- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 01 2007,10:50) Nothing created everything, is impossible. geddit?
By the way your strawman analogy of evolution is wrong. What about reproduction? Differential survival?
What does 'rearranging myself' have to do with it?Stuart
Hey Stu I will reply in the evolution thread.
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 01 2007,18:48) Quote (kenrch @ Dec. 01 2007,10:42) Quote But ken wants to snuff all that out and prefers the reign of a dictator. This is correct! The dictator is God, His WORD and HIS SPIRIT.
I have given scripture and stand by what I said.
This is your baby t8
Yes God is the ultimate ruler.Titus 1:9:
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.2 Corinthians 10:5
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.If you disagree, then you are free to leave in protest.
OK, as you can see, there is a category called ''BELIEVERS PLACE'.
Perhaps if a member who is not a believer goes there and posts in a mocking or doubting manner regarding the faith and detriment of the discussion, then a member can warn a moderator who in turn can get the Admin to place that member in a new member category called “Non-believer”. This group would have no posting rights in the forums under that category only.
What do others think of that idea?
In some ways I am thinking that this might be the best way to adminster this.
Otherwise someone needs to make a call regarding all members and divide them up into Believers and Unbelievers. That sounds really messy to me, and in the process we lose the ability to reach out to the lost.
I tend to think that believers have a ministry or duty to the Body and to the lost too.
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 01 2007,23:38) OK, as you can see, there is a category called ''BELIEVERS PLACE'. Perhaps if a member who is not a believer goes there and posts in a mocking or doubting manner regarding the faith and detriment of the discussion, then a member can warn a moderator who in turn can get the Admin to place that member in a new member category called “Non-believer”. This group would have no posting rights in the forums under that category only.
What do others think of that idea?
In some ways I am thinking that this might be the best way to adminster this.
Otherwise someone needs to make a call regarding all members and divide them up into Believers and Unbelievers. That sounds really messy to me, and in the process we lose the ability to reach out to the lost.
I tend to think that believers have a ministry or duty to the Body and to the lost too.
Why not have a category called Antichrist? That would separate those who are searching and those who are deceiving.Quote (kenrch @ Dec. 01 2007,23:45) Quote (t8 @ Dec. 01 2007,23:38) OK, as you can see, there is a category called ''BELIEVERS PLACE'. Perhaps if a member who is not a believer goes there and posts in a mocking or doubting manner regarding the faith and detriment of the discussion, then a member can warn a moderator who in turn can get the Admin to place that member in a new member category called “Non-believer”. This group would have no posting rights in the forums under that category only.
What do others think of that idea?
In some ways I am thinking that this might be the best way to adminster this.
Otherwise someone needs to make a call regarding all members and divide them up into Believers and Unbelievers. That sounds really messy to me, and in the process we lose the ability to reach out to the lost.
I tend to think that believers have a ministry or duty to the Body and to the lost too.
Why not have a category called Antichrist? That would separate those who are searching and those who are deceiving.
One who does not believe in Jesus is an Antichrist, right? Those who believe in Jesus are in Him, right?Who is an unbeliever? One that is not sure? But God is calling?
Why not have a category Antichrist? If we are to allow Antichrist to preach then those who pass through here should be warned.
IMHO I don't think an Antichrist IS simply an UNBELIEVER.
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 01 2007,23:38) OK, as you can see, there is a category called ''BELIEVERS PLACE'. Perhaps if a member who is not a believer goes there and posts in a mocking or doubting manner regarding the faith and detriment of the discussion, then a member can warn a moderator who in turn can get the Admin to place that member in a new member category called “Non-believer”. This group would have no posting rights in the forums under that category only.
What do others think of that idea?
In some ways I am thinking that this might be the best way to adminster this.
Otherwise someone needs to make a call regarding all members and divide them up into Believers and Unbelievers. That sounds really messy to me, and in the process we lose the ability to reach out to the lost.
I tend to think that believers have a ministry or duty to the Body and to the lost too.
I think that is a good idea T8, once you have accurately
described “beleiver and non believer”.
I much prefer that idea to making the entire forum a censored
one with only “believers” permitted access.
Those tend to get very boring to me.That being said I do believe that there needs to be a place where only believers in Jesus Christ as our saviour can fellowship.
Tim
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 01 2007,18:48) Quote (kenrch @ Dec. 01 2007,10:42) Quote But ken wants to snuff all that out and prefers the reign of a dictator. This is correct! The dictator is God, His WORD and HIS SPIRIT.
I have given scripture and stand by what I said.
This is your baby t8
Yes God is the ultimate ruler.Titus 1:9:
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.2 Corinthians 10:5
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.If you disagree, then you are free to leave in protest.
You mean I can leave anytime I want? Nice of you to say so!
I didn't know I needed your permission. Just so you'll know, if it were up to me I would have left LONG ago. Quote (TimothyVI @ Dec. 02 2007,00:18) Quote (t8 @ Dec. 01 2007,23:38) OK, as you can see, there is a category called ''BELIEVERS PLACE'. Perhaps if a member who is not a believer goes there and posts in a mocking or doubting manner regarding the faith and detriment of the discussion, then a member can warn a moderator who in turn can get the Admin to place that member in a new member category called “Non-believer”. This group would have no posting rights in the forums under that category only.
What do others think of that idea?
In some ways I am thinking that this might be the best way to adminster this.
Otherwise someone needs to make a call regarding all members and divide them up into Believers and Unbelievers. That sounds really messy to me, and in the process we lose the ability to reach out to the lost.
I tend to think that believers have a ministry or duty to the Body and to the lost too.
I think that is a good idea T8, once you have accurately
described “beleiver and non believer”.
I much prefer that idea to making the entire forum a censored
one with only “believers” permitted access.
Those tend to get very boring to me.That being said I do believe that there needs to be a place where only believers in Jesus Christ as our saviour can fellowship.
Tim
That is pretty much how I see it too TimothyVI.I would assume that a believer is someone who believes that Yeshua is the Messiah.
Rules, lawless men, love to have laws made, but because they are lawless themselves, they have no need to keep them, yet but a game to have the poor burdened to know end?
Its an honor to have a law made, victoryI think I finally understand one of charity's aphorisms!
May I add that as I have said elsewhere, membership of the Boy Scouts and certain jobs in particular churches are the only organisations left that seek to impose a condition of belief on those who apply. I don't know about others here, I was not born a catholic nor a protestant, nor a marxist. I was born human and I find the idea of imposing barriers between people just ends up driving them further apart. It is ridiculous to try and protect people from offense, everyone has the right to be offended. The history of the christian church includes a laughable succession of such schisms, designed to protect some people from being confronted by the beliefs of others. I personally find much of what people have done in the name of their god deeply offensive but that doesn't mean they should be excluded from a public forum. I think ideas should stand or fall on their merits. Restricting part of a place like this invites people to try and get round it by vexatious or offensive posting. t8 has pointed out that this is a public forum, but can anyone think of a non-virtual public place where people are discriminated against on grounds of faith? Isn't it illegal to do so unless there is a legislated exemption? People have written in this forum in a manner intended to persuade me that their faith is strong and a worthy thing for me to explore. What credibility do they now have if I find that faith partly protected against questioning? What value does that have as a life philosophy? My worldview holds up to the most savage attacks and I don't even claim the support of an omnipotent deity. What needs protecting here?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2007,21:51) I think I finally understand one of charity's aphorisms! May I add that as I have said elsewhere, membership of the Boy Scouts and certain jobs in particular churches are the only organisations left that seek to impose a condition of belief on those who apply.
What about the Atheist Society?Can I join if I believe in God?
Quote I was born human and I find the idea of imposing barriers between people just ends up driving them further apart.
Actually I thought you were an ape. I guess I shouldn't judge from the outward appearance of your avatar.Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2007,22:50) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2007,21:51) I think I finally understand one of charity's aphorisms! May I add that as I have said elsewhere, membership of the Boy Scouts and certain jobs in particular churches are the only organisations left that seek to impose a condition of belief on those who apply.
What about the Atheist Society?Can I join if I believe in God?
Quote I was born human and I find the idea of imposing barriers between people just ends up driving them further apart.
Actually I thought you were an ape. I guess I shouldn't judge from the outward avatar appearance.
yep hes good!Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2007,21:51) Restricting part of a place like this invites people to try and get round it by vexatious or offensive posting. t8 has pointed out that this is a public forum, but can anyone think of a non-virtual public place where people are discriminated against on grounds of faith? Isn't it illegal to do so unless there is a legislated exemption?
Yes but in cyberspace there are all kinds of communities and organisations that run better when they are exclusive. I can think of any business for example, where they may have a business forum. What benefit is it to them to let teenagers, hawkers, spam artists, and others who may not be interested in that organisation, corporation, entity, the ability to make posts in their specific forums? Sure the spammers would love to drop in some links, but it would really be a waste of time.If Websites had to be open to all, then that would actually end up restricting the Web in my opinion. People would stop using the Web for confidential, personal, or related communications within their specific age group, gender, nationality, belief, organisation, corporation, or whatever.
There is a time and place for all things. This maybe the Web and the public Web at that, but it is completely normal for groups of like minded people to want to relate, share, and encourage in a place of their own, and away from mockers or people who oppose them.
Imagine if a Jewish forum had to allow Nazis to join because it was the law?
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2007,23:02) Imagine if a Jewish forum had to allow Nazis to join because it was the law?
The idea of National Socialism has failed. Judaism has not. Perhaps if the Nazis had been exposed to ridicule in enough public forums history would have been different. It is generally dictators that cannot stand ridicule. Where does that place religious philosophies?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2007,22:50) What about the Atheist Society? Can I join if I believe in God?
Not sure what the 'Atheist Society' is. You can join the NZ Skeptics, the UK Secularists, any of the many secular / non-believer forums that I have visited, you can even join the Brights although you may not share the stated philosophy that they hold a naturalistic worldview. Not one of these places restricts on the grounds of religious belief, and they would welcome you although your views would get a pretty thorough scrutiny. They don't have to protect their worldview because it stands up to the most robust treatment.Stuart
The most robust treatment you say?
Think of nothing and then think of the cosmos. Now think of nothing again.
What is the first stage after nothing. What do you see? Explain how nothing becomes something, that eventually becomes all things?
Not an essay, but just a simple explanation as to how nothing can become something. If it is feasible, I will then get you to explain it further.
I will consider your answer seriously. But if you ignore the robustness of my question, then at least I have proved your statement about robustness to be false.
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2007,23:56) Not an essay, but just a simple explanation as to how nothing can become something. If it is feasible, I will then get you to explain it further. I will consider your answer seriously. But if you ignore the robustness of my question, then at least I have proved your statement about robustness to be false.
You are going to judge my answer?! OK, here it is. I don't know what asymmetry in proto space-time caused the asymmetrical separation of baryons and antibaryons into matter and antimatter separated sufficiently that the likelihood of collisions between particles and their antiparticles was reduced enough for protons to become hydrogen nucleii orbited by electrons, an event that may prove very difficult to investigate given the extreme change in the nature of time that 'concurently' occurred. Neither do you, but let's hear what the Old Testament has to say about it by comparison. What is your Divine Theory, complete with a prediction like the one about microwave radiation that came from the big bang theory and was subsequently demonstrated true, many years later. Come on, lets go… Gen 1:1 In the beginning … YAWN… zzzzzz…
Stuart
That was pretty robust Stu, but it didn't really answer the question. It demonstrated some interpretations of scientific data on processes, but did not demonstrate anything beyond processes.
The bible says God rested after creation. To me this says he set in motion these processes that do not require him to directly intervene in order for them to operate smoothly according to his plan.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
