Posts by Shining One

122

Very good apologetics for honest seekers

by Shining One in

are you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?

here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!

http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .

Shining One

>Why didn't Paul not ever quote any of Jesus illustrations, parables, miracles...sermon on the mount content...Lords Prayer etc...in any of his letters to the early church?
ISP

I don't agree with your assumption. Jesus quoted scripture and so did Paul, Paul's expansion of the life of Christ agrees completely with the Lord's teaching.
Rex

122

Very good apologetics for honest seekers

by Shining One in

are you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?

here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!

http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .

Shining One

For Danny (part two),
Here is a brief cut and paste from a link I am providing:
"Burbidge does say something that is true, however. He favors the steady-state hypothesis and claims his view supports Hinduism and not Christianity. That is correct, because a steady-state theory of the universe, were it to be true, would provide some support for the endless cycles taught by Hinduism. The big bang theory is significant evidence against Hinduism."
Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

"Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

"These are two very popular views, which brings us to something very significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a popular view) and God is not con-tained within the universe (another popular view).
Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

and some more...
"The 1965 observation of the microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from the Bell Telephone laboratories convinced most scientists of the validity of the big bang theory. Further observations reported in 1992 have moved the big bang theory from a consensus view to the nearly unanimous view among cosmologists: there was an origin to the universe approximately 15 billion years ago."

Please continue the investigation with Hawking's work, "A Brief History of Time" and the other works recommended by the article's author. I pray that the realization that Deism is valid will lead to the further realization that Christianity is the sole faith that is built upon solid evidence! Also, feel free to e-mail me at any time.
Rex

122

Very good apologetics for honest seekers

by Shining One in

are you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?

here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!

http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .

Shining One

For Danny (part one),
I do have some honest questions about one of the articles (it is proof of Gods existence). I would accept God if you can prove it of cause. However I find many things and arguments in this article not valid, or I do not understand....
Ignoring Atheists' Questions

Shining one, as I quoted from your links also, you should answer these questions. Here is teh article with my remarks in bold....

Entropy and Causality used as

a proof for God's existence

Definition: The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.

))))))Enthropic principal and it is in agreement with Genesis.

It is a bit more complicated then this. it is only valid for a closed system, and then there is also the law of conservation of energie, which means that energie can not be lost. For the sake of the following argument, it is dealing with an expanding universe, I will not continue on this.

(Note: this argument can not be used against evolution, because that is not a closed system)

1. The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."
2. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
3. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
There are valid ways around this. There could be somethings as continious creation for instance. This argument is not full prove. However most scientists indeed believe that the universe had a beginning around 14 biljion years ago.

>Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.

)))))From the research of others, I absolutely agree.

>2. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size. You assume here that the universe is expanding. Most scientist do indeed think it is. (not all though)

)))))I would side with the majority.

>Also this argument is not full prove. Can an infinite universe not expand? But I can agree. Sciensists believe that the universe has no borders but is limited in size.
1. All events have causes.
2. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
3. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state unusable energy, which it is not.
4. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.

))))))Agreed.

>Why do all events need to have a cause? Scientists have found a lot of evidence that this is not the case. A lot of things happen, that have no cause. This argument is not valid, it is not true!

))))))With the exception of 'First Cause', according to the measurements taken by observation in astronomy and physics.

Rex

37

most hated analogies

by googlemagoogle in

we've already got some "most hated" threads on here, like "most hated bible verse" or "most hated meeting", don't know if there's another thread on metaphors/analogies.

one of the most used analogies used is the "jehovah's like a loving father holding your hand and leading you, you can trust him like a little child trusts his father".

i don't know how often i heard that one.

Shining One

Tetra_Sap,
You drooled:
>this analogy fails to take into account the computational nature of the universe and biological life on earth. it misrepresents nature has being the product of blue print design, when we know that it is quite different. computer programs executing algorithms.

Er, uh, last time I looked the program was designed....

>of course, they don't WANT to see the computational nature of nature. that would make god a programmer, not a designer. and we all know that programmers are fat, lazy, albeit smart, slobs.

DOS runs the system: who put DOS in place?

>and actually, based on the structure and history of DNA, for example, it's fairly obvious that god, should he exist, be extremely lazy.

Oh really? What are your scholastic credentials to make that judgement? REAL scientists barely understand the structure of simple organisms and only to a point, then they lose all method and have to resort to speculation, which seems to be the 'backbone' of your highly prolific opinions! What kind of work do you do, flip burgers at McDonald's? LOL.
Rex

20

Rev. 22:12,13 "I am coming quickly"

by sunshine2 in

just found some interesting stuff on the german website.....on how the society changes the woho in who in "i am coming quickly".

1955 = jesus watchtower 7/1/55 page 387.

1979 = jesus watchtower 1/1/79 page 15.

Shining One

LOL, you guys are still tying to critique scripture without even bothering to look at the word studies and interpretation involved? You should be on staff at Bethel!!! Did you ever stop to think that Biblical text is translated from an archaic language? Maybe one of you mini-Furoli's will do some research here so you don't looks so foolish! At least get a good study Bible and see what the commentators say about it! Sheesh, they do all the work for you and unlike the WBTS, they use real scholars. You can cross-check the references from several sources.
Rex

122

Very good apologetics for honest seekers

by Shining One in

are you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?

here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!

http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .

Shining One

Hey Poppers,
If that is a serious inquiry please feel free to e-mail me. I will respect your anonymity.
Rex

122

Very good apologetics for honest seekers

by Shining One in

are you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?

here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!

http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .

Shining One

Hey Abs,
Doing what JWs do is not my idea of good exgesis. I can make Watchtowerites spin in circles with valid hermeneutics and interpretation, when they stay around long enough or stay on one subject. You can plain Bible 'ping-pong' with those who are scriptural babes for laughs. My game is much more serious: its all about Jesus and seeing Him save souls; quicken those who are dead in their sins. It does no good to 'win' a debate when you fail to plant a seed of truth in their heart. Have no fear, there is a life of sound and reasonable faith out here: its just buried by all of the smoke and mirrors that many here use to distract one another.
Rex

122

Very good apologetics for honest seekers

by Shining One in

are you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?

here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!

http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .

Shining One

Hey Satin,
I will gladly be thought of as a fool by any who choose to believe that. The payoffs are great indeed, when a true 'seeker' contacts me and I send them to those who can disciple them! Yes, I am having a 'great affect' and it is in the way some berate what they can't debate. I only hope that one day you and I will be calling each other 'brother'. God Bless!
Rex

30

A Comparison Of Translations

by Honesty in

decide for yourself how accurate the new world translation is:.

*** rbi8 exodus 6:2-3 ***.

2 and god went on to speak to moses and to say to him: ai am jehovah.

Shining One

Hi Fang,
We are not 'proof texting' nor are we quoting scripture out of context. I once believed much as you do. I was driven to disprove the trinity doctrine. What I found out was this: Christianity does not defend a doctrine until it is challenged by heretics. When you see Jesus being worshipped or called Yahweh, by others or by Himself, it is legitimate.
Jesus was gradually seen as God by His disciples as they themselves gained spiritual sight. He was always worshipped after the resurrection and that was when the deity of the Holy Spirit became readily apparent. The early Christians had no reason to defend what they could readily see: God had revealed Himself in three divine persons. Tri-unity is what we see in scripture, in context.
The gospel of John was written to defend against heresies that had already sprung up, the gnostics taught that all flesh was evil, therefore Jesus only appeared to be human. The Docetians taught that Jesus was just a man who had been inhabited by God. One of the outstanding things about having so much access to manuscript evidence is that we can see that the true doctrine survived all of the attempts to change it.
The heretical teachings of the Watchtower are a stark ocntrast compared to real scholarship.
The only ones who question the teachings of orthodoxy are naturalists (see Jesus Seminar), cultists and other religious systems. Hey, don't take my word for it. Dig into the research and look at things without Watchtower axioms and bias.
Rex

122

Very good apologetics for honest seekers

by Shining One in

are you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?

here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!

http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .

Shining One