Key
-
Posts
1,555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Key
-
-
On 7/15/2020 at 1:38 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
This thread has already wandered. It can wander some more.
Alright: Do we have free will? Do we have the illusion of free will?
I would like to start things with a physics question. What is the nature of time? I'm fairly certain that the past is fixed and unchanging. Could the future also be fixed and unchanging? If the future is as unchanging as the past -- then free will is illusory. Like the pages in a book. We can turn the pages back to an earlier chapter. We can turn the pages ahead to a later chapter. We can't change the story. I don't know that this is the case. I don't know.
That should get us started.
I'd prefer to start a new thread. This one has been perverted enough. Besides, I'm likely to leave a lengthy response of what I think on this particular excursion if ya truly got me started.
-
On 7/13/2020 at 3:29 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
Free will is an interesting topic in it's own right. If we are going to do that, I think it should have it's own thread. Where would you put it?
I vaguely recall someone had tried that once, years ago. Don't think it fared well, though. It broke down as usual along the lines of Christians vs. everyone else, thus the tangents drifted off topic frequently. I don't think the subject was ever reasonably resolved.
Not sure where I'd place it. Maybe under Philosophy?
-
19 hours ago, Justinablessed said:
Hello All,
I've recently applied for ordination into this wonderful community, however I have not heard back for confirmation for about a week or so.
Apologies if this is the wrong section to post.
Staff is quite small, but do the best they can to promptly serve the community. Some time may be expected before you receive a response. For some it has been 14 business days, at least. If still uncertain or have not heard back, try emailing HQ from the Homepage of the ULC.
Welcome and blessings to you.
-
Dan, at the time, when He rose from the grave. They only saw Him as He proclaimed Himself to be, the son of God, and intercessor on their behalf before the Father. Revelations came much later. but wasn't always accepted as Gospel until the Council included it as official Canon.
So, it can still be argued that God did not reveal Himself, and that we only have a possibility.
There are still many who argue, as you well know, that a powerful God, as He is proclaimed to be, could reveal Himself without any lingering doubt. Thus, if He had already, why is there still doubt?
You can argue various details about free will this and that, but if it truly came down to the decision to accept or not, why not reveal without doubt. and still allow the choice to accept?
-
19 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
This thread began with "Epic Debate Over God's Existance"
I would like to pause for a reality check. Is the Debate over God's existence, really all that epic?
I have long maintained that when a god's existence can not be demonstrated to be true -- it doesn't matter whether or not that god exists. Even if that god actually exists, it still doesn't matter.
No. This is not an epic debate. This is us, getting over wrought, over something trivial. A true "tempest in a teapot." In the end -- So what?
Only one way for the debate to ever truly be ended. That is God reveals Himself to everyone and removes any shade of doubt. Until then, forever shall it be an open question.
However, in regard to an individual's personal belief, it can be open and shut, just as faith is accepted as fact to some, it can be accepted as fable to others. That's both the beauty and curse of an analytical mind.
-
On 7/10/2020 at 11:48 PM, Dan56 said:
Refusing to condone sin is not discrimination. Your insisting that Christians alter their moral values, and refusing to do so makes them bigots. Treating others equally is good, but it doesn't entail embracing their moral standards, or the lack thereof. "Doing unto others" does not always necessitate favorable treatment, e.g; If I stole a car I'd expect to be locked up, likewise if someone stole my car, I'd want them locked-up.
No, I am not insisting that Christians alter their moral values, but rather look at them in regard to interactions with others. Again, it is not condoning sin to cooperate with others outside their religion toward a common goal that isn't itself a sin. So, yes, in that regard, they are, in fact, bigots.
Working toward a common goal doesn't necessarily entail embracing outside moral standards, or lack thereof. That is where you always get it twisted. You really think you have to abandon your beliefs to work alongside of someone of a different religion or sexual preference? If so, you are a lot weaker in your faith than you claim to be.
-
7 hours ago, Dan56 said:
The greatest commandment is; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind". So how do you love something that you have no faith in? Faith is trust, and love is demonstrated by trust, you can't have one without the other. No spin, you just can't love a God that you don't believe exist!
The Egyptian pharaohs had enslaved the Israelites for 400 years. A previous pharaoh, possibly even the pharaoh in question, ordered that male Israelite babies be killed at birth (Exodus 1:16). The pharaoh God hardened was an evil man, and the nation he ruled agreed with, or at least did not oppose, his evil actions.
Second, on least a couple occasions, Pharaoh hardened his own heart against letting the Israelites go: “But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:15). “But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:32). It seems that God and Pharaoh were both active in one way or another in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.We are socially commanded to love one another, but condoning sin is not an act of love. Jesus himself didn't give everyone a thumbs up. Did Jesus treat the Pharisees the same as his disciples? "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him " (Luke 17:3). Remember the woman caught in adultery, Jesus told her to stop sinning (John 8:11). Loving/praying for your enemy doesn't necessarily mean an exchange of polite etiquette, correcting a wrong just as a parent corrects a child is also considered an act of love.
If his disciples respected Him as the Pharisees did, He would. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Treating others equally isn't "condoning sin". To even say that is just an excuse to give yourself that discrimination is okay.
To work with others to achieve a common goal outside of religion is not condoning sin, unless the goal is to actively participate in the sin. Give up the judging, Dan. It really doesn't work the way you think it does.
-
8 hours ago, Dan56 said:
Everyone is not the same, you treat them differently when they are different. Faith in God is the highest form of love, putting people secondary is not discrimination, its just having your priorities in order.
If a leader is given an ultimatum and refuses to comply, who's really responsible for the repercussions? God is good, people aren't... 400 hundred years of slavery and your sympathy goes to the Pharaoh?
Christ literally commanded to love others as yourself. Love your neighbor, as well as your enemies. Where is that saying to treat anyone differently? By not doing this, how are you truly honoring Him?
Btw, when He says that what you do for the least, you do also for me, that is not meant to put people secondary. All of this means, to value others or life more, as it honors Him to do so.
-
3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
Is that really an issue? Placing nothing above God?
Taking the Gospels at face value -- Jesus was criticized for associating with "sinners". Even dinning with them.
You did say that Jesus was the example for Humanity.
If Franklin Graham had been there -- he would have been one of the harshest of those critics. He would have lead the critics.
Very true. Even most Evangelicals today would probably contradict Him, sadly.
-
8 hours ago, Dan56 said:
Many, or at least some Christians, place nothing above God.. So in that sense, yes its discriminatory because God gets priority. Graham doesn't differentiate between the mission and God. Its purpose was in His name, which supersedes the objective. That's considered faith, not hypocrisy. The greatest commandment comes before the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40).
"What you do for the least, you do also for me." Thus, He is the objective. Not using all possible resources to assist in the objective is a form of denying Him, then. That along with the Samaritan parable demonstrates the hypocrisy of certain "Christians".
It is also why there are many factions. Interpretation and faith, which interfere in the relation of doing works to save lives. Focus, initiative, and full use of knowledge and skill are better options to achieve intended goals when it comes to medicine, as we've seen through the ages time and time again.
-
13 hours ago, Dan56 said:
I've posted that same definition before, so its nothing new.
Most Americans do support that inscription.
And I believe any exclusive group should be allowed to choose people who are compatible and aligned with their groups interest.. Its not prejudicial because I'd also support a Gay club or Atheist organization who refused to accept Christian members or volunteers. When we are denied the comradery and familiarity of freely associating with like-minded people, its the majority discriminating against individuality.
I don't think my opinion has waivered on that? Right or wrong, I may be the most consistent person here!
Put that in the context of a temporary, and voluntary field hospital. If it was meant to truly save lives and was looking for people with a similar goal to do the same, then, yes, your statement is contradictory, in my view, when it places religion above their intended goal.
Also, it's most Americans for now. Think about why that is. Then know it is becoming less as certain groups are becoming more associated as hypocrites, sorry to say.
-
18 hours ago, Simona said:
Hello everyone, we are trying to open a congregation in Italy and the Authority are asking us to provide the original statute of the Church. Do you happen to have one? What they are looking for is a sort rules and bases of the Church to give us the approval.
Any help will really be greatly appreciated
thank you
Simona
Been awhile since I visited the Homepage for the ULC, but there was something similar found there at that site some time ago. You may want to email them a request there, or even ask at the official Facebook page. Sorry, I don't have a link for you, though.
-
On 6/14/2020 at 3:33 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I want to pause and declare my positions. I have my own biases, and I'm upfront about them.
I'm nobody's judge. If someone chooses to believe, then much joy may it bring them. If they want me to believe -- then let them show me something. Something other than Scripture.
I am an Apatheist. A God that can not be demonstrated to exist, doesn't matter. Even if that God actually exists, it still doesn't matter. I'm done with arguing about faith. Belief, non-belief and disbelief are all irrelevant. God either is, or is not. Arguments change nothing. I'm also done with arguing about metaphysics. Nothing good comes from these arguments. Plenty of acrimony, but nothing good.
Not true, you know. Medicine has determined that getting your heart rate up from time to time can be good for your health. So, aside from physical exercise...
-
On 6/9/2020 at 1:45 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
You asked. You seem to think that I'm afraid of something. Fight or flight? That this fear, is inhibiting my understanding, of this profound masterpiece of Godly information. No. I am amazed that this boring, tedious, drivel, is somehow supposed to change my life. That after I finish John -- My opinion will then be wanted. I'm less than halfway through. It keeps putting me to sleep. It's chloroform in print.
What do you think that I'm afraid of?
Nope. I had no inkling that you had fear of something. Although, I do believe we all do. Myself, included.
I had more in mind in asking why you posted fear as a question in response to my comment. Thought you might have had some insight to share. I'm no mind reader, Jonathan. And I'm more open minded to other views than some, I like to think.
Frankly, I have no need to place reading John as a priority for me. So, if you had an opinion, share if you like, but I'm not the one asking for it.
-
Just now, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
Fear?
No.
Care to elaborate the question?
-
21 hours ago, VonNoble said:
Jonathan H. b. Lobl,
your answer = education
Key,
Judgement equal bias.
I thank you both.
When a disaster occurs, and I am unfamiliar with the area, I may run without knowing which way is the safest. In fear, might run along side anyone I assess to look like they know what they are doing.
Short of a disaster where survival could over-ride bias and education.
Are we educated to have bias?
Whom or what drives learned judgment and bias?
von
In fear, you may not be assessing anything, necessarily. Rather, you may be allowing your instinctual "flight or fight" response take over. In which case, nothing is learned until after your survival as to whether it was the ideal action to take. (Basically, as you state here.)
Herd instinct is to run from a predatory element en masse. So as to reduce chance of of said element focusing on one single target within it, but rather on those outside of the herd. Which doesn't always work with humans, as mass target is a greater effect of mass casualties, if that is what is wanted.
Otherwise, education and bias are taught from norms established by interactions of immediate influencers, which can be family, friends, or society one lives in. Depending on outside influence via migration away or access to information outside of one's society may or may not change this. Thus, it is a constant learning process, as well as an issue of acceptance one way or the other.
-
1 hour ago, VonNoble said:
Instinctively we assess survival risks, calculate danger and threats.
Laws of society/ culture establish norms.
We evaluate prices, time expenditures, and other people using acquired information and experience filters.
Can judgement be taught?
Legislated?Weaponized?
von
Another word for "judgement" is bias. So, yes, in many instances it is taught, everywhere, at all times.
-
6 hours ago, Dan56 said:
There's no good reason not to believe its true either. If you've got a better explanation for a first cause, I'd like to hear it.. But until that day arrives, accepting that God is the uncaused cause of all that exist is as good of an explanation as anything else.. I simply believe in God because I don't know of any better answer, while you believe in nothing that's unknown (unproven). Some folks just need to have peace of mind and believe there's a meaning and purpose to life beyond what's physically apparent. Do we exist in a brief vacuum of time by remarkable accident or is there some higher power that arranged it all for a reason. Your content with the former, I choose the latter.
It's called deductive reasoning. There's a saying, "big things start small." Who is to say that life didn't begin with a split cell? We have evidence than viruses or bacteria can evolve. So, it isn't so unremarkable to believe bigger things can evolve from small, simple things, too.
There's also a school of thought that since time doesn't conform to a deity as does humans, one could create a micro-organism, knowing it could evolve into something bigger later, taking centuries rather than days. Men couldn't fathom that much time when the Bible was written.
By that reasoning, all other religions can't be wrong, either, as you believe them to be.
-
On 5/11/2020 at 10:43 PM, Dan56 said:
Well of course, if you erase the narrative, then the rest would be senseless wouldn't it... But there was original sin, an initial fall, and a need for a Savior.
Yes, viruses and bacteria mutate (micro-evolution), but neither evolve into anything other than a virus or bacteria.
I don't believe everyone came from one couple, the Hebrew nation were descendants of A&E. All other races were created separately (Genesis 1:27).
Or my counter point, perhaps we share many elements of our DNA with other life because of a "common Creator"... Seems a plausible theory.
That was my point, a spiritual Being is not observable, so science can never prove God.
If science provides answers that have been verified, then science has not proven macro-evolution because it hasn't been verified. Its nothing but wide-eyed speculation of examining the fossilized bones of extinct animals and imagining that they turned into something completely different (science fiction).
That's another point. Why would science even try to prove there's a God? Besides, even if they were, they'd start with what He has left here for us. Kind of like backward engineering something alien to understand how it works, which is what scientist do all the time on everything else. Hence, all the peer review and testing to prove, debunk, or deem plausible.
-
12 hours ago, Dan56 said:
Most believe in common ancestry because humans share nearly 99% similar DNA with chimpanzee's, but we also share 50% with bananas.
I believe in a common Creator for the same reason. God simply used the same process to create all life forms, with variations of course. If God had altered the formula, a life form would be alien to earth.
Everything reproduces after its kind, there is no proof of any kind evolving into a completely different species, evolution is just scientific speculation.
Perhaps the reason science has no definitive answers as to the origin of life is because they have no physical observable evidence to examine? In which case, a unobservable spiritual entity is a plausible answer even if it can't be confirmed.
Not so. We see evolution in viruses and bacteria becoming vaccine resistant, and transforming into newer strains.
If all men came from one couple, then why so many races?
Perhaps we share many elements of our DNA with other life because of a "common ancestor"? Seems a plausible theory.
Also, how does unobservable become plausible? It remains theory only, and cannot be continually tested as science can and is always.
-
There is a bit of similarity between creationism and evolution. Both theories encompass how man was formed from dirt. 😁
-
4 hours ago, LarryVF said:
I have almost completed the Chaplaincy Program since I returned. All I have left is for them to evaluate me and do the Final Program essay and the Volunteer 45 hours.
I also Submitted a Congregational Application to start a Church in my Home town Back in February. Had a hiccup for awhile , but they've told me it's on the way now. NewberryULC in Newberry, South Carolina. Smack in the Bible Belt. Congregation has 12 members and 5 board members. We meet in my home for now, until we decide on a Building, or Meeting Tent or whatever the future presents us with.
Good for you. Wish you well on whatever your plans turn out to be. Peace and blessings.
-
Hello. Welcome. Hope you are in good health, as well.
-
Welcome. Interesting line of ministering. Not everyone can be up to that task, yet I'm glad there are some like you.
Blessings and Peace to you.
Epic Debate Over God's Existance
in Monotheist Theologies & Scriptures
Posted
Have you forgotten my inability to be as concise as you?
