• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

muffler dragon;1971785; said:
Very interesting perspective. To be honest with you, I have great difficulty just dealing with "infinitesimally small". How is that phrase even legit, and then to compound that "i.s." with the expanse that is our universe, I get all sorts of la la. Not saying it's right or wrong, just incomprehensible to me.

It is very difficult to comprehend, but has been proven in the lab and in how we run our spacecraft, for instance.

I remember as a child, maybe 8 or 9, I asked my mom about how to understand the fourth dimension, a spatial one not time. My mom told my that a line was one dimensional, but if you spin it you get a two dimensional circle. If you spin a two dimensional circle, you get a three dimensional sphere. She told me to just spin the sphere.

Wow, that spent more hours of my time over the years to trying to understand and imagine than I care to admit. She was wrong too. Ha.
 
Upvote 0
One+More+Theory+%28on+the+extinction+of+the+dinosaurs%29.jpg
 
Upvote 0
kinch;1972038; said:
It is very difficult to comprehend, but has been proven in the lab and in how we run our spacecraft, for instance.

What do you mean that infinitesimally small has been proven in either case?

I remember as a child, maybe 8 or 9, I asked my mom about how to understand the fourth dimension, a spatial one not time. My mom told my that a line was one dimensional, but if you spin it you get a two dimensional circle. If you spin a two dimensional circle, you get a three dimensional sphere. She told me to just spin the sphere.

Wow, that spent more hours of my time over the years to trying to understand and imagine than I care to admit. She was wrong too. Ha.

:lol:
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1972317; said:
What do you mean that infinitesimally small has been proven in either case?



:lol:

I meant that the formulas and theories behind infinitesimally small (not quite right, it is very small), have been used and shown to be correct in other ways.

And yes, I think my mom was trolling me. :)
 
Upvote 0
I remember as a child, maybe 8 or 9, I asked my mom about how to understand the fourth dimension, a spatial one not time. My mom told my that a line was one dimensional, but if you spin it you get a two dimensional circle. If you spin a two dimensional circle, you get a three dimensional sphere. She told me to just spin the sphere.

Wow, that spent more hours of my time over the years to trying to understand and imagine than I care to admit. She was wrong too. Ha.
So instead of badgering her with endless questions, she tricked you into asking yourself questions about it. Checkmate.
 
Upvote 0
If God is a "loving God" and weather is considered an "act of god" then how do you expalin such incidents as the people killed at the Indiana State Fair from a wind gust causing a stage collapse killing innocent victims?
 
Upvote 0
Thump;1977983; said:
If God is a "loving God" and weather is considered an "act of god" then how do you expalin such incidents as the people killed at the Indiana State Fair from a wind gust causing a stage collapse killing innocent victims?

Actus Dei nemini facit injuriam. The act of God does no injury; that is, no one is responsible for inevitable accidents. 2 Blacks. Com. 122.

Thump, the phrase "act of God" is less about attributing the act to God, than it is expressing the legal concept that the act in question - be it a failure to complete a contractual obligation or the failure to secure a state fair stage pavilion - was not due to human intervention or lack thereof, and not due to a failure to see the foreseeable and take reasonable actions/precautions. The point being that human conduct was not the direct cause of the injury or damage - the harm was instead a result of natural causes beyond the control of human agency.

A more precise rendering of the term "act of God" would read "not an act of man".

Then again, there is this alternate theory:



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VvZckQx_js&feature=fvwrel"]U2 Mysterious Ways (ZOO TV Live in Sydney) - YouTube[/ame]
 
Upvote 0
Thump;1977983; said:
If God is a "loving God" and weather is considered an "act of god" then how do you expalin such incidents as the people killed at the Indiana State Fair from a wind gust causing a stage collapse killing innocent victims?
I've got the fiery crash thread on line 2.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1978014; said:
Who says that dying is considered "bad" in some way in the eyes of G-d? I mean... if we assume we have a soul, and it is eternal, how can we be killed anyway? I guess the question doesn't even make sense to me.
Exactly.

There's also the matter of whether we would appreciate the good in this world without the bad. My experience with myself says no.

That doesn't mean tornadoes are springboards for happiness, but that this world is inescapably imperfect by choice (and for choice).
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1978014; said:
Who says that dying is considered "bad" in some way in the eyes of G-d? I mean... if we assume we have a soul, and it is eternal, how can we be killed anyway? I guess the question doesn't even make sense to me.
A great point BKB. It (our little lives scurrying around suffering, worrying about pain and grief and our loved one being killed and such) does sort of invoke this image, however:

ant-farm.jpg


But then, if God built the ant farm, he can sort of do with it what He/She wants...
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top