Jump to content

PaulS

Administrator
  • Posts

    3,430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

Everything posted by PaulS

  1. What variations might he be referring to George? As far as I'm aware, we only have one understanding of gravity. Perhaps there are several other types of 'gravity' that don't reflect what we undersatnd as the law of gravity at all. We can't know anything that we don't know. Of cousre the one we know works, otherwise we probably wouldn't be here. Also, why consider it a random chance? It seems to me that the chances of gravity forming the known universe are 100% with what we know about gravity and how it effects celestial matter. Again, because it is all that we know, we think we have made it through some remarkable odds to be here. For all we know, what we know could actually be a huge stuff up and beyond our universe there are different laws that make life something we can't even imagine. Then again, maybe not.
  2. Or it could be that one minor variation to the forumula of gravity and there would be no gravity, and subsequently no universe, at least in the fashion that we are familiar with. To me the fact that we have determined an understanding of how parts of the universe works, doesn't mean that the universe couldn't have turned out a different way, or not even at all, if these things we call 'laws' actually didn't exist in the first place. Kinda like a chicken or egg problem.
  3. Seems sound to me. I fall into the scientific / skeptical mindset and don't believe in God, or more to the point, I am yet to come across an argument for God (or an experience for that matter) that convinces me of God's existence. That said, I've always wondered why there's so much certainty from some atheists that God doesn't exist. I mean we don't know what we don't know, so who's to say that there isn't something to this God stuff that is beyond our present understanding of how things work. By all means I can say that I don't think God exists, but I don't think I can say I know every thing so therefore I know God does not exist in any way, shape, or form. That position doesn't threaten me in any way.
  4. Johnny, I reckon there's more than a few that don't see the light of day during service! Deuteronomy 25:11-12 - "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." I'm not one to say why God felt he had to inspire somebody to write this, but maybe they had a problem with women breaking up fights by grabbing their hubbies by the balls?
  5. I thought I'd look into just what atonemnt theories are out there. I didn't realsie there is and have been so many. Here's a quick list from the link http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm Major theories of the atonement are listed below in chronological order: The Ransom Theory (God deceitfully pays off Satan with a bribe) Introduced by Origen in the third century CE. The Satisfaction Theory (Jesus appeases God by being a ritual human sacrifice) Introduced by Anselem, in the late 11th century CE. The Moral Theory: (Jesus' death is an example for the rest of humanity to emulate) Introduced by Abelard in the 12th century CE. The Acceptance Theory (Atonement comes from the arbitrary choice of God) Introduced by Scotus circa 1300 CE. The Penal (a.k.a. Penal-Substitution) Theory (God's mercy replaces his wrath after the infinite sacrifice of Jesus) Introduced by Reformation theologians circa 1520 CE. Christus Victor Theory: Jesus voluntarily allowed himself to be executed. This defeated the power of evil and released humanity from its sin. Being written Narrative Christus Victor Theory: Being written Non-violent atonement theories: Recent theories primarily by African-American and feminist theologians Being written Beliefs of some very liberal Christians and post-Christians
  6. I ran the Pinker talk past my fundy friend who often tells me that the world is getting more and more violent, suffering more and more crime, etc. Funnily enough, he now seems to have adopted the theory that in the end days the world will actually be more peaceful before Jesus comes again. Seems you're damned if you do or damned if you don't! Anybody heard of this theory that the world will be perhaps at peace when Jesus comes to wreak havoc?
  7. I've always been humoured by Ezekiel 23:19-20 - "Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses". Boy those Egyptians must have had some confidence in those days! Just kidding, Johnny. I think your idea is really good. There is a lot of good words in the bible, God-inspired or not. Cheers Paul
  8. FWIW, my favourite theory is that there was no atonement. Jesus was a passionate man, in love with his God, railing against the existing system of domination and control. Some people were threatened by that, so they killed him. The end. I don't think he was resurrected in any sense other than the memory of him lives on (although potential distorted some 2000 years later. That said, I don't know what happens after we die so I couldn't say if the person of Jesus exists in some way, shape or form. I've never seen or heard him anyway.
  9. Derek, Welcome to the forum, and I know it is a place where you will find fellowship. I'm way over here in Western Australia so can't help you out with a Church. That said, I don't attend a Church here either, but this forum meets my needs for now. Cheers Paul
  10. I hope that was a pleasant suprise, Dutch. Sounds like a great day.
  11. Thanks, Dutch. I found your sermon very interesting. Cheers Paul
  12. Thanks, Brian. It's an interesting thought. I'm not arguing with what you say, I'm just interested in how you see things. I've read/heard similiar to what you are saying about rejecting God after death and have always wondered who would ever do that. I would have thought, if anything, that anyone who was to die and be in God's presence looking back on what they rejected, they would then be welcoming God with open arms, rather than continuing to reject him/her/it. It does make me question though what the relevance may be of rejecting the God of your understanding. What would your understanding have to do with it - either you're rejecting God or your not aren't you? I can't see how one's understanding of God would come into play, particularly if that understanding of God isn't the correct one. Cheers Paul
  13. Just thought I'd share this link to a little piece by an organisation in Australia which campaigns for a variety of social justice issues. It goes for less than 2 minutes. Like the US, gay marriage is still a legal no-no here in Oz, but I'm certain it's status is soon to change. I like how this little clip portrays the naturalness and normality of being gay. Unlike the wicked, peadophile, sex-mad image so often portrayed by homophobes. https://www.getup.or...watch-the-video
  14. Brent, It just seems like so much gobbledydook to me, but this isn't a 'debate the Urantia Papers thread' so I won't debate the point. That said, I have not looked into the papers like you, and I respect that they mean a lot to you personally. However in relation to this thread (actually probably more in relation to my brief hijacking it concerning concepts of God rather than just the Divine Feminine - sorry Yvonne), it strikes me that even the UP's still come up with a concept that is familiar to human beings, i.e creation of offspring via parental figures. Sure there's the mystery of not knowing just exactly how the Father & the Son created the Master Spirits, but still there's that familiar human connotation that they 'created' something in a way unknown but somehow familiar to us at the same time.
  15. Neither would horses presumably. Spong's point is that everyone who believes in God imagines that God as something they can relate to. I think his point is that he thinks a picture of what/who God is, is beyond our imagination. In the animists case it is the objects and reality around them. In the horses case, well, maybe one day we'll find out.
  16. Brent, At first glance, the fact that the Seven Master Spirts are offspring of the Paradise Trinity, suggests that the Paradise Trinity must have some sort of gender orientation to in fact prodcue offspring. I presume that won't be the case, so I wonder if you could explain how you or the UP might explain the process of the Pardise Trinity creating offspring, i.e. just how did it/they produce offspring? Cheers Paul
  17. George, I think his point was more that horses, like Animists, would still imagine God in a form they are familiar with - whether it be an old man on a throne, a caring mother cuddling creation, a horse, or rocks, trees etc. Of cousre it makes sense that we can't imagine God as anything other than what we are familiar with - we can't imagine what we don't know I guess. Cheers Paul
  18. Perhaps God is feminine - I can type vagina on this thread but cannot spell the word 'p e n i s' without resorting to processing trickery!
  19. Disclaimer - I am male. Whilst we generally assign people a gender based on the physiology of their genitals, I would say that many of the 'qualities' generally assigned to either sex can be seen in either male or female simulatenously. We can have women who are strong leaders, who are more physical than many men, who perhaps enjoy more 'male' associated lines of work, yet of course they are still a woman. Similarly we have men (i.e. human beings who have a p&nis instead of a vagina) who display or better fit those roles we more traditionally associate with women - stay at home Dads, men who maybe sew or knit, men who are as gentle and caring as the most gentle and caring woman. I guess when people are talking about the Divine Feminine as God they are considering the mothering traits of God, the child-raising/child-care side of God, etc. God as a man usually pertains to God being strong, a defender of his children, a King and General of his people, etc. It would seem to me that a lot of people today talk about God as having traits from both sides of the fence. Doesn't even the NT say that in Christ there is no male or female? So perhaps God is simply genderless - neither divinely male nor divinely female. Perhaps entertaining notions of gender help people relate to such a God though and makes it more meaningful to them - much like Bishop Spong's analogy of if ever horses think of God, they probably think of a God who looks like a horse. Cheers Paul
  20. Yvonne, What a shame those young people walked out and refused to even consider what the speaker had to say. Just change their dress sense and I wonder if it would have looked exactly the same as when some people started speaking against slavery all those years ago. Cheers Paul
  21. My condolences Raven. I hope you and your family find support in one another, and celebrate the life of your grandmother. Cheers Paul
  22. Maybe the good bits anyway, George. I think I'll skip the bits about wearing a Mormon 'garment', and/or the Hijab for my wife (said with respect to those who do wish to wear these).
  23. ...nor does it make sense that such a God would 'close the book' so to speak in the 2nd century CE.
  24. Hi Penguinchik, Welcome. I think we are all on our own journey in one way or another. I hope you enjoy yours, and I hope this forum helps. Cheers Paul
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service