| Author |
Message |
    
Mik3y
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 07:21 am: | 
|
Thankyou "honesty" [ heh how fitting] for helping me explain my point a bit better cheers 
miCk.
Michael william James
|
Honesty811
Starlite Member
Username: Honesty811
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 05:19 pm: |
|
I could not help to jump into this discussion since this has also been an interesting topic of my week and experience in this way of faith and Action. It is in James 2:14-17 this is what it says.
14.My brother, what good is it for someone to say that he has faith if his actions do not prove it? Can that faith save him?
15.Suppose there are brothers or sisters who need clothes and don't have enough to eat.
16.What good is there in your saying to them,
"God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!-if you don't give them the necessities of life?
17.So it is faith: if it is alone and includes no actions, then it is dead.
We all can say we have faith and believe but it is how we respond in the faith, always show it in love. Then Jesus goes on to say--John 13:34...
And now I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I loved you, so you must love one another. There fore we must act in our faith and build in it in order for it to be reconized in the Lords eye's. We all can say we have faith who will believe if it is never shown or act upon.
|
Mik3y
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 04:27 pm: |
|
They were not the Law as man knew it Jesus had come to fulfil the 10 commandments and yes in short they summed them all up. Jews don't consider this Law though. Jesus was above the Law in His Authority and when He summed up these 10 commandments He did so in giving us 2 very important things to do. My point Potpher is that Jesus Christ in this instance was not giving us His thoughts, opinions, more rules etc. He was giving us freedom of choice that if we wanted to be with the Father the only way to Him was through His son. Ontop of this Jesus Christ gave us instructions which ask us to carry out action. No Christian should remain idle. One could sit in a box and have all the faith in the world and never do wrong but is this the kind of Salvation Jesus Christ speaks of when He gives us two new commandments which sum up the 10 and give us so much more insight into what God wants from us and What we have to do to be with Him. Yes "DO" i can faith faith faith all i like Potpher and never get anywhere with that alone. When the woman touched Jesus Christs cloak she had faith Yes this is ultimately what healed her right? But she also showed that faith through action by doing something with her faith. She physicaly walked as close as she could to Jesus and reached out to touch His cloak. This is my point im trying to make that faith alone unless the word faith is given a whole new meaning which use's meanings from many other words in addition, is not a quick fix to Salvation. I've given you a great example of this in the story above. What is Faith without prayer? spreading the good news? practicing our faith through our deeds and our words?
I hope this is much more clearer to you im short for any other method of explaining myself. I cannot limit God's salvation ultimately it is His divine judgement.
Michael william James
|
Pmbulo
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 11:02 am: |
|
MILK3Y: The 2 new commandments Jesus Christ gave us were not of the Law they were two very important keys to Salvation with God.
POTPHER: But Jesus himself said that the too are the summation of the whole law. Can you kindly educate me please.
|
Mik3y
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 06:30 am: |
|
This was not the Law but Jesus Asking us directly to love as He has loved us.
No doubt what you say about Jesus dying and becomming sin is true..i believe this too. I do not cling alone to my good deeds for Salvation. My Faith is in Christ that with Him when i submit to the will of my Father Almighty He will use me to do his work on earth. This work is not as black and white as Salvation = good deeds. I'd never be caught saying that! But Saying yes i believe in Jesus and doing the wrong thing continuously never learning or asking God for His grace to better oneself in the Lord? This is unforgiveable in my eyes. Then i say God is merciful as we can see in the Bible and in our own Lives He helps the poor and the lowly. The 2 new commandments Jesus Christ gave us were not of the Law they were two very important keys to Salvation with God. This my friend is what i believe not what you have summed up my beliefs to appear.
Michael william James
|
Pmbulo
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 01:22 am: |
|
MILK3Y: If this is not Jesus Christ asking us to do something for our Salvation in God then please explain why not.
POTPHER: Thanks for that question: Jesus is not asking you to observe the commandments in order to be saved.
Why???
Because, "THEREFORE NO-ONE WILL BE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS IN HIS SIGHT BY OBSERVING THE LAW; RATHER THROUGH THE LAW WE BECOME CONSIOUS OF SIN.” Romans 3: 20
He is asking you to believe that he died on the cross for the remission of your sins. Righteousness is impute upon you if you do believe in what Christ did for you on the cross. You have to be regenerated first before you undertake to follow the two summed up laws. The trouble is that you are hoping to be saved based on your good deeds. Ask yourself why Christ died on the cross. Your fellow catholic, Mel Gibson in his controversial movie, “THE PASSION OF CHRIST” beautifully captured the reason why Christ died. If it wasn’t for his death at the cross, there was no need for him to come on earth. He was born in order to die for our sins.
2 Corinthians. 5:21. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” KGV
I’m only human and I don’t know how else to explain it. I pray that the Holy Spirit reviews it to you.
|
Honesty811
Starlite Member
Username: Honesty811
| | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 08:12 pm: |
|
That was absolutely beautifully said. It really pin pointed a fact of truth. It is hope that our wrongs are forgiven and it by faith we believe.
Ultimately it is love we should have.
|
Mik3y
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 07:26 pm: |
|
When i talk of doing good deeds it is not a direct entry into heaven it is simply part of our one chance through the Son to live in this life in Hope that we can be more Christ like and seek Salvation in our Lord. One could absolutely not say that he has faith in Jesus and his resurection etc and go and do as he pleases throughout life completely disregarding any law of God or any teaching Jesus passed onto us. We do good things with God not without Him. So when i mention good deeds I'm not that naive to think that 1 can work his way into heaven. God knows the true intentions of all of us He understands all there is to know about us and more. Every hair on our heads even! It was a deed initself that finalised this disbelief in God from where it all started with Adam and eve. But it was the actual deed which finalised it all. When Jesus walked this earth it was more than just faith it was through His Word and His Deeds as well. The Faith is in Christ and the way in which He showed us. Faith that by striving to be more Christ like and reconciling everytime we do go against God that Jesus Will remember us and not leave us behind. Imagine a man has never met Christ never heard his word or even seen an example of Christ however he lives a good life that is pleasing to the Lord. Faith in Jesus Christ or God will not save this man. God's final judgement can however. Salvation isn't something that i could ever make black and white because i'm not God. Jesus came to show us the way He said believe in me but he also speceficaly gave us two new commandments. These commandments were absolutely asking us to do deeds to Love one another as He has loved us. If this is not Jesus Christ asking us to do something for our Salvation in God then please explain why not. It's God's mercy because you didn't earn it on your own, only by the grace of God were you ever able to be used by Him for His work on this earth and in heaven.
Michael william James
|
Pmbulo
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 09:06 am: |
|
POTPHER: Let me be precise: Salvation comes by believing that Jesus died on the cross for the remissions of your sins. It does not come by works nor by observing the commandments what ever they be else one would boast having earned it. It’s a free gift from God. However, he who is saved is supposed to live an upright life.
MIK3Y: Then this does not show any mercy by God for those who have never had the opportunity to learn about Jesus Christ does it not?
POTPHER: Hahaha, sorry to say that I find that you are contradicting yourself. How can it be mercy when you earn it? I remember a story of a widow and Emperor Caesar. There was a young man who committed murder. The young man was arrested and was about to be put to death. His mother, a widow approached Emperor Caesar for mercy on behalf of her son. The Emperor said, “Your son committed murder and therefore he does not deserve mercy” But the widow replied, “Your Royal Highness, how can it be mercy if he deserves it?”
I like your honest approach in your posts. I’m sure you must be a good person.
I must confess that you have also touched a huge topic I call “The Fate of Savages”. I believe the “ignorant good people” will be judged on the same basis as the old testament saints. I also believe that those that deliberately refuse to accept the death of Jesus as a ransom have no room in God’s family no matter how holy they may strive. By the way holiness is earned but righteousness is a gift.
MIK3Y: Surely God almighty is not ignorant.
POTPHER: You are absolutely right.
MIK3Y: Good works alone or following the commandments will not earn a ticket into heaven.
POTPHER: I agree with you
MIK3Y: When you say salvation = faith but then go onto say we must strive to live an upright life and confess and make efforts to try not to sin again your basicaly saying that faith alone is not enough just the same as good works alone is not enough.
POTPHER: No that’s not what I mean. What I mean is that when you are born into the family of God, you have become his child. It is not by following the commandments that you become His child. Rather it is by faith and faith alone. However a child of God is suppose to live like a child of God. I mean how else can you appreciate God’s mercy except to please Him by living an upright life? “You will know them by their fruit.”
|
Mik3y
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 01:56 am: |
|
Then this does not show any mercy by God for those who have never had the opportunity to learn about Jesus Christ does it not? Surely God almighty is not ignorant. Good works alone or following the commandments will not earn a ticket into heaven. When you say salvation = faith but then go onto say we must strive to live an upright life and confess and make efforts to try not to sin again your basicaly saying that faith alone is not enough just the same as good works alone is not enough. Eternal judgement maybe left to God for only he ultimately knows each individuals hearts and eternal destination. God did not come for only the jews or the christians He came for all! St paul wrote neither Jew Gentile or greek we're all equal. Good works, faith etc are all ways which we have being taught by Christ and through reconciliation with God we have His grace to do such good works and to trust and keep faith in Christ. There is a God and it is not any of us Jesus showed us the way and God forgave our Sins through Jesus. I'm glad that i am not God because i do not think i could ever show as much mercy love and understanding as He can when it comes to each individuals final judgement in eternity. Thankyou for replying
Michael william James
|
Pmbulo
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 10:15 am: |
|
MIK3Y: You were not exactly saying that Adam was Jesus? But Jesus was God through the Son redeeming mankind from Adams first steps away from
God? I just need to understand if im on the same wave length as you or
not.
POTPHER: We are on the same wavelength. Jesus was the son of God who lowered himself in form of man to redeem mankind. Yes Jesus is God.
MIK3Y: The other thing about the old hell teachings etc with the clergy this
definitely was evident say 10years ago or a bit more. But you will see
just even from Pope John Paul the 2nds theology input that God is far
beyond our rules etc God has the ability to have mercy on young
children who don't make baptism, people who were never shown love in
their life and so hated because it was the only thing they'd ever been
shown..etc
POTPHER: I agree with you.
MIK3Y: I'm a Catholic and it’s my understanding that for me Salvation is a lot of things but they can all be summed up in the Works of Jesus and the 2 new commandments He gave us.
POTPHER: Let me be precise: Salvation comes by believing that Jesus died on the cross for the remissions of your sins. It does not come by works nor by observing the commandments what ever they be else one would boast having earned it. It’s a free gift from God. However, he who is saved is supposed to live an upright life.
|
Mik3y
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 12:01 am: |
|
You were not exactly saying that Adam was Jesus? But Jesus was God through the Son redeeming mankind from Adams first steps away from God? I just need to understand if im on the same wave length as you or not.
The other thing about the old hell teachings etc with the clergy this definitely was evident say 10years ago or a bit more. But you will see just even from Pope John Paul the 2nds theology input that God is far beyond our rules etc God has the ability to have mercy on young children who don't make baptism, people who were never shown love in their life and so hated because it was the only thing they'd ever been shown..etc God is Merciful and Almighty..basicaly anything He says goes. He doesn't tend to change stuff and make it obsolete. For example Jesus Came to fulfill the 10 commandments as well as giving us two more which sum up perfectly what you said about faith = salvation. Faith is doing whats right according to God as He has said in his commandments as our parents have shown us right from wrong as pastures and priests, bishops etc have guided us like there job descriptions as shephards require.
One thing that bothers me alot is new age christians /pentecostals etc asking me to just say yes to Jesus and i shall be saved. It bothers me in the way which this is so simplified like a quick fix. Just accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour. I'm left asking and then what and then what?
I'm a Catholic and its my understanding that for me Salvation is alot of things but they can all be summed up in the Works of Jesus and the 2 new commandments He gave us. The church has been teaching for a long time now that Gods Judgement is ultimately not ours. We can't go and tell muslims or non believers they will go to hell because its not for us to say. What we can do is testify as to how God has helped us etc. Pope John Paul the 2nd had a real knack for making people see how they might be selling themselves 2nd best by talking about our general yearning for a good life. He didn't even have to mention God's name. Great speaker philosopher and theologian he was.
Thankyou Potpher i appreciate it.
miCk.
Michael william James
|
Njaeok
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 11:13 am: |
|
Pmbulo---
The poetic flow and artistic logic you display in religious posts are wonderful expressions of the loving theme inheirant in Judeo/Christian spiritual beliefs. Some might complain that a simple yes or no question often triggers an epic dissertation in reply but the the reward of loving poetic expressionis is well worth the chore of wading through the details.
There was a point to my rhetorical question, I think-- must have been or I wouldn't have asked. Somewhere in the maze of theological details I lost it. Oh well--- I'll probably stumble over it later.
Jimbo
Night brings darkening, hope is adjourning.
Despair spreading its relentless spawn.
Yet prayer brings harking to hope reforming.
It's always the darkest just before dawn, Jimbo
|
Pmbulo
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 09:32 am: |
|
Hi Mik3y
What do I mean by detection? This is a scientific method to find out about an object or phenomena. To find God, one has to use faith.
Since now I know that you are a Christian, I can use the language you understand. The thing is that Of course, nature speaks volumes of the creator. However, God had to come down in fresh and blood to give us a better revelation of himself. But more importantly, He came to intervene in human state. He could not do it in spiritual state because it’s illegal to directly intervene on earth. Remember that in Eden, God had given authority to Adam (both male and female) i.e. “…..have dominion over the earth.” That’s a clear demonstration that God puts His word above his name. He could not turn back on what He had decreed. I can give you another example: When the Israelites were in slavery in Egypt, God said He would come down and rescue them from the hand of pharaoh. The question is: did He come down? NO and YES. No because He did not directly come down. Yes in the sense that he sent Moses to do the job. He always uses human beings to do the intervention on earth because it is illegal on His part to directly do it himself. For this reason, Jesus had to be a son of Adam (fresh and blood). It is for this reason too that humans need to pray for things to be done on earth. “If my people who are called by my name shall turn from their wicked ways, humble themselves, seek my face and pray, so will I hear from Heaven…..”
We can not cannot detect (find by scientific method) God because He does not directly intervene on earth.
We also read in Genesis, “If you sin you will surely die.” Indeed the wages of sin is death. So to pay for sin man had to die. The death was in two fold:
1. physical death
2. spiritual separation from God
Jesus came to die as requirement of the decree on behalf of all that accept his sacrifice at the cross. He became sin so that we might be righteous as written in 2 Corinthians. 5:21.
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” KGV
I believe human beings are naturally evil. My belief steams from the bible. Talking about Christianity, it's only wise to study the bible instead of relying on what one is told by another while the bible is everywhere and is indeed the most printed set of books. I say so because many so called Christians have been deceived by others (the clergy). I'm on record to say that the bible does not teach what the clergy preach but that which they impeach. So my friends you can start your journey of the truth about the bible now. Nevertheless I'll try to give you some things I know about the issue of salvation.
The bible states clearly that no one is put right with God by observing the law (keeping the 10 commandments) or following traditions in the old testament or by good works (charity) or indeed by going to church or by water baptism or by any other baptisms or being born of Christian parents or any other method but by accepting the simple bargain (Christ's death as payment for sin and restoration of mankind). As shown in Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 3:21-29.
Well, one may argue that the Law referred to by Paul is not the ten commandments. But listen and understand that Apostle Paul went to a great extent to show that he included the 10 commandments:
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. KGV
Preo to this, he had put it boldly in Rom 3:28 that:
“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” KGV
Now “Thou shalt not covet” is the Tenth commandment of the 10 commandments recorded in Exodus 20:1-17. Strikingly enough, I believe Paul sited this particular commandment because if one were to keep the 10th commandment, it is impossible to break commandment 6, 7, 8 and 9. You will have to covet before you can commit murder, adultery, theft, and forgery that are precisely the “don’ts” of commandment 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively.
Listen, God does not just overlook sin. The requirements of the Law (decree) had to be satisfied first. The wages of sin is death. Christ died to meet fully the requirements of the law because God is just and He cannot change His word He could not just overlook seen. Romans 8:2-4 makes interesting reading:
“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to deal with sin. He condemned sin in the flesh so that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” ASV
The bible says Jesus was not a mere prophet but Christ the Redeemer of mankind. It further says sin is not forgiven unless by the shading of the blood (this is the payment for sin).
What blood?
Answer: The blood of Jesus the Son of God that was shed on the cross about 2000 years ago.
Everything I've stated above concerning redemption of man can be found in Hebrews 10: 1-23. The Law is just a mirror to reflect the truth about yourself and not a means by which you get saved (redeemed or acceptable before God). It only shows you what sin or indeed what evil is. The bible states in Romans 3: 20 that:
"THEREFORE BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW THERE SHALL BE NO FRESH (man) JUSTIFIED IN HIS SIGHT (god's presence): FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.
NIV translation says:
"THEREFORE NO-ONE WILL BE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS IN HIS SIGHT BY OBSERVING THE LAW; RATHER THROUGH THE LAW WE BECOME CONSIOUS OF SIN.
To understand what the clergy term as the original sin (though I call it FALL OF MAN), one has to understand that man (both male and female I mean) is composed of three parts: body, soul and spirit. What I came to conclude is that:
A body is what you see.
A soul is the mind.
A spirit is immortal you.
The bible states in Romans 6:23 that
"FOR THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH BUT A FREE GIFT OF GOD IS SALVATION IN CHRIST JESUS OUR LORD"
See also 1 Corinthians 15:3 It's as simple as that, yes just call on the name of Jesus Romans10:13.
So when Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, he died spiritually (lost communion with God) and also started to die physically (death of body) and his mind become corrupt (there is need to renew it daily by the word of God). This was the curse. You know God hates sin.
Now coming to the big question: Is a newborn baby born with sin? My answer is yes. Human depravity is deep rooted. This is the reason why King David in Psalms 51:5 proclaimed that:
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.” ASV
See also:
Psa 58:3 “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” ASV
Or as Apostle Paul puts it this way:
"AS BY ONE MAN SIN ENTERED THE UNIVERSY AND IS PASSED TO ALL MEN, SO BY ONE MAN SIN IS TAKEN AWAY.”
[Romans 5:18]
Through whom did sin enter?
Answer: Adam.
Who takes away sin?
Answer: JESUS CHRIST.
So then you ask: What is the fate of a premature and a small child?
Answer: Well Christ paid for both the sin of that inherited from Adam (both male and female) as seen in Roman 3:25 (notice the words) ....REMISSIONS OF SINS THAT ARE PAST and those we commit day by day. But the later ones are not automatically forgiven unless one accepts the price that Christ paid (Romans 3:22). Notice the words ....UNTO ALL AND UPON ALL THAT BELIEVE.
So what is the essence of water baptism?
Answer: it's a sign of the faith.
What about the baptism in the Holy Spirit?
Answer: power for service.
Trying best to be good does not make one acceptable before the Holy God because even at one's best state of his/her effort only amounts to filthy garments in the sight of God for indeed there was no one righteous before the death and resurrection of Jesus and indeed there is no one righteous apart from Jesus and those in his blood.
The question is was David and the rest of the patriarchs sinners?
My answer is yes, but they only hoped that the Lord (Christ) in future will not forget there souls in hell. But the trouble is the clergy have preach a hell of fire through and through, yet Abraham's bosom was next to a place of torment only that they were separated by a mighty gulf but both were in hell where even Christ discerned after his death to proclaim to the souls of all sinners including those whose sins were only covered and not forgiven by the shading of the blood of bulls (the old testament sacrifices). He went to proclaim and not to preach. There was no second chance in hell and there will never be a second chance. But when he died, the patriarchs were raised from the dead to be in the immediate presence of God since only then and then only were they righteous.
On this issue about the patriarchs above,we can conclude then that the FIRST RAPTURE occurred in 30/33 AD. I believe also that there are two more raptures to come. Anyway you can read about the first rapture in Matthews 27: 25 - 53 and also Ephesians 4: 7 - 9. This rapture occurred when Jesus was ascending (during the ascension). The people who were raptured were the saints of the Old Testament. Yes all those who were in Abraham's Bosom (side) which was a part of hell. The word Bosom means side and in this case, the Abraham's side of hell. The souls of these saints could not be in the immediate presence of God because their sins were just covered and but not washed away. Remember that sin could not be forgiven (washed away) by the shading of blood of bulls (Hebrews 10: 1 - 4). Yes David and the rest of the patriarchs had had their sins just covered but never washed away until Christ's death at the cross. Hence they (Old Testament saints) looked forward to the future for Christ to pay for their sins while waiting in Sheol (but in Abraham's side of hell). It is no wonder that David said in Psalms 16: 9 - 10
"THEREFORE MY HEART IS GLAD AND MY TONGUE REJOICES; MY BODY ALSO WILL REST SECURE, BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON ME IN SHEOL NOR WILL YOU LET YOUR HOLY ONE SEE DECAY."
NOTE: The original Hebrew word SHEOL means hell but is rendered as "grave" by many bible translations.
See also Psalms 86:13; Psalms 89:48 and Job 14:13-17.
Abraham's bosom was indeed a part of hell as evident in Luke 16:19-31. Notice that ".....he looked up...." and thus Abraham's bosom was a top part of hell. Jesus also proclaimed in HADES (hell). This is found in 1 Peter 3:18-20. I can also add and say that fallen angels are also chained in TARTARUS the lowest region of hell. See Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. Now Abraham's bosom is no more because of the FIRST RAPTURE that took place in 30/33 AD See Matthews 27: 25 - 53 and also Ephesians 4: 7 - 9.
The scriptures to keep on the issue of Abraham’s boson are 1 Peter 3:18-19; Matthews 27: 25 - 53 and also Ephesians 4: 7 - 9.
The Ten Commandments can not save anyone but believing that Jesus died for one's sins can? I'm not saying that we should keep on sinning because we have been saved by grace.
See my logic in this portion of scripture: Romans 7: 6-7
"BUT NOW, BY DYING TO WHAT ONCE BOUND US, WE HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM THE LAW SO THAT WE SERVE IN THE NEW WAY OF THE SPIRIT, AND NOT IN THE OLD WAY OF THE WRITTEN CODE. WHAT SHALL WE SAY THEN? IS LAW SIN? CERTAINLY NOT! I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN SIN EXCEPT THROUGH THE LAW. FOR I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN WHAT COVETING REALLY WAS IF THE LAW HAD NOT SAID, "DOT NOT COVET"
Notice that "Thou shall not covet" is the Tenth Commandment. Really observing the Ten Commandments can not save anyone.
See also Romans. 5:19 through to Romans 6:1-2
"FOR JUST AS THROUGH THE DISOBEDIENCE OF ONE MAN (Adam) THE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS, SO ALSO THROUGH THE OBEDIENCE OF ONE MAN (Jesus Christ) THE MANY WILL BE MADE RIGHTEOUS. THE LAW WAS ADDED SO THAT THE TRESPASS MIGHT INCREASE. BUT WHERE SIN INCREASED, GRACE INCREASED ALL THE MORE, SO THAT, JUST AS SIN REIGNED IN DEATH, SO ALSO GRACE MIGHT REIGN THROUGH RIGHTEOUSNESS TO BRING ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. WHAT SHALL WE SAY THEN? SHALL WE GO ON SINNING SO THAT GRACE MAY INCREASE? BY NO MEANS! WE DIED TO SIN; HOW CAN WE LIVE IN IT ANY LONGER?"
Again: Ephesians 2: 8-10
"FOR IT IS BY GRACE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED, THROUGH FAITH - AND THIS IS NOT FROM YOURSELVES, IT IS A GIFT OF GOD - NOT BY WORKS, SO THAT NO-ONE CAN BOAST. FOR WE ARE GOD'S WORKMANSHIP, CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS TO DO GOOD WORKS, WHICH GOD PREPARED IN ADVANCE FOR US TO DO."
So the truth is that we are saved by grace through faith by believing that Jesus Christ died for our sins and confessing our sins and asking him to forgive us and give us a new begining and asking him to come into our hearts. Salvation does not come by the Law but by grace through faith. But we are not to live in sin else the truth is not in us. We are to do good works. I'm righteous because I accepted the bargain BUT I do my best to be good and I do good works. Mark my words and see that I did not say that:
FAITH + OBSERVING THE LAW + GOOD WORKS = SALVATION
What I said is that:
FAITH = SALVATION but the one that is saved is expected to live a life that is worthwhile and pleasing in the sight of God. If He doesn't, then he is a liar and the truth is not in him.
Guess what? I like this simple truth that Jesus did on the cross and it has changed me. To others it is foolishness but to me it means everything. Jesus (in Hebrew that is YESHUA meaning God saves or simply salvation) is just that by name showing his purpose for coming on earth. See Luke. 24: 44-49, Hebrews 5:5 and 1Timothy 2:3-6 This is the more reason why I named my son as Yoshuah (equivalent name in my native language). If I had named him JESUS, the fanatical Christians would have said that I was full of untold heresy, but somehow they are content with the name Yoshuah.
|
Mik3y
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 06:16 am: |
|
Always glad to hear from you Potpher! Question when you talked about the divine "He is simultaneously in yesterday today and forever. He does not change and thus we cannot detect Him" By detect do you mean we can not exactly trace or pin point His location unless He gives us such Authority/power to do so? Like if the recounts of Jesus His only Son.. was this in your explanation the Divine giving such authority outside of our laws of this universe. I'm finding it difficult to explain what i want to mean *breathes* God is undetectable unless He wants to be detected and reveal Himself to us. I hope you can make sense of this babble because i am struggling to explain what i wish to ask. Ultimately at this point in time none of this is yet important to my salvation but it is good to let the mind wonder in Awe of God even if we're only making Human attempts to do so.
Michael william James
|
Pmbulo
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 02:35 am: |
|
I know that every atheist believes in God but outwardly portrays a different picture. Someone said all atheist appear to luck nothing yet deep inside are miserable lonely and hopeless without a sense or reason for living.
A god does not have to be a living being. Anything that one assumes to know yet does not know it and but live by what one thinks is demanded to be true is in perspective a god. It thus follows that an awful truth is that we all believe in a god.
But what we believe should not be used to subdue fellow human beings. It is equally wrong to false one’s ideas and beliefs on others.
Have you ever wondered at the fact that not all that there is, is what is known. Not just what is seen or perceived is what exists. It is thus not correct to assume there is only one world or one universe. Some leading scientists talk of parallel universes.
An experiment was conducted in which two beams of photons was projected in some vacuum and interference of the two beams was observed and a logical explanation naturally is that the photos were the sole cause of the interference. Later on the intensity of two beams were reduced so that only one photon at a long enough time was projected yet interference was still vividly reported. A stupid old belief is that the phenomenon was due to a photon behaving partly as a wave and partly as a particle. But objective thinking – the logic of those who pursue truth does not permit a photon to be in two places at a time. It follows thus that a photon was interfering with some photon-like particles in the parallel universe that our instrument have not yet detected. I have said it before, what there is, is not just the spoons, knives and pots in the kitchen. There is a whole world out there outside the kitchen. It’s not scientific to say there is only one universe. This is not to say I’m trying to push a spiritual world into your conception. All I’m saying is that that simple experiment shows all of us that there is at least another universe. I humbly accept that I believe in a spiritual world. I say I believe because I cannot prove it to you. However I have encountered the beings and laws of the spiritual world and I will not give you my story for fear of being prejudiced as a disillusion person. I swear I’m telling the truth. Whether you believe me or not is you own affair. I’m grateful that at least I can fathom more than just what is naturally observed. I’m glad I can see beyond my eyelids of which only a few humans are able.
So Ladies and gentlemen we all believe in something. Hard as it is to accept, still more, we all believe in a god
Some years back I tuned to BBC. I attentively listened to a discussion on TV concerning whether one can transmit a signal faster than the speed of light. Well one claimed he did transimit a signal at Faster Than Light (FTL). Guess what? He is a Germany scientist. He played a song (signal), which he did transmit and received at a speed greater than speed of light. Mockingling he said, “This is not signal for our American friends but for us and our British colleagues this is signal enough” (referring to the song). He must have been working on this experiment with some British scientists friends of his but the American think-tanks still think it was not possible since the tunneling effect as far as they are concerned can only yield a random process of projecting signals faster than the speed of light. Now we know that in a signal there is some intelligence. In short, in their view, randomness does not produce intelligence. It’s just impossible as far as they were concerned to send a song and receive it at the other end with the speed FTL. The discussion was more than just tunneling effect of the signal. What I know is that through tunneling effect you can at least randomly project some photons at FTL. The popular dumb wheelchair guy and the rest of the scientist who participated in this discussion agreed that it is possible and an experiment was conducted to prove it. It was clear that it was a random process however some Germany scientist claimed to have managed to transmit a signal at FTL.
Here are some quotes:
Quantum Tunnelling is the quantum mechanical effect which permits a particle to escape through a barrier when it does not have enough energy to do so classically. You can do a calculation of the time it takes a particle to tunnel through. The answer you get can come out less than the time it takes light to cover the distance at speed c. Does this provide a means of FTL communication?
ref:T. E. Hartman, J. Appl. Phys. 33, 3427 (1962).
The answer must surely be "No!" otherwise our understanding of QED is very suspect. Yet a group of physicists have performed experiments which seem to suggest that FTL communication by quantum tunneling is possible. They claim to have transmitted Mozart's 40th Symphony through a barrier 11.4cm wide at a speed of 4.7c. Their interpretation is, of course, very controversial. Most physicists say this is a quantum effect where no information can actually be passed at FTL speeds because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If the effect is real it is difficult to see why it should not be possible to transmit signals into the past by placing the apparatus in a fast moving frame of reference.
ref: W. Heitmann and G. Nimtz, Phys Lett A196, 154 (1994); A. Enders and G. Nimtz, Phys Rev E48, 632 (1993).
The likely conclusion is that though there might be no real FTL communication taking place and that the effect could be another manifestation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, discarding the German’s assertions is purely done so based on belief.
Another issue which popped up was the possibility of going back in time. There was a mention of time machines and that these would blow up on arrival from being sent to the past according to mathematical calculations. They talked about time being a curvature thus permitting a shortcut back to the past. It’s a pity I would have taped the TV program had I been home but I was in Germany in a hotel.
There is more to life and things than what we limit. It is unscientific to assume that there is no God. So ladies and gentlemen, we all believe in something. In other words we are all religious zealots.
Shalom! Shalom!
Ever-loving
Potpher
|
Pmbulo
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Friday, August 11, 2006 - 02:02 am: |
|
NJAEOK: I don't think I understand all I know about what you said. Is it your belief that the universe is the construct of a divine entity and is eternal in the sense that a flame is eternal? I.E. so long as the divine etinity continues to feed fuel to the flame? So to
speak.
POTPHER: Yes I do believe that the universe was caused to become by the divine entity. Now coming to your other question: Is the universe eternal? My answer depends on the understanding of eternity. Suffice to mention that the universe has not always been there. It has always been there in the sense of time. But time had a beginning too at the big bang. The universe did not come to be from infinity past. In this sense the universe has a beginning and hence is not eternal. About the future, the existence and state of existence of the universe depends on the divine entity.
Let me explain my self thoroughly. To start with, I suggest that the universe is not the only existence. What do we mean when we say "exist"? If we narrow our comprehension to that for which we can test then what exists is what is "tangible". In this respect, matter and energy do exist. It is my goal here to show that other than what there is, there is more to it.
Why does something exist instead of nothing? I said that Leibniz answered this question by arguing that something exists rather than nothing because a necessary being exists which carries within itself its reason for existence and is the sufficient reason for the existence of all contingent being. I think he was alluding to a Supreme Being who purposed, designed and made other beings. Furthermore I would like to suggest also that something exists rather than nothing because we can detect it and hence we humans are the authors of what we think exists.
Think of this: Evolutionist Richard Gott's results concerning the Big Bang Theory obtained in computer simulations (programs which attempt to show how everything came about after the supposed initial explosion) are of course governed by the starting assumptions built into the program. Now Richard Gott of Princeton University produced a computer simulation, using starting assumptions he claims are 'reasonable', which ends up showing on the computer screen structures resembling the lumpy universe we have. What are these 'reasonable assumptions'? One is that 90 to 99 per cent of the mass of the universe is made up of an invisible and hitherto unidentified and undetected form of matter! It is evident that even in the minds of evolutionists, is buried the notion that what exists is not merely matter and energy. By no means am I proposing that he is correct. All I want to stress is that we (creationists and evolutionist) both believe in either assumptions or forms of things or state of being. In short we are all religious zealots.
However, I'm not ashamed to admit that I believe in creation. Notice that I said I "believe". That's the way it works for my faith. On the other hand, I find it very amusing to see people who claim that their particular inclination of a theory is what fact is without substantiating their statements. The fact is there is no scientific fact in place that genuinely explains genesis of life. Furthermore it's unscientific to rule out creation as much as it is equally unscientific to claim that creation is a fact. Is it heresy on my part? No!!! I view creationism as not science (behaviour of tangible things) for how can matter and energy be made from nothing (non pre-existing materials)? My reference of argument is from this quotation:
Through faith we understand that the worlds (universe or even domains and things therein) were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. [Hebrews 11:3]
From the above quote is evident that according to biblical interpretation of existence, matter and energy are not the only things that there is. There are other things which do not appear - can not be seen or detected.
Well that said I concede that that's a serious violation of natural law. I say so because matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can be transformed into other forms. But now just there, we were transformed from a form which we can not detect. So there is no violation of the universal law as such. In the same manner I also consider evolution as religion because most of its aspects are just unproved claims e.g. Cosmic Evolution, Abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinism name it - it's all fallacy and fantasy well-grilled in fiction.
For many years now I have been arguing that there could be a being out there not from within our domain of spacetime who could be capable of violating the laws of nature. This could be possible if that being is not made of what is tangible (matter). I proposed that perhaps the state of being is not merely as we in nature know it. We could be a “shadow” of what is real. I further suggest that other than the spacetime domain we have another or even others domains that could perhaps exist. What there is, is not merely matter and energy I argued. We have discovered matter and energy because our current knowledge and tools that limit us to only these two forms of existence. We use matter and energy to discover existence of forms of energy and matter. Wouldn't it be probable that perhaps our current tools cannot detect what is in other domains? I'm just trying to be open-minded and thereby accommodate as much possibilities as possible.
Look, what is observed is so observed because there is an element of change. Here I use the word "change" to mean change of state and duration thereof. You wouldn't see a thing if light never reflected (change). Now follow me carefully: Consider a hypothetical point in which all matter and energy in the universe is potentially trapped and there was no change i.e. frozen. Would you say nothing exists? No, it is only correct to say that potential exists at that particular point. This point energy exists in terms of capability to evolve into various energy forms including some of the energy eventually into matter. It is clear therefore that before time was, there was infinity past in which case, the point energy was unchanging. In terms of relating infinity past to time domain, then time is negligible. Are you telling me we have exhausted all possible ways to find an Intelligent being who would have craft things into being in the universe in this short limited time we have lived? Is it not a serious error to suggest that we are the only ones that have a state of being? You see that we have made our assumptions facts yet what is out there is by far unexplored. I consider it very hypocritical to claim that our beliefs do not rests on unverified assumptions.
Does God? Exist? My answer is that God doest not exist. Wau!!! Wait a minute, God is the existence. He fills the entire space-time domain and eternity. He is simultaneously in yesterday today and forever. He does not change and thus we cannot detect Him
An Evolutionist does not doubt who his parents are and yet perhaps he has never taken a DNA comparison test of his assumably parents. What criteria is he using to base his parentage claim? If it's purely on faith lines, why not believe in a higher being to have created life? That's hypocrisy!!! You might think that I'm too lazy to search for answers and that that's the more reason why I believe in creation. The truth is that it is still a possibility and you know it just like I have argued that there is no scientific basis to deny that a being could have made the universe. After all there is no scientific law that denies simple answers to be true. Evolutionists, please if you are reading these lines, I do not desire to pick up a nasty conversation with you. I'm merely trying to show that your view too is very narrow. It is very unfair on your part to cheat yourselves that your perception is correct scientifically. Even if you were to say that it's near accurate, it still remains that a miss is as good as a mile. Perhaps scientific methods won't pin it down within our limited time. However, let's continue to search and argue until the one who made things puts us to rest. Oh how nice it will be to be told that "Gentlemen and ladies, you were all wrong." But so far I'm convinced that my opinion is correct and so should the other be.
My conclusion is that those that deny existence of other domains are hypocritical. I say so because such arrogance as is displayed by them is like that of a blind man whose hands in a dark room come across a spoon and he proclaims that the room is occupied by only a spoon without regard of perhaps numerous plates, cups and a dozen other utensils. In reality true science is blind. There is no scientific basis to deny existence of the spiritual realm I propose is a domain totally different from the spacetime domain. In other words, there is a whole world outside the kitchen.
Shalom! Shalom!
Ever-loving,
Potpher
|
Mik3y
Starlite Member
Username: Mik3y
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2006 - 01:12 am: |
|
Forgive me please at first i thought you were talking about The Creator.. not the universe. I supose yes if the creator decided to stop breathing the very life into the universe that it needed to survive. Yes it would die out like a flame without fuel.
I don't think that the divine entity could be compared to a flame..our understanding is limited upon things outside of time and more importantly things beyond the universe. The unknown is only the unknown until it is known and even then we still acknowledge there is more to be known. We didn't create ourselves but whoever did create us and this universe has left us with this really strong urge to seek life in its purest form yet know that we're still confined so long as we exist in this reality. We're still restricted by gravity etc. Following the whole cause and effect theory there must be a reason why we have been created with this urge..the sense that we partly know there is more.. perhaps a little taste of the divine.
(Message edited by mik3y on August 09, 2006)
Michael william James
|
Njaeok
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 09:41 am: |
|
Potpher---
I don't think I understand all I know about what you said.
Is it your belief that the universe is the construct of a divine entity and is eternal in the sense that a flame is eternal? I.E. so long as the divine etinity continues to feed fuel to the flame? So to speak.
Night brings darkening, hope is adjourning.
Despair spreading its relentless spawn.
Yet prayer brings harking to hope reforming.
It's always the darkest just before dawn, Jimbo
|
Pmbulo
Starlite Member
Username: Pmbulo
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 01:17 am: |
|
Many evolutionists claim that the Big Bang did not require God to exist.
Here's the question: What existed before the "Big Bang" and what caused it?
In answer to the enquiry, I would like to propose that the apex of conceptualization or fathoming of an object or its phenomenon humbly begins with a “how” question which is deeply followed by a “why” question. To realize the answers, one has to employ the cause and effect concept.
According to Aristotle, wisdom begins with a sense of wonder about the world. He is on record to state that most profound question a man can ask concerns the origin of the universe.
There is no reason atheists can deem fit to give for failing to be compelled to embrace the view that the universe came into being out of nothing. Frantically, an atheist Russell claimed, "The universe is just there!!!” Does that therefore leave us in a rational impasse? If then it could be made plausible that the universe began to exist and is not therefore eternal, would I not win the argument?
O.K fasten your sit belts here we go. To every effect there is a cause. Now, it is not just a matter of belief but of fact that to every change there is a cause. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the object. In this respect, every objective mind cannot afford delude nor dilute the immense significance of the fact that the object in question being the universe, there must exist a cause to the birth of the universe.
Let me move a step further: The cause and effect can be viewed at another angle projected by a simple but deep question: Why does something exist instead of nothing? A popular philosopher by the name of Leibniz answered this question by arguing that something exists rather than nothing because a necessary being exists which carries within itself its reason for existence and is the sufficient reason for the existence of all contingent being. It follows then that there must exist a being before the existence of the universe and that that being conceived the cause to affect the birth of the universe.
A perfect total perpetual oscillating universe is not mathematically plausible because of loss of planetary objects in its outer expanding regions and losses through radiation in the same regions. Even at our observable universe, we witness flying stars that are evident of looses in other minute systems. If it can happen at sub systems, why could it fail at the edges of the expanding universe? An object continues in its state of motion with a constant velocity in a straight line unless compelled by an external force otherwise. Imbalance in gravity and motion causes escapes. Imperfect balances will insure a none perfect total perpetual oscillating universe
Many scientists believe that the universe has a beginning. In fact many hold this view:
Quote:
The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere. [Richard J. Gott, et.al., "Will the Universe Expand Forever?" Scientific American (March 1976), p. 65.]
Never mind about Richard J. Gott confusion in restricting enquiry. So far I have presented what is termed as a “factual necessity" underlining the existence of a being behind a cause of an effect. The “factual necessity” clearly shows that non- existence of a necessary being is logically impossible.
Now I would want to focus on the “necessary being”. A necessary being is an eternal because that being existed prior to existence of the universe and thus before time. I use the word eternal to mean outside the time domain. A change, and for that matter every change, is detectable because of time lapse. Existence outside time domain is uncaused. Then I conclude that the necessary being is uncaused and thus undetectable by our instruments of observation. If that necessary being is uncaused then undoubtedly that being is indestructible and incorruptible being. You cannot diminish or refute existence of a being on mere assumption that you could not detect it. There is a whole big world outside your kitchen.
Let’s go back to the preamble of my presentation. I stated that there is no reason atheists can deem fit to give for failing to be compelled to embrace the view that the universe came into being out of nothing. Frantically, an atheist Russell claimed, "The universe is just there!!!” Does that therefore leave us in a rational impasse? If then it could be made plausible that the universe began to exist and is not therefore eternal, would I not win the argument?
Now listen, to argue as Russel did that the universe itself is eternal is objectively denying the cause and effect principal. It is that simple, I therefore win the argument. Moreover, there is no such a thing as a hotel with infinite rooms and there is no such thing as infinite past events. A series of past events must be finite and have a beginning. Since the universe is not distinct from the series of events, it follows that the universe began to exist. And if it began to exist, then it follows that there was a cause of its existence. And if there was a cause to that existence, it follows too that the “necessary being” conceived the universe. What is wrong in identifying “necessary being” as the designer or as the one who causes things to become? Actually the Hebrew word YHWH (Yahweh) rendered Jehovah in English means the one who causes things to become. Again I ask, what is wrong in identifying the “necessary being” as God. The denial is just merely founded on pure arrogance combined with assertive dogma and intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards the viewpoint and the presenter of the viewpoint. And honesty speaking, that doesn’t amuse me at all. On the contrary, I’m impressed that even nature speaks volumes of the “designer” and no one can deny having been compelled to believe the existence of the “necessary being” and so everyone is held accountable to the truth of the revelation of YHWH.
It has not been the purpose of this writer to needlessly disparage those who believe evolution to be a scientific possibility. The facts of science are hard-pressed to provide unequivocal support to such a belief, however, and it is only reasonable that the truth of the matter be published and accessible to all. All I did was analyze the Cause And Effect in reflection of Genesis of Universe.
The answer to the enquiry “What existed before the ‘Big Bang’ and what caused it?” is that the “factual necessity" dictates that the cause to effect the Big Bang invokes the Designer.
Shalom! Shalom!
Ever-loving,
Potpher
|
Findley31407
Starlite Member
Username: Findley31407
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 09:20 pm: |
|
If the universe is finite, it is not THE Universe
it is A-Universe
as an A-Theist Doesnt believe in God
THE-ists do
THE Universe
"WE'RE MARCHING TO ZION! BEAUTIFUL BEATUIFUL ZION! WE'RE MARCHING ONWARD TO ZION! THE BEAUTIFUL CITY OF GOD!"
|
Martin Howard (Martin)
Starlite Member
Username: Martin
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Jennifer,
I wholeheartely agree with your understanding on this topic and the fine example of a question that would be pondered or not. (boy or girl)
Having been around for over 50 years, I have invested much time and effort into many, many different avenues of life's opportunities. Any successes of money or fame etc. have always been a very distant second (not even to be compared) to the first goal I have found to be priceless- Integrity.
With all that said, even as a child, I have vigorously persued the age old question, "What happens after one dies?" Science, religion, history and all other forms of spiritual and otherwise activities have been categories of this quest. Yet, I constantly drift into an area that Jimbo has spoken of. Beyond all the dimensions as we know them, and in the pending possibility of another reality unknown to us....
...I've had alot of fun.
Martin |
jennifer olivia woodliff (Starloser)
Starlite Member
Username: Starloser
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 06:58 am: |
|
Dear Thinkers of the Impossable,
If we are to know where the wall is formed or how long forever is we will know when we get there unless it is not for us to know ,there-in our existance will simply cease to question and our soul be dispersed into that of which causes the unknown to be unknown ;result: that of which is asked will never be known. Questions of this sort can only be answered by the act. Example :will my first child be a boy or a girl? Left to nature we will only know when we get there.On the other hand some are unable to concieve therefor the question of boy or girl will never be placed for answer.
Jennifer Olivia Woodliff
|
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 09:17 pm: |
|
Thanks Martin!
Trying to discern and ken multi dimensional reality has in fact been a worthwhile effort for me. Not so rewarding in understanding as I would like but one hellova lot of fun. The surprising realization that life is a multidimensional continunity that has no ending in the three dimensional meaning of ending was more than worth all of the effort. And I had all that fun as a bonus.
Jimbo
|
Martin Howard (Martin)
Starlite Member
Username: Martin
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 08:06 pm: |
|
Reality is not linear. Precisely, Jimbo!
I am perplexed by this very clear cut statement
being ignored so often on a large scale. Understandably, to live the right way, work hard, treat all others fairly, etc. can keep
a person pretty busy throughout a lifetime, yet,
eternity is awaiting, whether all of us will be
personal participants or not. Being in this dynamic and even slightly touching upon the path of a whole different dynamic seem like a very worthwhile effort. Your whole post is of significant importance to me. Thanks.
Martin |
Jim Armstrong (Njaeok)
Starlite Member
Username: Njaeok
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Cath---
The concepts of finite vs infinite are three diminsional concepts or four diminisional if you include time as a diminsion.
From our three dininsional prespective the only infinitys of which we can image are endless series such as 1--2--3-- and so on ad infinitum. From that limited starting point we can move to higher math and mathmatically discover the possibility of other diminsions. From there we can devise reality feedback experiments to determine if these other diminsions do in fact exist. They do.
So to determine if the multi diminisonal universe is infinite is kind of like determining if the chicken or the egg existed first. Reality is not linear. It is dynamic. So that finding the edge of the universe is a lot like finding the end of the rainbow. When you get there it is always some place else.
Jimbo
|
cath (Catscanfly)
Starlite Member
Username: Catscanfly
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
I loooove thinking about this.
what I like about it is how inconcievable both of the two concievable possibilities are...
But can anyone, using any belief system or scientific analysis that you want, explain whether the universe is Finite or infinate?
either it DOES go on forever, which is impossible to imagine and just challenges everything we think we know about everything to the point of driving me crazy...
or it does just stop somewhere.... inwhich case, what the hell could be outside of it??
it just seems to bring everything into question... is it possible that there are things in the physical Cosmos we are literally incapable of comprehending?
if the term "Universe" implies "Everything that exists" then there simply CAN'T be anything that is OUTSIDE of the Universe!
But how can something in this physical realm go on forever! Nothing does- everything has a beginning and an end.
"You're a goddam dirty moron!" The Catcher In The Rye
|
|
