|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
Can someone tell me where earth's water came from?
Let's start there and work our way up
Supposedly from icy comets that fortuitously hit the planet during the 'heavy bombardment' phase, if you listen to astronomers. God created it if you listen to the religious. I've always believed it's somewhere in the middle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone tell me where earth's water came from?
Let's start there and work our way up
Supposedly from icy comets that fortuitously hit the planet during the 'heavy bombardment' phase, if you listen to astronomers. God created it if you listen to the religious. I've always believed it's somewhere in the middle.
Good post.
If you watch Ray Comfort's Noah video, he tells a scientist of some kind about the icy comets bringing water to earth. The man he is talking to says "that is ridiculous, you should do your research before you come talk to me. Then Ray shows him a video showing this theory. At that point, the interview is over.
Someone asked has there ever been anything that we can see that we can't explain. Well 3/4(?) of the earth is covered with something that scientists can only theorize where it came from.
Oceans from comets. That is a lot of comets if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Isn't this what I just said? That's what a scientist does.
It would be nice if they all did. It doesnt appear to me to be the case though from what I have read.
Quote:
I don't believe that's how it works. Just like that quote you erroneously posted, they're two separate things. Just like it doesn't matter if a scientist is a christian or muslim or jew outside the lab, nor should it matter that a scientist is an atheist outside lab. So long as it doesn't enter the realm of their hypotheses
Unfortunately, most scientists hold to a metaphysical naturalist view, and presuppositions play a big part in how they interpret what they observe. So does the uniformitarian assumption and other assumptions. In addition, both scientists and educators stand to lose a lot when they even question metaphysical naturalism. If there is even a hint of ID. Yet metaphysical naturalism, the belief that nothing exists outside of nature is pure atheism, and it is the sacred cow of both science and education.
...and how did I erroneously post the quote. The man said that even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer it could not be accepted because it is not a naturalistic conclusion. He seems to think that scientists have an a priori commitment to naturalism, and I would see it goes beyond methodology.
Quote:
I still don't know what you could possibly mean in asking that. The universe as we know it exists through basic interactions between the different forces of nature.
How could there be forces of nature before their is a universe?
My question to you is do you think that the matter and energy etc that is in the universe is self existent and uncaused. It is a simple question.
Go back to singularity, if that's what you believe. Was that singularity self existent?
Quote:
This universe will go on expanding forever, so yes it will go forward infinitely into the future. You seem to think these terms are mutually exclusive, and I don't understand why.
I am using the word eternal in the sense of without beginning or end. You seem to think the universe will have no end, do you also think it is without a beginning? Do you think that it is uncaused? Of course I mean all that is in it's earliest form, whatever that is.
Quote:
Ah, I see what you mean now with this whole "self existent" idea. No, the universe has a definite start,
Of course. That is what confused me, because you earlier said the universe is eternal. I define eternal as without beginning or end. So we both agree that the universe is not eternal
Everything in nature has a cause. If you do not believe that the universe is eternal
Now to be clear, when I say universe, I do not mean the universe as we know it today, I mean in it's earliest state. Did the matter and energy etc come into being on it's own, ie create itself? If it did then that would make it self existent. Or do you believe that matter and energy is eternal, which would also make it self existent.
Self`-ex`ist´ence
n. 1. Inherent existence; existence possessed by virtue of a being's own nature, and independent of any other being or cause
Self existence means existence that is independant of any other being or cause. Is matter and energy etc self existent?
Quote:
That being said, just because we don't know why right now, doesn't mean we won't eventually.
Then the data for metaphysical naturalism is inconclusive, yet many go around preaching it as fact, right?
Quote:
Naturalism as a guiding methodology
I have never been talking about methodology. I am talking about a metaphysical worldview/belief system. The belief in metaphysical naturalism, which is another name for ATHEISM.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/16/14 02:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone tell me where earth's water came from?
Let's start there and work our way up
Supposedly from icy comets that fortuitously hit the planet during the 'heavy bombardment' phase, if you listen to astronomers. God created it if you listen to the religious. I've always believed it's somewhere in the middle.
Good post.
If you watch Ray Comfort's Noah video, he tells a scientist of some kind about the icy comets bringing water to earth. The man he is talking to says "that is ridiculous, you should do your research before you come talk to me. Then Ray shows him a video showing this theory. At that point, the interview is over.
Someone asked has there ever been anything that we can see that we can't explain. Well 3/4(?) of the earth is covered with something that scientists can only theorize where it came from.
Oceans from comets. That is a lot of comets if you ask me.
Well ... some say water came frm comets, and some don't.
Earth's Water Probably Didn't Come From Comets, Caltech Researchers Say
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news008.html
PASADENA -- A new Caltech study of comet Hale-Bopp suggests that comets did not give Earth its water, buttressing other recent studies but contrary to the longstanding belief of many planetary scientists.
In the March 18 issue of Nature, cosmochemist Geoff Blake and his team show that Hale-Bopp contains sizable amounts of "heavy water," which contains a heavier isotope of hydrogen called deuterium.
Thus, if Hale-Bopp is a typical comet, and if comets indeed gave Earth its water supply billions of years ago, then the oceans should have roughly the same amount of deuterium as comets. In fact, the oceans have significantly less.
"An important question has been whether comets provided most of the water in Earth's oceans," says Blake, professor of cosmochemistry and planetary science at Caltech. "From the lunar cratering record, we know that, shortly after they were made, both the moon and Earth were bombarded by large numbers of asteroids or comets.
"Did one or the other dominate?"
The answer lies in the Blake team's measurement of a form of heavy water called HDO, which can be measured both in Earth's oceans using mass spectrometers and in comets with Caltech's Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO) Millimeter Array. Just as radio waves go through clouds, millimeter waves easily penetrate the coma of a comet.
This is where cosmochemists can get a view of the makings of the comet billions of years ago, before the sun had even coalesced from an interstellar cloud. In fact, the millimeter-wave study of deuterium in water and in organic molecules in the jets emitted from the surface of the nucleus shows that Hale-Bopp is composed of 15 to 40 percent primordial material that existed before the sun formed.
The jets are quite small in extent, so the image clarity provided by the OVRO Millimeter Array was crucial in the current study. "Hale-Bopp came along at just the right time for our work," Blake says. "We didn't have all six telescopes in the array when Halley's comet passed by, and Hyakutake was a very small comet. Hale-Bopp was quite large, and so it was the first comet that could be imaged at high spatial and spectral resolution at millimeter wavelengths."
One other question that the current study indirectly addresses is the possibility that comets supplied Earth with the organic materials that contributed to the origin of life. While the study does not resolve the issue, neither does it eliminate the possibility.
Also involved in the Nature study are Charlie Qi, a graduate student in planetary science at Caltech; Michiel Hogerheijde of the UC Berkeley department of astronomy; Mark Gurwell of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and Duane Muhleman, professor emeritus of planetary science at Caltech.
For full diagrams and further illustration of Geoff Blake's recent study see the Planetary Science's Press Release,
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~pa/press.html
Related Links
The Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences at Caltech
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/
Nature
http://www.nature.com/
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,446 Likes: 16
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,446 Likes: 16 |
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone tell me where earth's water came from?
Let's start there and work our way up
I am pretty sure that Al Gore created water !
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 495
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 495 |
Quote:
11. Koran is full of contradictions. One of the strangest is Koran says it confirms the Bible, and tells Muslims to read Torah and the Gospels. Koran tells Muslims that Jews and Christians – the People of the Book – don’t keep their own scriptures and don’t teach them to others.
Most Christians don't follow the scriptures or keep the Ten Commandments.
Most follow the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church not the Bible.
For example: They teach that Sunday is the Sabbath but there is no Biblical basis for its observance. The real Sabbath is Saturday. Check Luke 23:55,56 to Luke 24; 1
We all know that Jesus died on Fri. and rose on the first day of the week (Sunday)
These verses show that the women rested on the Sabbath ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT. The fourth to be exact.
Everyone in the Bible was Jewish and kept the Sabbath. The Catholic Church made the change about 300 AD. They readily admit it. Saying that the Pope had the authority. Check any good Catechism.
Jesus was almost stoned for claiming authority to forgive sin (called blasphemy) John 10:30-32
Groza76
Go Browns, WIN or lose, forever!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Well ... some say water came frm comets, and some don't.
So in other words, scientists cannot explain where water, (which covers most of the earth) came from...
No knock on science, but metaphysical naturalism is nothing more that a belief system. Science hasnt even begin to prove that "nothing exists outside the natural kosmos". It's a giant leap presupposition.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/16/14 04:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
11. Koran is full of contradictions. One of the strangest is Koran says it confirms the Bible, and tells Muslims to read Torah and the Gospels. Koran tells Muslims that Jews and Christians – the People of the Book – don’t keep their own scriptures and don’t teach them to others.
Most Christians don't follow the scriptures or keep the Ten Commandments.
Most follow the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church not the Bible.
For example: They teach that Sunday is the Sabbath but there is no Biblical basis for its observance. The real Sabbath is Saturday. Check Luke 23:55,56 to Luke 24; 1
We all know that Jesus died on Fri. and rose on the first day of the week (Sunday)
These verses show that the women rested on the Sabbath ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT. The fourth to be exact.
Everyone in the Bible was Jewish and kept the Sabbath. The Catholic Church made the change about 300 AD. They readily admit it. Saying that the Pope had the authority. Check any good Catechism.
Jesus was almost stoned for claiming authority to forgive sin (called blasphemy) John 10:30-32
There is an Old Covenant and a New Covenant. The Jews were under the Old Covenant until Jesus rose from the dead and sent the Spirit on Pentecost. Now God offers Israel a New Covenant. Non Jews (Gentiles) share in the blessings of the New Covenant. The New Covenant did away with sacrificial offerings, dietary restrictions (see Acts 10), and as far as the Sabbath is concerned...
… Quote:
Colossians 2: Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath day -- 17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
The early church met on Sunday (first day), because that was the day Jesus rose.
...and I am not a Catholic, I am non denominational, so I am not bound by Catholic doctrine, the scriptures are my only rule of faith and practice. (sola scriptura)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,675 Likes: 1670
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,675 Likes: 1670 |
While I don't disagree with what you're saying, why is it that Christianity has chosen to follow teachings set up by the Catholic Church, both in customary holidays and the day of worship rather than following the example of Christ?
People can try to explain it away, but Jesus was sent here not only as our savior, but to set an example for mankind. None of these Catholic customs makes any sense for me to follow as a Christian actually.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
Quote:
Quote:
Well ... some say water came frm comets, and some don't.
So in other words, scientists cannot explain where water, (which covers most of the earth) came from...
No knock on science, but metaphysical naturalism is nothing more that a belief system. Science hasnt even begin to prove that "nothing exists outside the natural kosmos". It's a giant leap presupposition.
I think most people understand that naturalism is a lesser leap than Christianity.
You are basically arguing for scientific skepticism / agnosticism without being critical of your own position.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
While I don't disagree with what you're saying, why is it that Christianity has chosen to follow teachings set up by the Catholic Church, both in customary holidays and the day of worship rather than following the example of Christ?
People can try to explain it away, but Jesus was sent here not only as our savior, but to set an example for mankind. None of these Catholic customs makes any sense for me to follow as a Christian actually.
First I would ask you if by Catholic do you mean Roman Catholic or just Catholic ,because the word "catholic" was first used by Ignatius of Antioch around 107 A.D, ( long before Constantine and Roman Catholicism).
Secondly, Sunday worship was observed before Rome adopted Catholicism.
First day Sunday worship seems to be indicated in Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.
Additionally, the passage I posted earlier in Colossians said do not let anyone judge you in regard to sabbaths, which were a shadow but the substance is Christ. In another place, we find that Christ has become our rest (sabbath)
Finally, Paul in Romans urged us not to divide over these types of questions.
Romans 14:5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/16/14 05:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well ... some say water came frm comets, and some don't.
So in other words, scientists cannot explain where water, (which covers most of the earth) came from...
No knock on science, but metaphysical naturalism is nothing more that a belief system. Science hasnt even begin to prove that "nothing exists outside the natural kosmos". It's a giant leap presupposition.
I think most people understand that naturalism is a lesser leap than Christianity.
You are basically arguing for scientific skepticism / agnosticism without being critical of your own position.
Sorry, metaphysical naturalism is not agnosticism or skepticism. It is confident and militant Atheism. If you disagree, tell me how can a statement like nothing exists outside nature to mean anything but "no God"
I am not arguing for scientific skeptism, I am arguing against the fact that theism/ID is excluded as religion, while another position that is equally a faith/belief system is embraced by Science and education.
Theism is excluded. Metaphysical naturalism is embraced. Yet Metaphysical naturalism is a belief system (and I would say it is a religion) as well.
Lastly, I do not hold to scientific skepticism or agnosticism. I believe we can understand the Kosmos, because it is created by an orderly God. I am not skeptical of science. This is where you are wrong. I have not been arguing against science. I am arguing against metaphysical naturalism, which is not science
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/16/14 05:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
Quote:
While I don't disagree with what you're saying, why is it that Christianity has chosen to follow teachings set up by the Catholic Church, both in customary holidays and the day of worship rather than following the example of Christ?
People can try to explain it away, but Jesus was sent here not only as our savior, but to set an example for mankind. None of these Catholic customs makes any sense for me to follow as a Christian actually.
I think that the simplest answer to your 1st question is tradition.
Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant and/or Reformed denominations all came from the same base, the original Christian Church. (called "catholic", or "universal") There were a number of reasons why certain days were used for worship and holidays ..... many of which were designed to keep believers alive. Many holidays were set on the calendar to coincide with pagan holidays, so that the Christians would not be persecuted, or even killed because of celebrating their beliefs.
As far as Catholic customs and such not making sense, that is the reason for the reformer movements of men such a Martin Luther, and John Wesley, and others. They objected to many of the "traditions: that were added to the Church over time, and felt a need to get "back to basics", eliminate many practices they disagreed with (Like confession, the sale of indulgences, purgatory, and a celibacy requirement for Priests) and so on. Luther believed that the message of the Bible is that Faith alone is the path to salvation, and the Bible alone is the source of sacred information for the Christian.There were many disagreements over Church traditions and practices, most of which went unresolved, so Luther, and others, broke with the main church to form a "new", more basic church, that would teach more directly to the people, allow for the Bible t be translated into the native tongues of the people, and which would allow for preaching the Bible in a language other than Latin.
These were major, major disagreements between the Protestant reformers and the established Catholic Church leaders. As a result, the Catholic and Protestant Churches look very different in practice. For example, the Catholic Church holds 7 Sacraments, (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Marriage, Penance, Eucharist, and Anointing the Sick) while the Methodist (a Protestant denomination) holds only 2. (Baptism and Communion) The Roman Catholic Church uses sources of information for their traditions and beliefs that lie outside the Bible, (and a Catholic can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that they use Papal writings, and other such pieces almost in a scriptural manner, to determine practices and teachings in the church) while the Protestants believe that scripture alone is only source for instructing the faithful, not Church teachings.
These men took significant chances in going forth with their Protestant movements, as the Roman Catholic Church at the time was incredibly powerful. I happen to believe that it had become incredibly corrupt as well.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,675 Likes: 1670
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,675 Likes: 1670 |
As I said, you can explain why we do not follow the customs of the one who was sent here to save us and be an example for mankind. But as for my beliefs it makes little to no sense to me.
I don't judge others who feel or believe differently. There is simply a clear pattern set forth in the Bible as to the customs of Jesus which as I said, was sent here as an example for all of mankind. To me it's simply much easier to follow those customs than to reach for scriptures and observe days that seem to have no connection to Jesus Christ.
People can do as they feel is right. I also must believe and follow what I feel is right. I simply don't see the sense in adopting other customs and holidays which in many cases, have very questionable beginnings.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,301 Likes: 638
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,301 Likes: 638 |
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone tell me where earth's water came from?
Let's start there and work our way up
Supposedly from icy comets that fortuitously hit the planet during the 'heavy bombardment' phase, if you listen to astronomers. God created it if you listen to the religious. I've always believed it's somewhere in the middle.
maybe God created the comets and sent them down to earth 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
As I said, you can explain why we do not follow the customs of the one who was sent here to save us and be an example for mankind. But as for my beliefs it makes little to no sense to me.
I don't judge others who feel or believe differently. There is simply a clear pattern set forth in the Bible as to the customs of Jesus which as I said, was sent here as an example for all of mankind. To me it's simply much easier to follow those customs than to reach for scriptures and observe days that seem to have no connection to Jesus Christ.
People can do as they feel is right. I also must believe and follow what I feel is right. I simply don't see the sense in adopting other customs and holidays which in many cases, have very questionable beginnings.
I certainly respect your position, and I am not refuting it. I would like to share my view on this
The Bible contains two covenants or testament. Jesus, and every Jew who lived before Him or contemporary with Him were born under the Old Covenant or Law. It was necessary for Jesus to fulfill and obey every part of the Old Covenant. When He died and rose, He brought in the New Covenant. The Old was temporary and preparatory, the new is perfect and eternal.
When the New covenant came, the old became obsolete. Jesus perfectly fulfilled the righteous demands of the Old Covenant. In the New, we walk and are saved by faith that works by love. If we believe on the Son, love God, brother, and neighbor, we have been perfected in Him.
This is why your parents did not have to offer two turtle doves when you were eight days old.
This is why you don't have to be circumcised to be saved
This is why we are not under dietary restrictions, unless we chose to be
This is why we don't have to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times ayear
All of these things Christ did of necessity, being born under the Law.
But the Law is our tutor to bring us to Christ, when we come to Him, the Law is no longer needed, for whoever trusts Christ, loves God, brother and neighbor has fulfilled the whole law
I can provide scripture for all of this later, because I am on a cell right now.
Shalom
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/16/14 08:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
Well ... some say water came frm comets, and some don't.
So in other words, scientists cannot explain where water, (which covers most of the earth) came from...
No knock on science, but metaphysical naturalism is nothing more that a belief system. Science hasnt even begin to prove that "nothing exists outside the natural kosmos". It's a giant leap presupposition.
I'll start with this, because it's obvious something isn't clicking when it comes to you understanding how science as a methodology works. And yes, you're knocking science the methodology here, not philosophical naturalism. I don't know if it's your beef with the philosophy of naturalism and your correlation=causation attitude that all things that come from it are wrong, but you seem to want to discount a lot of what science has proven, as well as readily bring up things that haven't been proven yet beyond a shadow of a doubt and tout them as if they somehow call into doubt the explanatory power of science.
Science starts with an observation or question, something that isn't explained or explained well. From that point, you want to come up with a few explanations for why you saw what you saw. These explanation are then going to be put through and experiment whose main goal is to either prove or disprove those explanations. Depending on how the experiments go, you either get your whole answer, part of your answer, or none of your answer. If you get only a part or less, it's back to the drawing board, your explanations (hypotheses) were incomplete. You keep reinventing experiments that will prove or disprove your hypotheses until you get it right. You think science ends there? Heck no. Then, you send that data out into the world, and your peers tear you apart and tell you everything you did wrong. The go over your experiments and tell you if you're analyzing your data wrong. They ask for different experiments aimed at answering the same hypotheses and want to know if your hypothesis still holds up. You go back and forth with the community until it passes muster, only then can you say something is a fact.
So, when you say that scientists cannot explain where water came from, it's a disingenuous statement. There are some ideas, the scientists who have chosen to make this their life's work, they're doing the experiments and reporting back to the community which is currently discussing all of the different hypotheses and their merits. So the better way to say this is that scientists don't know yet. They're currently in the process of figuring it out, and I wouldn't count on them coming up short.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
I have no beef with methodology. If you are willing to adnit that "nothing exists beyond nature is an assumption unproven and not a fact, then we can be in agreement. If not, show me the evidence that nothing exists outside of nature.
I don't care if you use a naturalistic methodology...and asking questions is very dangerous, I see. Thats the thing, if someone challenges metaphysical naturalism, they are ignorant and unscientific.. I have asked questions and challenged for the most part, and that makes me contra science. See how thar works. I haven't even taken an overtly creationist position
This is how it is in science and education, don't dare mess with the sacred cow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
I have no beef with methodology. If you are willing to adnit that "nothing exists beyond nature is an assumption unproven and not a fact, then we can be in agreement. If not, show me the evidence that nothing exists outside of nature.
I don't care if you use a naturalistic methodology...and asking questions is very dangerous, I see. Thats the thing, if someone challenges metaphysical naturalism, they are ignorant and unscientific.. I have asked questions and challenged for the most part, and that makes me contra science. See how thar works. I haven't even taken an overtly creationist position
So is matter and energy self existent or not?
No offence, I am just stirring the pot is all. If you think I am an ignorant rube, just ignore me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone tell me where earth's water came from?
Let's start there and work our way up
Supposedly from icy comets that fortuitously hit the planet during the 'heavy bombardment' phase, if you listen to astronomers. God created it if you listen to the religious. I've always believed it's somewhere in the middle.
maybe God created the comets and sent them down to earth
Or maybe He created earth with water already on it.
The comet thing strikes me as what happens when any suggestion will be thrown out there and accepted by some. Lets just throw spagetti to the wall and hope something sticks. As long as the theory of design is left out of the discussion
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
As I said, you can explain why we do not follow the customs of the one who was sent here to save us and be an example for mankind. But as for my beliefs it makes little to no sense to me.
I don't judge others who feel or believe differently. There is simply a clear pattern set forth in the Bible as to the customs of Jesus which as I said, was sent here as an example for all of mankind. To me it's simply much easier to follow those customs than to reach for scriptures and observe days that seem to have no connection to Jesus Christ.
People can do as they feel is right. I also must believe and follow what I feel is right. I simply don't see the sense in adopting other customs and holidays which in many cases, have very questionable beginnings.
I certainly respect your position, and I am not refuting it. I would like to share my view on this
The Bible contains two covenants or testament. Jesus, and every Jew who lived before Him or contemporary with Him were born under the Old Covenant or Law. It was necessary for Jesus to fulfill and obey every part of the Old Covenant. When He died and rose, He brought in the New Covenant. The Old was temporary and preparatory, the new is perfect and eternal.
When the o
New covenant came, the old became obsolete. Jesus perfectly fulfilled the righteous demands of the Old Covenant. In the New, we walk and are saved by faith that works by love. If we believe on the Son, love God, brother, and neighbor, we have been perfected in Him.
This is why your parents did not have to offer two turtle doves when you were eight days old.
This is why you don't have to be circumcised to be saved
This is why we are not under dietary restrictions, unless we chose to be
This is why we don't have to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times ayear
All of these things Christ did of necessity, being born under the Law.
But the Law is our tutor to bring us to Christ, when we come to Him, the Law is no longer needed, for whoever trusts Christ, loves God, brother and neighbor has fulfilled the whole law
Shalom
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,301 Likes: 638
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,301 Likes: 638 |
As for me bro I believe God created everything, but I am open to idea's about just how he created it.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
It would be nice if they all did. It doesnt appear to me to be the case though from what I have read.
Stop reading Ray Comfort, Ken Hamm, and AiG and it won't.
Quote:
Unfortunately, most scientists hold to a metaphysical naturalist view, and presuppositions play a big part in how they interpret what they observe. So does the uniformitarian assumption and other assumptions. In addition, both scientists and educators stand to lose a lot when they even question metaphysical naturalism. If there is even a hint of ID. Yet metaphysical naturalism, the belief that nothing exists outside of nature is pure atheism, and it is the sacred cow of both science and education ... and how did I erroneously post the quote. The man said that even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer it could not be accepted because it is not a naturalistic conclusion. He seems to think that scientists have an a priori commitment to naturalism, and I would see it goes beyond methodology.
I'm going to address these together because it's important to my point. You erroneously quoted him by not including all the pertinent parts of his statement as related to the subject at hand. If you include the sentence before and after the one sentence you quoted at me, it changes the overall tone and meaning of the statement. He says (paraphrasing) that scientists must follow methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. Outside of the lab, he said anyone can believe anything they want. But inside it, you must check all your preconceptions and assumptions that don't rely on facts that can be backed up with solid evidence.
I'm going to say it again, I work in this environment, I see all of this firsthand, and let me tell you that religion or lack thereof doesn't enter any conversation when we're talking shop. The only thing that matters is how you're approaching the hypothesis at hand, and whether or not there's solid evidence to back up the direction you're taking. That's it. No one thinks to themselves when they start an experiment that they need to start from a natural or supernatural standpoint, and I don't know why you think that's the case. Scientists see something unexplained, new or unexpected, then look at the previous facts (if there are any) and then go about forming a hypothesis and test to figure it out.
As for ID and teachers being afraid to bring it up, first of all it isn't disprovable. It's not a valid hypothesis, and therefore not scientific. Second of all, when I teach evolution you better bet your butt I bring it up. I even talk about creationism. But then I start pointing out how they don't have half the explanatory power that evolution does, and how wrong creationists and IDers have been in the past. Can't explain the bombardier beetle? Explained. Cetacean evolution from land mammals? Explained. Bats and echolocation? Well, that's still a work in progress, but it's on its way. I could go on and on about the past 25 years of evolutionary science that Creationists said could never be proven, but have then been researched and explained in time. That's why science from a naturalistic standpoint beats anything from a supernatural standpoint, it works within the bounds of this universe so therefore is uniquely tailored to unravel the knots of the unknown.
Quote:
How could there be forces of nature before their is a universe?
My question to you is do you think that the matter and energy etc that is in the universe is self existent and uncaused. It is a simple question.
Go back to singularity, if that's what you believe. Was that singularity self existent?
I never said forces of nature before the universe, I was talking about this universe in which we currently reside. And as for the idea that this is a simple question, it's not. The fact that you feel it can be glossed over in one or two sentences shows me that you're underestimating the volume of research out there in regards to astrophysics. I showed this question to my fiancee, she's an astronomer, thinking that I was maybe missing something, but she had no clue what you were asking either. It wasn't until later that I realized what you meant by self-existent because you went on to explain it. First, why would you believe that I believe this universe is self-existent? You have to know that I wholeheartedly agree with the Big Bang, there's tons of scientific evidence for it which is primarily the viewpoint I'm arguing from. So why would I think this universe didn't have a beginning and wasn't caused by something? So no, this universe isn't uncaused.
What was there before this universe? I got reamed by my fiancee for saying "proto-universe," because she correctly pointed out that nothing existed then. There were no laws of nature as we currently know them, so any attempt to try and explain them would be insufficient. That being said, I think some"thing" had to be there. It was extra-universal, as in not part of this current universe, but I don't believe that "thing" was supernatural. Much like physics works differently at different scales, I think that we can expect the same thing going on, only an order of magnitude above our own universe. It'll be a bit like when we thought atoms were the smallest things in the universe, it turns out that isn't true, there are smaller things that make up atoms. So why not the other way?
Quote:
Now to be clear, when I say universe, I do not mean the universe as we know it today, I mean in it's earliest state. Did the matter and energy etc come into being on it's own, ie create itself? If it did then that would make it self existent. Or do you believe that matter and energy is eternal, which would also make it self existent.
Then what term do you use for the universe in it's current form?
Everything that exists today came out of the big bang, which is the term we use to describe the sudden, rapid expansion of the universe that arose from whatever. That was when the forces of physics, described and undescribed, interacted with one another, creating our universe. Trying to figure this out is like trying to solve a murder, you have hints and clues that you can follow to an answer ... maybe. For the time being, there isn't much observational evidence for exactly what happened when the big bang occurred. Scientists can't work out how something occurred if they don't have enough evidence to plan an experiment or invalidate the multitude of hypotheses that are out there currently. This is where we are when it comes to explaining the early universe and is one of the reasons why the Large Hadron Collider was built, to see what conditions were like milliseconds after the big bang. That's how they were able to find the Higgs Boson, and prove that the Higgs field is what gives matter mass. So, answers are coming in and people are working on it.
I guess the answer to your eternal/self-existent questions are no, matter and energy didn't create themselves and have a definite beginning.
Quote:
Then the data for metaphysical naturalism is inconclusive, yet many go around preaching it as fact, right?
There's a lot wrong with the sentence. First, you're confounding philosophical naturalism with a synthesis theory of something. The Big Bang happened. We might not know the specifics of its cause or how the laws of nature unfolded, but we know it did happen. It doesn't matter that we can't cross all our T's and dot our i's, we see the evidence of the process when we look into deep space, and we're beginning to model it with our particle accelerators. No one is going around stating what the universe was like before the big bang, there are hypotheses but we don't have the capability to test them yet. That's no fault or failing of science in general.
Second, metaphysical or philosophical naturalism is a belief system, is it not? There is no "proof" for it and no one is going out there trying to prove it as far as I know. It's a way of living your life, like no God is watching.
Third, I feel like I may have to restate this, lack of knowledge in regard to one tiny, infinitesimal, and insignificant parcel of knowledge doesn't call into question the vast amount data and fact that has been uncovered using the scientific method.
Quote:
I have never been talking about methodology. I am talking about a metaphysical worldview/belief system. The belief in metaphysical naturalism, which is another name for ATHEISM.
So what? Do you want me to quote back to you your earlier quote (correctly this time)? Because they don't believe in a higher power that means what they've discovered is somehow wrong or off by just enough to hide God? Believing in a higher power doesn't give you special insight into the universe and how it interacts, if it did, it would be a prerequisite in the scientific field and everyone would be a part of the church.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
The comet thing strikes me as what happens when any suggestion will be thrown out there and accepted by some. Lets just throw spagetti to the wall and hope something sticks. As long as the theory of design is left out of the discussion 
Or because it was a valid hypothesis that explains a question about the formation of the planet. When the planets were forming, there was a lot of crap flying around out in the solar system, a lot of it was probably water in the form of ice, which is comets. They tested it, turns out it probably wasn't correct. Back to the drawing board. That's the way it works.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 Likes: 10
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 Likes: 10 |
I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Science can't prove anything when it comes to the creation of our universe other than to track moving celestial bodies to their point of origin.
They can't say where the stuff from that origin came from no matter what bs they come up with. When you get down to the very, very beginning of things the simple truth is Everything came from Nothing.
Even if you try to lame duck and say oh it came from another dimension(Which also can't be proven to exist) then you still have to ask, "Oh, well where did it come from in that dimension?" and on and on ... That's not science. It's faith and no different than saying God made it.
Even Steven Hawking has been showing desperation to come up with something. His latest thing is that oh hey we found these tiny particles that blink in and out of existence so now we can prove that the universe could have just popped into existence. Lets not think about how they don't pop in and out of nothing but are just too small for our current tech to measure or see. Lets not talk about the very extreme circumstances it takes to make those particle blink in and out. If the universe were a void then there would be no way to make those particles behave that way. I love desperate atheists. They are so funny in how they will not believe in a creator but can grasp at any unprovable idea, call it a theory(faith) and wallah it's science saying it so it must be true even though its not provable.
Christians ain't much better. Just ask one who created God. I mean God created us and everything else. I'm ok with that. It's extremely obvious humans are not natural to this planet. It's also very obvious that DNA is a bio-program written in chemicals. Even we are learning its language and soon will be making our own little creations. Still if God made us then what made him? duh, just have faith. Not any less or more logical than silly atheists.
We know we were created one way or another so we refuse to accept the truth. EVERYTHING came from NOTHING. but but but... A higher being, popping in from another mystical dimension cause he has just always been there just pooped and our universe was born. I just wanna scream FALCOR and close this never ending story lol.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
I don't think you understand the question. Let me just lay it out in a straightforward fashion
In your opinion, research, reason, etal, do you think that there was ever a time when nothing existed?
or is there something or someone that has always existed? IF so, what is it?
I am not here to argue science. I just want to know what you think.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/17/14 01:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
EVERYTHING came from NOTHING.
Is this your belief?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
As for me bro I believe God created everything, but I am open to idea's about just how he created it.
I know I am probably coming off like a jerk, and I apologize. My style of writing comes out more combative then I intend to be.. It's not my attitude, but a glitch in my communicating.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/17/14 01:19 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
According to my beliefs, (Christian) God has always existed, and was before there was time, and, in fact, before anything and everything else. God created everything ..... not just the physical aspect of the universe, and/or life as we understand it.
If God existed before time, and created time. then how would anyone living in time be able to truly comprehend a being that lives outside of time ..... one who is able to look in and interact .....existing here at all times, in all places, while also existing in His own timeless realm, (besides that which He has shared with us)
I truly do not know how anyone in our stage of existence truly understands an existence outside of time, because we are used to events and subsequent events ..... cause and effect ..... and following a chain of events. We move one way in time, never being able to look beyond this limitation. We can do some things to get a picture of events in the past, such as with deep space telescopes .... but this is a very limited view. Frankly, I think that it is easier to imagine being a 2 dimensional character in a comic book than to imagine being able to exist outside of time.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
According to my beliefs, (Christian) God has always existed, and was before there was time, and, in fact, before anything and everything else. God created everything ..... not just the physical aspect of the universe, and/or life as we understand it.
If God existed before time, and created time. then how would anyone living in time be able to truly comprehend a being that lives outside of time ..... one who is able to look in and interact .....existing here at all times, in all places, while also existing in His own timeless realm, (besides that which He has shared with us)
I truly do not know how anyone in our stage of existence truly understands an existence outside of time, because we are used to events and subsequent events ..... cause and effect ..... and following a chain of events. We move one way in time, never being able to look beyond this limitation. We can do some things to get a picture of events in the past, such as with deep space telescopes .... but this is a very limited view. Frankly, I think that it is easier to imagine being a 2 dimensional character in a comic book than to imagine being able to exist outside of time.
Good post...and a God existing outside of time would be outside the natural realm, and therefore not scientifically observable except through the things that He made.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
There are hypotheses, but nothing concrete. We know the big bang happened, we know how long ago it occurred, but we're not yet to the point where we can talk about the "something before." There was a cause, but that's all we can say.
so does the fact that you don't know what the first cause was mean that there is no concrete evidence to support the assertion "The universe is all there is, was, or ever will be?" Or nothng exists outside of nature (naturalism)
It is obvious that nothing creating or producing something is unprovable, therefore either something or someone is eternal, causeless, and self existent. The question is who or what?
DO you have any suggestions?
Remember, I am not skeptical of science, I am skeptical of the PHILOSOPHY of naturalism, ie nothing exists outside of nature
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/17/14 02:08 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
thanks to everyone for the interesting discussion. I'm sorry for going off track, but I enjoyed talking to you all.
God bless
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,161 Likes: 844 |
Quote:
Quote:
There are hypotheses, but nothing concrete. We know the big bang happened, we know how long ago it occurred, but we're not yet to the point where we can talk about the "something before." There was a cause, but that's all we can say.
so does the fact that you don't know what the first cause was mean that there is no concrete evidence to support the assertion "The universe is all there is, was, or ever will be?" Or nothng exists outside of nature (naturalism)
It is obvious that nothing creating or producing something is unprovable, therefore either something or someone is eternal, causeless, and self existent. The question is who or what?
DO you have any suggestions?
Remember, I am not skeptical of science, I am skeptical of the PHILOSOPHY of naturalism, ie nothing exists outside of nature
God said "Let there be Light"... and there was a Big Bang.
It's so silly to me that everyone is adamant that is HAS to be one or the other.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There are hypotheses, but nothing concrete. We know the big bang happened, we know how long ago it occurred, but we're not yet to the point where we can talk about the "something before." There was a cause, but that's all we can say.
so does the fact that you don't know what the first cause was mean that there is no concrete evidence to support the assertion "The universe is all there is, was, or ever will be?" Or nothng exists outside of nature (naturalism)
It is obvious that nothing creating or producing something is unprovable, therefore either something or someone is eternal, causeless, and self existent. The question is who or what?
DO you have any suggestions?
Remember, I am not skeptical of science, I am skeptical of the PHILOSOPHY of naturalism, ie nothing exists outside of nature
God said "Let there be Light"... and there was a Big Bang.
It's so silly to me that everyone is adamant that is HAS to be one or the other.
I am not arguing against big bang, my argument concerns metaphysival naturalism. The point was made that intelligent design is undisprovable. For the sake of argument lets assume this is true and ask a simple question...
Does the fact that something is undisprovable (ID) make its antithesis (metaphysical naturalism), a fact?
Open question to all.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/17/14 08:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
It'll be a bit like when we thought atoms were the smallest things in the universe, it turns out that isn't true, there are smaller things that make up atoms.
There is no way I can really join into this conversation. You sir are infinitely more intelligent on such matters. So I'm not posting to rebut your conclusions. Merely to point out a problem had with scientific discoveries over the years.
The quote above is a perfect example of the problem I have as a layperson. Science decided atoms were the smallest things in the universe. I'm sure many bought into that from both the scientific community and the public in general because science said it was true.
Then science discovers it was wrong. Not true. No foul, but what are we, who lack the education to experiment with such things ourselves to believe? Are we to believe what science says, or are we to wait and believe what science says next when they find their error?
Many years ago I took my kids to the Museum of Natural History. I wanted my kids, who were very young, to get a realistic view of the world from that perspective. To actually see with their eyes things they could not understand given a verbal expanation. We followed a guide throughout the tour. At one point we passed a display that was in the process of being taken apart/torn down. I asked what this is/was. The guide said it showed the evolution of some prehistoric land creatures that lived underground. He told us it was being dismantled because they found new evidence that proved the old model in error.
I was bewildered. I asked, "What does that say about every other exhibit in the museum? Are we to believe we are being educated by what we see here or we to take it all with a grain of salt?"
My viewpoint on science and "knowledge" in general has been at least mildly skeptical ever since.
I'm 62 years old. I've learned many things throughout my life from scientists, historians and other very intelligent educators. Many of the truths that I was taught have been changed over the years. What's a kid to believe? What's an old man to believe?
When science says, "This is it!", but then changes it's stance upon further review what value are the facts in the first place? Especially to us ignorant folk who look to science for answers?
While I do understand that some things are proven by mathematics and that math don't lie, on the other hand some very high level mathematicians have made math mistakes. I'd read recently that Einstein made some mistakes even in his theory of relativity. All hail Einstein! Whoops. Not quite. Now what I read could be BS. I have no way of knowing.
I do understand the difference between a work-in-progress and a proven fact. But how are we, just regular people, to discern the difference when science tells us that this or that are the facts?
As I said from the beginning, I'm in no position to debate with you on this subject. You are obviously speaking from an experience of which I have none. My deliberation is from the perspective of watching science change it's mind over and over. Can you tell me what we who are ignorant to such matters are to believe or dismiss? By what criteria do we discern the truth in the matter?
Or does it even matter? It is foolish to buy into anything on blind faith and so since we are not in a position to prove or disprove such things are we to simply take it in as a grain of salt while we wait for new information?
I'm in no position to to debate, rebut, argue, disprove or otherwise refute what you are saying. Hell, I can barely understand it without re-reading it many times over. I'm just one of the uneducated in this field who would like to feel he can believe, to an extent, that he is not being fooled by those smarter than he on the subject.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,465 Likes: 868
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,465 Likes: 868 |
Jc
I like where this went. But it kinda proves my point.
Christians can't even agree on christian things, yet are trying to police the world.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Jc
I like where this went. But it kinda proves my point.
Christians can't even agree on christian things, yet are trying to police the world.
nearly everyone tries to police the what they can from their own POV. it is the flawed nature of man to do so regardless of your beliefs.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,409 Likes: 461 |
Quote:
Quote:
Jc
I like where this went. But it kinda proves my point.
Christians can't even agree on christian things, yet are trying to police the world.
nearly everyone tries to police the what they can from their own POV. it is the flawed nature of man to do so regardless of your beliefs.
Exactly, except that I don't know that it is a flawed nature. We all want the world around us to be as in accord with what we desire as possible. We all take steps, in a variety of ways, to create that perfect world. We marry, or don't. We have kids, or don't. We paint the living room stark white, or a fancy color. We make choices for ourselves, ou families, and try to influence our friends and neighbors to see our way of thinking. Just look at the changing morals of the nation, for example. Some think "Good, it's abut time",and others say, "We need to return to the morals of old." There are probably a million or more positions held by people in the middle. Some may want to expand certain actions, while others want to contract them ...... and some may agree/disagree with certain acts, but just aren't concerned enough to get involved. It may be a low priority item in their lives.
Everyone has a slightly different view of what a perfect world would look like. Everyone has different priorities. Christians are no different. However, I think that Christians, myself included, should remember to keep God 1st in their lives. Everything else is a secondary concern.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Christianity VS America.
|
|
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
