₦airaland Forum

Beneli ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Is it conceivable that things exist outside spacetime (as defined by you), and if they do, is it conceivable that they also experience a "progression" of time. . . or events, if you like. . .

If that is the case does that not kick the bottom out of your bucket. . .

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=365785.msg5110006#msg5110006 date=1260801460]More crap.
Ominipresent = Ominipresent. All other rants are meaningless.

God is everywhere and sees everything, what else does that mean but being everywhere?

Now you ridiculously claim its gods power that transcends everywhere but his presence is in heaven. . .you're a joker. What is prescence without power and power without prescence?

You cannot coat bullsh*t in grammer and expect us to swallow. BS = BS .

Like I said, you're a phoney. U take bits of every religion and whitewash it to fit your delusions then when the silliness is exposed you run claimin to be exploring the myth.try again[/quote]I honestly cannot say that i expected a reasoned response from you. Dumb knee jerk reactions always.

^^^ Liar liar. Just like Atheists you know this Kay fellow is another little mind who cannot defend the definition of the words "athiest" or "agnostic"

Who appointed you his attorney?

Now Tudor reflect on this, before you continue your thoughtless rants -

   1. If something is said to be the summit of all thoughts such as God is, what effect do you think proximity to that summit will have on the mind of any conscious being that approaches it? Just cos you claim to be an athiest is no reason your brain should not be able to grasp basic logic on non-material matters.

   2. What is your apprehension of the word "omnipresent?"

                 - In a "Christian" perspective and

                 - In an abstract and philosophical perspective?

In the christian perspective, you know very well that God is said to reside in heaven. That alone should attune your presumptuous mind to the fact that omnipresence does not mean being everywhere. It may be said that the power of God permeates all places in that God is the source of all existence and life. That does not mean that God lives in Ajegunle. Stop making puerile arguments. You know i reserve my time for more advanced stuff than this load of. . .

Also in the abstract perspective an uncaused cause is not said to reside in Ajegulne. It is understood as a trancendental element initiated in a realm of existence inaccesible to gross matter. So again, omnipresence does not have the simplistic and pedestrain connotation that you so lazily table forth.

I am not interested in stories about war in heaven or whatever. You were so hasty to reach judgment that you could not see i was only offering a possible logical explanation of a myth. Go read my post again and note my use of the words "could have" and "your story". Stop to think and read before you write!

Note finally, that many myths do not spring out of nothingness.

Nuff said.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=365785.msg5109084#msg5109084 date=1260792596]The way you confidently spew crap on this forum is shocking.

How the hell do you come to this knowledge?

I thought god was ominipresent i.e EVERYWHERE so what is this BS about being far from the core.

Besides, lucifer was said to have revolted in heaven and in revelation there was said to be war in heaven if this rubbish core you're blabbing about was true, how would there be war in heaven? If the devil were to come into heaven he'll automatically be good and has no free will near the cose because "divergence from the will of God is only possible at great distances from the core".

You're just a phony. Cherry picking bits from each religion that suits your delusions[/quote]Haba, softly softly now. . . na jus idea i dey play with. . . no need for the yabbis o

wirinet:
I did not base my calculations on the amount of ice in the world today, i made the calculations based on the total amount of water - solid water (ice), liquid water(water) and gaseous water (water vapour) on earth, which is a constant. Water on the earths surface changes states  depending on temperature, so if the earth's temperature lowers, then more ice would accumulate at the poles and the water in the oceans would reduce resulting in lower sea level. But if the temperature increases and all the solid water (ice) at the poles melts, then the water in the oceans would increase, rising the sea level by 61m. Even if all the Gaseous water in the air condenses (which is a practical impossibility), it would not raise the world sea level significantly.

Point well taken. But i insist that you are still being limited in presuming that nothing at all could cause such a deluge.

Can you state with certainty that you posess ALL knowledge about ALL possible configurations of the earth's systems.

Have you considered what massive siesmic shifts could do to the sea level worldwide?

Are you not aware that exactly such massive seismic shifts are supposedly the cause of the disappearance of the fabled land of Atlantis?

Sienmic shifts. Can you say with certainty that massive movements of the land under the sea are not able to change global sea levels?

You know i dont give any hoot about any flood, i am just appalled that people can be so presumptuous as to think that they know all the possible configurations of anything that could happen on earth.

You are being exactly presumptuous.

Tudor stop being a silly rascal. You know very well we all know the meanings of those words. You also know very well that the only reason i asked Kay17 those questions is the fact that i verily suspect that he does not have a grasp of the concepts that he lays claim to. Much like the gentleman with the psuedonym - "Atheists."

Many people are really just angry at the fallacies of religion and they seem to think that qualifies as atheism, You know better.

As to his personal life, might i ask what right he has to peer into the personal lives of religious people?

Aha! The same right i have to ask him questions!

Besides - who appointed you Voltron for all the atheists who are not able to articulate themselves. Why do you always fly to their defence? ? ? ?

O the ecstasy. . . the forbidden fruit in the holy of holies. . . could there be a greater sacrilege. . . could there be a greater beauty. . .

Rock 2 me, Rock to me,

The temple and the altar. . .

We Violate. . .

Still waiting, your patient dog. . .as ever

wirinet:
Deep Sight you understanding of science is a far cry from your grasp of law. Also reread my post above concerning the ice caps. The total melting of all the ice on the earth's surface would raise world sea level by 61 metres see http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm ( sorry, i mistakenly said less than 5m). That is still a far cry from 8,900m required to cover mount Everest.
Also are you telling me you believe the " Noah's global flood hypothesis".

No i neither believe nor am interested in any flood at all. I was just throwing in a suggestion about the potential volume of ice in the world. . .

Now i can fault you on one ground at least. You make a calculation of the ice in the world today.

How do you know what amount of ice was stored up 5000 years ago. . . can you say with certainty that you know EXACTLY what the earth's water cycle was like 5000 years ago?

Address that!

Cheers. . .

m-nwankwo can do justice to this.

But in brief: note that a divergence from the will of God is only possible at great distances from his core. That's why humans have freewill and angels do not.

And that's why Lucifer could have developed a contrary will: as your story states, he had been sent to the earth: very far from God's core.

wirinet:
There are numerous scientific notions that dismisses the case for a global flood. One i have already put forward that no Christian is ready to answer is, Where did all the extra water come from?

You apparently have not considered all the water locked up as ice in the north and south poles, glaciers, etc.

A partial melting alone, of Iceland, Greenland, or antartica is sufficient to produce more water than you can possibly imagine.

beneli:
So there is something wrong with your definition that 'eternity' is 'infinite' and 'constant' time. Time 'moves', and movement can only occur from one point to another. If there is no beginning and end point, then there is no movement. For time to exist there must be a 'beginning' and an 'end'.

What gives you the impression that time moves? Where have you ever seen time moving? Is it not more accurate to state that objects and people move and transit within time, and not that time itself moves?

Perhaps you missed the word "constant" in my post. By that word i was trying to suggest that time does not move at all. It is a constancy. Now things happen and objects move within that constancy. This is merely a suggestion. Do not hold me to it.

But in this suggestion lies the equation for eternity. For if time does not move, then it is perforce eternal and infinte: a static constancy within which things happen and objects move.

It seems to m eyou are constricting yourself to finite thoughts. This is why you would state that time must have an end. That is implausible. Time being intangible cannot have an end.

Time and light where 'created at a point when something happened that people call the 'big bang'!

These are scientific gymnastics which we have argued exhaustively before: neither time nor space are capable of being created at any point - and certainly not by any big bang. Unless by space you mean matter. That is not my understanding of space.

viaro:
Spacetime as a single continuum which is the 4th dimension (perhaps viaro is still wrong, I'm willing to learn):

Certainly, there are many sources on the net where time is usually called the 4th dimension - but if that is going to make sense even to those who make such arguments, one needs to ask: in relation to what is 'time' the 4th dimension? If time stands on its own, it is useless to speak of it as the 4th dimension in either Euclidean geometry or theoretical physics.

This is why we should endeavour to first set aside personal ideas that have no bearing in the sciences that discuss the terms we use.

Ok Viaro, i get your point.

patiently waiting. . . i'm a good patient dog. . .

duh

[quote author=Master_1 link=topic=364727.msg5100390#msg5100390 date=1260649948]Personally, I think it is nonsense. Because for you to see Africa for instance 6000 years ago, you would need to see the light rays of 6000 years ago in order to see the 6000 years ago africa. Much time would be needed and a tremendous amount of energy provided you are evn travelling at the speed of light. So my friend, the only possible way is to warp the rabric of space and time and cross into the FUTURE. not into the past. So imagine a 5 metre thread stretching from A to B. by bending the rope, point A can be stretched to point B i.e bending it into a circle and then releasing it into a straight line again.[/quote]Folding spacetime is a scientific kindergarten fantasy.

See the discussion here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-362859.0.html

Pastor - what say you about the fact that traditional africans are noticeably more chaste and conservative than most caucasians - the debauchery and decadence of those societies as regards family and sexual values cannot be denied?

Wwirinet, why did you take off from the thread on the dialectics of spirituality where it was conclusively shown that you believe in the existence of non-physical things - but contradictorily slam others for believing in spirituality?

beneli:
The bolded part akes us back to the ancient philosphical question of 'what is time?'!
My take on it is that time, is a function of the speed of light, is finite and will therefore 'end'.

Are you suggesting to me that in the absence of light there will be no time? Recall that "light" refers to that emitted by cosmic bodies, etc?

Be very careful Beneli. . .

beneli:
The bolded part akes us back to the ancient philosphical question of 'what is time?'!
My take on it is that time, is a function of the speed of light, is finite and will therefore 'end'. Infinity begins at the point where time 'ends'.

Beneli - what is eternity if not infinite and constant time?

The very idea of eternity puts a cog in the wheel of your presupposition that time can ever be said to end.

The very idea of eternity also shows time to be an intangible constant, as i earlier stated.

beneli:
I use 'fabric' because there's hardly anything else on earth we could use to describe it! Scientists have used phrases such as the 'god particle', so perhaps we should call it God. I still prefer 'fabric' for now, though.

No: you use "fabric" because you have misapprehended time as a finite, almost material thing. This is underscored by your allusion to time coming to an "end" - which is inconceivable to a mind having a slight appreciation of the intangible and self-existent nature of time.

viaro:
Talking about having similar ideas, the very things (and more) you have highlighted were the things I had in mind when I opened another thread - Of Singularities and Infinities - but slowed down because it seemed the discussion would just spiral out of shape and enter a blackhole of its own. So a separate thread as you proposed would/might just be the thing. Good thinking, beneli.

Rather than duplicate threads i think we should simply ressurect that thread so some of the things already said there needn't be repeated.

viaro:
Time is not the 4th dimension and is not described that way.

Altogether and absolutely wrong Viaro. I'll let Wikipedia speak, not me -

Spacetime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, spacetime (or space–time; or space/time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort than the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.

Beneli i think that using the word "fabric" in the context if infinity and eternity is an insurmountable contradiction.

Beneli. . . ? ? ? ? You've got something very intreresting cooking there. . . I like very much. . .

Save to state that time is definitely an intangible infinite constant and can never be said to "end."

Ditto space.

Beneli? ? ? ? ?

*singing* Daffidi. . . Noeli. . . make una dey worship white man im god o, make una dey worship israel im ifa o, make una dey shout, dey shout, dey shout say na dem o. . .

My Darling Mavenbox -

Many apologies. The Universe is my favourite subject and as you may have noticed i was thoroughly (though frustratingly) engaged in a thread about the demise of the universe elsewhere.

How could i have ignored my one true love for so many hours. I apologize!

Now speedily to business.

The remark i took umbrage at -

Speaking for Christianity, when a person gets saved by confessing Christ as Saviour, it's the spirit that gets saved. The mind/ soul is not saved YET, but will be eventually renewed as you walk with God.

First off: let me say this: i have no problems whatsoever with the concept of spirit, soul and body that you laid out. I feel sometimes so alien within my own skin, that i possess a healthy and lively awareness of the fact that i am an immaterial being. I am also able to draw a distinction between my mind and emotions on the one hand, and the purity of essential spirituality on the other hand.

So no problems there. My problem is with your description of salvation.

Without making reference to the details of your response let me simply set out my thoughts, and perhaps therein you might see why i did not take nicely to your assertion above.

Let me ask you what you understand by the word salvation. And specifically what it entails to attain salvation.

In your perspective, it appears that salvation is attained through belief in Jesus Christ and the sacrifice at Golgotha.

Yet we are both aware that Elijah was supposedly taken up into heaven ever before that "sacrifice" occured. And without espousing any belief or knowledge about that "sacrifice" Same with the principle in the parable of the good samaritan. Same with the thief on the cross at Golgotha. Same with the scripture in Acts 10:34 - 35. Same with various statements of Jesus regarding people who "believe" in him, and many who supposedly knwe him not.

We are both aware that the inner condition required of a human spirit inorder to attain the living light has always remained the same, and never changed. We are both firmly aware that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, being a permanent and perfect primordial entity. We certainly agree that there would be no reason for a perfect being such as the Almighty Uncaused Cause to ever "change" the requirements or criteria for communion with him, and it is my positive conviction that that criteria remains love, love and only love. Love of God, love and wonder at creation, and love of fellow man.

In everything that i read in scripture, i am positively convinced that this is the standard only: and that millions of humans who lived and died without ever knowning of the carpenter from Nazareth called Jesus, still stand firmly in the love of God, and in that very salvation that Jesus preached, on account of their inner disposition and attunement towards love.

In this respect i am at odds with the claims of fanatical and fundamentalist christians (such as Noetic and Davidylan) that persons such as Mahatma Ghandi, who have devoted their entire livies to love of fellow man, and made unspeakable personal sacrifices in their life-long drive to spread peace and human brotherhood, must still stand condemned before God because they did not "accept" Jesus as their personal lord and saviour.

I am of the view that even if such an acceptance of christ is necessary, the definitive mode of "accepting" him - is only through the inculcation of the principle of love. This i believe is open to people of any religion and culture, and if you are interested i can refer you to much scripture even within the New Testament that supports this worldview.

I despise dogma.

Now, apologies for the lengthy opener. I meant only to set the background to that which i saw as wrong within your statement.

You stated that -

when a person gets saved by confessing Christ as Saviour, it's the spirit that gets saved.

First off: as explained above, i do not believe that "confessing" Christ as saviour leads to salvation. And if at all it does, then the mode of confession is not by stating that Jesus is lord, or even by knowing of his existence at all, but by living according to the principle of love that he taught: whether or not one ever knows or acknowledges Jesus of Nazareth the man.

Secondly - and this is the core of my problem with your statement -

  1. What is salvation?

  2. What does it mean to be saved?

  3. Why is it the case that after the "acceptance" of christ, sin continues?

  4. Is the above persistence of sin not clear evidence that the "acceptance" of christ as saviour is meaningless?

  5. Cardinally; what distinguishes between the pre-acceptance state of the spirit and the post-acceptance state of the spirit?

I am of the view that there is only one thing that could menaingfully distingusih between either state. And that is perhaps the inculcation of the principle of love, and nothing else. Thus rendering any "confession" both unnecessary and spiritually meaningless.

Now it is apparent that the inculcation of this principle is something that permeates spirit, mind, soul and body. It is a living thing, the entire disposition of the collective man, such that your distinction between a salvation of a spirit that continues in sin through the soul, mind and body, appears preposterous to me. For i do not mean to suggest that any man should be perfect, but that the permeating love which a good person has is something that sinks through all fibres of his being, and renders him favoured in the sight of God.

In this your very own words show my case -

The mind/ soul is not saved YET, but will be eventually renewed as you walk with God[/

Thus indicating that renewal comes through walking with God - through love - and regardless of any confession! In other words the "salvation by confession" that you talked about, you yourself have admitted to be useless unless one is able to walk with God! So what kind of salvation is that? Is it not clear from your very own words that the confession is meaningless and that "walking with God" is the real thing to strive for! Get my gist now?

Thus the idea that your "spirit" is saved by a mere "confession" (which any slowpoke can muster) is certainly in my mind dogmatic and reeks of a slavish adherence to an external ritualistic myth. I cannot see that such a "salvation" should take place, and the human being should, to be "saved" (again?) continue in the path of seeking the light: which has always been the true path: namely the path of seeking love. Particularly to make myself clear: i can see that the state of the man pre-confession and the state of the man post-confession are nothing; and spiritually meaningless compared to the state of a man pre-love, and the state of a man post-love; and this latter state has nothing at all to do with knowing the man Jesus, and remains open to people of every race, religion and culture.

Nuff. If you are interested in scripture that supports this worldview, i will oblige.

Just a mild correction -

beneli:
your take, if i am not wrong, is that these my bubbles of 'spacetime' is infact the universe itself.

NO: THAT IS NOT MY TAKE: My take is that space and time are infinite and self existent contancies within which matter exists and expands.

This is the 3-dimensional image of space in which we live i referred to above -