Apostle Paul Discussion

[Leo Volont]

[quote] Aside from an expression of power and beauty, the most important reason is he wanted us to exist. The scriptures make it evident that God purposefully created this universe with salvation in mind. Titus 1:2 A faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time That reveals preparation and foresight as acts of love. Genjyo, You are STILL quoting Paul as though Paul is an authority for anything more than Satanic Evil of the Antichrist? How? On this Page paul has been completely discredited. If you want to quote Paul, then you will have to defend Paul's claimed spiritual Status of being Equal to God. No, I don't think you will be able to do that. All existing evidence indicates that except for pauls interested claims to the contrary, that he was one hell of a schmuck.

[Genjyo]

Originally posted by Leo Volont Genjyo, You are STILL quoting Paul as though Paul is an authority for anything more than Satanic Evil of the Antichrist? How? On this Page paul has been completely discredited. If you want to quote Paul, then you will have to defend Paul's claimed spiritual Status of being Equal to God. No, I don't think you will be able to do that. All existing evidence indicates that except for pauls interested claims to the contrary, that he was one hell of a schmuck. Leo, I have not found any evidence of Paul claiming to be equal to God. If you could please show me these claims from the scriptures then I would give this idea more credence. I had written a post listing reasons why the apostle to the nations' message came from Jesus. PM me if you'd like! Later!

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Genjyo Leo, I have not found any evidence of Paul claiming to be equal to God. If you could please show me these claims from the scriptures then I would give this idea more credence. I had written a post listing reasons why the apostle to the nations' message came from Jesus. PM me if you'd like! Later! Well, duh!... If paul is not equal to God, then WHY do you quote him as such? The whole Protestant Doctrine that claims that EVERY word in the Bible is the Word of God was designed to effectively deify Paul. The Catholic Church had always had reservations regarding Paul, as it well could, taking Paul in the context of not being much different from any other early church theologian. But the Protestants so depended upon Paul to support their own unique doctrines that it was necessary to give the Words of Paul not only an equality to those of Christ but even some Absolute Divine Authority, so, in conjunction with their Emphasis of Paulist Scriptures, the Protestants had ever insisted that they were veritably the Words of God. Now... do the Math. If Paul's words are to be considered the Words of God... does that not make Paul equal to God? But why am I explaining this to you. It is you who are the one who quotes Paul as some Divine Authority. It is you who should explain why you should think so.

[Genjyo]

Originally posted by Leo Volont Now... do the Math. If Paul's words are to be considered the Words of God... does that not make Paul equal to God? Hello Leo, does that mean that Moses, King David, Matthew or John or any other Bible author equaled themselves to God? They were all inspired by God, hence the authority, but then why should Paul be excluded from this? Please my friend, let's be reasonable! If you'd like to discuss this further, let's do it somewhere else though.

[AirRick101]

Paul is just controversial because he took a big self-proclamation about being God's main messenger far after the original disciplies have done their work. And his only hook is the claim of that one contact with Jesus in the desert where he was blinded and had his name changed. Hey Leo, I think u once posted a little story how you decided to convert to Catholicism. How are you Catholic but refute much of the Bible as credible to be God's work? Maybe you are not in the fundamentalist sense, after all "Catholic" was the original term for the church.

[Universal Mind]

[quote]Hi Universal Mind! *Indeed, that kind of reasoning goes nowhere. *To be fair, I think I misjudged the intelligent design movement thinking it was unscientific and not offering much explanation. *After my interaction with proponents though, I can see their arguments are not baseless. *I would like to comment on your original post though. Let's consider that God was created by SuperGod and so on. * It would be a neverending regression. *If that were the case, we'd never know when or if we should stop. *The Bible is an ancient book that relates a universe with a beginning that is continually expanding. *For example, Isa 44:24 The LORD, your Redeemer and Creator, says: "I am the LORD, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens. By myself I made the earth and everything in it. * If God was constrained to the physical laws of the universe, then God too must have had a beginning. *Since the God of the scriptures brought everything into existence, he is outside of this, thus having no beginning. This explanation seems more reasonable then to think we've got an infinite numbers of Gods...still roaming around somewhere! Thanks for your explanation. *However, I think you have not answered the big question. *You say that the existence of God does not require a conscious creator. *If something that phenomenal does not require a conscious creator, where is the validity in the argument that the universe is so phenomenal that it requires a conscious creator? * Boris, can you answer that? * * * * Did you like my twisted name I gave you. It was a bit of dark humour I thought you would enjoy it. I don't agree with it but I still called you a universal parasite. What dumbfuck goes around laughing about things he doesn't understand but he thinks he knows why they are 'wrong'. Thinks he does not agree with them. Yet he finds them funny. If you think its funny you obviously have no real idea why it is twisted or dark in the first place. Either that or your mind has being chewed up like a video from a broken VRC. It doesn't seem to work very well. dark humour is boring for this very reason. It's dark. And therefore relies on the ignorance of the person who finds it funny. Those who truly see the insignificance of it. Don't really see what is so funny about it in the first place. You'll notice that intelligent people don't really find it funny at all. If someone jokes to me to push a person in a wheel chair down the stairs. I would laugh at them but not with them. because of what they said. * When they laughed about it back, I would most likely tell them to push themself down the stairs. Even then I would say it's not funny. Just dumb. Damn, Bore Ass (Gee, I can do that too.), how many gold medals have you won at the Special Olympics? Do you really think my mind "has being chewed up"? What is a VRC? You live in Australia, so you have no excuse for your ruthless butchering of the English language. Now let's talk about your contradictions. You say that people who think dark humor is funny don't understand the principle they are laughing at. Then what are they laughing at? You are a moron. Even retarded people like you know about the downside of retardation. Or do you not? But suddenly, when O.J. Simpson's character is pushed in a wheelchair down steps in The Naked Gun, that dark humor is funny? Is it because you don't understand it? I have a theory... You are a hypocrite. Do you understand your hypocrisy? I do, and I definitely think it's hilarious (another example contrary to your dumbass point). What is funnier than a dead Boris? A dead Boris in a clown suit.

[wasup]

[Genjyo]

Thanks for your explanation. However, I think you have not answered the big question. You say that the existence of God does not require a conscious creator. If something that phenomenal does not require a conscious creator, where is the validity in the argument that the universe is so phenomenal that it requires a conscious creator? [/b] Let's not overlook that by definition GOD is the uncreated creator. This reasoning not only harmonizes with the Judeo-Christian worldview, but eliminates the unending backsliding mentioned above. Realistically, it also comes down to what can be observed and studied!

[Kadath]

I've assigned myself to the idea that God and the Universe are simultaneous happenings in our history. Whether or not you believe in God, or accept proofs or whatever...The Universe came into existence. My idea is that as it came into existence it created along with its growing infinity and set constant that is as infinite as itself. Within the micromicromicromicro seconds of annihilation and chaos that mark the beginning of EVERYTHING this secondary existence took on sentience or at least began to behave by some sort of incomprehensible law that brought forth a seemliness of reason, intelligence, caring, judgements, etc. This secondary thing shaped the universe through whatever it did. It doesn't matter if my idea is true or not, religion still formed on Earth. Who knows, maybe we're not alone in the universe. Maybe we're in fact the inter-galactic laughing stock for our silly religions. :P edit:: this also brings in the idea of the Unmoved Mover (I'm a Mediaevalist, even if I'm not a good philosopher). The Mover was never moved. It was not "created" nor does it "create" in one of its ideas, however it still does create. Thus my personal conceptualization of the God is that since the concept of time begins at zero-tick of the universal clock (it's spontaneous generation) then perhaps it is possible that at zero-tick something else was there. Created or not.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Genjyo Let's not overlook that by definition GOD is the uncreated creator. *This reasoning not only harmonizes with the Judeo-Christian worldview, but eliminates the unending backsliding mentioned above. So in other words...god is the uncreated creator because god is the uncreated creator.

[Genjyo]

Originally posted by bradybaker So in other words...god is the uncreated creator because god is the uncreated creator. Not strictly, but generally speaking that is a dictionary description. It may be like asking who the single woman is married to?

[Kadath]

God has two aspects, That Which Is Not Created And Creates and That Which Is Not Created And Does Not Create. The Alpha and the Omega. All other things of our understanding fit into the That Which Is Created And Creates or That Which Is Created And Does Not Create. My conceptualization of most post-Augustinian philosophy/theology is often very hazy, but yeah. Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy probably has some of the more interesting arguments on this plane.

[Neruo]

Originally posted by ataraxis lol!

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Genjyo Hello Leo, does that mean that Moses, King David, Matthew or John or any other Bible author equaled themselves to God? They were all inspired by God, hence the authority, but then why should Paul be excluded from this? Please my friend, let's be reasonable! If you'd like to discuss this further, let's do it somewhere else though. Protestant Doctrine, making every word of the Bible the Word of God, was not intended to benefit Moses, David or any of those others. All you need to do is open your eyes and look. This Every Word Doctrine was contrived to Equate Paul with God. Think about it. How else can Protestantism reject the Teachings of Christ while adopting ALL of Paul's Satanic Teachings without first establishing at least an Equality between Paul and Christ. That was the Complete Intent of the Word of God Doctrine. But to any rational person, the writing of Paul would have no more authority then anything you should write, or I should write. paul never met Jesus. Paul was never endorced by Jesus. Paul never performed his first miracle. Paul was ever surrounded by scandal. Paul was thrown out of Asia Minor for being a False Apostle. Paul's doctrines were rejected and refuted by the Letters of James, Jude and John. Viewed objectively, Paul's writing can only be dubious and questionable at best. But the Magical Doctrine that being incorporated in the Same Published Document as more genuine Materials would somehow transmute Divinity in the Words of Paul.... it is rather ridiculous, no? The Letters of Paul were included in the Bible because a Political Emperor chaired the Committee and he liked Paul's quote in Roman's Chapter 9 giving Secular Government rule over the Church. Paul was canonized essentially for being a traitor to Religion. But you still believe in him more than you do Christ?

[Genjyo]

I do not see any discordances nor instances where Paul introduces conflicting ideas. If you are referring to salvation by faith, the old testament says of this Hab 2:4 See, he is puffed up; his desires are not upright—but the righteous will live by his faith. This does not mean that good works are unrequired. On the contrary, a person of faith is proactive. After all, what good is faith when that someone does nothing but bad deeds? It is true he received persecution, but he was preaching the gospel, the resurrection of Jesus. Where is the disconnect?

[Universal Mind]

The universe is the uncreated creator. If you argue that the universe is so great that it must have a creator, then by that very reasoning, such a creator must have a creator. I have not yet seen a counter to that argument. Does anybody have one?

[Genjyo]

Originally posted by Universal Mind The universe is the uncreated creator. If you argue that the universe is so great that it must have a creator, then by that very reasoning, such a creator must have a creator. I have not yet seen a counter to that argument. Does anybody have one? If the argument is because something is so 'great' it needs a creator, then that is a vague reason. You're dealing with two separate entities, the physical and the spiritual. The universe had a beginning though. The question is, did everything come from nothing or did everything come from something?

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Genjyo The universe had a beginning though. Where does that assumption come from?

[Genjyo]

Originally posted by bradybaker Where does that assumption come from? Big Bang cosmology reveals a constantly expanding universe.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Genjyo Big Bang cosmology reveals a constantly expanding universe. And....? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

[Genjyo]

Originally posted by bradybaker And....? This continual expansion indicates a beginning of the entire physical universe. Is there anything in particular from that link you want to discuss?

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Genjyo This continual expansion indicates a beginning of the entire physical universe. Is there anything in particular from that link you want to discuss? The cyclic model states that the universe has been expanding and contracting for an infinite amount of time stretching into the past. This process is driven by the ekpyrotic scenario, which basically says that the universe observable to us is just one 'brane' among many. Like bedsheets hung from a clothesline floating in a 3D world, our universe is a 3D object among many (microns apart) floating in a higher dimensional world. Now in their base state, where the branes are essentially void of matter and energy (it's spread so thinly across such a large area--as a result of the expansion we observe today--thats it's basically nothingness), they are attracted to each other. When they collide, a massive explosion and release of energy--that closely resembles our notion of The Big Bang--would be the result. So. In this model, there is no 'beginning' or 'creation' of the universe. This is a very recent and controversial description of what's actually going on, but it is gainly popularity among cosmologists.

[Genjyo]

Originally posted by bradybaker Now in their base state, where the branes are essentially void of matter and energy (it's spread so thinly across such a large area--as a result of the expansion we observe today--thats it's basically nothingness), they are attracted to each other. When they collide, a massive explosion and release of energy--that closely resembles our notion of The Big Bang--would be the result. In this model, there is no 'beginning' or 'creation' of the universe. This is a very recent and controversial description of what's actually going on, but it is gainly popularity among cosmologists This still describes a 'begining' of a physical universe upon branes colliding.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Genjyo This still describes a 'begining' of a physical universe upon branes colliding. When the branes collide, the energy that is already present is just concentrated again. Nothing is being created.

[Genjyo]

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div> When the branes collide, the energy that is already present is just concentrated again. Nothing is being created.[/b] Practically the only thing I'm not too keen with that model is that is violates the well established laws of physics. It uses a net expansion for each cycle, but the paper itself notes various other problems persist, mainly: <!--QuoteBegin-Wikepedia However, there are major problems with the model. Foremost among them is that colliding branes are not understood by string theorists, and nobody knows if the scale invariant spectrum will be destroyed by the big crunch, or even what happens when two branes collide. Moreover, like cosmic inflation, while the general character of the forces (in the ekpyrotic scenario, a force between branes) required to create the vacuum fluctuations is known, there is no candidate from particle physics. Moreover, the scenario uses some essential ideas from string theory, principally extra dimensions, branes and orbifolds. I'll have to elaborate when I have more time, but In a way, I'm not going to discount this model entirely, because God could create these dimensions. Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.