omnipotent beings discussion

[mozgrame]

Lol.

You just proved your own ignorance! Whisky is not spelt with an E, is only distilled twice and should not be served with ice! This is what God intended

You must be more pissed than I am. Or just ignorant...

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Then again...I like Irish whiskey. Being distilled three times makes for a beautiful light, smooth drink.

You heathens wouldn't understand....

You'd probably enjoy vodka then, which means your probably a commie as well!

 

[mozgrame]

People of faith do huge amounts of good for our society.

Atheists don’t give credit for what the Church and Judaism have done for civilisation...the creation of our notions of justice, the hospital system, the university, public schools, charity, progress, truth and freedom itself.

Who fought against and ultimately destroyed the evils of slavery? The Christians and Jews. Who were the only ones who fought against the horrors of eugenics (forced sterilisation of those the state deemed inferior), and China’s horrific “one child” policy? The Christians and Jews.

 

[mozgrame]

Australian christian aid workers deserve a medal for their tireless efforts. They work here and around the world to try and do Jesus' will. Good on them!!

https://atributetoaustralianchristi...n-aid-organisations-working-across-the-world/

 

[mozgrame]

@Kevinward777, you asked for some details on Big Bang Theory:
I'm not entirely sure why you think this will help you produce evidence to support your chosen religion but hey, why not?
Firstly, the big bang theory is exactly that, a scientific theory. It is not a belief that physicists (and atheists) blindly believe in to solve the mysteries of the universe. It is a model, based on our best understanding of related observable behaviours - e.g. Gravity. In order to meet the requirements to be considered as a true scientific theory and model it must have expected outcomes that can be tested. Next, the experiments performed to test a model are not designed to prove it but to disprove it. And finally, scientists are always looking to find and test a better model or theory to explain the behaviour of things (one example being the search to find an answer that can bring together both General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory). With that in mind here are some examples of experiments and observations (that I have done as an undergrad) which support the big bang theory. Sadly, I never got to play on the LHC at Cern so I wont bore you with anything on the Higgs Boson 🙂
Please supply me with some experiments that I can do that will do the same for your chosen god.
1. If the universe started from a singularity then it would remain in a state of flux. That is it would not become or remain stationary at any point.
You can test this, with big enough telescopes (and yes I have used them) by observing the shifts in wavelength of radiation from distant objects (similar to the doppler effect). Across the universe there is a significant "red shift" which disproves the idea that the universe is in a steady state.
2. The immense heat an energy created by such an event would still be detectable today and across all the universe, not such from sources that emit radiation. If you look at the spaces in between stars it looks like there is nothing there, but use a radio telescope and you can pick up radiation in even the darkest regions of space.

Now none of this proves or disproves god (and I'm sure you want to ask - well what was there before the big bang if it happened?) but that's not the point and that's not how Science works. 2000 years ago someone probably would have smeared cow dung on you to cure your leprosy but thanks to scientific methods (theories, investigation, experiments, evidence) we can now cure it.
Your religion on the other hand can never progress as it cannot be investigated and it can't be improved.

I have no problem with people choosing to believe something - as long as it does not impact on others. And preaching 2000 year old ideals in the name of God, without the ability to critique or question them, most definitely does.

WOW! You may not have all the answers...but you sure know a lot about science, Mr!

I wonder...can you help me with this? Most scientists say that the big bang happened because of dark matter and dark energy (in truth, physicists know nothing about either, do they?) Now they talk of dark photons, dark stars, dark planets and even, wait for it.......dark intelligent life, all in a dark galaxy in our own milky way galaxy. Feckin what??? Are you sure they aren't just making up sky fairies to suit their agenda? (and protect their pay packets) LOL!!!

They actually made all that "dark stuff" up because they assume materialism (matter and energy is all there is) and then they dogmatically insisted on applyng this fantasy material to their version of the origin and structure of the universe.

When physicists look at the speed of stars in our galaxy...and the thousands of other spiral galaxies..they find that the stars are moving too fast. They are actually moving so fast that in their assumed galaxy lifetime....lets say 10 billion years...their galaxies should have disintergrated because their stars should have moved away from the galaxies which could not hold onto them.

Because astrophysicists can't explain these high rotational speeds with tried and tested Newtonian physics, they've concocted a notion that galaxies are actually made up of 80% to 90% "dark matter", which is stuff thatis absolutely everywhere...but we can't see it...or detect it by any method.

Athiests (and a lot of physicists) believe their is no creator and the universe created itself out of nothing...but when that view encounters data that contradicts itself...maybe it's time to abandon their "dark mythology". LOL!

Woodsie raised the old 6000 year old "everything" earlier. You know what? If everything was only 6000 years old....that would explain why the stars haven't had time to fly apart yet. Hmmmm.

Maybe Antony Flew, the former figurehead for atheism, is right when he agrees that there is a creator...as all the evidence points. That's why he left atheism behind for a new role as a kind of deist. Deists accept that there is a God responsible for creating the universe, but reject claimed special revelation such as the Bible.

For Flew, this rejection of special revelation is not non-negotiable; Flew expresses an openness to the possibility of special revelation, and acknowledges that there is some evidence supporting the view that the Bible is such, but he makes it clear that his present view is that God does not intervene, and has not intervened, in human affairs since Creation.

Anywho.....to much blind faith needed for me to believe everything came from nothing.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

WOW! You may not have all the answers...but you sure know a lot about science, Mr!

I wonder...can you help me with this? Most scientists say that the big bang happened because of dark matter and dark energy (in truth, physicists know nothing about either, do they?) Now they talk of dark photons, dark stars, dark planets and even, wait for it.......dark intelligent life, all in a dark galaxy in our own milky way galaxy. Feckin what??? Are you sure they aren't just making up sky fairies to suit their agenda? (and protect their pay packets) LOL!!!

They actually made all that "dark stuff" up because they assume materialism (matter and energy is all there is) and then they dogmatically insisted on applyng this fantasy material to their version of the origin and structure of the universe.

When physicists look at the speed of stars in our galaxy...and the thousands of other spiral galaxies..they find that the stars are moving too fast. They are actually moving so fast that in their assumed galaxy lifetime....lets say 10 billion years...their galaxies should have disintergrated because their stars should have moved away from the galaxies which could not hold onto them.

Because astrophysicists can't explain these high rotational speeds with tried and tested Newtonian physics, they've concocted a notion that galaxies are actually made up of 80% to 90% "dark matter", which is stuff thatis absolutely everywhere...but we can't see it...or detect it by any method.

Athiests (and a lot of physicists) believe their is no creator and the universe created itself out of nothing...but when that view encounters data that contradicts itself...maybe it's time to abandon their "dark mythology". LOL!

Woodsie raised the old 6000 year old "everything" earlier. You know what? If everything was only 6000 years old....that would explain why the stars haven't had time to fly apart yet. Hmmmm.

Anywho.....to much blind faith needed for me to believe everything came from nothing.

Sorry, I'm to drunk/sleep deprived to answer. Try google., I'm sure you will find something that's at least entertaining 🙂

 

[mozgrame]

Sorry, I'm to drunk/sleep deprived to answer. Try google., I'm sure you will find something that's at least entertaining 🙂

Fine. I'll keep drinking alone. Any footy on?

I'll go check......

Nighty night infidels. I'll pray that you awaken from your brainwashed slumbers. lol



No I won't. Stuff ya's..... I don't care about your souls....I don't even think mine is safe


Hahahaha!!!

 

[Woodsie]

Fine. I'll keep drinking alone. Any footy on?

I'll go check......

Nighty night infidels. I'll pray that you awaken from your brainwashed slumbers. lol



No I won't. Stuff ya's..... I don't care about your souls....I don't even think mine is safe


Hahahaha!!!

..

 

[MuzztheEagle]

People of faith do huge amounts of good for our society.

Atheists don’t give credit for what the Church and Judaism have done for civilisation...the creation of our notions of justice, the hospital system, the university, public schools, charity, progress, truth and freedom itself.

Who fought against and ultimately destroyed the evils of slavery? The Christians and Jews. Who were the only ones who fought against the horrors of eugenics (forced sterilisation of those the state deemed inferior), and China’s horrific “one child” policy? The Christians and Jews.

You seem like a musical theatre kind of guy Moz. Maybe you will enjoy this one:

While I'm at it, let's not forget that our current prime minister is a proud and active Christian - who wants to our foreign (and local) aid budgets slashed even further. Unless of course your a farmer - then he's praying for you and for rain - because that will do far more than the myth that is climate change 😉

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Cabinet is meeting today to discuss religious freedom:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/federal-cabinet-to-consider-religious-freedoms
I will be amazed if they can get anything off the ground;Christian conservatives may want their right to discriminate but would they extend that same idea to Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists etc? Maybe they would (it would probably promote the idea that they should be expelled from the country)
Let's face it, teaching respect and understanding would be a far safer (and less costly) option than enforcing protection for the actions of specific individuals.

A great opinion on the issue here (from a priest):
https://www.thebigsmoke.com.au/2019...e-of-faith-arent-being-discriminated-against/
"My concerns about this come from a firm belief that we all should live in the same civic universe. And when we don’t all live in the same civic universe, then human rights are in jeopardy."

 

[manlyfan76]

So I hear that some religions want the right to discriminate. Would they be happy with others having that right?
Or are they happy to be hypocrites

 

[manlyfan76]

Jesus, as the son of man showed frustration several times during his brief 3 year ministry. What was his purpose when he acted as he did? What do you think is the difference between his anger and mans anger in general?

Hi Moz, what does this son of man really mean? What are it's origins?

Anger is a useless emotion that you are best learning to overcome.

 

[manlyfan76]

A question for the "followers" among us.
Do you believe in both the new and Old Testaments? Do you pick and choose what fables to believe in? If so why?
Do you only believe the church sanctioned gospels are the only ones to count OR do you read other ones that are not in the official book?

 

[mozgrame]

A question for the "followers" among us.
Do you believe in both the new and Old Testaments? Do you pick and choose what fables to believe in? If so why?
Do you only believe the church sanctioned gospels are the only ones to count OR do you read other ones that are not in the official book?

Why is it that questions are often asked of believers...but you nonbelievers never feel the need to answer questions raised on the reasons/evidence of your nonbelief?

I wonder if you have read the bible (as most athiests lie) cover to cover....and have not come up with any reason to believe a single word of it? (I haven't!) Sigh.....I'm not going to get an answer, am I? Very well...since you would rather ridicule that that you don't understand instead of putting in the time to understand its context and meaning (seems a bit dark aged to me lol), all while hiding under the old "new age umbrella"......(Just having a laugh, mate)

The OT and the NT go together hand in glove. The real question here is....do you understand the difference between them? And, why do you regard them as fables?

 

[mozgrame]

So I hear that some religions want the right to discriminate. Would they be happy with others having that right?
Or are they happy to be hypocrites

Oh my...these sorts of statements are as hysterically funny as they are sadly inane.

I find it more than slightly ironic when athiests...who regularly caricature and marginalize entire segments of the population have the gall to whine about facing discrimination.

Right there is that, you beut, atheistic "free thinking" mentality. LOL!!!

FMD.....

 

[mozgrame]

Hi Moz, what does this son of man really mean? What are it's origins?

Anger is a useless emotion that you are best learning to overcome.

I can only imagine that you have put, at the very least....some sort of thought to your question. The answer is pretty obvious.

Consequently...how do you best deal with your anger against the "church"?

 

[Woodsie]

Why is it that questions are often asked of believers...but you nonbelievers never feel the need to answer questions raised on the reasons/evidence of your nonbelief?

I wonder if you have read the bible (as most athiests lie) cover to cover....and have not come up with any reason to believe a single word of it? (I haven't!) Sigh.....I'm not going to get an answer, am I? Very well...since you would rather ridicule that that you don't understand instead of putting in the time to understand its context and meaning (seems a bit dark aged to me lol), all while hiding under the old "new age umbrella"......(Just having a laugh, mate)

The OT and the NT go together hand in glove. The real question here is....do you understand the difference between them? And, why do you regard them as fables?

I think you need to discriminate between ... reading the Bible and appreciating the value of the teachings .. and .. believing that an Omnipotent being is responsible for them ....

 

[manlyfan76]

I can only imagine that you have put, at the very least....some sort of thought to your question. The answer is pretty obvious.

Consequently...how do you best deal with your anger against the "church"?

1) the son of man does confuse me. Possibly because of the Trinity thing? How is Jesus the son of man, was this because it is how he was predicted in the OT or is there another explanation I don't know of. I'd genuine like to know it's origin

2) I get dissapointed with the church, even saddened but I can't say I get angry.
Because I think about things and ask questions don't take that as anger.

 

[mozgrame]

1) the son of man does confuse me. Possibly because of the Trinity thing? How is Jesus the son of man, was this because it is how he was predicted in the OT or is there another explanation I don't know of. I'd genuine like to know it's origin

2) I get dissapointed with the church, even saddened but I can't say I get angry.
Because I think about things and ask questions don't take that as anger.

Fair enough. Forgive me for reading some of your posts as angry childlike lashing outs. If you are genuinely interseted, great. But understand...I don't care about your souls final destination. I'm not trying to convert you. I care about your earthly well being...and I would give you the shirt off my back should ever the need arise...but after telling you about the gospels and letting you choose for yourself...it's out of my hands, brother.

You see, this is how it should be....at the drop of a hat I/we should help anyone that needs help...it doesn't matter who or what they are. Of course, we are all subject to societies laws, and rightly so. Blokes like Pell need to be locked away exactly the same as any other pedo out there (be they christian, athiest, agnostic, a satan worshipper...) as with all others that break societies laws in general. They pay the price here and now. After death...it's not our judgment to make. We don't get to choose who goes where...so it's stupid to try to brow beat people.

What I'm getting at is....it is wrong for Jesus followers to judge. Their only job is to tell people about the gospels and let them choose. That's it. That's what Jesus said the disciples should do when he sent them out to give the message...Luke 9:5. The Romans used...wash your hands of the matter...Jesus used, shake the dust off your feet. (That's an interesting choice of words in itself! Everything the bloke did was lowly and not self glorifying. Everthing.) Thankfully...there is a major shift happening in the world today where people are turning away from churches and are strongly reembracing the true teachings of Christ. The churches are in panic mode...and so they should be!! I wonder if it's by chance or design that the world is heading the way it is? The bible would tell you it's the latter!

Anyway...the son of man was a messianic title. There are 2 meanings to it. The first refers to the prophecy of Daniel 7; 13:14. When Jesus used this phrase, He was assigning the son of man prophecy to himself. The Jews of that era would have been intimately familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred. Jesus was proclaiming himself as the messiah.

We know from reading the bible that God called Ezekiel the son of man 93 times. He was calling him that because Ezekiel was a man...plain and simple. Jesus was God as John 1:1 tells us...and John 1:14 (And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.) So, Jesus was the Messiah and also a human man. Pretty sure Mary threw a few chromosomes in their as well..and she was a daughter of man, so...

Hope that helps..and again...I'm genuinely sorry for being a bit blunt earlier...but as a non baptized, non church goer...I reckon I'm allowed to give back as much attitude as people seem fit to heap upon the bible and Jesus.

 

[mozgrame]

I think you need to discriminate between ... reading the Bible and appreciating the value of the teachings .. and .. believing that an Omnipotent being is responsible for them ....

I don't.

How could any rational thinking person believe that?? The textual case for an historical Jesus is far superior than the one for Alexander the Great! Archeologists have learned the hard way not to assume the bible is historically innacurate based on missing evidence...and although atheists delight in saying things like...."Yeah, well...where is the evidence for the exodus from Egypt?"....well..the exact same thing was said about the "mythical" Nineveh (discovered in 1850) and absolutely, positevely nonexistent Hittite empire (which was discovered in 1906). If the bible is proving more and more to be historically accurate, it'd be silly to write it off as fable/myth stories.

I find it ridiculous that people of this day and age still argue that Jesus was a good moral teacher...and that's it. You can't say that because Jesus took that option away from us. He said he was more. A lot more.

Now, isn't logical to think...if Jesus was an actual historical figure and his works and teachings (which we all agree were valuable and more than any man could or has achieved, ever) were witnessed and recorded by eyewitnesses...and those accounts have been thoroughly investigated by secular and theist scholars countless times and have been found accurate...It is reasonable to believe he was who he said he was?

So, if Jesus...this great moral teacher/miracle worker, as we all agree...claimed to be more than just man...and claimed to be one with the father (omnipotent being)..what does that mean? Was this great moral teacher a lunatic...or a con man?

If you investigate with an open mind (like that of an agnostic...eg "meh, and let live" lol) you will see that the way Jesus lived, the things he taught, the things he was against (understanding the dangers of that alone in the time he lived) the way he died and the ressurection are incomparable to any other.

So there are only really 3 choices. Jesus was a con man that gained nothing in his lifetime except a few feeds along the way to his agonising death. A complete looney that somehow also managed to demonstrate a superior way of living, until his agonising death, or...he was exactly who he said he was. The omnipotent being in human form.