Explaining John's Revelation.
- Thread starter Aleon
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
let me make it plain to you, so you won't have to pretend to speak for me about things i've never said:
it seems to me that you on the other hand are putting on the air of knowing everything.
nope, i don't, and given that you don't understand that you're doing geometry when you explain things in terms of 'shapes' (which is math) and you're doing a form of algebraic topology and linear analysis when you enumerate conceptual ideas and manipulate 'infinities' (also math) i have to admit that i'm disinclined to bother reading it.
perhaps you could stoop to give a poor ignorant brother some kind of synopsis, that might pique my interest?
i'm not writing you off -- i just find fault with your loose use & apparent ignorance of 'mathematics.' it's admittedly a very small segment of people who deal with higher maths, so that's no blight on you. but condemning mathematics out of hand, while using it yourself, and displaying what to my mind is not the sort of expertise & familiarity with it you should have to make so bold a statement is off-putting with regard to your credibility in the whole matter.
this is something i'm sure you could correct in me with a few paragraphs, if you really are the expert you claim to be, and are willing to set aside whatever arrogance and/or perceived insult is necessary for you to speak freely about what you say so greatly commends you.
is that supposed to be a counter-example?
look man, there are two things you can do in reaction to me: you can puff up and bow me off, being just as juvenile as you accuse me of, or you can accept that perhaps we have non-intersecting areas of knowledge and ability that could work towards our mutual edification in Christ.
i really don't mind if you want to laugh at me. sorry to have offended you -- but once again, thanks, because whether you intended to make me smile or not, you did.
i know very little.
it seems to me that you on the other hand are putting on the air of knowing everything.
nope, i don't, and given that you don't understand that you're doing geometry when you explain things in terms of 'shapes' (which is math) and you're doing a form of algebraic topology and linear analysis when you enumerate conceptual ideas and manipulate 'infinities' (also math) i have to admit that i'm disinclined to bother reading it.
perhaps you could stoop to give a poor ignorant brother some kind of synopsis, that might pique my interest?
i'm not writing you off -- i just find fault with your loose use & apparent ignorance of 'mathematics.' it's admittedly a very small segment of people who deal with higher maths, so that's no blight on you. but condemning mathematics out of hand, while using it yourself, and displaying what to my mind is not the sort of expertise & familiarity with it you should have to make so bold a statement is off-putting with regard to your credibility in the whole matter.
this is something i'm sure you could correct in me with a few paragraphs, if you really are the expert you claim to be, and are willing to set aside whatever arrogance and/or perceived insult is necessary for you to speak freely about what you say so greatly commends you.
is that supposed to be a counter-example? look man, there are two things you can do in reaction to me: you can puff up and bow me off, being just as juvenile as you accuse me of, or you can accept that perhaps we have non-intersecting areas of knowledge and ability that could work towards our mutual edification in Christ.
i really don't mind if you want to laugh at me. sorry to have offended you -- but once again, thanks, because whether you intended to make me smile or not, you did.
Okay you've never said you know much. But you do act as if you do. You wrote you can do infinite calculations. Good luck with that, never going to happen. And like I wrote, you don't know my cosmology theory. There is nothing you can say about it yet you insist I'm using math. Mathematics is not the way to understand the universe because the universe is based upon infinites. Basic idea.... if there is nothing to create nothing to start a universe you have to have something without rules. No rules no borders, so no-way to frame anything in this universe. Let alone apply mathematics to it. But keep on giggling. I'm sure Einstein and his mathematical followers skipped this lesson while forcing their opinions as reality.
infinity itself is a mathematical concept. without a measure, you can't call anything 'infinite' or 'finite' -- and measure is math.
infinite things can certainly be constrained by some kind of borders. there are an infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1. in fact, there are an infinite number of numbers between any two rational numbers.
'nothing to create nothing to start a universe you have to have something' -- you're talking math here too.
what i mean to get across to you, and what i find humorous, is that you're using math at the same time that you are demonizing it, and using math at the same time that you're pretending not to.
it's as though i were to contend that breathing air is evil. but i keep breathing. in order to avoid my hypocrisy, i insist on calling air "florp"
so i'm not breathing air, i'm breathing florp. no contradiction?
but air & florp -- same thing.
i suppose philosophers similarly take note of how everyone uses philosophy, and chuckle when people insist that they have no philosophy (in itself, a philosophy). just like we sometimes try to explain to atheists that they do indeed set things up like 'gods' (even themselves) while they vigorously deny it.
my friend, you're doing a form of math, whether you like it or not.
so i think you might want to re-evaluate your assertion that mathematicians are the beast. after all, isn't it also written in Revelation to 'calculate the number of the beast' ? didn't the angel instruct John to 'measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers' ? isn't it written in the Psalms a prayer that the Lord should 'teach us to number our days' ? so is the scripture encouraging us to be evil?
of course not.
infinite things can certainly be constrained by some kind of borders. there are an infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1. in fact, there are an infinite number of numbers between any two rational numbers.
'nothing to create nothing to start a universe you have to have something' -- you're talking math here too.
what i mean to get across to you, and what i find humorous, is that you're using math at the same time that you are demonizing it, and using math at the same time that you're pretending not to.
it's as though i were to contend that breathing air is evil. but i keep breathing. in order to avoid my hypocrisy, i insist on calling air "florp"
so i'm not breathing air, i'm breathing florp. no contradiction?
but air & florp -- same thing.
i suppose philosophers similarly take note of how everyone uses philosophy, and chuckle when people insist that they have no philosophy (in itself, a philosophy). just like we sometimes try to explain to atheists that they do indeed set things up like 'gods' (even themselves) while they vigorously deny it.
my friend, you're doing a form of math, whether you like it or not.
so i think you might want to re-evaluate your assertion that mathematicians are the beast. after all, isn't it also written in Revelation to 'calculate the number of the beast' ? didn't the angel instruct John to 'measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers' ? isn't it written in the Psalms a prayer that the Lord should 'teach us to number our days' ? so is the scripture encouraging us to be evil?
of course not.
You're wrong about everything Posthuman. Just because you see mathematics in everything doesn't mean everything is mathematics. Just because you wise guys gave a second grade description of what infinite is and other things. Doesn't mean you understand it. Only something that is infinite can actually understand infinite. Such as God. You a finite creature will never understand what infinite is and you cannot accurately describe it. You cannot calculate it ever! And if you like to give it a try I suggest you attempt to square the circle. Here you can read up on it Squaring the circle - RationalWiki I'll guarantee you not even Newton was capable of doing so. Because it's infinite. And you will never be able to do this ever. No matter how big your posts are. And again I am not using mathematics. I may as well call infinite "unending" or "without restraint" or "endless". Just because mathematics has a description for it doesn't mean you own the concept.
That’s just the thing isn't it. You cannot actually measure infinity so you cannot call it mathematics at all.
Some kind of border? Vague language here and you'll never be able to use infinite numbers. That’s just pure speculation on your part that will never become fruitful ever. You cannot frame infinite things with mathematics because mathematics divides things in numbers. I don't know how much I need to teach you before you'll grasp this but I'm kinda done trying.
That’s just the thing isn't it. You cannot actually measure infinity so you cannot call it mathematics at all.
Some kind of border? Vague language here and you'll never be able to use infinite numbers. That’s just pure speculation on your part that will never become fruitful ever. You cannot frame infinite things with mathematics because mathematics divides things in numbers. I don't know how much I need to teach you before you'll grasp this but I'm kinda done trying.
A
Yo, dude! I really don't get higher maths. But I know a thing or two about human nature, and more about publishing. You're merely a kid (attitude, not age), who thinks you are getting a peer review for your scientific discovery without noticing the following problems:
1. Publishing a "book" on Smashwords isn't truly publishing. (I mean, technically it is, but it's vanity publishing, so means nothing except to YOUR ego.)
2. We're not your peers. We're merely people who call ourselves Christians. That doesn't even mean we're Christians. AND, we're on a public forum on the Internet. Not much different than looking for an audience at your local McDonald's. I mean, it's possible, you might find peers there. Judging from your vanity published paper, it can't be hard. But you're more likely to find a few less knowledgeable and a lot more knowledgeable people in the crowd. Sort of like having an IQ of 100 and thinking no one is smarter.
3. This ain't science!
4. You've already been wiped on your views. Views without any supporting knowledge other than stuff you made up on the spot, isn't worth reviewing.
I really have published papers. None were published without me first proving I knew what I was talking about. You published in Smashwords because you couldn't go that far. Not a good position to feel cocky over. And certainly not worth spending any time believing any of it.
Let's be real -- this was just your marketing plan to advertise your "book," because you didn't even bother figuring out how to advertise it before you published it. You ARE your own review. It's a one-star review from the author, this telling everyone it's not worth buying. Time to think better in the future, if you still have a goal to publish. You just killed your own "book."
1. Publishing a "book" on Smashwords isn't truly publishing. (I mean, technically it is, but it's vanity publishing, so means nothing except to YOUR ego.)
2. We're not your peers. We're merely people who call ourselves Christians. That doesn't even mean we're Christians. AND, we're on a public forum on the Internet. Not much different than looking for an audience at your local McDonald's. I mean, it's possible, you might find peers there. Judging from your vanity published paper, it can't be hard. But you're more likely to find a few less knowledgeable and a lot more knowledgeable people in the crowd. Sort of like having an IQ of 100 and thinking no one is smarter.
3. This ain't science!
4. You've already been wiped on your views. Views without any supporting knowledge other than stuff you made up on the spot, isn't worth reviewing.
I really have published papers. None were published without me first proving I knew what I was talking about. You published in Smashwords because you couldn't go that far. Not a good position to feel cocky over. And certainly not worth spending any time believing any of it.
Let's be real -- this was just your marketing plan to advertise your "book," because you didn't even bother figuring out how to advertise it before you published it. You ARE your own review. It's a one-star review from the author, this telling everyone it's not worth buying. Time to think better in the future, if you still have a goal to publish. You just killed your own "book."
You make a lot of mumbo jumbo about Smashwords which I never even mentioned. I guess that's another of your big name things. Smashwords is too small for you. You know the more you write the more you come over as a selfish person. Smashwords is simply a vendor I placed my non-profit book into. My book is about honesty. Not some selfish profit gain.