Here are my first thoughts of the video, I could be way off base. I take from Ezekiel 18:32 that God seeks no pleasure in people hardening their hearts and not bowing to God's righteousness but if they are evil then He seeks to destroy you. Evil must be destroyed like a cancer. We don't want you to defy God (good) but if you do, you will be destroyed.
I did find the video interesting, but it reminded me of my past post called: Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom We are under a new covenant and the shadowy prophecies of not requiring any more blood sacrifices, may be pointing to Christ. That the blood sacrifices, or the Lords supper, are for our benefit, not God's. He can forgive without blood sacrificing true, He is God after all. What he cannot forgive is the denial that Jesus did all this for your Salvation. It was a legal transaction and He died on that cross for our benefit. To take our well deserved punishment for being Law breakers. To escape death. God also knew since we were failing to cross that boundary of not sinning that we needed a leader, Messiah, to show us how. All these things are for our understanding and educational benefit. In that all thing can be accomplished, in Christ, who strengthens us. God made us to need a leader.
Just like the 4 minute mile boundary that we set, pessimistically I might add, in our minds that could not be crossed. Until one day someone stepped up to the plate to show all of us, as I have come to believe, that walls are there to be climbed over. In 1954 Roger Bannister broke that record and now its very common to do so. Why? Because we were shown that it can be done. Without the leadership of Ronald Reagan, would that Berlin Wall still stand? That is not to say we didn't need Jesus, or Bannister and Reagan, because without them our limited view wouldn't be challenged. Without Bannister we might still of thought it to be impossible to run that fast. Without Jesus we would still die in our sins because we would feel it to be hopeless, or too hard, to repent or turn away from sinning. He gave us the courage and strength to do so. We are designed to do things for others with greater strength. We do it for Christ, instead of ourselves. Can a mother pick up a car to save herself, possibly, but she certainly can for her injured child. Where would we be without the forward thinking of Star Trek's Warp drive? We would still believe, as Einstein, that the speed of light is as fast as we could go.
On a completely side note: What was the point of the above video besides to cast doubt on the unsuspecting or weak believers? Looking at the titles of the other videos it sure seems that is the goal.
To witness the supernatural we need to stop looking inward and start looking outward with hope. To boldly go where no man has gone before, to live long and prosper. Thank you Jesus for shedding that precious blood of yours for me! Thanks for putting me on that right path and over that wall of sin.
He can forgive without blood sacrificing true, He is God after all.
ReplyDeleteThen why doesn't he? Anything god can do, he does do, or so one would think.
Where would we be without the forward thinking of Star Trek's Warp drive? We would still believe, as Einstein, that the speed of light is as fast as we could go.
First of all, for somebody who thinks the speed of light is subjectively variable -- that it may be infinite when directed toward an observer -- I imagine Einstein's thoughts on the subject aren't especially relevant.
Beyond that, however, you do realize that Star Trek, like the vast majority of the stories in your bible, is fiction, right? The vaunted Warp Drive, like Noah's Flood, doesn't exist. Despite the show's apparent inspiration to scientifically-minded people, it is nonetheless fiction. As Arthur's horse, Patsy, so eloquently said, "It's only a model."
Where would we be without Mary Shelley? We'd still think it impossible to reanimate a corpse, that's where.
Where would we be without J.R.R. Tolkien? We'd still think it impossible for a 3-foot tall pair of repressed homosexuals to trek across a goblin- and orc-filled wasteland, with only an insane water-hobbit to guide them.
Where would we be without George Lucas? We'd still think it impossible to raise a sinking X-wing out of a swamp with only our minds and a mysterious power called The Force.
What was the point of the above video besides to cast doubt on the unsuspecting or weak believers?
I expect, as you must be aware, it was to expose a traditionally ignored set of contradictions, which you readily admitted when you said, "He can forgive without blood sacrificing true, He is God after all." Despite your gerrymandering eisegesis, the video clearly shows that the bible in places denies the requirement for sacrifice -- specifically, blood sacrifice -- and argues that this requires a re-thinking of classical Christian doctrine, that, as many, many of my cohorts have argued, a truly good god would not attach strings to his salvation plan.
If it manages to do as you allege, so what? That's like asking what the point of learning Newtonian mechanics. We learn it, despite the fact that it is [at least partially] wrong, because the process of learning it is nonetheless useful, and once we have a grasp, when we approach Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics we are outfitted with the tools to solve systems using them.
The problem is not in that it casts doubt amongst "unsuspecting or weak believers," but that it doesn't do so amongst the dogmatically entrenched. Each and every time you, as a self-described 'suspecting or strong believer,' encounter a deductively valid argument, evidence of contradiction, or any other phenomenon which may "shake your faith," you immediately and unwaveringly turtle into your shell, often followed by some selective Google searches, and look specifically for a response that supports your preconceived notions. You do not critically assess your religion or its doctrines, and when fair criticism is leveled, you refuse to entertain the possibility that it (the criticism) may be valid.
You don't seek truth. Every time you say that, it's a lie. You claim to have found truth, and you claim semi-exclusive access to it. That behavior is so contemptible as to be beyond my ability to adequately mock.
When you bitch about the motivation for videos like this, that they may weaken the resolve of unentrenched believers, you expose your religion for the fraud that it is.
What did you say when the Bush administration used the same argument against dissenting opinion? What did you say when Martin Luther was so derided by the Vatican? What did you say when the Mormons forbade contact with overly inquisitive members? What did you say when the Nazis restricted the right to free speech to curb doubt-casting thought?
What did you say when Squealer changed the sixth commandment to "No animal shall kill any other animal without cause" (emphasis to show the change)?
Admit it, Dan, you are wholly uninterested in honestly assessing any challenge to your religion. While you may attempt to level the same accusation against myself, you know already how wrong you are. I am perfectly willing to accept compelling evidence which denies my current mode(s) of thought, including the existence of god(s), the veracity of the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang, etc., but despite your frantic appeals, your bible is not compelling, and it is no more "evidence" than the Iliad or Beowulf.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, for somebody who thinks the speed of light is subjectively variable -- that it may be infinite when directed toward an observer
I have known that the variable is time at those speeds. But yes, the speed of light can be altered and slowed down. If IBM can build a chip (Photonic Silicon Waveguide) that can slow light don't you think that the natural progression would be to accelerate light also? If not then we can kiss galaxy exploration goodbye forever. There you go again setting limits.
You must admit that Star Trek consistently is portraying less fiction and more prediction. I just found in an article pointing out that from flip-top mobile phones to transporter beams (In 2007, a new record was set for quantum teleportation, when data was beamed 89 miles from the island of La Palma to Tenerife) there has been many innovations from Star Trek and even Dr McCoy’s tricorder is almost a reality. (watch the cool nerd porn called Blu-Ray Laser Phaser video in that article)
But the Warp Drive does have roots in quantum physics, in which components of an atom do hop from place to place without, seemingly, touching a point in between (see the excellent book Quantum by Manjit Kumar)
Bla, bla, bla... you immediately and unwaveringly turtle into your shell
How can you say that? So posting things for all to see is turtling? Give us a break. I am not and will never shy away from the truth. Truth is a good thing after all. The only difference is our presuppositions again.
I am perfectly willing to accept compelling evidence which denies my current mode(s) of thought, including the existence of god(s), the veracity of the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang, etc., but despite your frantic appeals, your bible is not compelling, and it is no more "evidence" than the Iliad or Beowulf.
Are you absolutely truthful in that claim? Take abortion as just an example, we cannot look at only the scientific data or "evidence" because the data is the same for pro choice and pro lifers. The difference is the presuppositions, I presuppose that it is murdering of a human life. You presuppose there is no God and you must admit, or lose all credibility, that you have a anti-supernatural worldview. True?
Dan said on abortion: "I presuppose that it is (the) murdering of a human life.
ReplyDeleteLast post you said murder was the unlawful killing of another.
Abortion is lawful.
I have known [something about Relativity]...
ReplyDeleteYeah, right. This from the guy who thinks the sum of inverted terms is equal to the inverted sum of the terms... The day I accept a lecture from you in Relativity and/or Quantum Mechanics is the day I shoot myself in the face. No offense...
You must admit that Star Trek consistently is portraying less fiction and more prediction.
Dude. It's fiction. Inspirational fiction, but fiction nonetheless. If you want to argue the effects of [inspirational] fiction, go ahead and open a new thread on the topic, but it's a giant red herring with respect to a discussion on the importance of sacrifice.
So posting things for all to see is turtling? Give us a break. I am not and will never shy away from the truth.
Really? Do you deny that you seek only answers that support your preconceived notions? Do you deny that you refuse to entertain the possibility that you may be incorrect? Do you deny that, rather than seeking truth, you claim to have found it?
Take abortion as just an example, we cannot look at only the scientific data or "evidence" because the data is the same for pro choice and pro lifers.
You evidently know nothing of my position on abortion, but that's fine with me. We can "look at only the [scientific] data, or 'evidence,' " precisely because the evidence -- scare quotes unnecessary -- is indeed impartial. Just what else do you propose we should consider, other than evidence, or data?
Indeed, I have said before that my wife is allergic to chicken, and that my son is allergic to eggs. If a study were done, which determined the point(s) at which my wife became allergic, or my son ceased to be allergic, and if the analog of those points could be determined for human embryos, I would happily concede the earlier of the two as the point beyond which abortions could only be performed if the pregnancy posed a significant threat to the health of the mother.
You see? I'm willing to make concessions, and, if you must know, I actually disagree with abortion in principle as anything other than a life-saving device for the mother. Rather than concern ourselves with abortion, we should instead seek to eliminate "unwanted" pregnancy -- in which case the abortion issue naturally disappears.
Gah. The issue of abortion is yet another red herring in this discussion. I digress.
You presuppose there is no God and you must admit, or lose all credibility, that you have a anti-supernatural worldview. True?
No. If this is what you think, you have no understanding whatsoever of my position, or even of your own.
Neither of us "presupposed" anything with respect to the existence of a deity -- we concluded, based on our interpretation of available evidence, that there is, or is not, a deity.
I do not have an "anti-supernatural worldview," but it is trivially true that when presented with any new and unexplained phenomena, I will seek an explanation in "natural" terms -- but each such phenomenon expands the horizon of "natural" into what was previously deemed "supernatural."
You have grossly misunderstood me, evidently. I couldn't care less whether there is a deity or not -- I won't worship anything [which could be so classified]. I don't expect there is a "god," but to say I "presuppose there is no God" is as false as it is absurd.
Believe it or not, though, I don't feel much like arguing today... In fact, I'm going to put down the laptop and watch Star Wars with my kids.
--
Stan
The blood sacrifice was not a sacrifice after all.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the sacrifice in being tortured for a few hours, hanging on a cross for three hours, laying "dead" in a cave for three days, and then going to heaven for eternity?
I'd take that gig. Where can I apply?
Shit, I had a couple motocross accidents that left me in pain and agony for a week or more.