needimprovement

Agreed. In fact if we were to accept the Bible as the self authenticating Word fo God, we would also have to accept the Koran and the Book of Morman as the Word of God... God never gave us the book seperate from the institution. The Bible was not seperated from The Catholic Church until the Protestant Reformation. Likewise the idea that the link between Christ and the institution of One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is "less certain" is a fallicy that comes FROM that very "reformation". The Protestant reformation could not stand if the 1100 year old, universally accepted, definition of Church remained unchanged. So the Protestants taught a new meaning, a new interpretation of Church - The so called "invisible church of all believers" - An interpretation foreign to anyone in the Church, East or West, prior to that. When I look for the term "Church" in the Gospels I see it used twice. Both times by Christ and both times in connection with granting the authority to "Bind and Loose"..."Whatever". The first time gives the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter, and the second time tells the faithful to "Tell it To The Church" and then abide by the decision of The Church. I don't see how this is in any way ambiguious. Christ established a visible and authoritative Church. Yes it is unfortunate that God's Perfect Church has had it's share of imperfect leaders. I don't agree with you that "political pressures" played any significant role in the selection of the Canon, but that would be a whole new thread. I think that once you work out the issues for yourself, with teh help of the Holy Spirit, you will no longer believe this.

very well said. The Bible was written by holy men and prophets under the inspiration of the holy spirit. ****EDITED

SFN is a place where I feel I have some friends around the world, I like the opportunity to share opinions and hear other people's points of view on subjects. The discussions are fantastic, the input, the knowledge, the sharing of experiences and information are the best I´ve found ! I learn there are more ways to view anything, than just my own.

And if these priests have made up this religion, why have they done so? Why would they require of themselves to take vows of "Povery, Chastity and Obedience"? Why would they reqiure celibacy among the Priesthood? Why would the supposed founders of this faith willingly suffer imprisonment, torture and even willingly go to their own execution? These things are counterintuitive of the type of thing you propose above. First I know of nothing in any religious context that indicates God is "nervous", let alone, "perpetually nervous" about his support among we His children. This view on your part places limits on God, like there must be larger things for Him to be concerned with in the Cosmos and why would He waste His (presumably) limited time worrying about us. Why should we assume that an all powerful God cannot handle all things in the Cosmos with equal attention to detail? As to the other matters, my answer is that there is much we do not know about God and that the descriptions you provide above have more to do with our limited understanding than with the reality of God. We read, write and process things in ways that we understand; in structures that we can grasp. That is why God is called king, and why our relationship to Him is described in "King - Servant" ways. That is the structure that those doing the writing understood. As to why would God be, "so preoccupied with whether a collection of tiny minds on Earth believed in his existence, whether those people were praising and blessing him, or whether they were slipping away from his control by worshipping false gods....", the answer can be found in the great commandments and in the Life of Christ. Love... For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son.... I give you a new command, that you Love one another as I have Loved you... **** Marat, That position is actually a bit silly. It assumes that people always act rationally. It also makes broad sweeping generalizations that are not warrented with respect to evaluating the philosophy itself. For example, it assumes that all Christians think alike or have the same degree of faith. There's a huge difference between someone like Mother Theresa and a twice-a-year christian. The latter is very likely to "wail in despair" when some "serious but mundate tragedy ruins only this life for them." The former would rejoice in that she could unite her suffering to the cross of Jesus for the salvation of souls. It is true that a weak faith can be destroyed. Jesus Himself told us this in the parable of the sower (which specifically addresses those who have shallow faith that is destroyed when trouble comes their way). And, yes, too many Christians 1) do not really know their faith, and 2) do not deeply inculcate it into their souls. Those that do are extraordiarly powerful, even if weak by the standards of this world, because God acts through them to do great things. Mother Theresa is a good example of this, as well. You must judge a philosophy on its merits, not on those who fail to live up to it.

This is the Puzzle given by Company Recruitment team to recruit one of their Deputy CEO and the time given is 15 min... (Maximum) and the minimum time is..... Depends upon the person's IQ... Find the attachment below Let me know how much time you have taken to solve it.... brain teaser.zip

How does the momentum of charged particle being measured? I guess the angle of deflection while passing through a magnetic field. But how does one determine such an angle without knowing the particle’s position at the same time. I would appreciate if anyone could share examples of experiments for measuring a particle’s momentum.

What if I were to write, "It was raining cats and dogs" and someone were to read that phrase 2000 years from now, what would they think? One could look just at the words on the page and take them at their literal word for word meaning. Or one could try to understand what type of writing and would ask if it is poetry, biography, journalism, from a diary or part of a technical manual on how to fix a transmission. One could try to understand somthing of the social, political and economic circumstances under which the author wrote and wold ask whether the person was rich or poor, a slave or free, old or young, educated or not. One could also try to understand the customs and mannerisms of the day and the common figures of speech and would ask if this were a common phrase, where else in printed literature this phrase was used and under what context and how the individual words were used in other phrases. A literalist interpretation of "It was raining cats and dogs" is that animals were falling from the sky. Other's, upon looking at the contexts under which the passage was written, might rightly conclude that it was coming down in buckets (sorry, couldn't resist). Now, some parts of the bible are meant to be taken literally, like Acts and Kings while other parts are not. My point is that the Bible was written over a period of thousands of years by many differen authors, each of whome had different backgrounds and wrote with different styles. It is one of the most ancient books known to man, written in ancient languages which have been translated to modern English as best as we know how. It's not as easy as just taking the bible literally word-for-word. If that were the case, then we should all be plucking our eyes out and chopping off our hands like Jesus told us to do. The question illustrates why we need an infallible intepreter and what a great gift it is to have been given a Church which is exactly that.

I don't know if I would go so far as to say this, but I will say that If ones life is properly ordered, then the Glorification of God IS our greatest enjoyment. We give Him the greatest Glory by conforming our Lives to the Two Great Commandments given by Christ:

I am interested to know your answer about the question above.

mississippichem, You may be right in all that you say above, from the "sciency" viewpoint. But as I explained to you earlier, my OP was intended for rules applying to "The Lwas and Prophets", and by extention, rules we have today such as mandatory mass on Sundays, days of fast and abstenance etc. I was obviously not clear enough on this at the beginning and so I apologize to you for that. Now that you have brought into the discussion these other factors, beyond the intent of the OP, we have reached the point of talking past each other. You will not accept without proof, (which is not faith) and I have no evidence that you will accept as proof. May you be happy in your choice

I tried doing the math the way the world wanted me to. It didn't quite work. God stuck His finger in everything, and calculating became quite useless. He/She surprised me everywhere and tickled me in my seriosity. Then She took me, wildly, and in public. I was never the same, and could only smile wherever I went, grinning like an idiot.

Are you saying that "What is sin foryou, may not be sin for me, or what is true for you, may not be true for me. Everyone has their own truth." The problem is that two truths cannot contradict each other and both be true. Either a.) one is true and the other is false; or, B.) neither are true because there is no such thing as objective, unalterable truth. Solution B.) is contrary to human experience. If B.) were the correct solution, then we would have to conclude that Hitler, Stalin, Paedophiles, Rapists & Murderers are not necessarily authors of evil, but rather they were human beings like you and me pursuing "their truth" as they saw it, and who am I to tell them that they are wrong to do it. If we reject the existence of an objective truth, then we reject the existence of right & wrong and good & evil. Yet, everyone I have ever met has had a sense of right and wrong, and their has always been large areas of agreement between people about what is right, and what is wrong. In fact, even most criminals recognise that what they are did what wrong, it is simply that they chose to do it anyway. The rejection of truth empties this life of all meaning, it reduces life to being a series of sensual experiences, after which one dies, and it is as if that person never existed, at least once s/he is forgotten within 50 yrs, or so. Therefore, I would encourage you to hold position a) - there is an objective truth. However, for there to be an objective truth, there must have been an author of that truth. Humans couldn't have evolved into an objective truth, it must have come from outside humanity, from above, therefore, if you hold a), then it follows that there must be a God. If God exists and has authored one truth, then presumably he has revealed this to us - there would be no point concealing the truth from us. As a Catholic, I believe that God has revealed his truth to us in Jesus Christ (cf. John 14.6), and that to proclaim his message of truth with clarity throughout every age he established one Church (cf. Matt. 16.18), and that this Church continues to guard and proclaim the deposit of Faith revealed by Christ.

Thank you all. The smallest (or biggest) slice of anything is as much as your thoughts can apprehend.

That is certainly true, but Divagreen made the following statement, which I think is false: "Emotions are easier to read on an EEG ... " {in post 21} I wish to know if Divagreen's claim has a foundation.

But did he also say (see link)

An errata has been submitted to the National DepEd stating: … the theme "Kids of the New Decade: Moving Beyond the Science Clubbing Continuum" was changed to "Science Clubbing DNA: Decoding science. Nullifying fiction. Amplifying action.". I would appreciate if anyone can help me make a slogan out of the theme above. If possible, expound/give example.

Human beings sin for the same reason they do other things that are harmful to them, be it in this life or the one to come. They gorge on unhealthy food knowing that sooner rather than later their poor eating habits are going to catch up with them and affect their health. They smoke. They drink way too much. They do other drugs. Also in the knowledge that these things are harmful. They spend too much and incur too much debt again knowing that sooner rather than later it will catch up with them. And they do other things that defy sense and logic. They buy lottery tickets knowing that the odds of winning are millions to one, bet on horses or sporting teams that have miniscule chances of winning, etc etc etc. Humans are very bad for the most part at giving up short-term gains or rewards (such as the buzz of that chocolate hit or drink or the thrill of placing that bet) and focusing on long-term benefits (improved health or bank balance). This applies to spiritual benefits as much as material ones.

While Marat has a point. We are all missing a different context in which sin takes place. This is the desire to be our own Gods and to have pleasure when we want it. Sin is irrational, and we are all spiritually wounded with a tendency towards sin, but not to the extent that we cannot do something about it. However; to simply say that we sin because we doubt Gods existence is to express a misunderstanding. Some people sin because at the time of that sin, the sin meant more to them than Gods will. Also, some people really do sin out of weakness such as when they have an addiction. To ignore the fact that influences can encourage us to make irrational choices really is playing blind-man to reality. While Marat's doo doo obviously doesn't stink, the most that he is able to prove is that human beings are unfaithful to God, like some men are unfaithful to their wife's or wifes to husbands. There is no guarantee that certain knowledge of God equals faithfulness to God. Yet God is continuously merciful in giving us the sacraments none-the-less. Being Christian doesn't necessarily mean that you love God either. We learn to love God. We acquire a spiritual taste for God the more we interact with God with honesty. A true saint has been given the grace to love God; they by themselves were not the cause of their sainthood. That is false interpretation of the catholic faith. Those who think their good, are not good, and those who admit that they are sinners, are on the road to sainthood.

Marat, Great Post !!!! This has always struck me as well. Thank you for putting it so well. The question really comes down to where our "focus" is. The more we examine the lives of the great saints too, the more we will see this sort of "other-worldly" focus. Not that they don't have temptations and troubles, but it is surely how they view and handle those troubles that mark a difference and make them worthy of emulation.

At the end of time you will realize the difference of the two books. The other one is a fiction and the other is the truth. It's funny that Lord of the Rings should be mentioned.

First you state that if I fail to properly apply a "principle of logic" then my hypothesis would be flawed, then you say that your idea of "principle(s) of logic are not "formal" (as in defined) and are really just "common sense" (also undefined). Man - And you talk about how Christians fail to give you satisfactory answers and talk in circles etc. Common sense can mean whatever you want it to mean - What makes perfect (common) sense to me may make no sense at all to you. Great basis for judging the validity of an argument It may be blatently obvious to you, but it certainly isn't to me. Makes perfect (common) sense to me. Therefore you hypothesis must be flawed from the start. Lessons from history can be many and varied. If you wish only to see "genocide and hatred", and a "different god" in the OT and NT, there is little I can say. You have reached the point of, not just exploring your faith, but of attempting to discect God. OK - You've answered the OP question. You do not believe that all "rules" can be seen as stemming from Love. Thank you for your input.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Ok I will agreed that density is a mathematical premise, but it seems you misundstood my meaning. The more particles in the same space, the more solidified - the difference between wood and iron, and empty space and physicality. We don't know anything because the origins of everything is unknown. But all indicators and evidences [as opposed actual proof] say the universe is finite and cannot in any wise be infinite: the universe is expanding - it was not infinite 10 seconds ago; an infinite cannot fit into a finite realm. I agree with Genesis there was a BEGINNING; I also agree with Genesis that maths and sciences ['laws'] occured in its second verse - or what must happen next to beget science and math - namely the formless had to change to form. I also agree that light per se had to predate the stars, and that pre-life anticipatory actions [critical seperations of this planet's elements] had to be performed before life could emerge. I agree that all things in the universe are the result of a duality, and that each part had to be embedded with pre-determined directive programs to conclude in pre-determined results from that interaction. I agree that humans are a species on their own, varied from all other life forms by a ratio of 1: all other life forms - while still retaining the commonality of all life forms. I agree that the first emergence of the human species had to be a dual-gendered entity, then split asunder. I agree a unverse must have a universe maker, but not necessarilly according to any theological doctrines. If someone does not agree - it does not mean Genesis is not dsplaying scientific and logical premises.

I received a text message from a friend who is a teacher in grade school and was not sure how to answer it other than to say I really can't do anything about it. Anyway, I thought I'd post it here and then link the thread to the person who sent me text message. Here it is. Any input would be appreciated. How do you interpret the theme "Kids of the new decades moving beyond science clubbing continuum"? Please provide example. What is a good slogan for this theme?

The times listed are UT(universal time), which is the modern equivalent of Greenwich Mean Time. Universal time is the same worldwide, If it is 1200 UT in England, it is 1200 UT in Japan. Depending on where you are in the world, the difference between UT and local clocks will differ. In one part of the world, at 1200 UT, it will be the middle of the night. Thus the times listed are when a full Moon occurs by UT, not when it is visible by local time. The full Moon is never visible at noon local time, even though it is occurring at that moment. It would only be visible in those parts of the world where the Moon has risen. So basically only some people are able to see the true full moon or the exact time it gets there. but the rest are close when it comes around to them.