Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Heaven
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Are you going to Heaven?

Yeah, man, for sure, Jesus is my savior

50%

[ 17 ]

No way, hell is where the party is at!

[ 3 ]

Why not, everyone is going

[ 3 ]

Dude, i am God.

32%

[ 11 ]

Total Votes : 34

Author

Message

deadman

Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:15 am Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

What about Einstein and the theory of relativity. Do you think he pursued the depths of the universe for pure reasons or did he do it in an attempt to explain away God and to destroy religion?

You sound like Joo: anyone who disputes the official line is not looking for truth, but following a sick and twisted agenda to destroy the US in his case, or God/religion in yours.

fiveeagles wrote:

What you don't understand that it was witnessed by more than one person. It's called collaboration. Ok, slowly say collaboration boys and girls.

Corroboration.

Quote:

No, collaboration.

Corroboration.

Quote:

No COLL-A-BOR-ATION

No, it's actually corroboration you nitwit.

Quote:

[to himself] I'd better check my dictionary.

col�lab�o�rate
To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.
To cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force in one's country.

cor�rob�o�rate
To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain.

*beep* he's right. I wish I hadn't been sarcastic about it. now I feel like a bit of a twit.

Heh heh!

n3ptne

Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:37 am Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

What about Einstein and the theory of relativity. Do you think he pursued the depths of the universe for pure reasons or did he do it in an attempt to explain away God and to destroy religion?

What purer reason exists than the motivation to do away with dogmatic religions that are based on theological documents so old that the people who wrote them were unaware of the simple fact that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the galaxy?

What purer reason exists than to clarify the nature of God, assuming he exists (Einstein did believe in one) and to do away with the false ones that have proliferated our history and caused countless wars and unncessary divisions?

What purer reason exists than to do away with God if it is quantifiably found that no such being exists in an effort to usher in a new period of human development by which we base our ethics, laws, and morals on truth rather than smoke and mirrors?

You do away with freewill and answer the question "Is there a God" with an "I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't make any difference!" [Einstein] and we are nearly at such a place. Killing freewill can immediately unite all religious differences.

Last edited by n3ptne on Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:28 am; edited 1 time in total

n3ptne

Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:44 am Post subject:

Oh, just found what I was looking for: I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. - Albert Einstein Einstein never directly stated that he didn't believe in freewill, something I don't think he could have done without seriously jeopordizing himself, but it is clear when this quote is taken into the context of his other writings that he could not have supported such an idea. Spinoza doesnt beat around the bush: Only that thing is free which exists by the necessities of its own nature, and is determined in its actions by itself alone. In this quote, contextually, he is referring solely to God. His models of the divine and the universe leave no room for freedom other than as an absolute attribute of God.

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject:

deadman wrote:

Quote:

Heh heh!

Actually, that's pretty funny! kudos

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:02 am Post subject:

n3ptne wrote:

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

This is the crux of science, a concept fiveeagles will never be able to grasp and why science and religion are two entirely different fields. And why people who don't just immerse themselves in best selling pop apologetics understand why science and belief in god can happily coexist. It's why the catholic church can have Jesuit priests who are also genetics professors and cosmologists and see no conflict.

Science accepts there is no "right" theory. Newtonian physics was supplanted by Einstein which was supplanted (on one level) by quantum mechanics. Quantum theory will probably be supplanted in the future by something else. Science also accepts even the best theories can be over turned by one single discovery. For example, relativity predicts gravity lensing. Fine we send up a satellite, find star light we know should be lensed if relativity holds true. If we don't see the lensing, well, that pretty much wraps it up for relativity.

Now the key here is, fiveeages, scientist don't then label relativity a true description of reality for all time, even if experimentation matches theory. Scientists label it "the best description we have so far". Certainly scientists don't go around footnoting their language and instead use rather more parsimonious words like facts. But everyone concerned understands the implied footnote. Except for bible thumpers.

Sure maybe behind it all is the hand of a god. But science doesn't seek to prove or disprove god. It just seeks to explain the mechanics of the natural world. Any pastor telling fiveeagles different is a moron or a liar.

n3ptne

Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:00 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

This is the crux of science

This is a point that very few people understand. Science cannot prove everything that it "knows" to be true, but that should never imply that Science is "unable" to prove it... many of such things are impossible to prove because of technological limitations in the sense that theory has far surpassed the ability of our species. On the other hand science has constructed a sort of philosophy, and I would argue that it is starting to take the place of religion, in regards to ideas it holds to be true in reference to the "things it knows to be true". Freewill, for instance, cannot be proven to be impossible... The fact is that there is no proof to suggest it is possible. Science doesn't typically like to believe in such things.

Take the story of the ether for instance. It was introduced as a hypothetical savior for a theory, it could not be seen, measured, etc, but IF it were to exist we knew it would have to have a certain variety of attributes.

As theory progressed the attributes it would have to possess in order for it to exist exponentially grew until it was almost entirely impossible, logically self-negating if you will. Then someone came along, Einstein, and simply did away with it... it made more sense. There was no proof that it had ever existed, and by this time it's qualities were so outrageous that it was more logical that it never did exist in the first place. That's freewill.

mindmetoo wrote:

Science accepts there is no "right" theory. Newtonian physics was supplanted by Einstein which was supplanted (on one level) by quantum mechanics. Quantum theory will probably be supplanted in the future by something else. Science also accepts even the best theories can be over turned by one single discovery. For example, relativity predicts gravity lensing. Fine we send up a satellite, find star light we know should be lensed if relativity holds true. If we don't see the lensing, well, that pretty much wraps it up for relativity.

We seem to agree in spirit so I will not waste time belaboring a disagreement in terms.

However, it is important to note that while science does not currently accept that there is no "right" theory, science is implicit in a belief that such a "right" theory must exist.

Oh, and... again, its useless to belabor the point, but it is worth noting that Einstein didn't win his Nobel Prize for Relativity (that which I assume you imply to be what supplanted Newtonian physics), rather he won it for his pioneering work in Quantum Mechanics. That having been said I would imagine he is a rather credible authority to voice dissent that Quantum Mechanics is not yet perfect, in sense, to state "God does not play dice."

"The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks."

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:37 am Post subject:

n3ptne wrote:

Oh, and... again, its useless to belabor the point, but it is worth noting that Einstein didn't win his Nobel Prize for Relativity (that which I assume you imply to be what supplanted Newtonian physics), rather he won it for his pioneering work in Quantum Mechanics.

He won it for the Photo Electric Effect. What's more surprising is what he did with his prize money. Most people if asked would probably say "gave it to Jewish war orphans" or "invested it in his research". Fact is he used it to pay off his wife. They struck a deal. When (oddly not if) he won the Nobel prize, they agreed he'd give her the money and she would divorce him so he could take up with his mistress.

Man, Einstein and Hawking were/are both randy old coots. (Hawking subscribes to Playboy and recently was babbling on about how much he liked Chinese women...)

There's a theory that one of the reasons mathematics and physics is a young man's game, most of the breakthroughs are done by men in their early 20s, is because they're just trying to score chicks. They make their name, get privileged access to hotties, marry, and then there is no longer the burning drive to show the world who's got the biggest John Thomas.

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:52 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm sorry but anyone who knows the first thing about Einstein knows this is UTTER crap. "God does not play dice with the universe." Do you understand why he said that?

Do you? Like it has been previously said, "what God"? A God who Christians put their faith in or a Nirvana who buddhists put their faith in? Completely different Gods. From what I have read on Einstein, he did not ascribe to putting faith in Jesus Christ as his savior.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. - Albert Einstein

This is completely opposite to who God has said He is. His nature and attributes have been revealed in Christ, who is reflected in the universe.

Quote:

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
Heb 1

When someone as important as Einstein doesn't give glory to the Risen Christ and that sin leads unto death, but put his hope in philosophies such as these. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.

Which gives license to scientists who do the following.

Quote:

There's a theory that one of the reasons mathematics and physics is a young man's game, most of the breakthroughs are done by men in their early 20s, is because they're just trying to score chicks. They make their name, get privileged access to hotties, marry, and then there is no longer the burning drive to show the world who's got the biggest John Thomas.

So which one is it? A God who winks at this type of behavior or one who will punish it. Like you have said, it is easy to compromise integrity for certain rewards. Why is this important? Because like Neptune says

Quote:

You do away with freewill and answer the question "Is there a God" with an "I don't know, I don't care, and it doesn't make any difference!" [Einstein] and we are nearly at such a place. Killing freewill can immediately unite all religious differences.

And it pushes us deeper into the pit of moral relativism. Moral relativism allows for the philosophies of evolution to enter into our schools and thus reduce science into an optical effect. The problem with killing freewill is that you reduce our role to a bystander. Rather than encouraging the participant to become an active participant whose actions determine the consequences of shaping the outcome of this world. So then it doesn't make any difference contradicts The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. Einstein Well which one is it, do you care or don't you?

Quote:

You say they are two entirely different fields but what about this?

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
Einstein

Well, which one is it mindmetoo? Are they separate or are they on the same branch? If they are separate then what philosphies are suggesting?

I believe in Science, but a science that gives honor to the One who created it. And yes, there are many scientists who hold a Godly worldview, but are usually overlooked by the scientific community. Like Michael Behe's has suggested to eager creationist students. "Keep your thoughts to yourself, until your established in the scientific community." (Paraphrased)

Quote:

There are a lot of books written about the exploits of the Greek pantheon. Does collaboration establish the truth of Zeus? Again, we come back to the facts: the gospels were written years after the fact by anonymous authors. They are clearly written not by independent observers but by hardcore followers, as fervent followers as had Charles Manson or Mao. We tend to discount the wilder claims of any historical figure's fervent followers. You keep failing to address this salient point. You keep failing to grasp the proofs you use to buttress your claims can be applied to any religious belief system. Rteacher said himself Krishna had all kinds of witnesses to his miracles. Does that make them true in your book? That's your test. Don't shift the baseline, now.

Here are the facts for the gospels.

What about the gospel accounts? The article just mentioned above includes many examples in which the accuracy of the gospels as history is confirmed. Besides, both Jewish (Josephus and Talmud writers) and Roman (Tacitus, Pliny and others) historians mention and confirm such gospel claims as the crucifixion of Jesus, the martyrdom of James, the claim of miracle-working and of the resurrection. The gospel writers were eye-witnesses to the events they record, with the exception of Luke. Luke was an amazingly careful historian himself, whose account was clearly based on interviews with eye-witnesses. These accounts were all written by AD 70, with the possible exception of the book of John, when hundreds of witnesses to the events were still alive. No contemporary questioned the basic accuracy of the gospel accounts as far as we know. The fact is that the earliest Christians definitely claimed that Jesus was raised from the dead right there in Jerusalem almost immediately after it happened, and thousands of people were convinced because of the facts. Everyone knew that Jesus was a worker of miracles. He healed thousands of people. Even his enemies indirectly confirm this. In the Talmud, Jesus is called a worker of false miracles. We know that many of the apostles and early eye-witnesses were killed for their faith, yet not one of them ever denied their faith. Clearly Jesus' close friends--the eye witnesses to the events--believed that Jesus was raised from the dead. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain their actions.

You should understand that the church started with thousands of converts who were eye-witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus. As the gospel spread, any account which was not accurate would have been revealed for what it was. This will explain the fact that it was not for about one hundred years until the first of the false, apocryphal "gospel" accounts were produced. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas and other false gospels were not written until well into the second century or later. If anyone had written a false gospel earlier, it would have been instantly and universally rejected by the church. By the second century, the situation had changed significantly. By this time, a heretical teaching known as Gnosticism had gained a significant following. These heretical Christians were very strongly influenced by Greek philosoply and the "Mystery Religions." They taught that Jesus was never a physical person, that the God of the Old Testament was an evil god, and many other clearly non-biblical things. Members of these groups produced false gospels, some of which are now getting some play, at least partly due to the notoriety of the Da Vinci Code. I would suggest that you find the texts of some of these false gospels for yourself. All you have to do is read the supposed "Gospel" of Thomas or Judas or Phillip alongside with Matthew or Luke. You will instantly see for yourself that there is no comparison. These books have ridiculous stories of Jesus doing miracles as a baby. They contain made up events which are blatantly created, not because they are true, but because they support the gnostic agenda. Anyone who attempts to put these bogus gospels on par with the canonical books is either a very poor scholar or he or she has an agenda, and that agenda is certainly not to support the truth.

We know from literally thousands of citations from the very early church fathers, such as Polycarp, Ignatius, Origen, Justin Martyr and many others, that the four gospels, as well as the letters of Paul were accepted by consensus of the church as inspired by the early second century church. They were accepted because they had apostolic authority and because they were consistent with the accounts of hundreds and even thousands of eye-withesses who were Christians. There is zero evidence that any of the apocryphal letters, such as the books of the Nag Hamadi, were given any authority at all by the early church. Anyone who claims differently must deal with the evidence. The only time the early church writers referred to such books was to show why they were heretical. Please do not be confused by those whose goal in not to spread the truth, but whose goal is to confuse the minds of those who would put their faith in the Bible as the inspired Word of God.

In summary on that question, I suggest you simply read these false gospels for yourself. The difference will be self-evident. Which I would think would be the same with the Hindu text.

To continue reading,
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/efc/default.nsf/Section?OpenForm

Anyway, with the state of this world, you will probably get to test your philosophies out sooner than later. Yeah, with that, I won't be responding to any comments other than about what Heaven will specifically be like.

canuckistan
Mod Team

Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:28 am Post subject:

Dear Lord, I pray for Wisdom to understand cult-like religious types; Love to forgive them for being so narrow-minded; And Patience for their robotic ridiculousness. Because, Lord, if I pray for Strength, I'd deliver them a huge can of whoopass.

n3ptne

Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:37 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

Man... I'm 24 and it's true. I spend 90% of my time, yes 90% of my conscious time, seriously, conceptualizing the nature of an infinite superstructure, etc, and the other 10% trying to explain it to barmaids. It isn't a bad game. Even if they don't understand a theory of light they're still impressed.

fiveeagles wrote:

This is completely opposite to who God has said He is. His nature and attributes have been revealed in Christ, who is reflected in the universe.

My God is bigger than your god. My God explains your god. He encompasses him and explains not only him but all other gods. He is timeless, infinite, without beginning or end. He trancends your puny limited mind (as well as my own, which to him is equally puny and limited, but in comparison to yours must be exponentially more complex).

My God wrote the scriptures. My God sent Christ. He sent Mohammed, Buddah, and L. Ron Hubbard. He is responsible for death and life, genocide and love. He explains everything...

Your god, on the other hand, is a magical entity whom resembles a toddler on a powertrip. He understands nothing. Even if it were proven tomorrow that Christianity theology is the absolute truth I would never bow before a being that is less enlightened than myself.

n3ptne

Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:44 am Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

We are bystanders regardless of whether you kill freewill or not. Moral relativism is a necesary function of society. Though the death of freewill imposes a grave responsibility. It demands that all things are equal. A very, VERY, rigid code of ethics and morals can be derived from such a position, a set that I might remind you can be logically and scientifically backed up... whereas you only have the Bible.

fiveeagles wrote:

Anyway, with the state of this world, you will probably get to test your philosophies out sooner than later. Yeah, with that, I won't be responding to any comments other than about what Heaven will specifically be like.

Theres no such place. It defies both the logical and scentific restrictions required for it to exist in the first place. It cannot exist. The whole of Science would have to upended and rebuilt from the ground up. Everything we know about the universe would be nullified.

Have you ever even thought, I mean really thougth, and by this statement I mean dedicated a good two or three years, to the idea of eternal life? To what it would be like?

It would suck.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

mindmetoo wrote:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm sorry but anyone who knows the first thing about Einstein knows this is UTTER crap. "God does not play dice with the universe." Do you understand why he said that?

Uhhhhh first of all Einstein was Jewish. So it's no big surprise he didn't believe in Jesus. I guess your god sends faithful jew to hell too. Anyway, you said god. You didn't say "the god I narrowly define by my fundamentalists beliefs". From now on should we assume when you say "god" you mean the incredibly narrowly defined god created in the minds of a minority of the earth's faithful?

You keep demonstration time and time again you're not even sure of the actual definition of many basic terms (corroboration/collaboration, cosmology/evolution, your/you're). So I suppose we should define what you mean by god.

Quote:

Are you jealous Hawking has pounded more quiff than you?

Quote:

You say they are two entirely different fields but what about this?

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
Einstein

Again you keep demonstrating you JUST DON'T GET IT. Next to your pop apologetics books, is there some kind of, I dunno, DICTIONARY? Does "branch" mean "the same thing?" Look:

Main Entry: branch
Pronunciation: 'branch
2 : an area of knowledge that may be considered apart from related areas <pathology is a branch of medicine>

The word "art" in there should be a huge clue what Einstein means in this comment. Now let me lead you by the nose to it: All are products of the creative human mind and a desire to know and understand the world. The methods they take are different. Hence, branches.

Look, why don't you just stop even trying to talk about science? It's clear you are not only out of your depth but you have zero clue what you're talking about. You cherry pick the most surface ideas and incorporate them into your twisted, bigoted belief but anyone with half a brain knows you're talking total crap from the first sentence in.

Quote:

I believe in Science, but a science that gives honor to the One who created it.

Who defines what is honor and dishonor? You? No thanks. That's the end of science. Look, you wouldn't be pounding out idiot ideas on the internet if godless men like Einstein didn't do research that dishonored someone's idea of god. You wouldn't even be ALIVE likely if scientists didn't dishonor god. Jesus H Christ, god boy, there was a time when lightening rods were considered a challenge to god's will.

Quote:

What about the gospel accounts? The article just mentioned above includes many examples in which the accuracy of the gospels as history is confirmed. Besides, both Jewish (Josephus and Talmud writers) and Roman (Tacitus, Pliny and others) historians mention and confirm such gospel claims as the crucifixion of Jesus, the martyrdom of James, the claim of miracle-working and of the resurrection.

No they don't. They mention in a round about way that some people have a certain belief but they don't confirm the claim. Just because a historian says "well, the dogon people believe they've been visited by star people" doesn't mean a confirmation of the veracity of the belief. C'mon.

Quote:

The gospel writers were eye-witnesses to the events they record,

Really? What evidence? The gospels have no verifiable authorship.

You work awfully hard trying to find proof for matters that are beyond proof and are about pure faith. You work awfully hard trying to tell other believers in god that they're worshiping the wrong god.

Not so sure your guess is right?

Troll_Bait

Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

Besides, both Jewish (Josephus and Talmud writers) and Roman (Tacitus, Pliny and others) historians mention and confirm such gospel claims as the crucifixion of Jesus, the martyrdom of James, the claim of miracle-working and of the resurrection.

In previous threads, both hermes.trismegistus and myself refuted that. All of it. You obviously never bothered to read.

Previously, in this very thread, I mentioned a book.

So, I say again: I read your book. Why won't you read mine? What are you afraid of? When mindmetoo refused to read your book, you accused him of a cop-out. But when you refuse to read a book, it's not a cop-out?

Do as I say, not as I do.

Said the hypocrite.

fiveeagles wrote:

All you have to do is read the supposed "Gospel" of Thomas or Judas or Phillip alongside with Matthew or Luke. You will instantly see for yourself that there is no comparison. These books have ridiculous stories of Jesus doing miracles as a baby.

Again, you betray your total ignorance of everything except for your particular, narrow brand of Christianity.

Have you ever read the Gospel of Thomas? It's great! And it does not contradict the four canonical Gospels. It is basically a list of sayings by Jesus, many of which are parallelled in the canonical Gospels. The Jesus Seminar considers the Gospel of Thomas to be a source of the actual sayings of Jesus.

Here's an example:

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the Father's kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Father's kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

True, that.

fiveeagles wrote:

They (these Gospels) contain made up events which are blatantly created, not because they are true, but because they support the gnostic agenda.

Substitute "gnostic" with "Christian" and you'd be about right.

fiveeagles wrote:

Anyone who attempts to put these bogus gospels on par with the canonical books is either a very poor scholar or he or she has an agenda, and that agenda is certainly not to support the truth.

So, anyone who disagrees with you is "a very poor scholar"? Who decides that? You? And on what basis? You're an English teacher who doesn't even know the differences between your/you're, corroboration/collaboration, and cosmology/evolution. You're obviously no scholar yourself and are thus in no position at all to judge who's a good scholar and who isn't.

daskalos

Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject:

Ohmyf-ingGod, is this tired thread still running? You know, if we just stopped engaging with these creepy Christer types, they might just go away and leave us alone. (Oh, do please say something about the rapture now.) If we continue to engage them as though their "arguments" are worth refuting, it will just be that much longer before they get to the bottom of their pathology and get help. Without an audience to "persecute" them, perhaps they'll lose interest and grow up. Don't feed the rabid Christians -- if only because it'll be so much fun watching them squirm into the silence that follows their lunatic ranting.

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:53 am Post subject:

Troll-bait, I have ignored you, because you have displayed time and time again that you are not interested in communicating, but rather in arguing. So keep on posting, but I really don't have anything to say to you. Until you can begin to act civilized and with restraint then I might.

Quote:

You keep demonstration time and time again you're not even sure of the actual definition of many basic terms (corroboration/collaboration, cosmology/evolution, your/you're). So I suppose we should define what you mean by god.

Stop before you hurt yourself. Oh yeah, didn't you use collaborate too? ha. Dude, take a breather.

n3ptne wrote:

Why? Have you seen the movie "what the bleep do we know?" I wrote an article on it. Neptune what do you think?
What the bleep do we know?

Unlike Mindmetoo, I believe that the cosmos and the knowledge of God are intricately woven together. You can't have one without the other. They can't be separated.

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
Isaac Newton

Quote:

Have you ever even thought, I mean really thougth, and by this statement I mean dedicated a good two or three years, to the idea of eternal life? To what it would be like?

It would suck.

I have thought about it alot. I have done a lot of reading on it too. Maybe if you read the books I have suggested, you might change your mind.

Heaven will be amazing. You won't be in Heaven strumming a harp all day and singing kumbiya My Lord...kumbiya.

No, we will be so released in freedom and creativity that it will be exploding with the arts and music. New sounds and images will be constantly downloaded into your spirit.

Imagine a place where you do things, not because you make money, but because you are passionate about doing them. So if someone loves building houses and you happen to love to paint. They would come over to your place to build you a house, while you paint them a beautiful neptune.

I also think we might be able to do is fly. So we will have an eternity to explore all of the universe. I believe God will burn up the heavens and earth that we know and create a new universe. One in which we will have access to. Imagine travellling to exotic places for eternity with animals and creatures never before thought of. It would be amazing.

I also believe we will have the creative ability to create amazing things. If we are created in the image of God and have His nature then I believe that this is a natural progression.

Finally imagine yourself so in love that you cannot contain it. Love is so alive and powerful that it can only be fully expressed in the worship of a Holy God. Not a pale, skinny God who barely resembles a man. But a God who is burning in Fire and is saphire and jasper in appearance with a rainbow like emerald around His throne. His beauty will overtake you for an eternity. Imagine looking at the most beautiful thing here on life, but multiplying that by a million times. His beauty is stunning.

Last edited by fiveeagles on Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:50 am; edited 2 times in total

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11 Next
Page 10 of 11

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe