The Anti-Christ?

[daktaklakpak]

Originally posted by tony1

You haven't thought this thing through very well.
Sun rising in the west, since the beginning of time?
With the other planets orbiting the same way or the other way?
Sun rising in the west, starting now?
What a mess doing a switch like that!
What would it really mean?

Well... it doesn't matter which way Earth orbits around the Sun. Sun will rise in the east. When I say "Sun rising in the west", it means the Earth is spinning backward. Although it's unlikely to happen, that's what it means.

Put it this way. It doesn't matter if you understand it or not. As long as other people can understand "Sun rising in the west", it has a meaning, and yet it doesn't exit.

Since when is the age of something tied to its size?

Unfortunately, lightyear is a distant unit (size) that tied to time (age).

254 billion lightyears means the distant that light can travel in 254 billion years, which also implies this beam of light has lasted at least 254 billion years in this universe, which leads to the conclusion of this universe is at least 254 billion years old.

 

[Emerald]

Tony,

Originally posted by tony1
Sure, sounds like something interesting.

The bolded "I" in verse 24 is the Lord, seeing as the questioner in verse 23 is calling him that and verse 24 is the start of the answer.

The bolded "you" in verse 24 is the questioner of verse 23.

The bolded "ye" in verse 25 is the questioner of verse 23 and unspecified others which I will call Group X.

The bolded "he" of verse 25 is the master of the house.
Of course, Group X is calling the master of the house, "Lord."

The bolded "you" of verse 25 is Group X, to whom the master of the house, the Lord, is saying "I don't know you."

The bolded "ye" of verse 26 is again Group X, but now they are describing themselves as having eaten and drunk in his (the Lord's) presence AND as owning the streets in which he (the Lord) taught.

Thus, Group X includes the questioner of verse 23 and the Jews whose streets Jesus taught in.

The bolded "he" in verse 27 is again the master of the house, who was being referred to as the Lord.
He is again telling Group X to depart from him, the master of the house.

The bolded "ye" and "you yourselves" are again referring to Group X, which they've been referring to all along.

Thus Group X, or the Jews of the day, are going to be in rough shape.

This is a different way of doing things that looks very useful. I can't say whether I see what it is you're wanting me to see, but that could be our differing POV.
I can't help thinking that somehow "you" was supposed to turn from the Jews to "me." Unless, you're trying to get me to think of "you" as referring to you?

Let's take another look, shall we?

<font color="red">Luke 13:23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
Luke 13:25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
Luke 13:26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
Luke 13:27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.</font>

Okay Tony, here's how I see it:

In verses 23 and 24, one person asked Jesus a question, and he began to answer by addressing all who were assembled there. He was still using the first and second person pronouns at this point. [Since the one who asked the question addressed him as Lord, I assume it must have been a follower of Jesus.]

Then Jesus begins the parable by referring to one called, "the master of the house" (a.k.a., <i>lord</i>), but notice how he switches to the third person pronoun "he" when referring to this being in the story, <i>except when he's quoting that being</i>. Yet he continues to address his listeners as "you" and "yourselves". Why didn't he include himself in the story? To me this is an obvious clue that <i>Jesus</i> is not the lord of that house!

So, apparently the followers of Jesus (the "you" and "yourselves" he was speaking to) will be thrust out of the kingdom of God. Why? Because they didn't know the true master of the house they were asking to be let into! The guy they ate and drank with, and who taught in their streets, turns out to be an imposter! A mere stumblingblock!


Emerald

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by daktaklakpak
254 billion lightyears means the distant that light can travel in 254 billion years, which also implies this beam of light has lasted at least 254 billion years in this universe, which leads to the conclusion of this universe is at least 254 billion years old.

You lack focus.

Good thing I didn't say 1, 254 billion lightyears or you'd be arguing that the universe is 1,254 billion years old.

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by Emerald
Then Jesus begins the parable by referring to one called, "the master of the house" (a.k.a., <i>lord</i>), but notice how he switches to the third person pronoun "he" when referring to this being in the story, <i>except when he's quoting that being</i>. Yet he continues to address his listeners as "you" and "yourselves". Why didn't he include himself in the story? To me this is an obvious clue that <i>Jesus</i> is not the lord of that house!

Now I see what you're getting at. I thought it was the word "you" you were focusing on, but it was "he."

You're right, of course.
Jesus isn't the master of the house, because it is his father's house.

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
(John 14:2, KJV).

As you can see, Jesus is preparing a place in his father's house.

 

[Emerald]

Tony,

Originally posted by tony1
Now I see what you're getting at. I thought it was the word "you" you were focusing on, but it was "he."

You're right, of course. Jesus isn't the master of the house, because it is his father's house.

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
(John 14:2, KJV).

As you can see, Jesus is preparing a place in his father's house.

Sounds rather ominous, if you ask me. The next verse reads as follows:

<font color="red">John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, <i>there</i> ye may be also.</font>

Hmmm...something about hell and death and bottomless pits keeps coming to mind.

Emerald

 

[Emerald]

Tony,

Originally posted by tony1
OK, I'll have to bite again.
How is that which is true, and out in the open, a lie?

I realize this comes a bit late, but I just ran across this quote by Mark Twain and found it remarkably relevant to our conversation about truth and deceit:

<font color="green">"Often the surest way to convey misinformation is to tell the strict truth."
<font size=1>~Mark Twain, Following the Equator</font></font>

Emerald

 

[daktaklakpak]

Originally posted by tony1

You lack focus.

Good thing I didn't say 1, 254 billion lightyears or you'd be arguing that the universe is 1,254 billion years old.

Yes, 1 billion lightyears implys 1 billion years old. 1,254 billion lightyears implys 1,254 billion years old.

Who is lacking the focus here?

Or can you say what do you want to focus on?

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by Emerald
I realize this comes a bit late, but I just ran across this quote by Mark Twain and found it remarkably relevant to our conversation about truth and deceit:

<font color="green">"Often the surest way to convey misinformation is to tell the strict truth."
<font size=1>~Mark Twain, Following the Equator</font></font>

Well, it is cute, but its veracity is uncertain.

 

[tony1]

Originally posted by daktaklakpak
Yes, 1 billion lightyears implys 1 billion years old. 1,254 billion lightyears implys 1,254 billion years old.

Who is lacking the focus here?

Good thing I didn't say 1 lightsecond, or you'd be arguing that the universe is one second old.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by Cris
Hi Vinnie,



I believe I have tried this, I certainly remember arguing with my parents and other family members for the Christian cause. Perhaps I simply did not seek hard enough, but no, I don’t think I could have tried harder. Throughout that experience I remember an irritating doubt, a discomfort, a something that simply did not have that ring of truth that one experiences when one knows that something is right.

I know we argue about logic and evidence and proofs etc, and I depend on all these things, but I also depend a great deal on instinct and intuition. As I grow older (now 48) I have found these instincts to be far more dependable than in earlier years, perhaps it is an increase in wisdom through aging. But over these last 10 years of active debates as an atheist I have never experienced that irritating doubt or discomfort I felt as a Christian. All my analytical skills tell me that Christianity should not be believed, and all my instincts tell me that Christianity is false.

I cannot any longer conceive of any eventuality that could convince me to try that experiment, that you suggest, again. That ‘letting God in’ as you call it would require me to deny my intuition and instincts that I now find so dependable, and this is before I consider my ability to reason and analyze.

I believe you have significant analytical abilities of your own and I hope that one day in the next few years you will develop those instincts that I have experienced and you will come to doubt the path you have chosen. I recognize that at the present time there is no way you could conceive of that outcome yet.

I wish you well and hope that you will eventually find the truth whatever it is.

Take care
Cris

Cris, I know it's a bit late in the thread, but I only came across your post now, and would like to comment on it.

What hope does your instincts give you? Have they not merely served to comfort those irritating doubts? Escaping from something isn't the same as understanding how to overcome it. You are experiencing the outcome of your disbelief, and are content to die with it, but I think you tried too hard to reach God - with reason, with logic, with your own powers - instead of letting Him reach you. Remember, Christianity is just a certain form of knowledge about God. Like all knowledge, it isn't 'right' or 'wrong' in itself, but it points to God in a certain - human - way. And you are, after all, human.

Under what conditions did you judge that 'ring of truth'? Maybe God gave you a little nudge in the right direction when you were experiencing discomfort. Like Lori said: life is not supposed to be a sweet-tasting pill. It cannot be. When you suffer, you are experiencing what Christ experienced. And you, too, will die one day. What will your instincts help you then? What will comfort you then? Why would God send us "good news" if we weren't in trouble?

 

[everprince]

Lori you hardly make sense

Originally posted by Lori
Chris,

when we respect these laws, would maintain a balance. We get into trouble and destruction and pollution when we disrespect these laws and interfere and circumvent. Well, spiritual law is the exact same way. The consequence of sin (disrespect or circumvention of spiritual law) is like spiritual pollution, which the consequence of is death. Now just like with physical law, we have free will, but there are given consequences to our actions. Now that makes perfect sense doesn't it?

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

No Lori that doesn't make any sense, God doesn't tell us to respect physical constants which you are confusing with NATURAL LAWS as you put it. There is no law of nature, there is only God's Law, God doesn't say that the physical constants will always be constant nor does he say to respect them, and by respect you should have said OBEY, since when do we salute a non living spiritual concept????? Physical constants are a concept we invented, God obviously set parameters and when he can perform a supernatural act beyond the norm which is called a miracle but he does not say respect the miracle or physical constants or obey them, that wouldn't eevn make sense. How acn you OBEY a physical constant or respect a non living thing? You respect living things not non living. I don't respect a rock because it is hard, were are not Indians we are CHRISTIANS who obey God's laws not the hardness of rocks.

Also you made no sense when referring to polluting as a violation of physical laws. First of all God says to subdue the earth, pollution technically would be introducing a harmful substance into the atmosphere water or soil. But God doesn't say don't do that, he says not to endager the life of your neighbor. If the pollution is isolated that is not wrong, but God doesn't say we cannot create harful substances, do you know how slow technological progress would be if we never made harful substances? Not only that one cannot know unless they are extremely intelligent or have alot of experience in chemistry that combining various chemicals in new ways will make a either a harmful or non harmful chemical, happily God does not punish us for accidentally or purposefully making harmful chemicals.

I am a Christian I own and maintain I think it would benefit many people to look at the information their and learn it.

Link removed --- Do not spam!

 

[wesmorris]

I'm basically anti-christ... does that help?