The Paranormal

[nl]

No Christian ever hit upon the notion of a multiverse based upon their reading of the Bible. It required scientific thinking to originate the hypothesis. That the physicist Jeff Zweerink gives credence to the possibility, and is himself a Christian, is evidence enough for me that like evolution the multiverse hypothesis is also compatible with Christian thinking – so long as one is not a biblical literalist.

Throughout human history, people have multiplied gods and godesses and religions in an apparent effort to distort the truth of the one true God. It is no wonder if people continue to speculate about multiple inhabited planets and multiple universes.

Jesus Christ was God incarnate as a human being who suffered, died and was resurrected from the dead that he might justly provide redemption, pardon and forgiveness of sin for the human race.

Jesus did not become an angel and redeem fallen demons.

In fictional speculation, I think that Jesus Christ would not and even could not become a Vulcanite so that he could redeem Dr. Spock and a fallen Vulcanite race of Vulcan sinners. In my estimation, Jesus Christ was incarnate once, suffered once and will ultimately redeem members of only one race and that is the human race.

 

[nl]

... so long as one is not a biblical literalist.

Many things in the Bible are to be understood literally. Jesus literally healed the lame man at the pool of Bethesda and literally fed the multitudes and literally walked on the water. Other parts of the Bible include metaphor. But metaphor is still a means to convey literal meaning. Some things are both. Much of the Old Testament is both literal and figurative of realities revealed more fully in Jesus Christ and the New Testament. The tabernacle and temple of the Old Testament were both literal places and figurative of New Testament and heavenly realities. Some prophecies prefigure both near-term and longer-term fulfillments. Theologically, there are many truths that have their expression in both the "now and not yet".

 

[Cycel]

In fictional speculation, I think that Jesus Christ would not and even could not become a Vulcanite so that he could redeem Dr. Spock and a fallen Vulcanite race of Vulcan sinners. In my estimation, Jesus Christ was incarnate once, suffered once and will ultimately redeem members of only one race and that is the human race.

Your speculation raises some interesting questions. If there are sentient beings on other worlds how would they be redeemed? Would they need their own versions of Jesus or would his sacrifice on our world save them on theirs?

Standard belief has it that Judas betrayed Jesus, but in the Gospel of Judas Jesus gives to one of his most trusted disciples one of the most difficult of tasks. Judas must betray Jesus to the Romans so that the sacrifice will take place. No sacrifice means no salvation and no Christianity. Judas reluctantly obeys. It is an interesting twist.

 

[Cycel]

In fictional speculation, I think that Jesus Christ would not and even could not become a Vulcanite so that he could redeem Dr. Spock and a fallen Vulcanite race of Vulcan sinners.

I’ve had an additional thought. Does Mr Spock need saving? It seems to me he does not. I don’t believe Spock has done anything deserving of punishment. Also, it might be that the Vulcans have something in common with the Mayans. It may be that neither ever heard of the Abrahamic god. It’s the old question of should a people who had never heard of God be punished for not believing in God?

I’ve never understood why good behaviour is less important than the necessity of believing the correct thing. Why would an all-powerful and loving god who cares deeply for the sentient beings he created want to harm those who don’t worship him? I understand that Kim Il-sung demanded personal worship from the North Korean people because he was a megalomaniac, but the same demands in a personal deity seem like a serious character flaw. Christopher Hitchens was the first to draw the comparison with North Korea, but it remains a serious question, one that drew the likes of Jerry DeWitt from the ministry. It is a question that has bothered many and I thank you for raising it.

 

[damombomb]

I’ve had an additional thought. Does Mr Spock need saving? It seems to me he does not. I don’t believe Spock has done anything deserving of punishment. Also, it might be that the Vulcans have something in common with the Mayans. It may be that neither ever heard of the Abrahamic god. It’s the old question of should a people who had never heard of God be punished for not believing in God?

I’ve never understood why good behaviour is less important than the necessity of believing the correct thing. Why would an all-powerful and loving god who cares deeply for the sentient beings he created want to harm those who don’t worship him? I understand that Kim Il-sung demanded personal worship from the North Korean people because he was a megalomaniac, but the same demands in a personal deity seem like a serious character flaw. Christopher Hitchens was the first to draw the comparison with North Korea, but it remains a serious question, one that drew the likes of Jerry DeWitt from the ministry. It is a question that has bothered many and I thank you for raising it.

It is more of acknowledgment of him as the creator. With our natural mind, it is hard to figure out how he created all things.
He also made us spiritual beings. Our spirit longs for him, since it is a part of him. God could have life on other planets, i am sure his mercy and goodness would extend to them. Since he would be their creator as well.
It is all because of sin in the garden that caused a curse on the earth, God gave free will, those who trust him an those who
do not.
I wonder how he felt when some of his angels rebelled against him. He created them. I can only imagine. Therefore he judged them, seeing they where doing things they should not have. Such as the garden of Eden.

 

[Cycel]

Throughout human history, people have multiplied gods and godesses and religions in an apparent effort to distort the truth of the one true God.

Do you see any evidence that pre-Israelite societies had any knowledge of the Abrahamic god? I don’t. It is not as if they were attempting to put Yahweh down, there is simply no evidence that the Babylonians, Egyptians, and so no, were familiar with a god by this name. Remember it is not till the time of Moses, according to scripture, that the name of Yahweh becomes known. It is suggested that the patriarchs knew him by other names, but this could be an example of syncretism. There is one piece of archeological evidence showing that the Midians worshipped a god by that name. So they knew him, but not the Israelites? Interesting.

There is more, but I will save it for another time.

It is no wonder if people continue to speculate about multiple inhabited planets and multiple universes.

Aside from Giordano Bruno, who speculated on other inhabited worlds and was put to death in 1600 for not recanting, I know of no further speculation of this sort until the very late 1890s. Multiple universes on the other hand entered the literature very recently and were predicted by cosmologists.

 

[Kerry]

Read Jonah

 

[Kerry]

They knew who He was.

 

[Cycel]

Read Jonah

Jonah was swallowed by a large fish where he lived for three days and three nights. If you are going to persuade me it must be with legitimate evidence Kerry.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

No, it couldn't be for the simple reason that it isn't. Your ignorance and the presence of disagreement does not invalidate reality even you falsely assert that it does. Honestly, your comment is as ignorant as me pulling out all of my back issues of astronomy and asserting that there is no actual astronomical truth because astronomers disagree with each other in them about issues related to astronomy. How foolish.
Until you come to an understanding of the truth, you will continue to blunder that badly to the detriment of yourself and others.

Here's one suggested point to begin: CHAPTER SEVEN "TRUTH - THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL PRECONDITION

Your denial of absolute truth is self-defeating. A property of truth is that it's narrow. In simple arithmetic; 2 + 3 is not 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or any number other than 5. Truth can be understood both from what it is and from what it is not.

Truth may be tested in many ways, but it should be understood in only one way, namely, as correspondence. There may be many different ways to defend different truth claims, but there is only one proper way to define truth.

Likewise, there is a difference between what truth is and what truth does. Truth is correspondence, but truth has certain consequences. Truth itself should not be confused with its results or with its application. The failure to make this distinction leads to wrong views of the nature of truth.

Truth is that which corresponds to its referent, i.e., to the state of affairs it purports to describe. Falsehood is what does not correspond.

Truth is objective, even though symbols are culturally relative, for meaning transcends our symbols and linguistic means of expressing it. Meaning is objective and absolute, not because a given linguistic expression of it is, but because there is an absolute God who communicated to finite minds through a common but analogous means that utilizes transcendent principles of logic common to both God and humans.

The objectivity of truth that Christianity embraces is based on the premise that meaning is objective. This objectivity in meaning is rejected by much of contemporary linguistics; the prevailing conventionalist theory of meaning is a form of semantical relativism. However, in addition to being an overreaction to platonic essentialism, conventionalism is self-defeating, for the very theory of conventionalism that "all meaning is relative" is itself a nonrelative statement.

"All meaning is relative" is a meaningful statement intended to apply to all meaningful statements; it is a nonconventional statement claiming that all statements are conventional. As such, it self-destructs, for in the very process of expressing itself it implies a theory of meaning that is contrary to the one it claims is true of all meaningful statements.

The usages of symbols and words do change, but the meaning properly expressed by them does not.

Islam is a false religious system concocted in a cave by a disgruntled person. So is Mormonism. No version of Islam or Mormonism is a true representation of the objective reality we exist in and interact with and that is verifiable by corresponding their respective false religious assertions with objective reality/objective truth. True religion is simply put, religion that is true. That is the answer.

I’ve hauled out my National Geographic Atlas of the World (7th Edition, p. 13) and it shows the United States divided into Protestant, Catholic, and Other Christian, but nothing is marked True Christian, unless the map doesn’t have the resolution to show your location.

Could it be that ‘religious truth’ exists only in the eyes of the believer? Let me ask you which is the true version of Islam: Sunni, Shia, Sufism, Ahmadiyya, Ibadi, Quranism, Mahdavia, or the version of Sunni extremism that is rocketing across the Middle East right now? If true religion is defined by those who are rigid enough in their beliefs to think they alone are righteous in God’s eyes and everyone else is going straight to hell, then I think we have our answer.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Obviously, if I'm preparing something for formal submission it will conform to proofreading standards.

But so what if I'm busy and leave off the quotes sometimes on such an informal forum as I rush through my day. I provided the links to the content. You can use the left click button on a mouse right? So click on the links I provide and it will take you directly to the content.

The truth is that in such an informal forum, I'm not legally required to cite my sources though I usually do. If you have a question, you can ask for citations or choose to ignore evidence you don't think is well supported. I've noticed that you choose to ignore evidence even when it is well supported and properly cited so this shouldn't be difficult for you lolol.

My problem with you is that you deviate off course to whine about quotation marks on an informal discussion forum when the links to the content are clearly provided to the content. Honestly, since I hooked up to the Internet in the late 90's I have yet to see even one person conform to APA and/or MLA on an informal forum. No one does so including you. This is an informal forum and sometimes it's a sloppy hot mess. Deal with it. Moving along...

I have no issue with who you quote, AoK, only with your neglect of standard referencing practices. I went back and looked at the post in question and you didn’t put a single quotation mark around any of the passages you pulled from other authors. This leaves the reader with the false impression that the words are your own. I am sure those other writers don’t mind you quoting them, but I’d wager they want to be properly recognized.

Every time you reference another author’s words you need to be clear in who you are quoting and which passages are theirs and which are your own. We all need to be careful with this.

 

[crossnote]

These particular fields, found in the space between the quarks, fluctuate rapidly in and out of existence. They are responsible for 90% of the mass of all matter. What produces them? What produces this energy? Till recently the space between the quarks was thought to be empty. No theist ever argued the point. Now that it is recognized that energy fields fill that space theists like to argue that the space is not empty. Well, it is not devoid of energy, is it, but what produces the energy fields in a space that is otherwise empty? That seems to be the point. The energy fields themselves apparently arise from nothing.

So would you agree that these energy fields apparently "arise" from nothing? Is this science? ...or better, whatever happened to science? It's beginning to sound like metaphysics.

 

[nl]

Your ignorance..

The US Department of State and the Foreign Ministry in many other nations utilize skilled diplomats and ambassadors to build productive relation with other nations. Diplomats and ambassadors help to keep the peace. Christian ambassadors are described in 2 Corinthians 5. Knowledge and intellect are great but there are other skills.

 

[nl]

Do you see any evidence that pre-Israelite societies had any knowledge of the Abrahamic god? I don’t. It is not as if they were attempting to put Yahweh down, there is simply no evidence that the Babylonians, Egyptians, and so no, were familiar with a god by this name. Remember it is not till the time of Moses, according to scripture, that the name of Yahweh becomes known. It is suggested that the patriarchs knew him by other names, but this could be an example of syncretism. There is one piece of archeological evidence showing that the Midians worshipped a god by that name. So they knew him, but not the Israelites? Interesting.

Of course, the conventional, Biblical account is that pre-Israelite society included an ungodly generation that was destroyed in a Great Flood while Noah and his family were saved.

Pre-Israelite societies like Babylonians and Egyptians did have leave a record of their polytheistic idolatry. My estimatation is that these polytheistic idolatries were a departure from an earlier monotheism. Cain invented his own religious innovations within one generation of Adam and Eve.

Read Jonah

Jonah belongs to the Eighth Century B.C. which is much later than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and roughly a couple of centuries later than David and Solomon but let's talk about Jonah.

Jonah was swallowed by a large fish where he lived for three days and three nights. If you are going to persuade me it must be with legitimate evidence Kerry.

When Almighty God supernaturally revealed himself to Jonah and commissioned him with a calling to go to Nineveh, Jonah rebelled, paid the fare and boarded a ship going in the other direction. Soon a severe storm arose and those on board sought the cause of such a Providence that was threatening to destroying the ship on which they were sailing.

The mariners and the shipmaster were astute theistic to the level that they took action:

Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep. So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not. (Jonah 1:5-6)

Sailors, historically have been characteristically a somewhat crude and carousing bunch, but these sailors were astute and theistic enough that they humbled themselves and prayed.

Jonah gave a brief sermon (from a Creationist perspective): “I am a Hebrew, and I fear Yahweh, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land.” (v.9)

Jonah told that sailors that the storm had arisen for his sake and he told them to throw him overboard. Reluctantly, the sailors agreed but first they prayed once more: “O Yahweh! Please do not let us perish because of this man’s life, and do not make us guilty of innocent blood, because you, O Yahweh, did as you pleased.”

Then, as stated above: Jonah was swallowed by a large fish where he lived for three days and three nights.

God had mercy. The sailors and the ship were not destroyed. Jonah was not destroyed. Jonah repented and went to Nineveh and preached repentance there. The Ninevites repented and became the largest known group of Old Testament, non-Israelite believers.

N.B. - This story of Jonah is a good example of a place where the Bible should best be understood with both a literal and a metaphorical meaning. Jesus Christ himself referred to this example.

Jesus: "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40)

Jonah's story is to be understood literally but it was also a metaphor for the resurrection of Jesus Christ after three days and nights in the grave.

(Note: Jesus was more likely to have been crucified on a Thursday with the feast of Passover and an additional sabbath being observed that week).

 

[Cycel]

It is more of acknowledgment of him as the creator.

My point is that simple acknowledgement does not seem to be enough or all Jews, Christians, and Muslims would be destined for heaven.

With our natural mind, it is hard to figure out how he created all things.

Science may be perfectly capable of finding most of the answers. Natural scientists prior to the 20th century were driven by the desire to uncover how God made creation work. Even Darwin initially set himself this goal.

He also made us spiritual beings. Our spirit longs for him, since it is a part of him.

I don't think I have ever felt this longing, though for a time I did very much want to believe, but I think it may have been fear of Hell that compelled me to seek God. I am not really sure. Today, however, I feel no longing for God at all. Both my sons are atheists. I am quite sure they have never experienced a longing for God. I've got the feeling that this longing you speak of comes from deep belief in God; those who don't have the belief don't experience a longing.

God could have life on other planets, i am sure his mercy and goodness would extend to them. Since he would be their creator as well.

It stands to reason that if God exists and he is all you believe then this is likely to be true. The Bible, however, has no mention of planets. There is no recognition that such things exist.

I think at the last count astronomers had identified some 800 planets beyond the solar system. Most of these are gas giants like Jupiter because with current technology we simply are unable to see anything much smaller, but it’s estimated that in our galaxy alone there are likely to be millions of earth sized planets (I think the figure I saw was about 500,000!).

 

[damombomb]

My point is that simple acknowledgement does not seem to be enough or all Jews, Christians, and Muslims would be destined for heaven.


Science may be perfectly capable of finding most of the answers. Natural scientists prior to the 20th century were driven by the desire to uncover how God made creation work. Even Darwin initially set himself this goal.


I don't think I have ever felt this longing, though for a time I did very much want to believe, but I think it may have been fear of Hell that compelled me to seek God. I am not really sure. Today, however, I feel no longing for God at all. Both my sons are atheists. I am quite sure they have never experienced a longing for God. I've got the feeling that this longing you speak of comes from deep belief in God; those who don't have the belief don't experience a longing.


It stands to reason that if God exists and he is all you believe then this is likely to be true. The Bible, however, has no mention of planets. There is no recognition that such things exist.

I think at the last count astronomers had identified some 800 planets beyond the solar system. Most of these are gas giants like Jupiter because with current technology we simply are unable to see anything much smaller, but it’s estimated that in our galaxy alone there are likely to be millions of earth sized planets (I think the figure I saw was about 500,000!).

Cycel, Muslims do not believe in Jesus our messiah. Jesus warned of the consequences of those who do not believe.
Bible prophecies are being fulfilled before our eyes. Jesus will return. Unbelievers will be in anguish, gnashing their teeth.
It will be too late then. It is easy to believe in him. It is your life and your children's at stake. We will have to see him
then, every knee will bow, every tounge confess (that means everybody) that he is Lord. It will be bad for those then.
And yes, he has showed this to me, just like his word say's. Why is it so hard to believe. Those that
love him do not worry about hell or the lake of fire. I guess at 16 you had some issues and he seemed to not come through
as you thought he should have. I was 32 when i first had a relationship with him. But you believe as you do, that is your
business. If he does a work in your life it will be to minister to other athiest that he is God and there is no one like him. You will
have your answer about Gods true existence, and know how to communicate this., that is if you answer his call.
Yes i have a deep longing for him. You should probably have been a scientist because of your curiosity.


God bless you, and open your spiritual eyes, in Jesus name

 

[Katy-follower]

The problem is the majority of people are drawn by sight. They trust what they can see. An example - the 'apparitions of Mary' I believe to be demonic appearances, very deceptive in the way they appeal to these people and unfortunately they see these apparitions as evidence of the authenticity of their system.

But...

2 Cor 5:7: "For we walk by faith, not by sight"


The blatant evil is of Satan, but most people don't know that Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. He's a deceiver and his ministers are even said to be doing the exact same thing - parading around with an "appearance" of righteousness (2 Cor 11:13-15)

It reminds me of this scripture...

Galatians 1:8-9: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

 

[nl]

He also made us spiritual beings. Our spirit longs for him, since it is a part of him.

Augustine's famous quote has been repeated so often that some may think that it's in Scripture but it's not:

“The heart is restless until it finds its rest in Thee, O God!”

I don't think I have ever felt this longing, though for a time I did very much want to believe, but I think it may have been fear of Hell that compelled me to seek God. I am not really sure. Today, however, I feel no longing for God at all. Both my sons are atheists. I am quite sure they have never experienced a longing for God. I've got the feeling that this longing you speak of comes from deep belief in God; those who don't have the belief don't experience a longing.

As a young child, I had a variety of longings that resonated with what my mother, grandmother, nuns and other early teachers taught me about God.

Early longings:

• Acquiring of heaven; avoidance of hell
• Solutions to world hunger
• Solutions to crime and war
• a clear conscience
• attraction to kindness and love and mercy and generosity as "right"
• repulsion to unkindness and excessive selfishness and oppression and tyranny as "wrong"
• to know how earth began and and how it will end.
• to know if I had any pre-existence before birth and will have any pre-existence after death.
• to pray and to get answers
• to find expressions of God's design in the animal kingdom and nature

I do tend to believe that all human beings begin life with a conscience but individuals may suppress it and lose large parts of it along the way.

Not all human experiences are the same. Not all have the same longings. However, I do believe that some level of heart-restlessness and longing is a common and probably a universal experience.

 

[Cycel]

So would you agree that these energy fields apparently "arise" from nothing? Is this science? ...or better, whatever happened to science? It's beginning to sound like metaphysics.

Okay, what do you think these fluctuating energy fields in the empty space between the quarks arise from? If you have a solution that you can demonstrate in front of a room filled with physicists, then you have a Nobel Prize coming to you. Currently there is no explanation. These fields appear to be self-generating. They just happen, and they are responsible for 90% of all mass. That’s truly astounding!

One thing I wonder at is empty space itself. Space is not what we all once thought it was – the absence of anything. That it’s not. Think about it, massive objects actually warp the space around them! How does gravity warp nothing? It can’t, it would seem to me, so space itself is something a bit beyond the comprehension of amateurs like ourselves. It is more like a fabric that can be bent and twisted. Light can’t escape from a black hole, not because a strong gravitational field is holding the light back, but because space is so warped and closed in on itself that once past the event horizon there is no way out. It is like a room without doors.

Empty space is not what we once thought it was. These energy fields make that abundantly clear. If you want to argue that something is producing those fields, fine, but you have to be prepared to prove your hypothesis. In the meantime, it looks as though they are arising from nothing. Just keep in the back of your mind that nothing, as in empty space, is not what we once thought it was. It seems to be a whole lot more.

 

[Cycel]

Augustine's famous quote has been repeated so often that some may think that it's in Scripture but it's not:

“The heart is restless until it finds its rest in Thee, O God!”

Nice post. You've given me some more to think about.

It's time for me to call it a night. I am back at work and have much less free time now. I'll have more to say later.

Goodnight.