The Electric/Spiritual Universe of Jesus Christ

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

What Sparky actually means when he uses the term...'bullying' is that he has sensed a behaviour pattern, not unlike the bullying cancer cell...when a number of like minded people respond to the call of the primary bullying cell and cluster together to make a consolidated attack on the well-being of the post. The methods are always the same...pick on an arbitary point and keep repeating it over and over even though it has often already been answered...and using disbelief and dawkinism as some proven scientific fact.

As far as I am concerned I have over-ridden both excuses by showing that it is an electric/spiritual universe, following electric/spiritual, scientific laws. Almighty God owns those laws and Jesus Christ taught them to us in an environment of extreme bullying which resulted in his resurrection.

Asserting something and "showing" them are not the same thing. Unless you finally grasp the difference you'll never see where you keep going wrong here.

[ippy]

You remind me of a latter-day Mrs. Whitehouse.  She would sit in front of the tv tutting and complaining, but unable to find the off button.  You have made your point, however dubious, ("most religionists target the young," - justify that ridiculous generalisation), and it's time you found the off button.

The way you've presented that previous of mine tends to misrepresent my words even though my previous post was included within your overall post, what I actually said as follows, underlined:

"I wouldn't know if N M targets the young or not but largely given the chance most religionists do", whereas most humanists try their best to help the young to think for themselves, rather than fill their heads with baseless nonsense.

The fact that the largest percentage of faith schools are primary schools, couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the younger children don't really acquire the ability to challenge until about the age of seven; no the various faiths wouldn't be so underhand and capitalise on this well known fact, no it couldn't be.   

(37% of state funded Primary schools are primary schools, according to You gov figures).

ippy

[NicholasMarks]

Sparky,

Asserting something and "showing" them are not the same thing. Unless you finally grasp the difference you'll never see where you keep going wrong here.

I'll say it again...just for you bluehillside. It is not an assertion to say that modern science are on the right track...they have some key-points wrong though, and if they scientifically juggled the information they already have they could achieve far more...but the Holy Bible is the source whereby that juggling falls together as a bona-fide universe not  the assertions that a singularity created everything even though they themselves who say it also disprove its accuracy.

 

[torridon]

I'll say it again...just for you bluehillside. It is not an assertion to say that modern science are on the right track...they have some key-points wrong though.....

I think you'll find that is another assertion I'm afraid ....

[NicholasMarks]

The way you've presented that previous of mine tends to misrepresent my words even though my previous post was included within your overall post, what I actually said as follows, underlined:

"I wouldn't know if N M targets the young or not but largely given the chance most religionists do", whereas most humanists try their best to help the young to think for themselves, rather than fill their heads with baseless nonsense.

The fact that the largest percentage of faith schools are primary schools, couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the younger children don't really acquire the ability to challenge until about the age of seven; no the various faiths wouldn't be so underhand and capitalise on this well known fact, no it couldn't be.   

(37% of state funded Primary schools are primary schools, according to You gov figures).

ippy

The true nature of this world is cruel and spiteful, ippy. There are many just waiting in the wings to take advantage of grown-ups, as well as children. Jesus Christ is a classic example of just how cruel and spiteful people will be. They will put on a totally different face to those who they deem will be offended by that underlying nature but they are still cruel and spiteful just waiting for the opportunity to express themselves.

Almighty God and Jesus Christ represent all those who oppose cruelty and spitefulness and all those who follow them are saying the same thing in a loud and clear voice...why is it that you can't hear it ippy.

[NicholasMarks]

I think you'll find that is another assertion I'm afraid ....

A provable assertion isn't an assertion torri. If it is unclear to you, then you have asserted that you can understand things that you can't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

A provable assertion isn't an assertion torri. If it is unclear to you, then you have asserted that you can understand things that you can't.

How would you propose to "prove" your assertion?

[ippy]

I'll say it again...just for you bluehillside. It is not an assertion to say that modern science are on the right track...they have some key-points wrong though, and if they scientifically juggled the information they already have they could achieve far more...but the Holy Bible is the source whereby that juggling falls together as a bona-fide universe not  the assertions that a singularity created everything even though they themselves who say it also disprove its accuracy.

That's the trouble Nick, 'You Are Asserting' and sadly for you, you can't see it.

Nick take the time before you post anything else, pick up a dictionary look up the word assertion and perhaps whatever equates to that magic light bulb inside the head should light up, once you get the meaning of the word assertion it should radically reform your style of presentation, or something similar to that.

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

The way you've presented that previous of mine tends to misrepresent my words even though my previous post was included within your overall post, what I actually said as follows, underlined:

"I wouldn't know if N M targets the young or not but largely given the chance most religionists do", whereas most humanists try their best to help the young to think for themselves, rather than fill their heads with baseless nonsense.

The fact that the largest percentage of faith schools are primary schools, couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the younger children don't really acquire the ability to challenge until about the age of seven; no the various faiths wouldn't be so underhand and capitalise on this well known fact, no it couldn't be.   

(37% of state funded Primary schools are primary schools, according to You gov figures).

ippy

I think you assume that schools are hell-bent ( forgive the pun!) on influencing the young:  that is not so, and I speak with experience (Moslem schools and those other than Christian I cannot comment on.)  You are not really talking with any kind of reality.  To suggest, as you always seem to be doing, that children are being "corrupted" in some way, or being influenced in a negative way, is, in all honesty, ridiculous.  In what ways are religionists influencing young children in a malign way?  I think you hugely overstate the case; and as well, you fail to give those concerned the credit for thinking for themselves.  In one breath you gleefully applaud what you see as the decline in religion, as you see it, and then maintain this view that religion is being "forced" on youngsters.  Well, it clearly isn't having the effect you allege. You can't have it both ways!

[NicholasMarks]

Sparky,

How would you propose to "prove" your assertion?

I will just use one point...rather than go all round the reekin with you bluehillside...

Modern science says that everything blew up out of a singularity. This is obviouslly absurd...why...because the concept requires every galaxy to be less distance away than they actually are...now, they are supporting an assertion...based on solid scietific data, but flawed. So, if someone says that the data is correct but the best answer is that the galaxies were much further away when the force that sent them hurtling away at high-speed struck them then sciences assertion has been resolved...everything tallies up...there is no longer an assertion.

That is what occurs throughout all my reasoning. I have taken what science says as fact and proved some are assertions by proving a better answer...often using their data.

So my reasoning...based on Biblical teaching...are superior to what you consider to be fact.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

Modern science says that everything blew up out of a singularity.

No it doesn't. The current prevailing cosmological model is that there was an expansion, not a blowing up.

This is obviouslly absurd...why...because the concept requires every galaxy to be less distance away than they actually are...

It requires no such thing. Galaxies only formed some 200 million years after the Big Bang.

...now, they are supporting an assertion...

No, "they" are positing a hypothesis based on the available evidence.

...based on solid scietific data, but flawed.

Why do you think it to be flawed? What better evidence or application of the scientific method have you brought to bear on the question?

So, if someone says that the data is correct but the best answer is that the galaxies were much further away when the force that sent them hurtling away at high-speed struck them then sciences assertion has been resolved...everything tallies up...there is no longer an assertion.

No-one says that. That's just a straw man of your own invention.

That is what occurs throughout all my reasoning.

That you just make up what your think science tells us and than apply bad reasoning to attack it? It sure does.

I have taken what science says as fact and proved some are assertions by proving a better answer...often using their data.

Except you haven't used "their data" at all. You've just misrepresented it.

So my reasoning...based on Biblical teaching...are superior to what you consider to be fact.

Only in the mind of a narcissistic fantasist Sparky, only in the mind of a narcissistic fantasist.

[NicholasMarks]

Sparky,

No it doesn't. The current prevailing cosmological model is that there was an expansion, not a blowing up.

It requires no such thing. Galaxies only formed some 200 million years after the Big Bang.

No, "they" are positing a hypothesis based on the available evidence.

Why do you think it to be flawed? What better evidence or application of the scientific method have you brought to bear on the question?

No-one says that. That's just a straw man of your own invention.

That you just make up what your think science tells us and than apply bad reasoning to attack it? It sure does.

Except you haven't used "their data" at all. You've just misrepresented it.

Only in the mind of a narcissistic fantasist Sparky, only in the mind of a narcissistic fantasist.

We are going to have to agree to differ then bluehillside.

You refuse to accept that a wonderful spiritual energy is behind all  existance and I refuse to accept anything that is not expressed through Jesus Christ. I have a promise, even though there is great terror looming...but you want to take it on the chin.

The beauty of realising it is an electric/spiritual universe is that it offers electric/spiritual answers to our many problems...but there are those who, by devious electric/spiritual tecniques manipulate disaster...those who follow Jesus' accurate word cannot be charged with that crime, not according to righteous law...but those who refuse to acknowledge the good intention, the caring, the love, the hope, faith and charity of God's divine word as expressed by Jesus Christ are in for a rough-ride...with the sting of fire and brimstone in theiir tail.

Trying to save you from yourself bluehillside isn't a righteous crime. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

We are going to have to agree to differ then bluehillside.

No we're not. You're entitled to your own opinions (that's all you have in fact) but you're not entitled to your own facts.

You refuse to accept that a wonderful spiritual energy is behind all  existance and I refuse to accept anything that is not expressed through Jesus Christ. I have a promise, even though there is great terror looming...but you want to take it on the chin.

I "refuse to accept" as true any assertion that has no logic or evidence to support it.

The beauty of realising it is an electric/spiritual universe...

You haven't "realised" it - you've just expressed an opinion on it.
 

...is that it offers electric/spiritual answers to our many problems..

No it doesn't. It offers claims that you choose to find persuasive, but those claims offer no answers to anything. If they did there'd be something to test.

...but there are those who, by devious electric/spiritual tecniques manipulate disaster...

Paranoid nonsense.

...those who follow Jesu' accurate word cannot be charged with that crime, not according to righteous law...

There is no such "law", and as Jesus was silent on a great many matters so it's entirely possible for someone to be charged with something even if they follow what (you think to be) his "word".

...but those who refuse to acknowledge the good intention, the caring, the love, the hope, faith and charity of God's divine word as expressed by Jesus Christ are in for a rough-ride...with the sting of fire and brimstone in theiir tail.

No-one refuses to recognise that, if there ever was a Jesus, he may well have said some things that were well intended. Whether he was also a man-god hybrid, whether there is a "God" at all etc are though just un-argued and un-evidenced speculations on your part, however mush you assert them to be true.

Trying to save you from yourself bluehillside isn't a righteous crime.

If in your head that's what you think you're doing then no it isn't. Just lying about what science actually says though is a "crime" - or at least it's unethical.

[ippy]

I think you assume that schools are hell-bent on influencing the young:  that is not so, and I speak with experience (Moslem schools and those other than Christian I cannot comment on.)  You are not really talking with any kind of reality.  To suggest, as you always seem to be doing, that children are being "corrupted" in some way, or being influenced in a negative way, is, in all honesty, ridiculous.  In what ways are religionists influencing young children in a malign way?  I think you hugely overstate the case; and as well, you fail to give those concerned the credit for thinking for themselves.  In one breath you gleefully applaud what you see as the decline in religion, as you see it, and then maintain this view that religion is being "forced" on youngsters.  Well, it clearly isn't having the effect you allege. You can't have it both ways!

B A it's a well known that children acquire the ability to challenge around the age of seven, not at midnight on their seventh birthday, the majority percentage of faith based schools are the primary schools, both facts, the bishop of Oxford was calling for more more schools to be used for recruiting grounds for the church at a synod held in June earlier this year and I may have got the denomination wrong but I thought it was the jesuits that promoted the well known phrase that starts, give me a child up until the age of seven, I know I may have not got that saying verbatim, but I'm sure you're aware of it.

I would see any type of groundless belief, or other things not so groundless such as unionism, humanism secularism or politics as subjects that are not suitable subjects to be given anything other than just the occasional reference to these vulnerable young children either; but that's because I don't believe in indoctrinating young minds with anything other than teaching them how to think for themselves.

There's plenty of time to present all sorts of ideas in front of the older children that have reached the age where they have acquired the more adult ability to challenge.

The way the church, religions in general do their best to grab these youngsters spells it out rather obviously unless of course you don't want to see it.

ippy

 

[BashfulAnthony]

B A it's a well known that children acquire the ability to challenge around the age of seven, not at midnight on their seventh birthday, the majority percentage of faith based schools are the primary schools, both facts, the bishop of Oxford was calling for more more schools to be used for recruiting grounds for the church at a synod held in June earlier this year and I may have got the denomination wrong but I thought it was the jesuits that promoted the well known phrase that starts, give me a child up until the age of seven, I know I may have not got that saying verbatim, but I'm sure you're aware of it.

I would see any type of groundless belief, or other things not so groundless such as unionism, humanism secularism or politics as subjects that are not suitable subjects to be given anything other than just the occasional reference to these vulnerable young children either; but that's because I don't believe in indoctrinating young minds with anything other than teaching them how to think for themselves.

There's plenty of time to present all sorts of ideas in front of the older children that have reached the age where they have acquired the more adult ability to challenge.

The way the church, religions in general do their best to grab these youngsters spells it out rather obviously unless of course you don't want to see it.

ippy

Point me to the adverse effects this supposed indoctrination is having. Whatever young children hear they will challenge if they are interested enough, when they are older enough to think it through.  You patronise them in assuming they will net be able to decide for themselves when they reach an age to effectively challenge.  So, is our society tottering because of these evil religionists,  I am talking of Christian religionists here?  IF not, what is the problem?  I ask again:  how are these children being harmed in any way?  And not to forget that there is much teaching in Christianity that is of the greatest worth, don't you agree?

[BeRational]

Young children do not question.

They are evolved to accept what they are told at that age as it's good for survival.

They should not be told that god exists until they are 20.

[NicholasMarks]

bluehillside...

It didn't occur to me until I was out cutting the lawns...but this expanding universe on a bed of static universe is part of this whole science bluehillside and alluded to right towards the beginning of this thread...but I will remind you and all dissenters, and all those searching for solid proof in the faith, and even those who just accept Jesus Christ, by faith.

Before the high-speed expanding universe there must have been a static universe standing on the same space, but by power of eruption...previously described...all mass-less galaxy clouds, and there were many, were all sent hurtling outwards...from wherever they were previously standing, shock-waves...you see...sent out from a massive eruption of dynamic forces.

I wont repeat what has already been said but like a high-speed train, when someone opens the carriage door...there is a terrific imploding force between the two separate environments. Now don't tell me this doesn't happen bluehillside because there are many dead bodies that can substantiate this fact. That disturbance is all that is required between to opposing states of universal existance which built all the stars and atoms,  in the formation and structure we see today, because imploding forces can work on the macro scale as well as the micro scale.

If we believe in the Holy Bible we have a ready superabundant source of this dynamic energy to do it with.

Now...let me finish my lawns.

 
   

[BashfulAnthony]

Young children do not question.

They are evolved to accept what they are told at that age as it's good for survival.

They should not be told that god exists until they are 20.

Some young children question.  The crucial thing is that when any individual is old enough and ready, they can question and choose what to believe or what not to believe, at least in the Christian religion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Point me to the adverse effects this supposed indoctrination is having. Whatever young children hear they will challenge if they are interested enough, when they are older enough to think it through.  You patronise them in assuming they will net be able to decide for themselves when they reach an age to effectively challenge.  So, is our society tottering because of these evil religionists,  I am talking of Christian religionists here?  IF not, what is the problem?  I ask again:  how are these children being harmed in any way?  And not to forget that there is much teaching in Christianity that is of the greatest worth, don't you agree?

Just out of interest, are you relaxed about teaching to children any dogmatic beliefs as if they were facts, or only the dogmatic beliefs to which you personally happen to subscribe?

[Nearly Sane]

Young children do not question.

They are evolved to accept what they are told at that age as it's good for survival.

They should not be told that god exists until they are 20.

Given that many eligious people see believing in their god to be s part of being saved for eternity, is it surprising that they want to tell their kids about it?


If the parents go to a regular service are they meant to find a friendly atheist to baby sit and lie about what they were doing to their kids?

[BeRational]

Some young children question.  The crucial thing is that when any individual is old enough and ready, they can question and choose what to believe or what not to believe, at least in the Christian religion.

No they don't question at that age.

We tell them about Santa and they believe it. They only stop believing in it as it is not constantly reinforced.

Telling children god exists all their childhood makes later questioning very hard.

So, children should not be told that a god or gods exist.

If you tell them when they are adults I imagine they will then take the claim and analyze it. I doubt many will take it up, as it nobody can justify the claim that a god or gods exist.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Just out of interest, are you relaxed about teaching to children any dogmatic beliefs as if they were facts, or only the dogmatic beliefs to which you personally happen to subscribe?

Isn't that funny!  I was thinking of posting that exact post to you!  And no, I am not being evasive.  When I taught, I taught as the National Curriculum demanded:  it was not a question of what I thought personally.  So, what about you? How do you respond to that same question?

[BeRational]

Isn't that funny!  I was thinking of posting that exact post to you!  And no, I am not being evasive.  When I taught, I taught as the National Curriculum demanded:  it was not a question of what I thought personally.  So, what about you?

For me, I do not want myth described as fact.

So no teaching my children that gods exist, and I have not told them they don't.

I just never mention it.

[BashfulAnthony]

No they don't question at that age.

We tell them about Santa and they believe it. They only stop believing in it as it is not constantly reinforced.

Telling children god exists all their childhood makes later questioning very hard.

So, children should not be told that a god or gods exist.

If you tell them when they are adults I imagine they will then take the claim and analyze it. I doubt many will take it up, as it nobody can justify the claim that a god or gods exist.

Your entire post suggests strongly that you have no wide experience of dealing with young people.  And while we're at it, lets cut out all the fairy stories and make-believe stories of childhood, in case they harm or indoctrinate young minds.  We don't want them growing up believing in giants and witches, do we?  Though I guess there are some not far from here who do believe in such!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

Before the high-speed expanding universe there must have been a static universe standing on the same space,..

No there mustn't. The current prevailing cosmological model is that the Big Bang was the beginning of space-time. There was no universe before then, and nor for that matter was there a before. 

Now...let me finish my lawns.

You're trusted to use sharp equipment unsupervised?

Blimey.