- This topic is empty.
- Posts
T8
Do you have seen how the interpreting what Newton said
He said it should happen BEFORE 2060Big difference in saying that it will happen IN 2060
But he did not specified which end it is,end of this systems or only the first phase of the end (beginning of the millennium)
In the first case I would say he his very close to my understanding that is
I wonder what made him choose that date. He would have combed the text and in his mind must have found something significant to draw this conclusion.
I have no idea what was in the man 's mind ,I do base my calculations on three scriptures on events of the past but are of a future accomplishment ,
I still struggle with one of a event in which the time table seems not stable in my mind ,IT IS THE TIME FROM THE END OF THE MILLENNIUM UNTIL THE FINAL DESTRUCTION WITH THE DEAD TROWN INTO THE FIRE,
To all…….Albert Einstein said Newton was the most intelligent and brilliant man who ever lived in his opinion. Newton was very religious and studied scriptures continually and wrote much about them. He did not believe in the Trinity and the deity of Jesus and I believe in the Preexistence of Jesus either. He changed his views on the return of Jesus several times as he got more understanding on different prophesies , but he concluded no one knew tho exact time of Jesus return but his conclusion was Jesus would return before the year 2060, as I recall. He gave no exact date though.
Peace and love to you all………………….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 17 2013,05:17) To all…….Albert Einstein said Newton was the most intelligent and brilliant man who ever lived in his opinion. Newton was very religious and studied scriptures continually and wrote much about them. He did not believe in the Trinity and the deity of Jesus and I believe in the Preexistence of Jesus either. He changed his views on the return of Jesus several times as he got more understanding on different prophesies , but he concluded no one knew tho exact time of Jesus return but his conclusion was Jesus would return before the year 2060, as I recall. He gave no exact date though. Peace and love to you all………………….gene
Newton was also a dedicated alchemist, which just goes to show that not all the horses he backed were winners.Stuart
I guess you never saw the doco or didn't pick up the fact that most believe that he was into Alchemy to understand what things were made up of. The comment made was that many early Alchemists were really just early students of chemistry.
Nevertheless, whatever the motivation, he didn't find much compared with the other disciplines he was involved in.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 18 2013,07:50) I guess you never saw the doco or didn't pick up the fact that most believe that he was into Alchemy to understand what things were made up of. The comment made was that many early Alchemists were really just early students of chemistry. Nevertheless, whatever the motivation, he didn't find much compared with the other disciplines he was involved in.
Chemistry was being invented by Robert Boyle and others while Newton carried on with his crackpot pseudo-religious alchemical / occult “studies” regardless of the better work going on around him. A bit like Conan Doyle Newton is appreciated today for the genius work that he didn't consider himself to be his major contributions.Stuart
Stu……….Makes no difference if you consider him a crackpot or not, we still fly our space missions according to his mathmatical calculations right?. He had a great ability to put fact together and He worte alot about our Christian Faith and considered himself a devout Christian. Maybe that is why you consider him a crackpot, because his brilliance afforded him the reality of a GOD, and nyour does not. But then again you are welcome to you narrow views right?
peace and love to you and your…………………………………………………………….gene
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 18 2013,19:49) Chemistry was being invented by Robert Boyle and others while Newton carried on with his crackpot pseudo-religious alchemical / occult “studies” regardless of the better work going on around him. A bit like Conan Doyle Newton is appreciated today for the genius work that he didn't consider himself to be his major contributions. Stuart
Your opinion. Certainly not the opinion of this doco. We are entitled to opinions. e.g., you believe you are an ape, but not a daffodil.As for Robert Boyle, he was a natural philosopher, chemist, physicist, and inventor, also noted for his writings in theology, (Wiki).
He had a strong faith in God just as Sir Isaac Newton. See how these great men of God left important foundations for men of science to work with. Of course you believe that they were nuts. But really, who are you to think you know better? If you removed your bias specs you would see that faith and science work well together and the proof is looking at what some of the greatest scientists believed and why they embarked on a science based career.
Quote As a director of the East India Company he spent large sums in promoting the spread of Christianity in the East, contributing liberally to missionary societies and to the expenses of translating the Bible or portions of it into various languages. Boyle supported the policy that the Bible should be available in the vernacular language of the people (in contrast to the Latin-only policy of the Roman Catholic Church at the time). An Irish language version of the New Testament was published in 1602 but was rare in Boyle's adult life. In 1680—1685 Boyle personally financed the printing of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, in Irish.[16] In this respect, Boyle's attitude to the Irish language differed from the English Ascendancy class in Ireland at the time, which was generally hostile to the language and largely opposed the use of Irish (not only as a language of religious worship).[17] I am picturing how uncomfortable you are reading this.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 19 2013,07:41) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 18 2013,19:49) Chemistry was being invented by Robert Boyle and others while Newton carried on with his crackpot pseudo-religious alchemical / occult “studies” regardless of the better work going on around him. A bit like Conan Doyle Newton is appreciated today for the genius work that he didn't consider himself to be his major contributions. Stuart
Your opinion. Certainly not the opinion of this doco. We are entitled to opinions. e.g., you believe you are an ape, but not a daffodil.
Sure. The part where I include christianity as a crackpot occult study is my opinion, but I think I’ve made the case in favour of that already. There are such things as facts, too. It is a fact that we are both apes, that is not a matter of opinion.Quote As for Robert Boyle, he was a natural philosopher, chemist, physicist, and inventor, also noted for his writings in theology, (Wiki). He had a strong faith in God just as Sir Isaac Newton. See how these great men of God left important foundations for men of science to work with.
They were great men of science, and also happened to be god-deluded. But most people were god-deluded back then; christianity was still in its fascist totalitarian vanguard and you only complained at your own risk. The values of the Enlightenment were yet to make much traction.Quote Of course you believe that they were nuts.
In one aspect of their beliefs, yes.Quote But really, who are you to think you know better?
Stuart.Quote If you removed your bias specs you would see that faith and science work well together and the proof is looking at what some of the greatest scientists believed and why they embarked on a science based career.
You have almost entirely missed the point of science. The motto of the Royal Society, the foremost association of scientists in the UK, is “Nullius in verba”, Latin for “Take nobody's word for it”. Science is corrosive to religious faith because it demands you try to disprove what you believe. You have placed your god somewhere where you think it is beyond disproof (outside spacetime / the universe / whatever ridiculous platitude you used) so your beliefs cannot possibly be compatible with science. Your book of words is hearsay and your imaginings of superbeings is worthless anecdote in the view of the scientific method.Newton’s religious beliefs weren’t compatible with science and neither were Boyle’s. They may have been able to come up with some nice platitudes and homespun philosophy that they felt squared the circle for them, but in robust modern scientific terms there is a clear distinction between their makebelieve conspiracy theories of Imaginary Friends and the scientific principles they investigated and described for the first time.
Quote I am picturing how uncomfortable you are reading this.
Given that you can picture Sky Pixies and other non-existent beings, I can well believe you have worked yourself into a visual frenzy over me reading your copied and pasted extract from Wikipedia. So what if Boyle was a committed godhead? It makes no difference to the robustness of the gas laws he investigated, one of which is named after him. Do you think Boyle is remembered widely for supporting bible translation? Is there a Boyle Edition of scripture in common usage??Stuart
Stuart. These two men were not Christians that were forced at gun point so to speak. No, they spent much of their time learning about God. This shows true dedication. It was not a requirement for them to love God and be scientists too.
Sorry Stu. These so-called deluded guys gave you much of the science you are using to dispute these guys.
Obviously you have nothing to give Science like these guys have, so a bit rich if you ask me.
lol.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 19 2013,18:48) Stuart. These two men were not Christians that were forced at gun point so to speak. No, they spent much of their time learning about God. This shows true dedication. It was not a requirement for them to love God and be scientists too. Sorry Stu. These so-called deluded guys gave you much of the science you are using to dispute these guys.
Obviously you have nothing to give Science like these guys have, so a bit rich if you ask me.
lol.
Maybe it was more subtle than gunpoint. Maybe it was a fascist hegemony over all Western Europe that caused them to behave the way they did.I did say that they were brilliant scientists but deluded nuts when it came to their god delusions. It is apparently possible to be both at once. Are you incapable of comprehension, or do you just not read what others post?
Stuart
Stuart, if you are wrong, then that makes you deluded as well as a not so brilliant scientist too.
I believe you are wrong. You cannot even have a healthy discussion about first cause or how the Big Bang got going from nothing.
I bet these guys would love to talk about such things because they were truth seekers, (unlike yourself). Probably why you believe as you do. Ignorance.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 19 2013,20:51) Stuart, if you are wrong, then that makes you deluded as well as a not so brilliant scientist too. I believe you are wrong. You cannot even have a healthy discussion about first cause or how the Big Bang got going from nothing.
I bet these guys would love to talk about such things because they were truth seekers, (unlike yourself). Probably why you believe as you do. Ignorance.
Nothing unhealthy about my end of any such discussion. I don't feel the need to assert the existence of Imaginary Fascist Dictators that I simultaneously have to love and fear.What do you mean by nothing? You've never said.
By the way, you left the ™ off Truth™.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 20 2013,00:19) Nothing unhealthy about my end of any such discussion.
Your right. Nothing unhealthy about not discussing a subject you know nothing about. Also not healthy either. Just non-existent.Quote (t8 @ Mar. 20 2013,08:41) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 20 2013,00:19) Nothing unhealthy about my end of any such discussion.
Your right. Nothing unhealthy about not discussing a subject you know nothing about. Also not healthy either. Just non-existent.
Was it healthy behaviour for you to divert the discussion away from the points of science upon which you were abjectly wrong?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 19 2013,16:08) The motto of the Royal Society, the foremost association of scientists in the UK, is “Nullius in verba”, Latin for “Take nobody's word for it”. Science is corrosive to religious faith because it demands you try to disprove what you believe.
Stu……..I agree with “Take nobody's word for it” , because true Faith is Built upon ones owm Proofs. But you on the other hand do not believe that, because you believe on the words of other Atheists , who have their own “religion “of not believing in God. So are you really a “take nobody's word for it”, kinda guy or are you really a “religious” atheist, who goes by the word of his atheist “religion”.You see what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander right? So you pump your “religion”, we pump ours, your end up with zero, Ours end up with eternal life , so who is the biggest looser Stu ?
peace and love to you and yours Stu……………………….gene
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 20 2013,21:26) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 20 2013,08:41) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 20 2013,00:19) Nothing unhealthy about my end of any such discussion.
Your right. Nothing unhealthy about not discussing a subject you know nothing about. Also not healthy either. Just non-existent.
Was it healthy behaviour for you to divert the discussion away from the points of science upon which you were abjectly wrong?Stuart
Stu.Can you tell me?
Who is the teacher of science?wakeup.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
