Ah. Interesting theory about that beat, Baker. Is it related to George Clinton's Big Bang Theory?

MadIce sings Gloryhallastoopid - Pin The Tale On The Funky!

[Message Edited]

Heavens no! The Church of Funk is a very different doctrine altogether... as different as Dawgs and (hep)Cats

I am sorry to say that there is just One Nation Under a Groove. Shall we start a new thread to settle this argument?

when the mothership comes, the star child shall arrive, and the funk shall be funky, so says parliament and the our holy reverend George Clinton

Big Bang Theory: Funk set the universe in motion; ignition by Funk. Ain't nothin' but a party in a Black Hole.

Star Child (alias The Long-Haired Sucker, Sir Lollipop Man): Official representative of Funkentelechy; protector of the Pleasure Principle. Cosmic John the Bop-tist, arch-recording angel heralding the arrival of Dr. Funkenstein.

Mothership: Outer space chariot bearing Star Child and Funkenstein back to Earth when it desreves a global splanking.

Dr. Funkenstein: Mad'glad scientist, master technician of Clone Funk; outer space tribal leader of the descendants of the Thumpasorus Peoples.

Erm.... Sorry. I am beginning to look like a JW.

[Message Edited]

Uh, well, uh, Glory be, the funk's on me! Keep that funk alive...

( Hymn, attrib: St. Bootsy )



[Message Edited]

Jafo I did what you say????
Anyway on with the post
----------------------

We can postulate that the universe existed for some untold amount of time (being a relatively meaningless concept in that context) as nothing but a vacuum. Given the properties of vacuum, there is an extremely small, but statistically significant chance that an energy 'ripple' of sufficient size would occur and initiate the formation of our universe and all in it. There are other theories, as well, quite a few of which allow for the formation of the universe from what *appears* to be nothing.

So, is it possible that void or vacuum is what could be called God? The creator of all things here?

Even with the possibility mathematically or otherwise of self creation or a sort or advanced evolution of possibilities, can that action be called God?

The vacuum of almost nothingness existing outside of time somehow formed through mathematical probability to create a universe. Don't get me wrong, when I say mathematics, that does not mean that God can not be involved. I would think a God of that magnitude would have to create formulas as a way of building things.


I am not trying to imply that God is a nothingless vacuum meaning that God is meaningless. Don't let the word nothingless load your mind with negative thoughts and ideas. I am speaking to a scientific term or vacuum.

Could it be possible that God, this vacuum, saw it right to create the universe? Is this the first? Are there other dimensions? I think it is a little tricky to say evolve at that level just because the entity had or has the properties to change. If there was no reason except by for chance thought that something happened something still had to provoke that chance to be available.








So we live in the Matrix? What's the big deal?



[Message Edited]

There are circumstances in which our known laws just break down. During those circumstances we have no correlative experience to base any kind of theory or assumption on, they don't jive with what we know of 'reality'. Once you accept that there are circumstances like that, then there is plenty of room for a Supreme Being.

I equate R3fr's 'nothing can't come from nothing' statements to all the Atheistic 'supernatural', 'bad things to good people' complaints. They are both trying to describe Everything using only what is apparent to them in a very limited slice of a limited reality. Our 'Logic' is built only on what we can understand of what we can observe. Our logic, then, is much too small to use to define any sort of impossibility.

I think it can still be said that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." The more things we learn, the less we appear to know. Almost as if our refinement of knowledge is just half-steps toward the wall.


[Message Edited]

How is that when they are quoting from the Bible, saying how clear (the same references you make mind you... the blood thing, and others) it is what God is saying?

Yes, we both use the Bible, but they also use teachings of men. Such as hell, Baker I believe, said that it was a teaching of a man. They also don't teach things in the Bible, such as Gods mercy towards humans and the Paradise earth (Proverbs 28:13; Psalms 37:29; Ecclesiastes 1:4)

Honestly, you are not helping to proof that creation is the way it happened. It would seem that your saying that JW view is correct, not that IT IS correct.

I'm saying I believe in creation and I believe my religion is correct in how the creation took place. I don't have the viewpoints of other religions, because I believe they are false. So I must asy that my religion is correct. This is why I post Scriptures, to back up my claims and to show you that what i'm saying comes from the Bible.

Has anyone believed in the Bible and read all of it and come to the very same conclusions???? How many? 2? 200? 1,000,000? Were you taught what you believe or would you have come to the same conclusions as your church? when you take notes and meditate and pray are you opposing the opinion of your church or re-enforcing it?

"And these things I asw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands." (Revelation 7:9) Other than the faithful ones of past, there are currently around 6,000,000 JWs today worldwide.
When I do those things, its re-enforcing the 'opinions' of my Kingdom Hall. Other, non-JWs have come to the same conclusion. There have been some that we've met out in the door to door work.
From the time i've posted on this topic, I don't think i've seen one Scripture quoted by any of you (not positive, though) to back up your claims, and this makes me wrong? What does this show? Just like you, I need proof.

For example, taking to fellow believers about if God has a name is not discussing a fundamental issue of your beliefs.

Actually, it is. There are numerous 'gods' as I said earlier and we believe that there is one true God and that his name is Jehovah (Psalms 83:18). Just one thing distinguishes us from any other religion and knowing Gods name is one of the main things in our belief. We could not have exclusive devotion to 'God' because 'God' is a title and whats to distinguish god from god?

Another example is why the family members shunned and non or ex believers under the ideal that speaking to them will 'turn you' while going door to door is a challenge to your faith??? We are not talking Job (biblical Job) level challenge here. No flames or pain or yada yada... its just a family member. granted you have feelings for them but come on. Talk about not taking the challenge

Bad association is why we're urged not to talk to disfellowshipped ones. As for in service, that is a command to do and the people we meet may not be like the disfellowshipped person. We don't associate with people we meet out in service like we do with family or close friends. With family or close friends there is much stronger peer pressure.

Isn't there any possibility that the group who came or comes to the conclusion that this is what the Bible means (using the Bible as the doctrine.. their only doctrine)? Can they fall prey to Attribution Theory? Halo Effect? Can there beliefs of what the Bible is saying become Case Law? (Case Law meaning that while the actual law does not cover that directly is if inferred to mean this) Isn't there a possibility that God left those who lead to think for themselves? If so, then can it be true that what the conclusion is, is in fact wrong?

Those possibilities are possible in religions today. But, of course, not in mine. Yes, like the congergations of old (see the letters to the seven congergations in Revelation), some false teaching have crept into our religion. We used to allow smoking (2 Cor. 7:1), we used to celebrate holidays (Colossians 2:22), we even used to join the army (John 17:16; Romans 12:10), but only to be medics. As we progressed spiritually, we realized that these were against the Bibles teachings. To gain facts about the Bible, other than praying for guidence, we use our common sense, we pay attention to details, and we use our reasoning. We strive to gain accurate knowledge. And, we believe we have accurate knowledge.

Same goes for science...

Yes, i'm sure those laws/theories are present in evolution as well.

Can't you honestly say that 10 people can not get 4 different meanings on "Thou shall NOT kill"?

Without knowledge of the Bible, yes, I can, or maybe even more meanings. But with accurate knowledge, you'll come to the conclusion that it is wrong to deliberately murder a person, but to kill in self-defense is another thing.

What if someone said I can kill you because you are spiritually killing me? That is a big threat deserving a counter action to stop it (some force that will equal the opposing force in order to stop it from hurting you)

Well, if someone is 'spiritually killing you' you should get away from him or her, but it could be a good thing too. If what the 'spiritual killer' is saying is making sense, then its probably a good thing. If you nor your church leader cannot disprove his/her teachings, from the Bible, then maybe they are true. If that is so, then the 'spiritual killer' isn't a killer, but a helper. He's actually building up your spirituality.

I think if you study topography, multimedia, ad design, architecture, or being a lawyer you would understand that reading comprehension, attitude, gender, audience, location, age and basics on how the human eye reads words and image placement

Very true. Different factors can affect how you read. This is one way where group study and congergational meetings come in handy. Before those, though, personal study is also needed. To read it once you get a meaning, but to read it again you may get a different one.

r3fr: FYI I have a copy of the JW (watchtower) bible and lots of sciptures have been changed comparded to a NIV or KJV. The sooner you realize that JW is a cult the better off you will be.

In different Bibles the wording appears differently. Does this make all religions a cult? Does it make a religion a cult because they have their Bible in modern speach easier to understand and not in the old language that is difficult for modern people to understand? Does it make a religion a cult to have Gods name in their Bible and not replaced with LORD or God because of their superstitions? Ask why your Bible is in the old speach (thy, thou, shalt,...). Will the answer be "because of tradition" ?

But of course you are entitled to believe whatever you want. As for the Mormons, They use the KJV but they modified it to suit their religion. I should know, I was a mormon once and did alot of reading.

Yes, as are you.
Reading is good.

Yes. I have the same reasoning with the existence of a god. If there is one then how did it appear. Don't come with your fake bible text to prove this, because it is just as empty without the proof. Try being creative (forgive the word) and use reasoning.

To me, the Bible isn't 'fake.' So I must use it in my answer. It says God has no beginning. He has been here and will be here for all time. The Bible is the most widely distributed book of all time. Its an ancient book with prophecies. Those prophecies have been fulfilled in the past and others are going to be fulfilled. Take one for example at 1 Thessalonians 5:3, it reads: "Whenever it is that they are saying: 'Peace and security!' then sudden destruction is to be instantly upon them just as the pang of distress upon a pregnant womanl and they will by no means escape." Can you agree that the world today, is worse than ten years ago? Can you also agree that it is getting worse? We see constant disasters in the news. We are seeing wars, we are seeing diseases killing millions. Isn't peace and security what people are calling for today? Note, also, Daniels prophecy. - During the two world wars, Germany had been the chief enemy of the king of the south—the Anglo-American World Power—and had occupied the position of the king of the north. After World War II, however, that nation stood divided. West Germany became an ally of the king of the south, and East Germany aligned itself with another powerful entity—the Communist bloc of nations headed by the Soviet Union. This bloc, or political entity, stood up as the king of the north, in strong opposition to the Anglo-American alliance. And the rivalry between the two kings became a Cold War that lasted from 1948 to 1989. Previously, the German king of the north had acted “against the holy covenant.” (Daniel 11:28, 30) There are numerous other prophecies that I can tell you that happened a long time ago which can be proved by history, if you like.

Three reasons why it cannot be that way: 1) The bible is just a book written by man and manupulated by men and relogious leaders in just about every century of its history. So, if used in any argument as proof it will not hold much ground. 2) If there is a god that loves humans it will show, so the god will not be as ugly as you make it sound. 3) Moses told me that he made a booboo, remember?

My statement above may help you to see that the Bible is Gods word.
You admit to Moses being a real person?

In some cases new techniques may have been introduced that prevent the use of blood transfusion, but for the majority of cases it is still needed. Medical science has every reason to minimize the use of blood transfusion, because of its shortage. Still it has not found alternatives enough. So, refusal of using blood transfusion for children will be murder. Or do you rather like the term postnatal abortion? Or maybe involuntary euthanasia will make it less sound like first degree murder.

Not murder, nor anything like murder. Are you willing to die for your family? Are you willing to die for what you believe? So are we.

MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.

Premeditated. Did we know beforehand that the person was going to get into an accident? No.

To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.

Disregard of human life? No. We don't allow smoking, excessive drinking (getting drunk), or drug use.

Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.

And of course, no. Like I said earlier we didn't know the person would be in an accident.

It's not an 'intent to kill' but merely a decision not to help save them....not entirely the same thing.

According to our beliefs they will inherit everlasting life. So we are helping to save them.

R3fr: Your 'rules' are a bastardization of the Uncertainty Principle, and basically untrue. Scientists can predict phenomena remotely based upon what they already know. In 1905, Einstein had no way of observing the phenomenon he used to theorize Relativity. Most discoveries are made on paper, long before they are proven. Nuclear fission, for instance, was theorized, mathematically proven, and then later created with few unforeseen surprises, and all the time using material that we had no tangible way of objectively observing.

But, nuclear fission isn't 'our beginning'.
I can see you're getting angry, please don't. I'm not here to be making enemies and I don't want to make enemies.

Please don't forget that something had to come from nothing in YOUR model as well. You just handily stick God just before the last thing you can explain. Your model starts with God, and an Atheist who adheres to the Big Band theory has the primordial point. Don't pretend your explanation is any more scientifically complete.

Not true. The Bible says that God has always existed. That, he has no beginning nor an end.

If you can doctor-up your model of reality enough to accept an eternal, intangible God, then it is pig-headedly obtuse to not allow science to simply, honestly, say that they don't know yet. Unless you know all the possibilities, you can't define 'impossibility', only 'improbability'. You don't know everything, so you can't say "Nothing can come from Nothing" any more than an Atheist can say "There is no God". History's gutter runs thick with people who 'knew' things to be true and were proven wrong ten minutes later. The problem is all this prideful, false 'knowing'.

Why do you care so much if I believe in God? What difference to you does it make? For the evolutionist, when we die, thats it. For the creationist, we continue living. In your end (death), it means nothing.

I strongly suggest, again, that you read a bit of chemistry ( and see how much in nature is 'self-assembling' ) and physics (Quantum Mechanics in particular), so that you'll have some means of entering into a discussion with someone other than a biblical literalist. Your absolutes and scripture just don't prove anything to anyone that doesn't already agree with you.

But that which is self-assembling came from something else. And do you think it just started to assemble itself, by itself? Why is the sky blue? Why is the water blue? Why aren't we evolving? Why are there male and female? Wait, HOW are there male and female?

r3fr, Baker is correct. Furthermore, there is (to the best of our knowledge) no place where nothing (in the classical sense of the word) exists. Even if *every* bit of extant matter was expunged from the entire universe, leaving only a vacuum, there is still not nothing. The vacuum seethes with energy, and that energy can be measured (look up the Casimir effect, for one).

a. Absence of matter.
b. A space empty of matter.
c. A space relatively empty of matter.
d. A space in which the pressure is significantly lower than atmospheric pressure.
A state of emptiness; a void. A state of being sealed off from external or environmental influences; isolation.
What energy does a vacuum have? Where did that energy come from?

_______________________________________________

I think this discussion is getting out of hand. A mockery is being made of religion and you laugh. Though I agree, most religions are a joke. But if its your own, why are you laughing? Does this imply that you don't take your religion seriously?

Religion 'should' be able to withstand mockery....it's 'supposed' to be a devotion to the almighty.

If humour at its expense is a threat to its existence/appreciation then as they say 'God help you' [and your religion'.

Besides.....everyone knows....

 

Clapton is God...

God designed us with a sense of humour, and it wasn't just so we could laugh at others. If you can't laugh at yourself (and in what you believe), then as Jafo says, 'God help you'.

r3fr,

You're confusing a dictionary definition (that may include archaic and / or early usage) with what actually exists (or at least what actually is stated in current theory).

If you want to understand (even as much as possible) where the energy content of vacuum comes from, you'll have to get involved with quantum physics. For some first order information, just do a search on zero point fluctuations or on the Casimir effect (ignore the results which claim that these are possible sources of unlimited energy, etc. it doesn't work like *that*).

There's nothing magical about it, it's a consequence of behaviour at the quantum mechanical level.

Ok, why doesn't anyone believe me when I say slavery is ok under the Bible???

I can't find the verse, someone help me out here.

And as far as the Earth being flat well for thousands of years it was believed to be so and the Church believed it. I do not recall any religion recorded in history who said, "Hey, look at this verse in the Bible is clearly states the Earth is round." I am sure it would have been mentioned because they would have been burned at the stake.



All of this is from my group of acknowledged people who have concluded this for centuries. They can't be wrong. God wouldn't allow it.




So clearly, the Earth is flat and slavery is allowed. God created everything, steps in to make sure the scripture is correct and is a human looking supreme being.


Good. I am glad this is settled.
(The person who created this thread must be confused about these issues)

Reading comprehension in this country is sooooo low. Can't understand what's right in front of you.

SINNERS!!!




So Bakerstreet, is the reason why you feel that God can exist is because we define God as this humanoid being? More like what I was writing before about God being some sort of Vacuum type being?

It would also stand under scrutiny that we can still be "in His likeness" because it is not about actually 'looks' or 'looking like', but more about chemical composition, mathematical frame work and elemental design.

As human beings we have many similarities to the Sun that are inside of us. It could be said, in a cosmos/universal setting, we are in the likeness of the Sun because of those elements.

I'm saying I believe in creation and I believe my religion is correct in how the creation took place. I don't have the viewpoints of other religions, because I believe they are false. So I must say that my religion is correct. This is why I post Scriptures, to back up my claims and to show you that what I'm saying comes from the Bible.

So you refuse to actually do any research into the other religions because you feel that they are false?

Is that the basis of understanding something? To refuse to look at it because its false without going into it? You have no questions to your own religion as to why one can read the same verse in the Bible and come to a totally different conclusion?


To me, you are not really trying to seek the True answer. You have settled on one answer that suits you.

I do not propose that science is the True answer. I use it as a reference and to help make some decisions. The Bible as well also, while to me holds more value, I use as a reference and guide but I do not pretend that I nor my church understand everything in it no matter how much we try.

This doctrine of man is misleading. Anyone who disagrees with you is following a doctrine of man? I am sure some Muslims and Jewish people feel the same way.

Infidel.

Oh and I think there are a few billion people who read the Bible. I am sure allot of them really wanted to understand it and follow it.

There is no amazement on finding someone who believes what you do without being a JW, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or what ever. while there can me many interpretations of the Bible it will most likely be within some sort or range where it is possible to find someone like minded on specific issues.

The only reason why I comment on you posts basically because I think it is evidence of how human beings interpret evidence scientific or otherwise.

Some how God being right translates to a human being right on its interpretation of God's right-ness.

Thou Shall not Kill (but its ok when defending yourself??? but I am still killing and so on). Blood eating... (cannibalism? eating people? no blood transfusions???)







Lets do an experiment (where is Doreen???)

If you have a church, go to it and ask the pastor where it says blood transfusions are bad and you shouldn't do it. (r3fr, post the Biblical reference to not using blood transfusions)

Lets see how many use the same references as well as r3fr's to come to their conclusion.

No doctrines or ad ons. Just the current Bible. Try to stick with the King James Version but others are acceptable (what there are other versions of the English translation of the Bible? How is that possible???)

Those possibilities are possible in religions today. But, of course, not in mine. Yes, like the congergations of old (see the letters to the seven congergations in Revelation), some false teaching have crept into our religion. We used to allow smoking (2 Cor. 7:1), we used to celebrate holidays (Colossians 2:22), we even used to join the army (John 17:16; Romans 12:10), but only to be medics

I can't help myself!!!!


So there is a point where something was ok IN YOUR RELIGION that was later recalled.


But this somehow will not happen anymore because... Why?

R3fr:

"But that which is self-assembling came from something else. And do you think it just started to assemble itself, by itself? Why is the sky blue? Why is the water blue? Why aren't we evolving? Why are there male and female? Wait, HOW are there male and female?"

You realize that these are High School biology/chemistry questions, right? It amazes me that you could be so completely unread and still hope to make some sort of argument that would sway anyone. I don't fault you for not knowing, but I think you lack a bit of humility to try and disprove things you have never even bothered to familiarize yourself with. As I suggested earlier, perhaps you should learn something about the topic before you try and debate its value.

Anyway, you have reached the point now that you are ignoring who is on which side. I'm not an Atheist, and like I told you previously, I spent the majority of my time in this silly discussion trying to make Atheists see that Evolution and Creation can co-exist.

...then you come along, willing away any amount of reason that is thrown at you. You spout Biblical jargon, paste watchtower doctrine, refuse to accept anything but scriptural 'truth', and pretty much behave *exactly* like an Atheist would predict a 'Christian' would act. Thanks heaps.

If I am irritated, it is because people like you and the rest of your cult do more damage to the concept of 'God' and 'Creation' than an army of Atheists could. People go away from discussions like this with no urge to consider religion, because invariably there are a couple of caricatures extolling their own ignorance and condemning everything outside their scope. According to my word count, you spent 2664 words in that last post, and very, very little was regarding Evolution. Please, PLEASE, take off your 'witnessing' hat.

**

If the powers that be wanna keep this train wreck on-topic, please deal with the proselyting that is going on. Cult doctrine just screams for an equally verbose counter-balance. For everyone that posts here, there are many more that read it. On the off chance a single person might be drawn to R3fr's foolishness, someone should prevent this from being a platform.

Sorry, I feel strongly about cults.

Joe: "So Bakerstreet, is the reason why you feel that God can exist is because we define God as this humanoid being?"

At the most basic, I feel that God can exist because we can't prove the opposite. Branching up from there, I think that mankind has an innate sense of the 'spiritual'. Jafo says we created God, and to a point it could be said that we created many definitions of God. I think it is a lot like the Platonic Ideals. We create fallible examples, but they are just symbols, models of the Truth; the prototype that we sense inside but just can't put our finger on.

There is a story from the Decameron that I like, and that sums up my attitude.

It is about a Jew being questioned by the Islamic Sultan, who asks which of the 'big three' religions is most authentic. He figures he'll get an wrong answer and then he can lop off his head and take his money. The Jew answers with a story. A rich man is going to die, and in his family there is a tradition of leaving a ring of great history and value to the son that most pleases the father. This particular father, though, has three sons, all of equal honor. To remedy the situation, he has two perfect replicas made, and gives each of his sons a ring. After his death they find that they all have a ring, and that since no one can tell the real from the false they have to share the inheritance.

I would take it a step further and say that all 'rings', every individual's concept of God, are genuine; but each are specific, fallible points of view with only hints of truth. If you refined all the concepts of God, taking out all the unnecessary anthropomorphisms and human flaws, you would probably get a good idea of the reality. I think God is both personal and universal in that way, and that is why we are drawn toward religion. Sadly, people abuse it and force their own concepts on others, making them out to be 'Truth'.

That's just my opinion, though.

Baker...sadly the only person who is incapable of recognising a 'cult' is the member of one.

What is MORE sad is that to many, Jehovah's Witnesses are considered a cult, but those same people do not realize that Roman Catholicism is also a 'cult', as is Protestantism, or Judaism, or any other flavour one would care to mention....including atheism.

The issue anyone 'should' have with any version of 'cult', however extreme or mainstream is that it should not impinge upon the rights and values of any other faction.

Remember that one alleged manic cult JW proponent 'may' be spouting propaganda verging on fatuous tripe, but then so does self-proclaimed God-followers such as Kona, or the rabid atheist damning all to 'hell [?]' for being so stupid as to believe in ANYTHING they cannot see, taste, or touch.

JW's follower's preachings can be ignored and dismissed for no direct personal value or followed avidly by all who hear....such is the tenets of 'free opinion' [not 'free speech'].

Personally I'd prefer that the copy-paste of slabs of any version of the bible would cease.....may [your] God help us if it violates copyright....