that's a repeat : From one point (resumed at it maximum) :
Bible statement God the essence of everything with a spirit began to create at its maturity (by its Christ = maturity).
Forget about the Genesis account it's a story to make it short and understandable for people back then).
it's like everything had the potential to exist but just wasn't ready.Science statement
A cell (I call it like that its simple) began to create since it had a chance means somehow at its maturity (ready to).
But here we have a probleme with missing material (as potentially from one cell) to build everything and moreover when you have to take this in consideration with missing links to lead from a point to another in beetween species.What's in RED here means the same actually … (only the spirit is missing)
Why do I favour the bible statement? (Essence of everything as being God)
Because if a cell had the particularity to evolve the way scientist think it’s possible, at our stage every cell could have the same hability and creation and evolution of every creation by hasard and interaction would have been way more exponential than what we can see.
Posts by RAF
-
178Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!
by Seeker4 inperry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.
axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!
i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.
-
-
RAF
-
178
Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!
by Seeker4 inperry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.
axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!
i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.
-
-
RAF
Every therory is interesting ... but not a proof ... even experts do not always agree with each other (so when it comes to use any name to prove anything since there is no proof ... Well )
You can talk about evolution from one point (to make it plausible - it will - but then you still have to deal with missing links)
but more over when you come back to the start, what makes it weird to accept is the "hasard" means self auto developpement and interaction if that was the case (and you know for instance how in a few years a jungle can appear in your garden if you don't take care of it - and how fast viruses can mutate) if from the start that was the case on everything ... The effect of this kind of developpement would be exponential after billions of years and even millions of years and even thousand of years if not only hundred years - we would have to deal with so much more old stuffs with would have evolved and mutate and new stuffs) ... I mean what we can see is that there is a restriction in evotution/mutation and also a restriction by spiecies (that's where the missing link is the well known argument). There is something very clever which limits the effect of evolution/mutation ... call it what you want ... I call it the spirit of GOD in short GOD. -
156
Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous? Questions for Unbelievers
by Perry indoes the belief that there is no all-loving diety in which to be accountable to make it easier or harder to treat and judge others they way that you want to be treated and judged?.
since evolution supposes that life and ultimately man who is at the top of the chain got here through a process of the fittest dominating and killing off the weaker, and since most modern evolutionists in democracies no longer think that this is good to practice, how do you deal with the fact that you are a living contradiction of your own belief since you pronounce the same thing both good and bad?
.
-
-
RAF
ATJ : You mean people like
Read my previous postes please (so you'll anderstand what I'm talking about) ... thank you.
-
156
Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous? Questions for Unbelievers
by Perry indoes the belief that there is no all-loving diety in which to be accountable to make it easier or harder to treat and judge others they way that you want to be treated and judged?.
since evolution supposes that life and ultimately man who is at the top of the chain got here through a process of the fittest dominating and killing off the weaker, and since most modern evolutionists in democracies no longer think that this is good to practice, how do you deal with the fact that you are a living contradiction of your own belief since you pronounce the same thing both good and bad?
.
-
-
RAF
Tetra : RAF said that evolution is dangerous because it makes people think that they are more evolved than others.
I guess you never heard about racisme ? (of any kind - because it's not only about race) - Do you remember that if some religions didn't get into the we are all brothers stuff (cause they did forget about it for a while too JW's included at the begining - means that they weren't truth believers anyway) ... some things might have take more time for for instance black people to get to the point we are now socially in most part of the world.
-
22
How did Jesus suffer?
by onacruse inin jambon1's thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/128929/1.ashx i suggested the possibility that jesus was not required by scripture, nor necessarily described in scripture, as "suffering" in the physical sense of bodily pain.. i specifically had in mind hebrews 2:18: "...he himself has suffered..." the greek word used here is pascho, which has a general meaning of "to be affected by a thing, whether good or bad.
" thus, in the compound form sympatheo (whence the english 'sympathy'), the sense is "compassion, fellow-feeling.
" this word is subsequently used in regard to jesus in hebrews 4:15: "...not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses..." again, the word "weaknesses" (greek astheneia) means simply "without strength," and does not necessarily include the thought of physical pain.. in isaiah 53:4 it is said that "he...is pained for us..." (lxx), and the greek word is odunao, meaning "pain of body or mind; sorrow, grief," and is also used in a 'positive' sense in the scriptures (positive in the sense that physical pain is not necessarily included as an aspect of the experience).. this is an admittedly a limited initial examination, but if the postulate holds, then it would present a somewhat different perspective about jesus than i previously held.. craig.
-
-
RAF
Onacruse (sorry) .... oy oy oy, I guess I didn't understood the "real" question again
Ok by then, I would say that if I really want to think about the question I can't even imagine that he wouldn't have experienced physical pain ... to me it is a part of the sacrifice ... (as to say : I went there too for you to know I'm not only ruling I taking my full responsability).
To me if they discussed the matter even way before is because as human, any who would have the chance to escape the pain would ... so of course God could ... but then part of the sacrifice about suffering in every way like human for human would be just not really what it is supposed to be.
Also (to me) the fact that they describe the whole scene ... implies that it was important to notice that it was painfull. -
22
How did Jesus suffer?
by onacruse inin jambon1's thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/128929/1.ashx i suggested the possibility that jesus was not required by scripture, nor necessarily described in scripture, as "suffering" in the physical sense of bodily pain.. i specifically had in mind hebrews 2:18: "...he himself has suffered..." the greek word used here is pascho, which has a general meaning of "to be affected by a thing, whether good or bad.
" thus, in the compound form sympatheo (whence the english 'sympathy'), the sense is "compassion, fellow-feeling.
" this word is subsequently used in regard to jesus in hebrews 4:15: "...not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses..." again, the word "weaknesses" (greek astheneia) means simply "without strength," and does not necessarily include the thought of physical pain.. in isaiah 53:4 it is said that "he...is pained for us..." (lxx), and the greek word is odunao, meaning "pain of body or mind; sorrow, grief," and is also used in a 'positive' sense in the scriptures (positive in the sense that physical pain is not necessarily included as an aspect of the experience).. this is an admittedly a limited initial examination, but if the postulate holds, then it would present a somewhat different perspective about jesus than i previously held.. craig.
-
-
RAF
Your dismissive attitude is, quite frankly, disappointing. If you have nothing better to say than "believe, or PFFFFFF," then please understand if I don't bother to respond to any more of your posts.
To me it is not dismissive it is an answer ... my answer is not "believe or PFFFFF" out of contexte of course it looks dismissive. And maybe that's why it doesn't allow people to focus on the answer for what it means.
My answer is an answer about the fact that the topic would only lead to : "you believe what you believe" ... there is no way to know anything in particular about the subject historically, we can only state things from the bible (as believers) on this particular theme. And in the bible it is said that he did suffer ... nowhere it is written that he faked the pain. -
22
How did Jesus suffer?
by onacruse inin jambon1's thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/128929/1.ashx i suggested the possibility that jesus was not required by scripture, nor necessarily described in scripture, as "suffering" in the physical sense of bodily pain.. i specifically had in mind hebrews 2:18: "...he himself has suffered..." the greek word used here is pascho, which has a general meaning of "to be affected by a thing, whether good or bad.
" thus, in the compound form sympatheo (whence the english 'sympathy'), the sense is "compassion, fellow-feeling.
" this word is subsequently used in regard to jesus in hebrews 4:15: "...not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses..." again, the word "weaknesses" (greek astheneia) means simply "without strength," and does not necessarily include the thought of physical pain.. in isaiah 53:4 it is said that "he...is pained for us..." (lxx), and the greek word is odunao, meaning "pain of body or mind; sorrow, grief," and is also used in a 'positive' sense in the scriptures (positive in the sense that physical pain is not necessarily included as an aspect of the experience).. this is an admittedly a limited initial examination, but if the postulate holds, then it would present a somewhat different perspective about jesus than i previously held.. craig.
-
-
-
22
How did Jesus suffer?
by onacruse inin jambon1's thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/128929/1.ashx i suggested the possibility that jesus was not required by scripture, nor necessarily described in scripture, as "suffering" in the physical sense of bodily pain.. i specifically had in mind hebrews 2:18: "...he himself has suffered..." the greek word used here is pascho, which has a general meaning of "to be affected by a thing, whether good or bad.
" thus, in the compound form sympatheo (whence the english 'sympathy'), the sense is "compassion, fellow-feeling.
" this word is subsequently used in regard to jesus in hebrews 4:15: "...not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses..." again, the word "weaknesses" (greek astheneia) means simply "without strength," and does not necessarily include the thought of physical pain.. in isaiah 53:4 it is said that "he...is pained for us..." (lxx), and the greek word is odunao, meaning "pain of body or mind; sorrow, grief," and is also used in a 'positive' sense in the scriptures (positive in the sense that physical pain is not necessarily included as an aspect of the experience).. this is an admittedly a limited initial examination, but if the postulate holds, then it would present a somewhat different perspective about jesus than i previously held.. craig.
-
-
RAF
Either you believe or you don't
If you believe you have no reason to think that he didn't suffer (why being scared as a God then?) then why even imply that he would refuse anything because to fake anything? PFFFFFFFFFFFF
If you don't believe the subject is OVER.
There was a time when belivers where bullshiting unbelievers, and there is a time for the unbelievers to bullshiting the believers (here we are) ... but it doesn't change what happen (in what anyones believe for himself) -
22
How did Jesus suffer?
by onacruse inin jambon1's thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/128929/1.ashx i suggested the possibility that jesus was not required by scripture, nor necessarily described in scripture, as "suffering" in the physical sense of bodily pain.. i specifically had in mind hebrews 2:18: "...he himself has suffered..." the greek word used here is pascho, which has a general meaning of "to be affected by a thing, whether good or bad.
" thus, in the compound form sympatheo (whence the english 'sympathy'), the sense is "compassion, fellow-feeling.
" this word is subsequently used in regard to jesus in hebrews 4:15: "...not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses..." again, the word "weaknesses" (greek astheneia) means simply "without strength," and does not necessarily include the thought of physical pain.. in isaiah 53:4 it is said that "he...is pained for us..." (lxx), and the greek word is odunao, meaning "pain of body or mind; sorrow, grief," and is also used in a 'positive' sense in the scriptures (positive in the sense that physical pain is not necessarily included as an aspect of the experience).. this is an admittedly a limited initial examination, but if the postulate holds, then it would present a somewhat different perspective about jesus than i previously held.. craig.
-
-
-
156
Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous? Questions for Unbelievers
by Perry indoes the belief that there is no all-loving diety in which to be accountable to make it easier or harder to treat and judge others they way that you want to be treated and judged?.
since evolution supposes that life and ultimately man who is at the top of the chain got here through a process of the fittest dominating and killing off the weaker, and since most modern evolutionists in democracies no longer think that this is good to practice, how do you deal with the fact that you are a living contradiction of your own belief since you pronounce the same thing both good and bad?
.
-
-
RAF
Believing in evolution is dangerous because it leads to believe that some people are more evoluate than others.
Find me an evolution textbook that states this; you are saying not what modern evoluionists say, but what anti-evolutionists say. As anti-evolutionists have no facts, they often end up lying. Evolution and god, for a start, are quite compatable. Some religionists like to deny this, as they are interested in simplistic literalism that allows them to sanctify their own opinions, but which also requires they accept obvious mythology, like the Creation account, as fact.
I never state anything from anyones point of view ... that's just my way ... It is my opinion (I don't care who is saying what it could be whoever famous or totally unknow - I just agree or not from my perspective of course)
Believing in God is believing that all of us are alike to some extant
Other than the non-believers...?
RAF, you are taking your beliefs as a reasonable modern Christian and assuming they represent religious thought. Most religious thought is very clear on believers and non-believers being VERY unlike. Most religions have killed non-believers. Please find me evolutionists (not political nuts) who are killing each other over a disagreeemnt over claudistics, or who kill people who don't believe in evolution
I do not think believers and non-believers are unlike (they dont see things on the same perspective but they have their own good and bad ways - that's where they are alike in the important matter).
And no I have no example of whoever evolutionist killed because of his belief. But to come back on my previous comment I was more talking about the way "some under evoluate" (lol) people think about the fact that some are under evoluate ... remember that I am black ... and that's probably my experience who is talking here ... But I know that the same problem exist with believers.
but to me those who kill because of religious belief are not belivers ... (they are their own leader in the matter)Now about evolution if one cell could lead the universe, the process would be exponential (more over if you take the example of the virus which is able to evolve a lot and very fast to stay alive - that being said it also have a problem which lead to be so effective that it forgets about the fact that if he takes too much advantage on his host it kills his host and by that kill himself - so any might take this detail as an argument to say that it is the reason why it is not exponential - but we human are able to make new species of plantes that the evolution process didn't think about it yet in billions of years) SO ...
RAF, I like you. Take this said in the nice smiley way it is. Read a book about evolution. I can recommend some. You don't have a very good grasp of the subject get it and will obviously reach embaressing and inaccurate conclusions.
Well I guess that you have no idea how much I do like you ... Why? because Well : you talk ... you dare saying what a lot wouldn't ... you are very accurate ... you'r witty ... and the list could go on and on.
But guess What? I just can't adhere to the evolution process from the start ... if you think my statement do not stand because some scientists says this is how it works ... it won't change what I think ... Too much things are not coherent somehow (and I gave you my why = the potential is not reached on billion years to me their is a very intelligent restriction capacity into the process).As you said yourself evolution do not exclude God ... I'm not against the idea of evolution itself - I just can't believe in the form of evolution scientist are talking from the start ... (that's it) so then it's all about how we feel about it from our own experience.
My christianity is from heart, to me every personne who reachs the idea that we need to respect each other is a christian by heart - and just the way you are able to defend the position of those who are not believers because they have their right and are not bad because of that) is a christian position (phylosphically talking).It's not and will never be a religion for me ... it's a phylosophy or lets say a state of mind (means related to our spirit) ... and yeah the light is getting greater with the time and here we are ... religion is bulleshit ... God is everything ... Christ is Respect in every aspect (even the right to laugh, have fun or whatever ... since we don't hurt on purpose or by egoisme) it is that simple to me.