for the exclusive unrighteousness of Christianity.  Unrighteousness is injustice and an unfair, biased judgment--the out-workings of hypocrisy, blindness, and self-orientation which denies connection with other life.  God is righteous and so must we be in all our relations with each other, keeping always in mind that we are all made of the same elements put together in the same way, and we all have the same potential within us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was even smart enough to figure that one out!

When we seek His righteousness we are loving one another without respect to persons and devoid of condemnation and comparison.  His kingdom is the whole--comprised of both the material and the spiritual.  Only by first making love and truth priority can God be sought.  This is how understanding is then arrived at--and what is meant by 'all these things will be added unto you.'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you certainly took my belief in this to the next level!

He was instructing, in allegory and with parables, on the only way to overcome the entropy (death) of nature’s closed system (grave) by turning away ('repenting') from the worldly view and focus that says material existence is complete (which is 'sin')--because it is only one-half of the complete whole and can not provide any lasting benefit to us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with this, except I thought sin was disrespect, condemnation?

There is just one possible way out, according to the fundamental structure of creation as governed by the Laws of God (which, in fact, are not legalistic ordinances but the principles of thermodynamics and quantum physics which provide order and function to all systems, perceived by humanity as ‘love’, ‘truth’, ‘balance’, and ‘order’).  The Resurrection was a demonstration that life is something not confined to either one of the two halves.  Unless we believe that life lies beyond our current conception, then we will not be able to pass through. 

 

By serving us as the appointed manifestation of God and man, Christ is the demonstration and embodiment of both this system and the other half which lies outside of human experience.  Therefore He is truly the only hope we have, but each of us, individually—outside of religious doctrines and scientific experiments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I knew you had a lot of wisdom, I just didn't know it was this vast!

 

BTW, I see that you in NO WAY support or validate the present perception of Christianity! You are a follower of Christ... which is just a follower of Truth.... where ever it may be! IMHO, FWIW.

[Amanda]

Instead I read all sorts of things over the course of several years--such as all sorts of sacred texts and misc:  Buddhist, Taoist, Manichean, Gnostic, the Egyptian book of the dead, Greek, Sumerian, Amerian Indian, and Mayan mythology, Edgar Cayce, Rosicrucian, Tarot, Alchemy, and more that I can't recall.  It all tells the same story--in a thousand different flavors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the same conclusion I have had also. I haven't gotten around to as many of these spiritual teachings as you though! Because you studied them first, then the Bible, probably helped you understand the Bible better. I found that studying these other spiritual teachers has helped me understand the Bible moreso, but I intently studied the Bible first. It seems it would of been better the other way around.

[Amanda]

Of course, they would have a venomous attack of name calling right before they fell in defeat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, THAT is what it means in the Bible to be bit by or handle a venomous snake and it will not effect you!

[Amanda]

I think that the Sumerians knew about the earth being a sphere.  This was around 6000 or so years ago.  They also 'discovered' the wheel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I heard in a documentary that the Phoenecians, way before Christ, figured that the earth was round by the earth's shadow in the lunar eclipse.

[Mr. Neil]

What is the 'god of the gaps' argument, anyway?

Basically, the god of the gaps is an argument in which the theist assigns God to whatever phenomenon of which we happen to be ignorant. It's putting God's divinity in the gaps of our knowledge. It's taking an unwarranted extra step beyond simply saying, "I don't know".

 

Here are some examples.

 

Did the universe begin or has it always existed?

Proper response: I don't know.

Theist response: God did it.

 

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Proper response: I don't know.

Theist response: God did it.

 

Why are there cosmological constants?

Proper response: I don't know.

Theist response: God did it.

 

 

Basically, it's cheating. It's saying something that no one could possibly know.

[MQTA]

I thought the God of the Gaps was to explain the middle. Like He Created the Universe, and then 4.5 billion years later comes back and creates Man. That's a big Gap.

[Mr. Neil]

Here's a link explaining it a little better. Actually, there are a lot of pages explaining the argument, but this one does nicely.

 

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html

[MQTA]

Fall in to the Gap

[crazy-tiger]

What is the 'god of the gaps' argument, anyway?

"God of the Gaps" is the fallicious argument that states "we do not know something, therefore God"

 

That is the exact argument you made about light... That we don't know everything about light and that light is a principle element of Gods nature.

There's a gap in our knowledge there, and you inserted God.

Of course, since we don't know everything about light, saying what you said is nothing more than a guess... especialy since we don't know anything about God.

 

Of interest is the fact that not only is it a fallicious argument, it's also hypocritical in that it sticks God into the gaps of an argument, but fails to plug the gaps it itself.

I'm not arguing that what I've said is the absolute ultimate only possible intepretation--I am merely pointing out what has come out of this, for me.  I didn't go looking for some sort of interpretation to fit what I might know of any scientific subject--and if I've got the science wrong, then correct me.

Either you went looking for an interpretation to fit science, or you went looking for science to fit the interpretation...

 

What is of interest here is that interpretations of the Bible have changed as scientific knowledge has increased. 500 years ago, no-one would have been interpreting any of it to be about electricity... yet here you are, with knowledge of electricity and an interpretation that fits what is known. Hell... the verses you mentioned were interpreted as God's power. (I can here the twisting going on at this point... Yes, God's power was electricity and we've only just worked it out )

You scorn other people for not using their ability to reason and compute with their brains.  Yet your own opinion blinds you to something I said that doesn't even have an agenda--and whether you realize it or not, is logical and obtained by the power of gray matter.  I could care less what you think or believe, but I don't think you have any just cause to just make assumptions because of what other people have said or done--that might seem to be the same thing I'm doing. But I can go all the way with it, so if you feel it's necessary, then try me.

Yes, that is what you're doing... not that it's anything wrong.

 

When someone does something, assumptions are made about them by how they fit certain patterns... When you gave your interpretation, then refused to accept that your interpretation might be mistaken, you fit the pattern of someone who is blinded by their own opinion... thus the assumption is made that you are blinded by your opinion.

 

On the other hand, when I pointed out that interpretation isn't up to much, I didn't fit the pattern on someone blinded by opinion. (especially since you agreed with that)

There is truth in every thing we can read or otherwise gain understanding from, and anyone can be fooled by the very same source.  It's just as blindly stupid to say there is no truth in the bible as it is to say that Adam and Eve didn't have bellybuttons. 

Never said there was no truth in the Bible...

 

Are you reading things into my post that aren't there?

How is what I've said hypocritical?  I posted something about what I've learned--not because of any sort of need to prove anything.  I said how I learned it and that's basically all that I intended.  If it offends you then that's not my problem--I didn't say anything offensive to anyone nor did I present what I said in some sort of dogmatic fashion.  My position is irrelevant to your demands, anyway, because it's not about you or your approval or agreement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You give your interpretation, put in the effort to show it's the right one, then turn around and say interpretation is useless...

You attack someone for having a different interpretation to you, berate them for doing exactly what you are doing, and accuse them of being exactly like you are.

 

 

Anyone who does that, who uses a "do as I say, not as I do" stance, is hypocritical.

[MQTA]

and Sodom & Gomorrah was a nuclear holocost?

[Mr. Neil]

Never said there was no truth in the Bible...

 

Are you reading things into my post that aren't there?

I just want to add to this by pointing out the false dichotomy that Christians make about the historicity of the Bible, as though it can either be taken at 100% face value or all of it's false. That's completely asinine.

 

There's actually a third option, which is that the Bible is a mixture of myth-making and history. Obviously, some of the stuff in the Bible did happen. It would be crazy to think that absolutely none of it could be true. There are other cultures, after all, who've woven myths into their history. For example, the works of Homer are filled with mythology, but it's also got some fact. The Trojan war, for instance, is real historical event.

[trashy]

I've had a hard time following this thread. Is Queen Annie attempting to claim some Kabbalistic bible code as the 'real' message of the Bible? Ancient aliens? Sumerians as aliens?

 

I could use some help here.....

[MQTA]

I've had a hard time following this thread.  Is Queen Annie attempting to claim some Kabbalistic bible code as the 'real' message of the Bible?  Ancient aliens?  Sumerians as aliens?

 

I could use some help here.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

yeah, the joke is on us. Enki & Enlil are long gone and they never really cared about us anyway, we were just their gold mining slaves. If not for Enki, Enlil woulda wiped us out quite a few times.

 

The apparent duality of God in the book of Genesis is thus explained by the often opposing actions of Enki and Enlil.  Enlil expels Adam and Eve; Enki clothes them.  Enlil gives the old heave ho to Cain; Enki protects him.  Enlil brings about a flood; Enki assists a Noah in building an ark.  And so forth and so on.  Even the Jesuits of the Catholic Church have begun to acknowledge the reality of at least two gods in the story of Genesis.  Considering what we know of the Anunnaki and the elohim, there are a whole slew of Gods and Goddesses in the story of Genesis. 

 

The Sumerian texts really give Genesis a whole new view

[trashy]

yeah, the joke is on us. Enki & Enlil are long gone and they never really cared about us anyway, we were just their gold mining slaves.  If not for Enki, Enlil woulda wiped us out quite a few times.

The Sumerian texts really give Genesis a whole new view

 

I would agree that there is a lot of Sumerian and Gilgamesh in the bible. Other than that, I'm not sure what the big deal is. Is someone claiming that the Sumerian stories are more authentic and that we should believe them?

[MQTA]

I would agree that there is a lot of Sumerian and Gilgamesh in the bible.  Other than that, I'm not sure what the big deal is.  Is someone claiming that the Sumerian stories are more authentic and that we should believe them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Spend some time at that site and see what you think. Having read it gives a whole new view of the Bible. Not a matter of fact or fiction, but how it came about and the ramifications of the Sumerian texts on our True history and development of mankind.

 

Eh.... Could be (bugs bunny said that, right?)

[Fweethawt]

--and, that we (and the other planets) are hung on "nothing."  We still don't know what this "nothing" is that holds us in place.  We call it gravity... but we don't really know what that is.

I don't suppose it really matters if you want to wonder about "nothing".

 

 

Just as long as your fine about others not wondering about "nothing".

[Fweethawt]

Fall in to the Gap

Do it up! Get that do-it-up feeling! Guys! Gals! Pizazz!

 

Okay. That was just gay, but I couldn't help it.

 

I remember that stupid commercial from back when I was a kid.

[Asimov]

That was gay even for you, fwee....

[Dhampir]

Order and chaos are the mutual breakdowns of one another at different times and differing points.

 

The explanation of why the 'laws' of thermodynamics are just as likely to have popped into existence with the universe as they are to have been engineered.

 

By the way, why would a god who could simply speak things into being need science of any sort?