129. Omnipresence, how biblical is that word

Omnipresence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Omnipresence is the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time; unbounded or universal presence. It is related to the concept of ubiquity, the ability to be everywhere at a certain point in time.
This characteristic is most commonly used in a religious context, as most doctrines bestow the trait of omnipresence unto a superior, usually a deity commonly referred to as a god or goddess by monotheists. This idea differs from Pantheism in that an Omnipresent Divine is implied to be more aware and engaged whereas the Pantheistic Divine is literally the essence with which creation is made.
Brahmanism, and other religions that derive from it, incorporate the theory of transcendental omnipresence which differs greatly from the traditional meaning of the word. This theory defines a universal and fundamental substance, which is the source of all physical existence, but which is unrelated to the fact that we exist. If a being ceases to exist, the structure of the world remains unchanged, but if the "it" somehow ceases to exist, existence as a whole would end in the traditional sense of the word, but the transcendental existence would remain.
Some argue that omniprescence is a derived characteristic: an omniscient and omnipotent deity knows every thing and can be and act every where, simultaneously. Others propound a deity as having the "Three O's", including omnipresence as a unique characteristic of the deity. Most Christian denominations — following theology standardized by the Nicene Creed — expand upon the concept of omnipresence in the form of the Trinity, by having three omnipresent deities (each infinite) that are said to be Three in One.
Contents
[hide]
1 Historical origins
2 A major issue
3 Noteworthy exceptions
4 See also
[edit]
Historical origins

A common misconception is that the ancient Israelites worshipped an omnipresent deity. The Torah states that, 'Heavenly Father sees all' (a novel concept at the time), but also portrays the deity in a bodily form, such as when the deity wrestles with Jacob or has supper with Abraham, or Jonah tries to flee from the deity. As late as the Book of Ezekiel (550 BCE), the Lord of Hosts comes from the Heavens in a Chariot of Fire. One of the largest historical conundrums in the Judeo-Christian dialogue was that the Jews of the 1st Century CE had no concept of an omnipresent deity. Through the concept of the Trinity, the ancient, Judaic, localized deity morphs into an omnipresent one by the inclusion of the Holy Spirit. Ancient Christians demonstrate their Vedic roots, as the Vedic religion of the 1st Century was the only predominant omnipresent religion in the entire Old World, through the adoption of the deity's omnipresence. This connection may come from the Essenes, a mysterious cult that some claim is intimately connected with John the Baptist, Jesus' mentor.
Many ancient people, such as the "advanced" cultures such as Babylon, Greece and Rome did not worship an omnipresent being, while most paleothic Native Americans, the Indian Vedics, and early Christians did. These all arise from a particular worldview not shared among mono-local deity cultures: All omnipresent religions see the whole of Existence as a manifestation of the deity. There are two predominant viewpoints here: pantheism, deity is the summation of Existence; and panentheism, deity is an emergent property of Existence. The first is closest to the Native Americans' worldview, the latter resembles the Judeo-Christian/Vedic outlooks, most accurately portrayed through Colossians 1:17 and 18:
17 he [Jesus] is before all things, and in him all things consist. (ASV)
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,
the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Panentheistic beliefs tend to universally have omnipresent deities because if the deity is everything, then the deity is everywhere by default.
[edit]
A major issue

While the majority of Christians consider their deity omnipresent, some find difficulty pondering the absoluteness of their deity's omnipresence because Hell is both a place and is also the absolute separation from God, presenting a paradox. Can a deity be both omnipresent and absent from Hell?
If a deity is in all places, then that deity must be part of all things. At the very least, the emptiness that makes up the vast majority of space in atoms and particles. In trying to rectify such paradoxes, Christian apologists of the Middle Ages found even more paradoxes, the most important being Associated Consent; how a deity that was omnipresent could simultaneously be wholly good; as they would of necessity be part of what is evil as well, such as Hell. Thomas Aquinas solved the issue for most people when he stated, evil cannot have an essential cause, or rather that no one commits an evil act for a purely evil motive: there is always some good to be aimed for, even if it one's goals are selfish. This good, no matter how small or short-sighted, is where the deity resides in any given act.
Another view describes hell as not a place, but the psychical torment of a deity-hating soul finding itself in an afterlife where the deity's omnipresence is more clearly perceived than when the soul was bound within a body.
[edit]
Noteworthy exceptions

Changes in religious demographics globally and through history have essentially replaced personal localised deities with religion based on omnipresent deities. However not all modern religions ascribe omnipresent attributes to their deity, for example:
Islam — Belief in an omnipresent Allah (the deity in Islam) was arguably lost in the mid-800s because of the positioning of its apologists in their philosophical dissertations in opposition to the Christian Trinity[citation needed]. However, this is probably a misconception because theologians see that deity as being "not part of the universe" (i.e: not bound by space or time) and also as nearer to the person than his jugular vein. An excerpt from Islamic concept of god article is like this:
God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, while at the same time above and outside of all creation. He is said to be "in Heaven" (Qur'an 67:16) and "in the heavens and the earth" (Qur'an 66:3), but also said to be "nearer to him [man] than his jugular vein" (Qur'an 50:16); He constantly watches all that goes on in the world, and knows all things.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints — While Christianity almost universally ascribes omnipresence to both Jesus Christ (son) and god (Father) as laid out at the First Council of Nicaea (325 CE), when the doctrine of the Trinity was first formalized in the Nicene Creed, the LDS philosophy is that the Father and Son have very corporeal, and thus localized, bodies. Their current residence, if not present locations, are on the planet Kolob in the Kolob star system, which is speculated to be at the middle of the Galaxy. In keeping with ancient Judeo-Christian philosophies, the Holy Spirit is, however, non-corporeal and thus, while also localized, has an omnipresent effect on all life (in accordance with Colossians 1:17). In early versions of Mormonism, it was said that the Holy Spirit also served as the 'Mind of Christ', a theory which has been expanded to explain the psychic connection between both humans, Heavenly Father, and Jesus. In short, it is a mechanism for the same things that a Trinity would accomplish through physical non-locality.
[edit]

128. Left-handedness

Did you know that all polar bears are left-handed?

That comment pre-supposes that almost everyone else is right-handed.
In the bible we hear about the right hand of God.
So what is left and right handedness all about?

There are 169 references to right hand in the bible, such as:
Gen 48:18 And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this [is] the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.

I have to think there is some significance here...

Ross

127. lukewarmness

Mella gave us a Gospel message tonight which was fresh and invigorating.The Black and White sermon.
From Genesis to Revelation, God has made very specific differences:
day and night
men and women
trees are individual with their own seeds
lilies and thorns
strangers and pilgrims in the earth
worldliness and the children of God
yea and nay
God and mammon
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon

Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.



And to wrap up with a quote from Mikes essay, see his comment on Post.122.....on E=mc2


Although modern man still intuitively knows God, the Father of Lights, one wonders if he is willing and/or able to take the time to appreciate the interconnectedness, the unity that is God’s essence and His bond to all of good creation. This unity is critical, for it is precisely in a lack of effort to understand this relationship, a lukewarmness, that man fails to recognize his God-given responsibility as steward of the created world. This failure harkens back to our fallen human nature and it leads to a gradual recoloring of both faith and created matter using halftones, shadows of gray—relativity evolving into relativism. Man is blinded by the alluring lights of science, technology and the subconscious light bulb that fuels his imagination. Today more than ever, he needs to be open to the rays of True Light emanating from the Sun of Man, for only in this Light is there Truth and the promise of eternal life.

126. Why are we not interested?

There seem to be things God is interested in that we show little appreciation of:

Casting out devils
Circumcision
Wars
Women as underdogs
Sacrifices
Carrying the cross
Not being rich
Lukewarmness
The new earth
Prophecy


Add to this??

125. murphys law equation

Murphy's Law has finally been written down in an equation. One of the seeming fundamental laws of mankind "if anything can go wrong, it will" is known by many names, most commonly as Murphy's law. This can now be written as ((U+C+I) x (10-S))/20 x A x 1/(1-sin(F/10)) where U=urgency, C=complexity, I=importance, S=skill, A=aggravation and F=frequency



Though stated in many different ways over the ages, the axiom gained its popular name at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949 when Air Force Dr. John Paul Stapp pulled 40Gs during deceleration testing and lived to hold a press conference. He attributed the project's good safety record was based on a firm belief in Murphy's Law and hence the necessity to circumvent it.

Capt. Edward A. Murphy, an engineer working on the project (to see how much sudden deceleration a person can tolerate) had coined the "law" and it had become a metaphor for thoroughness in the project team.

The press conference was held, the press liked the quirky Law and American culture absorbed it. With the widespread dissemination of American culture through global television, the law has become universal.

One of the most complete resources of information on Murphy's law is

http://www.murphys-laws.com and well worth a read for a chuckle.

Some corollaries of Murphy's Law:

A library book will always be checked out when you want to get it. All the good ones are taken. If the person isn't taken, there's a reason. The nicer someone is, the farther away (s)he is from you. Brains x Beauty x Availability = Constant. If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong If anything just cannot go wrong, it will anyway If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which something can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something Nature always sides with the hidden flaw The hidden flaw never stays hidden for long. Murphy's Law of Thermodynamics Things get worse under pressure. The Murphy Philosophy Smile . . . tomorrow will be worse. Matter will be damaged in direct proportion to its value Everything takes longer than you think. Every solution breeds new problems.

Our favourite: The probability of an event occurring is inversely proportional to the desirability of that event.

: )

124. Poor Bill

An Example of someone with the number

William J. Clinton has the number of the Beast 1

"This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. Its number is six hundred sixty-six." (Revelation 13:18) Thus the number of the Beast is the number of a man, not a system, not money, not a computer, not a title, not anything but the number of a male human being. Each letter in Hebrew (except vowels) or Greek has a numerical value.

The official name and signature of the president of the United States is: William J. Clinton
But you think, he cannot be since he is not supernatural or ...

A lot must happen before this person ever gets back into a position of power. But prophecy is fulfilled in strange ways.


William J. Clinton's name = 666 in Hebrew and Greek
even though the numerical value of letters is different in each language

In Hebrew, William J. Clinton = 666
English Hebrew Hebrew
Name Transliteration and/or
Pronunciation Num.
Value
W = Waw W 6
i = n/a 0
l = Lamed L 30
l = Lamed L 30
i = n/a 0
a = n/a 0
m = Mem M 40

J = Yod Y ( J ) 10

C = Kaph K 20
l = Lamed L 30
i = n/a
n = Nun N 50
t = Taw T 400
o = n/a
n = Nun N 50
+_____
= 666
Numerical Values
Click on "Num. Value" above the numerical value column to see source of information. Click here for more information.
Notes: Hebrew had no written vowel letters; The English letter "J" in such names as "Jesus" or "Jehovah" or "Jerusalem" is transliterated to a Hebrew, "y" or vice versa; this information first calculated/published by WRD to the web on Dec 8-9, 1997
This table and other links of interest can be found:
http://becomingone.org/666.htm
In Greek, William J. Clinton = 666
English Greek Greek
Name Transliteration and/or
Pronunciation Num.
Value
W = Digamma W 6
i = Iota i 10
l = Lambda L 30
l = Lamdba L 30
i = Iota i 10
a = Alpha closed vowel 0
m = Mu M 40

J = Iota i (J or y) 10

C = Kappa K 20
l = Lambda L 30
i = Iota i 10
n = Nu N 50
t = Tau T 300
o = Omicron O 70
n = Nu N 50
+_____
= 666
Numerical Values
Click on "Num. Value" above the numerical value column to see source of information. Click here for more information.
Notes: The old Greek letter digamma had the sound of an English "w." (see Dict.) English names beginning with "J" such as "Jesus" or "Jesse" or "Judah" are transliterated to an "I", the Greek letter iota. First calculated on Aug 26, 1998 by WRD; published on Aug 29, 1998 by WRD
Note: Click on "Num. Value" above either the Hebrew or Greek column to see the source for numerical value.

Footnotes:

1. Although having the number of the Beast does not in itself mean Clinton is/will be the Beast-man or the last anti-Christ, the Beast will have the number six hundred sixty-six (666) when he comes, and will be a great liar. [Dan 8:25; "When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44)] No leader has had a name that equals six hundred sixty-six (666) in both languages of the Bible, Hebrew and Greek. This may be "impossible," since both languages have different numerical-letter values, but Clinton has the number nevertheless. Will Clinton become the Beast-man of Revelation? If he joins himself to a ten-nation group, he will be on his way to fulfilling prophecy. Do not be fooled by others, English and most languages do not have numerical values for each letter, but Hebrew (except its vowels) and Greek do, and a few letters of Latin do.

False Argument: Clinton is not supernatural therefore he is not or will not become the Beast-man (or the last anti-Christ). This argument is based on a misreading of scripture. Satan and his children do not have power to perform real miracles; all Satan's miracles are false or faked. Satan only has power over death, evil, and lying. The real Beast-man will blaspheme, lie, cheat, kill, deceive, and fake being "good."

"C" = "k" sound. In English, the sound of "c" is the sound of "k" before all consonants. (Webster's New World Dictionary)

"J" & "Y": The letter "J" in most proper names starting with "J" in English Bibles is transliterated from the Hebrew "Y". The English letter "J" in such names as "Jesus" or "Jehovah" or "Jerusalem" is transliterated to a Hebrew, "y" or vice versa;

No Vowels: Hebrew had no written vowel letters, and thus no numerical value for them.

Digamma or stigma: This old Greek letter had the sound of an English "w." (see the 1966 Unabridged Edition of the Random House Dictionary, 1966, under the letter "W" and under "digamma." See also A.T. Robertson in his A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 209; The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, O. Neugebauer, p. 25 under "ad9") This Greek letter was dropped and is no longer used except in charts that represent the numerical values of Greek letters. See "beast links" below for more detail.

Closed Vowel: "A diphthong is a combination of two vowels in a single syllable. The second letter of a diphthong is always a close[d] vowel. The first letter is always an open vowel except in the case of yi [ypsilon, iota]." (New Testament Greek for Beginners, MacMillan-1945, by J. Gresham Machen) "The Greeks resisted the idea of one vowel following another ... When the verb starts with a vowel, instead of adding another vowel [to change its "tense"], that vowel becomes long." (Edward W. Goodrich, Hebrew and Greek)

Iota sometimes has the force of the consonants j (y). (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament In light of Historical Research, by A.T. Robertson, p.198.) English names beginning with "J" such as "Jesus" or "Jesse" or "Judah" are transliterated into an "I", the Greek letter iota.

How to figure the number of a name.
More about calculating the number and other attempts in history to find the one with the number.
See our original table as published on December 8, 1997.
Other Beast Links:
Character of the Beast | Check List to identify the Beast | Beast-man (last anti-Christ) | Ten Nation Beast | Beast Chart | God's Name versus the Beast's Name | Beast of Revelation and Daniel

Copyright ©1997, 1998 by Walter R. Dolen

Home Page

All material on this Web site is Copyright © 1971- 2000 by BeComingOne Press &

The Press of the BeComingOne Church
On the Web since 1996; Legally organized in 1977

This site is the press of the BeComingOne Church: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Contact Us: E-Mail

123. Is www = 666 in Hebrew?

Is "www" in Hebrew equal to 666?
by Terry Watkins
Copyright © 1999 Dial-the-Truth Ministries
Is "www" in Hebrew equal to 666?

We’ve gotten several emails asking is it true "www" is "666" in the Hebrew language.

YES. . . and. . . NO.

NOTE: "www" is the acronym for world wide web and is normally used as the prefix, or first node of the Internet domain names, such as www.av1611.org
FIRST. . . The YES.
How to get 666 from www?

The Hebrew and Greek alphabet does not have separate characters or alphabets for numbers and letters. Letters are also used as numbers. So each letter is a numerical value.

The Hebrew equivalent of our "w" is the letter "vav" or "waw". The numerical value of vav is 6. So the English "www" transliterated into Hebrew is "vav vav vav", which numerically is 666.

HEBREW-ENGLISH-NUMBER TABLE

The English equivalent is below the Hebrew letter (in parenthesis).
The number value of the Hebrew letter is below the English letter.
The "vav" or English "w" or "6" is highlighted in yellow.
By the way, Hebrew reads right to left.
vav vav vav = www = 666
Now. . . the NO.

A little "detail" concerning the Biblical number "666":

Notice how Revelation 13:18 reads:

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. Rev. 13:18
The number is NOT simply three SIXES or 6-6-6, but 600 + 60 + 6, or the number "Six hundred sixty and six".
In Revelation 13:18 we're curiously told to "count the number of the beast". How do we "count the number of the beast"? In Revelation 14:11 the mark is referred to "the mark of his NAME". In Revelation 13:17, 15:2 it's called "the number of his NAME". So the "mark" and "number" refer to his "name". We count the number of his name.

In the Greek and Hebrew language there are no "numbers" such as 1, 2, 3, or 666. The Greek and Hebrew letters are also numbers. Gematria is the adding up or "counting" (Rev 13:18), the numerical equivalent of each letter in a word or name. This was fairly common in the days before alphabetic numbers. For instance, on the walls of ancient Pompeii, someone wrote, "I love her whose number is 545".

For instance, it's common knowledge, the name of Jesus in Greek equals 888

Grant Jeffrey writes in Prince of Darkness:

The number 666 indicates that the letters in the Greek form of the name of the Antichrist will add up to 666. There is a slim possibility that his name will equal 666 in the Hebrew language since the Antichrist will be Jewish. The numeric system does not work in English or in languages other than Greek or Hebrew, so it is useless to calculate the values of names in these modern languages. (Grant R. Jeffrey, Prince of Darkness, pp. 275, 277)
The "count the number of the beast" is the total of adding the letter/numerical value of his name. This "count" equals "Six hundred sixty and six', not simply three 6's or 666.
So if we apply the clear teaching of Revelation 13:18 to the Hebrew "www", we actually have 6+6+6 or 18 — not 666.

Another interesting insight. . .

It’s also been discovered the Hebrew letter "vav" means "hook, peg or nail". The number "6" also resembles a "hook". Is the internet "hooking" the world into the 666 system.

IS THE WORLD WIDE WEB — 666: THE MARK OF THE BEAST?
Before some "simple soul" gets too excited and starts screaming the World Wide Web is "666" and a dozen new books hit the bookshelves declaring "666 Is Here"!, let’s briefly read what God says about 666: the mark of the beast:

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a MARK in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the MARK, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. Rev. 13:16-18
The Mark of the Beast is received only after "worship" of the beast or his image.

"If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark. . . " Rev. 14:9
". . . who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark. . . " Rev. 14:11

" . . .which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image." Rev. 16:2

" . . . them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. . ." Rev. 19:20

" . . . which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark . . ." Rev. 20:4

Let’s compare the World Wide Web and 666: The Mark of the Beast.

Why the World Wide Web (www) is NOT 666: the Mark of the Beast
666 is total of the numerical values in the letters of the antichrist's name The World Wide Web is not a name.
666 is total of the numerical values of the letters in the antichrist's name The actual total of "www" is 18 — not 666.
666 is the number of a man, the antichrist, or the beast The World Wide Web is not a man.
The mark of the beast controls the ability to buy or sell The World Wide Web currently does not
The mark of the beast goes in the right hand or forehead The World Wide Web does not.
The mark is symbolic of the antichrist or beast The World Wide Web is not
The mark is received only after worshiping the beast The World Wide Web is not worship
Should I be concerned with "www" as "666"?

No.
What does all this mean?

Not much. Other than it's interesting and prophetic the number "666" seems to "pop-up" more and more. . . humhhhh. . .

From Internet site on Google

122. More time, no, less time

E = m c2

c = { E/m where { is sq root

If Energy and mass are constant.
then if you reduce the distance travelled by light to 1 meter per sec , you reduce time by 1 , 300 000 000 000th.
Or something.
You reduce the speed of light thru a soild to zero, then time stands still.

Who wants to say a fossil is 300 million years old?
From whose perspective?

121. Speed of light CAN be slowed

I have become aware from Einsteins equation that if we can show the speed of light to be 'slowable' then it has to affect our measure of time.

I think thats the last frontier to proving that the wotrld is not billions of years old, maybe not days, but more like the Genesis account.

So look what I found out!..........





Speed of light
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The speed of light in a vacuum is denoted by the letter c for constant or the Latin celeritas (speed). The speed of light through a transparent medium (that is, not in vacuum) is less than c; the ratio of c to this speed is called the refractive index of the medium.
In metric units, c is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second or 1,079,252,848.8 kilometres per hour. Converted to imperial units, it is approximately 186,282.397 miles per second, or 670,616,629.384 miles per hour. Note that this speed is a definition, not a measurement, since the fundamental SI unit of length, the metre, has been defined since 21 October 1983 in terms of the speed of light—one metre is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.


Researchers use super-cool goo to dramatically slow speed of light




February 19, 1999
Web posted at: 8:13 p.m. EST (0113 GMT)

BOSTON (CNN) -- The time-honored phrase "faster than the speed of light" might have to be reworked, thanks to the work of a Danish physicist.

By shooting a laser beam of light through a super-cooled glob of a kind of optical molasses, Lene Vestergaard Hau and her team at the Rowland Institute for Science in Cambridge, Massachusetts, were able to slow the speed of light down to just 38 miles per hour -- not even fast enough for the slow lane of a freeway.

By contrast, the normal speed of light in a vacuum is about 186,000 miles per second -- 20 million times as fast.

"I would probably not call it God-like, but I would probably say ... we are tampering with nature in a very peculiar, very bizarre way," Hau says.




Hau points to an intricate maze of mirrors, part of the slowing process
The research, conducted at the Rowland Institute and Harvard University, was reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

The substance that slows the light, called Bose-Einstein condensate, is a microscopic glob of atoms slowed to almost absolute zero -- 459.67 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, the lowest temperature theoretically possible.

Researchers believe that it may be possible to slow the speed of light even further, by a factor of 1,000.

"A human could move faster than that" says Stanford University's Steve Harris, who participated in the project. "But a human couldn't move through a Bose-Einstein condensate, I'll tell you that."

Researchers believe learning how to slow light could eventually have a number of practical applications -- improving computers and communications devices, making television displays and laser light shows more vivid and creating better night-vision goggles.

Correspondent Bill Delaney and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

120. What is a hypocrite? And TV and Internet.

hypo = under, below
hypocrite = one who pretends to be pious, one who plays a part.



Mat 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
Mat 16:2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, [It will be] fair weather: for the sky is red.
Mat 16:3 And in the morning, [It will be] foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O [ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not [discern] the signs of the times?
How do we forecast the weather?
By using all the information at our disposal.

He said it was a pretence that you could forecast the weather , but not discern the times.
We have been discussing the times recently.
Discussing TV and computers.

Do we see any signs there?
Can we accurately forecast moral decay and decline?

(yes)

Are we using all the info at our disposal?
Are we ignoring the signs?

To ignore is to feign ignorance.
Lying.
Not following the leading of the Spirit.

I admire Mellas efforts in trying to alert young families to the dangers of the internet.
Its not that the internet is wrong, nor the computer, its what we do with it, no, mor like how it will burn us,like a heater if you stick your foot in it you may never walk the same again.

I am trying to do something worthwhile on it (here).

But I maintain, it is all about love.
What we love, we will do and follow.
What we love, will replace the things we do not love as much.

If we present something better, the old will fall away.
Its not just about children either.

119. Why the sacrifice? What for?

What is a sacrifice for?
I am going to think about this...
Why a sacrifice...is it a substitute for capital punishment of oneself?
Because we want to buy ourselves free? ( Old testament}
So why would we make a sacrifice even of say, luxury, or hair, or fashion?

Why was Abraham ready to sacrifice his son?
Why was Abels sacrifice acceptable and Cains not?
What is significant about Jesus dying on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins?
Or was it for Adams sin?

Is there science or logic to suggest why one needs to make a sacrifice?
Is it the act of buying back ones life from Satan? Then if so, wouldnt the offering be made to Satan?
Who can answer all of those?

All the wwws...who what when where why, oh dear!
Some would say...does it matter?
But yes it does, if we dont understand that, we dont understand the scripture .And I think, that matters



Pro 24:5 A wise man [is] strong; yea, a man of knowledge increaseth strength.
2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

118. Genie in the bottle

Supposing you found a bottle with the proverbial magic genie ( in unused condition and within useby date), consider for a moment your 3 requests:
Maybe, I want to be rich
I want to be married to 100 princesses 40 years younger than me,
I want a house which cleans itself

Is there anything else???Could there be?

Well, now consider you were one of the many who met Jesus and were able to ask 3 things?
What would you ask?

Some of those who asked, didnt like the answers. Most of them I think.
So what is the likelihood of asking Jesus the 'right' question?
So what DO we pray about?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


A married man found a bottle--- there was a genie in it who gave him 1 wish...

He thought about it and said " I wish I was married to a woman 40 years younger than me.."
"How old are you?"
"60 today. Its my birthday.."

Bingo!

The man looked around, there was his wife of 35 years, the very same.
but he himself was 100 years old. As of today.

117. Devils, casting thereof. Meant to be funny.

Who knows what a devil is.
If you dont know what one is, how would you know one if you met one then?
And why would you want to meet one then?
To cast them out, seems obvious.

And as for casting them out, where are they going to go to?
Given that in the bible the cast out devils entered a paddock full of pigs and they rushed into the sea...
Does that mean the sea, or the lakes, are full of real live devils?

Luk 8:33 Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

And does that mean devils are real, and alive?
So what do they do in the lake? The ones who havent choked?
Do they appear as monsters, as in Loch Ness?
And is that why Nessie looks like she's having convulsions?

So given God is real, Satan is real, devils are real, should we keep out of the water?
But cleanliness is next to godliness.( thats not from the bible as far as I can see)

But I guess devils are not 3-dimensional... so you could find them anywhere.
I think my computer has one...its in for repair again.
There is nothing actually goes wrong with it...but something moves the programs around, My 8000 photos disappeared, only to be found in another file!

So, these devils, can we cast them out?
Cast???
Out???

That suggests something which can be cast...as in pottery, fishing, knitting, moulding
These then are "good" pastimes.
Out...suggests they are inside, but not irretrievably.
So inside looks like a good place to be...
Silling and knitting is looking good.

These devils, they just have to be identified , grabbed or hooked, and sent flying into something else dispensable.
Like pigs.
And maybe like the wicked witch of the west in OZ, they dissolve when wet.

So we should drink more water. And soap, thats a wetting agent. Definitely no oils.
So whats the thing with devils anyway?
It seems that with angels and good spirits, they come down from above, but the devils, they are of the earth.
So why would we want to be buried when we die? But I guess the devils can have a ball with dead bodies...would they know the difference?
But that supposes a resurrection with the devils in control.
And maybe that is the case, if we havent left first with the angels of light.
Am I really that far off the truth.?
So I ran it past the dog, Ross's dog:

He said a good scratch always helps. Always have a leg free you can scratch with. And if you cant scratch, swallow.
Because the rotters dont like water.

Ross.

116. Wikipedia : What is a black hole?

Black hole
From Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia written in simple English for easy reading.
A black hole is an object in the Universe that has such a strong pull of gravity, even light is unable to escape it. Until recently, many astronomers did not even know if they existed, but through using telescopes and observing the Universe, they found objects with such a strong gravity, they could be nothing else except a black hole.
Black holes are made when a giant star, much bigger than our own Sun, dies. Its death is called a supernova, and is an implosion. This is where something, in this case the giant star, can no longer sustain its own weight, and all the material it is made of collapses inward, since before this, the star was in a tug of war, with gravity trying to do what it's about to, and the energy the star makes keeping it pushed out as far as it is now. When the energy runs out, gravity takes over and makes it collapse. This collapse happens so fast and so violently for the star, that the center of the star is squeezed into a very little ball, and the rest of the star bounces back and explodes outward again. The ball in the center is so densely packed together, that if you could somehow scoop only one teaspoon of material and bring it to Earth, it would be the heaviest single object on Earth. This densely packed ball is what scientists call the singularity. A black hole also has an event horizon, which is an boundary surrounding the singularity. It is the point of no return for anything travelling near the black hole. Once anything, a planet, a star, even light itself, gets within the event horizon, it cannot escape, no matter how fast it tries to go.
Since light cannot escape a black hole, it's hard to see it. The best way to know one is there is by seeing how stars, gas, and other things behave around it. With a black hole nearby, even objects as big as a star move in a different way, and a lot faster than they would if the black hole was not there. Also, if a black hole passes between us and a source of light very far away, the light will become quite distorted, much like a fun-house mirror in a circus, until the black hole moves out of the way. The light can also be magnified, like a magnifying glass, allowing scientists to see things farther away. Black holes have also been found in the middle of every major galaxy in the Universe. These are called supermassive black holes, and are the biggest black holes of all. They formed when the Universe was very young, and also helped to form all the galaxies.
Some black holes are also responsible for making quasars. When astronomers first found quasars, they thought they had found objects close to us, but after using a measuring technique called red shift, they discovered these quasars were actually very far away in the Universe. A quasar occurs when a black hole consumes all the gas surrounding it. As the gas gets close to the black hole itself, it heats up from a process called friction, and glows so brightly that this light can be seen on the other side of the Universe. It is often brighter that the whole galaxy the quasar is in.
A lot of science fiction writers use black holes in their stories, and many scientists wish to find one relatively close to Earth to study one better.





Now go to Post 115

115. Science and Gen 1

This is how I see the Beginning..

In the beginning God, who is not 3 dimensional, existed as this huge 'ball of energy", which we know as The Holy Spirit . The amount of energy was infinite yet the same as the amount of energy and matter today as if it was finite.

When he decided to expand, to create stuff, he said" let there be light"and light began. And He saw it was good. ( It worked as it should)
The energy and matter were interchangeable as Newton has shown and could only escape the energy centre as the energy and mass diminished and the speed of the light increased. Mass hurtled across space, the light escaped, and he formed worlds, stars, suns, etc.
God is omnipresent. He is everywhere. There is nowhere he cannot be.
Therefore he is present in all his creation. I believe it is his holy spirit which is the energy of every atom of creation. He is therefore also present in every atom of ourselves. We do not need to go far to find God. He is the quantum energy of physics.There is nothing greater, nor smaller , than God. God is not the universe but is more than the universe. He is also the Spirit and he is also one with his Son as he is with the creation.( Excuse the odd capitals, I dont know where to stop..)

Newtons laws provide for the speed of light as one fixed, ultimate speed.
The way I see it, if the light can be shown to have to accelerate, then the time alters.
Light, in science generally, does not accelerate, it is instantly up to speed. But it can be shown to bend, and therefore to come back on itself. It can be shown to be affected by gravity.
So I say, and therefore it can be slowed. And if it can be slowed for a moment, it can be slowed for a long time also, yes?

In the formula E=mc2, you can see this when you expand c=distance per time.

It is that simple. The concept of time has changed.
But stuff still happened. Its maybe like a film on fast forward...it all happens, only quicker.
Just that our concept of time has changed.

So if God created the worlds in 6 days or 600 billion years is subjective, it depends on how fast the time was going or not.
And our days rely on the sun and that was the fourth day, so...

We can prove mathematically in primary school, this idea. Just why nobody has done it beats me. Altho I can maybe begin to understand this,you can see I am having trouble explaining it, yes?

E energy = m mass x c squared.C is distance divided by time, but squared,
So energy is inversely proportional to the square of the time taken for light to travel a certain (constant) distance.
So time is inversely proportional to the square root of distance travelled,
so if the light couldnt escape the gravity of the primordial black hole, then time didnt exist as we know it.
That is not to say there was no light in the energy centre, it just couldnt get out.
(Look up 'black holes ' on google.)Or better still, go to post 116 for it.
So all the stuff was going on, until God said let there be light, and presto the big bang happened.


I see no problem with the big bang idea, it fits with Genesis and John.
What I have issue with is the people who knock Intelligent Design.
It is soooo obvious.

I have a list of scientists who knock it on Edge.com.They sent a letter to Congress knocking it.
Help me get this together folk and we can hit them with it???

This is my original work, and it is a work in progress.
Expect more...it is my blog diary after all...
Ross








In the beginning.....
When time began..........

God created everything there is.
It began before the earth was made as it is now.
All that existed was this huge energy which is God, and his consciousness( The Word).

And Gods energy became light. After the darkness, light began.
The light formed and became strong enough and fast enough to escape the energy centre.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Jhn 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.
Jhn 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe.
Jhn 1:8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.
Jhn 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

The firmament translates as the arc of the sky which we see, the stars and the universe.

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

You will notice the sun gave its light on the fourth day

But Light already existed, see previous verses.
The basic expanding energy source in the universe is light.
God is the energy of the universe.

A black hole is an extreme concentration of energy so stromg that the photons of light cannot escape. When a rocket escapes the gravitational pull of a planet, it has to go fast enough to escape gravity.
The more massive the planet the faster the rocket has to go to escape the gravity.

It is like that with light.
That is common knowkedge.
Now go to Einsteins equation, E = mc2
That means Energy and mass are interchangeable in a relationship governed by speed, which is distance per time.

What I figure is that all that relationship changes if time changes, or time changes if the speed of light changes.
Now I can imagine the light trying to escape the original black hole, its speed changes. When it is slow, accelerating, time is different.
If that supreme energy of God is the original black hole, I see a scenario where by time has not always been as it is now, and those billions of years of age on our planet are mere days in Gods creation

114. Poem: I am a Christian

This page is for Kata who lives in Hungary.
By clicking on 114 in the index or searching "kata" or something even more creative, you might get it to all load on the one page.
Kata and I met at Vienna convention in 2005. She is a uni student studying business.


PS: here is a little poem, that I got from one of our dear friends from South Africa! Enjoy!

I AM A CHRISTIAN

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not shouting "I'm clean livin."
I'm whispering "I was lost,"
Now I'm found and forgiven.

When I say..."I am a Christian"
I don't speak of this with pride.
I'm confessing that I stumble
and need Christ to be my guide.

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not trying to be strong.
I'm professing that I'm weak
and need His strength to carry on.

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not bragging of success.
I'm admitting I have failed
and need God to clean my mess.

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not claiming to be perfect,
My flaws are far too visible
but, God believes I am worth it.

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I still feel the sting of pain,
I have my share of heartaches
So I call upon His name.

When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not holier than thou,
I'm just a simple sinner
who received God's good grace, somehow.

113. Not complicated...this theology

Complicated schcomplicated

If we ever wonder why all this is so complicated, we are possibly missing something yet:
That it isn’t complicated.
As far as I can see, all scripture will work on all possible levels of intellect, from native races to schoolchildren to the intellectually privileged.

It should work for the basic, simple uneducated mind as also for the highly trained theologist or physicist.

If it doesn’t, perhaps we need to seek a new understanding.
And I refer to concepts like redemption, salvation, creation, spiritualism, anything really.

Some friends who haven’t read me have been concerned only to know if this blog I do isn’t over complicating things. But I am remiss if anyone feels that after reading it.
I wouldn’t know if anyone has read all the site..??
But it is meant to work at all levels too.

I don’t have such a wonderful privileged education.
I don’t have a beautiful history.
I am trying to put on the web the simple solutions and interpretations which are helpful and inspirational to me, and I know some of them are fresh.
I just cant help talking about it, and when I find a simple understanding I get very excited.

I don’t get it from a book or publication from ‘mature Christians’.
So I welcome input, discussion and debate.
I want to especially thank the other contributors who have made a difference,
Lady R…who I named but who feels too humble for the moniker,
Elijah who posts from difficult circumstances in another country
Geoff ,who plays down his expertise as an eminent scientist,
Patty who is on record as a headmistress,
Anon, anon, anon, anon, anon and anon who all have one thing in common: they are all anonymous.
And the dog, Ross’s dog. Lol.

We are possibly not going to change the world any day soon, but if we can help particularly anyone who finds science defeating their religion, it will be mission accomplished.
Except I don’t plan on stopping there…

112.. Womens role in Eden

Further to 111. below I am excited about that concept of women being predestined to better things, so I wonder if you ladies could use your special skills and comment for us thicker minds?
lady R,
Patty?

111. Chief Joys

Given that one of a man's chief joys is to work in his garden,
and a woman's is her home service to husband and family,

HOW COME they are the 'punishments' God meted out to Adam and Eve??

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
etc etc.

And the serpent was to slide on his belly.

These are our chief joys.
They are not punishments .
But they are punishments if we consider what they might have had as their chief joys,...walking with God in Eden,
perhaps partaking of the ( various) fruits of the tree of life.
Community with the best of Gods creation, his chosen ones.

But what they had instead were only simple pleasures, small l life, small j joys.small p pleasure.
The punishment if as such was by means of a restriction.
But the big issue was, they then became the propperty of Satan until mankind could be redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus death which bought ( from Satan) the mortality of man and gave back man his eternal life with God.
They did, 'surely die".

And I guess Woman's desire could have been meant to be much higher than her husband. It was probably to God Himself, as in Mary mother of Jesus.
Indeed the sons of God saw the daughters of men to be fair...I read that to be fallen angels partaking of women who were meant for God or Gods purpose, breeding for their own . Previous posts about Angels indicate a vacuum of female angels, so maybe the original purpose of our lovely ladies was far far different.
I guess the Bride of Christ can indicate more meaningful depth, altho I know this refers to the Church.
But consider the late arrival of Gentiles, and possibly the alteration of Gods plan for mankind , and its anybody's guess what women's role was meant to be.
Perhaps it is no wonder we worship them on the little pedestals we put them on...


Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,


Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.



Does that make sense?

110. Humility and entrails

How would you go about praying for humility?

Given that your experience is like mine , that your prayers are answered, one would want to be careful about the way one would phrase such a request.

"Make me humble" is so similar to "humiliate me".
No?
What about " lead me to humility", or "humble me" ?
Or 'show me how to be humble"?

The way I figure it is...there are nicer ways to learn humility than to be humbled.

So I am learning about humility ....(who cheered? )
When I see how much work Mella and Sally-Anne put into their mission of Gospel and pastoral works it humbles me. But it does not humiliate me.
It rather uplifts me. Encourages me.
Whereas humiliation discourages one.
Humiliation seems to involve unnecessary suffering. Or necessary, as the case may be.
So what makes the suffering of humiliation necessary?

I have a Websters Dictionary in front of me. I guess the meanings I am relating to are:
Humble: unpretentious,lowly , meek, submissive, ( to the divine will)
Humiliate: to lower the pride or dignity of; to mortify.

So should we pray for humility without being humiliated?
It is possible, isnt it?

And while we are at it...do you know what 'humble pie ' is?
Its a pie made after the hunt from the entrails of a deer, given to the servants.
('umbles' means the entrails of a deer)
And... a' humble bee ' is the same as a 'bumble bee'
Now, I would rather pray to keep on humming than to keep on bumbling, yes?

109. Busy signal

Priorities

A lot of people are so apologetic about not having time to do the important things in life.

So, what are you doing?

108. Untrue Christians

We haven’t heard from the dog , Ross’s dog , for awhile.
He said we talk about “true Christians”
He said that infers “untrue Christians”.

So I am wondering, what percentage do we have to get marked to be true?
Would there be 75-25 Christians?
60-40 ?
110 % ?

99% is looking good.
Almost thou persuadest me.

He said Christians are lucky.
While he has only natural abilities, 4 legs, a great sense of smell etc, it doesn’t even begin to compensate for the supernatural abilities a true Christian has:
Faith,
Hope,
Love.
These tend to be undervalued.

I would be happy to get comments on other supernatural abilities a “true ‘ Christian has?
Praying.
Forgiveness.
Mercy.

Virtue.
Knowledge (of God)
Goodness
Gentleness
Meekness

Wisdom
Power
Immortality

Who would want to be a dog? Who would not want to be a Christian?


Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

107. Fish

It is the fish out of water that gets a new view of the world

106. They thought he was the gardener

Face to Face……(F2F)

I don’t do that so well.
I can never speak in public, I crack up. I Feel horribly exposed.
So I do better on the blog.
Not that anything I do is so fantastic but it is an outlet for my emotion , whereas my emotion outlets itself in my public speaking. You will never hear me preaching, short of a miracle happening. But then…Paul did an about turn didn’t he?

So I am a bit left field.
If you want what they call a mature Christian site, there are plenty out there. But for me, they get obsessed with non biblical language and non English language so it is barely possible to understand them.
Anyway, this is about real life. Which is why I do the odd article about something which is neither science nor religion.
But isn’t that the essence of life?
Everything is science or religion one way or another maybe.

Jesus tended to be left field also…..He threw in a bolt from nowhere often enough.
This really tried the religious masters of the day, but he despised the Pharisees with their religious zeal.
( At school they wrote on my report card that I had zeal. Our school motto was “with zeal and honour”. Now I think it is called “obsessive-compulsive disorder from DSM 1V”)
My friend P says he thinks God isn’t so worried about a few little indiscretions..adulteries he called them actually, as he is about a religious fervour for religions sake, as in how he hated the Pharisees. Interesting comment…?

When people met Jesus face to face he didn’t come across as God in the flesh.
Or as a minister, a rabbi or a “holier than thou” person .
They thought he was the gardener that Sunday morning which we know as the first Easter. And he had the choice of any garment imaginable, his clothes were supplied by the angels. ( What a lovely concept for a clothes shop…)
Yet on Easter Sunday 2000 years on, if I dressed like the gardener, my lot might say…..”..couldn’t you be a bit more reverent for such a day?”

As a young man, they saw him as a carpenter. As the Son of God couldn’t he have come across a little more reverently?

On the cross he was identical to the thieves and murderers.
Wasn’t it possible he could have looked more like God personified?

So my friend M has been made to feel guilty about wearing ungodly raiment to the fellowship meeting……where are we looking when we see our clothing as having a godly label when in actual fact it might say Pierre Cardin, Burberry or Target?
Or 100% pure new wool?

I am not against nice clothes. But when I stopped going to the fellowship meeting, my loss seemed to be the opportunity to get dressed up in designer labels, nice suit, tie etc.
But M felt he was not upper middle class and it was a sin dressing as such to have fellowship with a classless society.

So who am I? Clothes define the man. So it is said.
But do clothes define the Christian?

Maybe they do if you are Salvation Army, or C of E Grammar School.
But I and most others will continue to wear nice clothes as a mark of respect.
But is it a wedding garment? (Referring to the parable where the garment was provided by the bridegroom, presumably for uniformity and control? )

So as I say, I don’t present well face to face.
I dress well, but I am all over the place conversationally, left field.
And not always the high moral ground but I’m working on it.

And I have been mistaken for the gardener, and the carpenter, instead of the Landlord.
And that amuses me.

105. Holy Spirit or lesser spirits

Father , Son and Holy Ghost.
While they are One, they are also individual entities.

Regarding the Holy Ghost, we might also say Spirit of God, or Holy Spirit.

Then on a lower level, there is a holy spirit, (small letters)
And on a lower level again, the spirit of a holy place,
Then a spirit of a place or a gathering,
The spirit of a couple or a home,
Then a spirit of a person individually,
Even the spirit of an animal…like a brave, cunning fox or a loving, loyal dog.
And obviously others in between.

So I suggest that there is a corresponding difference between being
spoken to,
moved by,
influenced by,
each of the above spirits.
And the message spoken by each, would be of lesser “value” as we move further down the scale. The message from God would have more value than the influence of your cat.

So WHICH ONE speaks to you?
We probably would take the more humble position the higher up the scale we are spoken to by, but, humility aside, maybe it is worth considering what level our inspired thoughts and motivations come from.

So we return to the question, how do we know it is God who is speaking to us?
It occurs to me that when God speaks it is a 2-way conversation most likely, or that is my impression at the moment.
Whereas when the “lower “spirits “speak to us”, there is no answering, no response.
Maybe one would respond to God in prayer, ones faith would make a connection. Maybe we would answer conversationally. Or run to hide in a drainpipe.

So if God Himself speaks to you, is it hard to resist the call? Do you find you can ignore it?
Do you find sometimes that the lights come on for you?
And all you can eventually say is “Yes, I am willing”?

104. Questions

My contenders for questions of the century are:

19th Century: Is salvation by grace or works?
20th What is the meaning of life?
21st How do we know it is God speaking?

103. Junk off another blogsite..its funny

Jeremiah discusses how web tools enable companies to delight customers
« Home
Hate Teens? Use High Pitched sounds to dispel youth. »
Hate Teens? Use High Pitched sounds to dispel youth.
Published Monday, June 12, 2006 by Jeremiah Owyang.


Get rid of those pesky teens.

The high pitched noise is being used as a ring tone for students in class as adults can't hear those high pitched noises. I always knew when my parents were watching TV as a kid, as I could hear the TV on, even volume was at mute.

Paul's posted a link to an example MP3 if you want to hear it. Or access the high pitched MP3 --can you hear it? Being in my early 30s, I can clearly hear it.

Web Strategy: Here's a potential application: If you're a web marketer and really want site segmentation, apply this high pitched sounds to websites you DON'T want pesky teens wasting your valuable bandwidth. (I'm kidding)

Now, if you've got a teen infestation, you can use this same technology against them, reports
Compound Security is selling this as a product to get rid of teens. (link from ringtonia)

The Mosquito ultrasonic teenage deterrent is the solution to the eternal problem of unwanted gatherings of youths and teenagers in shopping malls and around shops. The presence of these teenagers discourages genuine shoppers and customers’ from coming into your shop, affecting your turnover and profits. Anti social behaviour has become the biggest threat to private property over the last decade and there has been no effective deterrent until now.


Is there such a sound that can get rid of adults? oh yeah, it's Lil Jon --krumpin.
>> Comments: 0

102. How many people believe in God?

The article below suggests about half the worlds scientists believe in God.
That is not to say they believe as God would have them believe, but maybe its better than nothing?

If we were to extrapolate that to the worlds population, we could well imagine 3000 million people believe in God, and another 3000 million who do not.
My problem is, what with science, false beliefs, false teaching, indecision, doubts, not that many people really believe in the totality of God as creator.
My problem goes on, that I feel God has put it in my heart to persuade those who are not believers, to believe...at least to
read the material and think about it.
I dont expect 3000 million people to be suddenly converted.
But I would like to make a difference.


The previous articles, no 101 etc, are quite original and unrelated to anything I have ever read.
But the simplicity of it requires you to think about it: Nothing is impossible for God : if time was going faster in the olden days, what effect would it have on carbon dating and estimates of age of the universe?
And it is possible, even under Einsteins equation.

And at home, I have yet to convince her that anyone on the planet is interested...
Ross.

Here is a cute article...it reinforces some of our concepts, like God is Love


'Science cannot provide all the answers'

Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports

Thursday September 4, 2003
The Guardian

C olin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans - like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea and the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about it.
"I believe that the scientific world view can explain almost anything," he says. "But I just think there is another world view as well."

Tom McLeish is professor of polymer physics at Leeds. Supermarket plastic bags are polymers, but so are spider's silk, sheep's wool, sinew and flesh and bone. His is the intricate world of what is, and how it works, down to the molecular level. He delights in the clarity and power of science, precisely because it is questioning rather than dogmatic. "But the questions that arise, and the methods we use to ask them, can be traced back to the religious tradition in which I find myself. Doing science is part of what it means in that tradition to be human. Because we find ourselves in this puzzling, extraordinary universe of pain and beauty, we will also find ourselves able to explore it, by adopting the very successful methods of science," he says.

Russell Stannard is now emeritus professor of physics at the Open University. He is one of the atom-smashers, picking apart the properties of matter, energy, space and time, and the author of a delightful series of children's books about tough concepts such as relativity theory. He believes in the power of science. He not only believes in God, he believes in the Church of England. He, like Tom McLeish, is a lay reader. He has con tributed Thoughts for the Day to Radio 4, those morning homilies on the mysteries of existence. Does it worry him that science - his science - could be about to explain the whole story of space, time matter and energy without any need for a Creator? "No, because a starting point you can have is: why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a world? Now I cannot see how science could ever provide an answer," he says.

Stannard will be one of a small group of scientists and theologians, having a go at the question next week in Birmingham. The Science and Religion Forum, founded by a group of scientists 25 years ago, meets on Monday to discuss questions such as the place of humans in the universe. They are not likely to actually come up with an answer, but they will certainly give the question a bashing. The forum embraces what one of its begetters, Arthur Peacocke, pioneer of DNA research in Britain, called "wistful agnostics" and sceptics, as well as Christians and people from other faiths. "It's about how we can worship a creator God who is creating now, and still hold on to the scientific world view as we understand it," says Phil Edwards, who trained in physics but is now a chaplain to the Bolton Institute.

The subject - the place of humans in the universe - is a challenge. To the scientific way of thinking, humans no more have a "place" in the scheme of things than hamsters or harp seals. The universe itself may be an incomprehensible event, and life a so far unexplained one, but scientists see no ladder of creation with humans at the pinnacle. They can see no "purpose" in being. We are here because we are here, a lucky accident - lucky for us - but there was nothing inevitable about the evolution of humanity, or its survival. God is not part of the explanation.

That is how scientists have grown to think, whether they come from a religious background or not. But modern science did not emerge 400 years ago to challenge religion, the orthodoxy of the past 2,000 years. Generations of thinkers and experimenters and observers - often themselves churchmen - wanted to explain how God worked his wonders. Modern physics began with a desire to explain the clockwork of God's creation. Modern geology grew at least partly out of searches for evidence of Noah's flood. Modern biology owes much to the urge to marvel at the intricacy of Divine providence.

But the scientists - a word coined only in 1833 - who hoped to find God somehow painted Him out of the picture. By the late 20th century, physicists were confident of the history of the universe back to the first thousandth of a second, and geneticists and biochemists were certain that all living things could be traced back to some last universal common ancestor that lived perhaps 3.5bn years ago. A few things - what actually happened in the Big Bang; how living, replicating things emerged from a muddle of organic compounds - remain riddles. But few now consider these riddles to be incapable of solutions. So although the debate did not start out as science versus religion, that is how many people now see it.

Paradoxically, this is not how many scientists see it. In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had not changed in 80 years. Should anybody be surprised?

"A lot of people are surprised. I think people have grown up to believe that science and Christianity are at loggerheads, and that is what the average man in the street believes," says Colin Humphreys. "I think you can explain the universe without invoking God at all. And you can explain humans without invoking God at all, I think. But where I differ from the people who say, OK, the universe started with a big bang - if it did, it's not too sure but let's say it did - and everything else was chance event, then I would say that God is the God of chance and He had His plan and purpose, which is working out very subtly, but through these chance events."

He, like most scientists do in this debate, mentions Richard Dawkins, the Oxford zoologist and professor of the public understanding of science, whose rationalist stance is well known, and vigorously argued.

The real argument here is not about the importance of science, or its value to humanity. "You have to recognise that science is enormously powerful in going for the jugular, reducing complexity to its simple structures," says Tom McLeish. "But it puts it back together again, and that is important to stress, because, from Keats onwards, we have been accused of unweaving the rainbow, and never weaving it back again. That is not true."

Doubt, expressed most potently 3,000 years ago in the biblical book of Job, is the greatest scientific tool ever invented, he says. To do good science, you have to doubt everything, including your ideas, your experiments and your conclusions. "People like Richard Dawkins characterise religion as doubtless, tub-thumping, blind certainty. But it isn't like that; he knows it is not like that. There is Job, on his ash-heap, doubting everything, but wondering where the light comes from, and how the hail forms."

Russell Stannard says that when he became a reader in the Church of England 40 years ago, he was considered a bit of an oddball. But things have changed. "You get a few scientists like Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins [professor of chemistry at Oxford] who at least talk as though they cannot understand how a scientist could possibly be religious. But I would say that, generally speaking, throughout the scientific community there is considerable acceptance that, OK, although one might not be a religious person oneself, one's fellow scientist can be."

Colin Humphreys says that quite a number of his colleagues at Cambridge are also believers. "My impression is - and it is just an impression - that there are many more scientists on the academic staff who are believers than arts people."

Tom McLeish says something similar. He cheerfully offers several reasons why that might be so, one of which might be called the postmodernist effect. "Our dear friends in the humanities do get themselves awfully confused about whether the world exists, about whether each other exists, about whether words mean anything. Until they have sorted out whether cats and dogs exist or not, or are only figments in the mind of the reader, let alone the writer, then they are going to have problems talking about God."

Within biology itself, there is an intense argument about evolutionary origins of qualities such as altruism -the sacrifice of self for others - and the enduring belief in God or gods, and an afterlife, with the possibility of some kind of calling to account. Robert Winston, the fertility pioneer, Labour peer and professor at Hammersmith Hospital is Jewish. This represents a huge tradition of values that are important to him. At the age of 30 he went back to the synagogue because, he felt, he needed the discipline of Judaism, although this is not quite the same as believing in God, and he confesses to having been through various phases of observance. In the last chapter of his book The Human Instinct he said he felt it was very likely that spirituality - the feeling of something beyond mortal life - had been important in survival during the Ice Age, and through periods of great deprivation.

"The great question is whether or not that spirituality is God-given, or whether it actually evolved because it was needed," he says. "I'm still sitting on the fence."

Stannard has fewer doubts. "I would say that God does take a personal interest in us. If you were allowed one word to describe God by, that word would be love. That does not come from evolution by natural selection, it seems to come from somewhere else, and the whole idea of morals does not naturally arise out of evolution. Biologists will talk about altruism, but they are using it in a very technical sense, which is not the religious idea of altruism. It is more a case of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours."

Richard Dawkins, however, remains unmoved. Is there a limit to what science can explain? Very possibly. But in that case, what on earth makes anyone think religion can do any better? "I once reached this point when I asked the then professor of astrophysics at Oxford to explain the origin of the universe to me," he says. "He did so, and I posed my supplementary: 'Where did the laws of physics come from in the first place?' He smiled: 'Ah, now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand over to our good friend the chaplain.' My immediate thought was, 'But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef?' If science itself cannot say where the laws of physics ultimately come from, there is no reason to expect that religion will do any better and rather good reasons to think it will do worse."

The place of humans in the universe - world faith perspectives, at the University of Birmingham Selly Oak campus, September 8-10. www.srforum.org

Further reading

A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins (Houghton Mifflin 2003) ISBN 0618335404

The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist's Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories by Colin J Humphreys (Continuum 2003) ISBN 0826469523

The God Experiment: Can Science Prove the Existence of God? by Russell Stannard (Hidden Spring 2000) ISBN 1587680076



· What did you think of this article? Mail your responses to life@guardian.co.uk and include your name and address.

Advertiser links
Microsoft Xbox Review
Is this the right product for you? CNET's expert and...
cnet.co.uk
Low-Price XBox Mod Chip and Accessories
We have the latest mod chips and accessories for your...
videogamecompany.com
summer sun | energy saving | cheap flights | organic food | adventure holidays

Printable version | Send it to a friend | Save story











Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Advertising guide | A-Z index | About this site

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

101. Time is elastic?

It looks to me that if E and m are constant, and that if light accelerates thru a medium such as the original black hole, that with E = mc2 we can prove time to be stretching during the initial release of light from its source, and thus instead of the earth being billions of years old the creation theory is looking good what do you think?

Ross


In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
******************************************************************************************************************************




Quote from google search::::

Were we There Yet?
or
Interstellar Travel: Where you Won't be Any Time Soon


Our knowledge of "light" is a jungle of completely opposite opinions, all of which are correct at the same time. Scientists have determined that any object travelling faster than the speed of light will actually move backwards through time; on the other hand, the same scientists have also determined that no object can travel faster than the speed of light. If this is true, it does seem silly to even consider "warp speed" to be a viable means of transportation. But don't be fooled; there are some loopholes that make it plausible.

First, while travelling faster than the speed of light has been dismissed as impossible, it is still possible to travel at the speed of light. This has been demonstrated by light itself on various occasions in the past. How? I'll leave out the gory details, but it has been proven that light has no inertia. This means that, unlike everything else, it requires no energy at all to get moving, no energy to speed up, and no energy to slow it down and no energy stop it. (This, of course, explains why a car travelling at 60 km/h will kill you if it runs you over, and yet light, which travels noticeably faster, will just bounce off.) Since light requires no energy to accelerate, it can do so indefinitely without adding any energy. This, of course, leads to the question: why doesn't it go infinitely faster than it does? After much careful thought, scientists believe they have the answer.

Anything travelling at the speed of light is frozen in time. The general reaction to this statement is "Huh?" but with a bit of explanation it can be made clear. It all goes back to Einstein's theory of relativity: time is relative to the observer. Once again skimming over the details (which, it seems, only Einstein would understand), we discover that as an object accelerates, time slows down relative to that object. It seems that time and speed come together at - you guessed it - the speed of light. This is to say that a person riding a beam of light would be frozen in time - relative to everyone else, he could travel for several million years without aging a single second. To himself (since, relative to himself, he will always be stationary) time appears normal - it's just that the rest of the universe seems to be aging infinitely quickly!

Pretend you're an outside observer - one with very good eyesight. The man and the beam of light are travelling away from you at light speed and the man does not appear to be moving or aging at all in the meantime. After several million years, he reaches a far-off galaxy and dismounts his light beam. He's exactly as old as he was when he left, although you and your eyes have been buried for some time now.

What about the man on the light beam? Because time is stopped for him while he travels, it seems to him that he has arrived in no time at all (hence, he has travelled at infinite speed); the only problem is that everything is quite different than it was when he left. In fact, although he could fly back to Earth in an equally short time, our sun would probably have burnt itself out by the time he got back!

This, though, is an extreme case. For short trips, light speed is the way to go. Even if you miss four or five years, you won't feel like you have: you won't have spent money on hotels and restaurants, and the kids won't have complained even once. A perfect trip!

Unfortunately, there are also a number of problems inherent in fast-as-light travel. Firstly, if time is stopped, how do you know when it's time to get off? You don't; therefore, there has to be something already operating in "normal-time" to stop you. Secondly, since humans do have inertia, it's going to take at least some energy to get you up to that kind of speed. And, once you've reached that speed, it would be to your advantage not to crash into anything. Unlike light, which would simply bounce off, you might get hurt. Also, don't stay in hyperspace too long. A hundred-year trip won't hurt you much, but it's going to be awfully disappointing when you return home to discover that all your friends and family are long gone. With all these disadvantages, you can see how we have a bit of work ahead of us before this technology will become useful.

Yes, there are problems. No, we don't have any idea how to begin researching this incredible scientific oddity. And no, we still don't understand why it's even supposed to work. But it will work; it has to work - because Einstein said so. Someday soon, we'll be able to depart to destinations anywhere in the universe. Someday none-too-soon, we'll arrive at those destinations.


Write to me! apenwarr@nit.ca

So I have proposed the question, lets see if we get a reply.
It seems that Einsteins theory relies on time, thru c = distance per time, as unvariable in its concept.
But if time were proven to be faster or slower, and this may depend on whether light speed changes, as it is inversely proportional to the square, we could find the earth to be thousands of years old not billions.
Like a video playing on fast forward.

And I take as an assumption that Gods energy is constant, that he is unchangeable. But interchangeable with mass in the universes
And distance doesnt change. So in my sums I prove either time changes or 2 is not equal to 2.

100. There are two types of people in this world...

and you aint one o' them. (Dolly Parton)

But Jesus said that , in

Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luk 17:35 Two [women] shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luk 17:36 Two [men] shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

It seems to me there are 2 types of Christians, the ones who Jesus spoke with and the ones he spoke to.

I am thinking of say, when 5000 'professed' to follow in one day, very few had a personal relationship with him. But some did.

Two types of follower, those who merely followed, and those who spoke with him.

Two types of followers, the saints, and the prophets/ pastors.

Two types , but that doesnt mean one can judge the other.
How one must feel it is impossible, that God would speak to the other.
And the other exasperated, that the one does not hear the voice.

But does that , is that, the distinction between one being taken and the other left?
Or is that the other way around?



Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
1Cr 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
1Cr 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1Cr 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

99. The big battle

Satan and God are in the throes of battle, always have been but it will end eventually.

Gods weapons are: love, creation, holy spirit, rebirthing (born again), scripture
Satans weapons are : hate, destruction, evil spirit, infiltration of mankind.

Some examples:
God can appear via an angel which is his 'temporary creation' manifest to appear and carry a message.
Satan can only infiltrate existing creation and appear being devils.

The 70 disciples came back amazed that they could even cast out devils, and I think some subsequent bibllical characters could also, who had never physically met Jesus.

In Gen 6, when Satans angels impregnated women, those born of the unions became the mighty men of old, arguably the old Greek and Ronman gods and giants.
When God impregnated a woman, Jesus was born of Mary. Quite a difference.

Yet this battle is so well matched that it takes thousands of our years to play it out.
I noted on a previous post, when Jesus provided new life for mankind unblemished by sin, the battle turned for Gods victory.

Satan currently has control of mankind, God overcomes this by providing immortal life to mankind while turning to nought every gain of Satan in the human life. This is salvation by grace.

Until we give in to Gods control and grab hold of eternal life, we are working for Satan.
Post me a comment if you like?

98. Gods tool in the battle is Jesus

In the war being waged between God and Satan, the powers are very evenly matched. It seems to be happening in our own timescale which I call A to Z, I think because the central issue is mankind, and the ownership of us.

Facts we have been discussing today...

1. The tools of warfare that God has, is creation amongst others, whereas Satan cannot create.
2. Satans tool is mankind. He has control of man since Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.
3.God does not have control of mankind until they are redeemed by his sacrifice on the cross.
4. Man then becomes immortal again.
5. Had man partaken of the tree of life first, things would have been different. Therefore we choose our destiny???
6. God needs to exercise his supreme love and man was created to receive this but Satan took it away from him.
7. It is only since Jesus redeemed us that the battle has turned.
8. We should not underestimate the power of Satan.

Any comments??

Exd 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:

97. Einstein again

Einstein again

We already know Einsteins great equation, and there are other posts here about it.

E = mc2
Energy = mass x speed of light x speed of light again.

So C2 = E divided by m
The speed of light, which is 186 000 miles (300 000 kms) per second, brings time
in seconds, into the equation.
The way I see it, when time is no more, the equation falls apart: but I believe the equation in the absence of a better one…

If time = zero, then to multiply or divide any thing by zero begets zero.

If time = infinity (read, eternity), then anything by infinity = more infinity.
No change.
Except we just upped the value of E, energy, for a constant mass.

Now I am not a mathematician, I can scarcely speel it:
But what it looks like is that unbelievably large, “ultimate” energy levels in a constant, given mass (read weight), will explode it to smithereens. Thus there can be no future for the world as we know it in eternity, being made of mass.
Thus a “new heaven and a new earth “ will need to evolve along with spiritual bodies for you and me.

But now look at the equation when time = 0
Multiply or divide by zero and
E = 0
M = 0
C = 0
So in the first moment of time, we lose the effect of nothingness, and if we remember Genesis 1 and John 1 tells us that in the beginning there was God and there was light.
Now as E = mc2, we have in the first moment of time a suddenness of light travelling at 300 000 kms per second, where the moment before there was no speed because there was no time.
M = E / c x c
M = E x time 2/ distance 2 .
With each second the energy and the mass increase, BUT even if the energy were a constant, assuming God is all powerful and not growing with linear time, then the mass grows at a fantastic rate commensurate with the SQUARE of the speed of light…?
(And I wonder does that mean the speed of the creation is equal to the square of the speed of light?)
So the moment god creates a particle of mass above zero value, it is interchangeable with all that energy .
I am getting a glimmer here of a big bang.
The key is the initial moment of time triggers the instantaneous creation of the universe.
Maybe that simple equation, along with a belief in eternity being greater than our time scale A to Z, is enough to culture in us an understanding of how this all happened?
Any mathematicians out there?

I sort of feel that sincecv we are talking about the square of the speed of light that our time could be influenced by the squaring. In othe words time could have happened more quickly . I suspect we could calculate that due to the squaring,
10 000 years of history in our time could appear as billions of years of progress.
That because E = mc2 that id might be like a video on fast fwd, everything happens the same but at a faster rate. Then on slow playback, it all is there in great detail.

I wonder if your dog, G and L, could explain it better for us? Claiming to be the reincarnated Einstein of course ( see prior posts)

Scripture:Mat 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.



Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.


Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.


Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

96. Time no more no more shall be...

Time no more

According to scripture, there is a beginning of things and a time before the beginning.
An end to things and a time beyond the end. Which makes it not time.
We understand time as a linear function, a line A to Z if you like.
I think Gods time is different. I think his time is multi-dimensioned, or even spherical to use a parable.
So that from any point in time to any other point He can jump across.
He knows what will be before it happens, and is not bound by linear function. How weak we are compared with the Spirit world that we are bound by the laws of forward linear time and then only to experience time for 100 years or less.
But we probably begin and then end life in a timeless state. Maybe we then join the Spirits in spherical time? Maybe in that state we lose interest in what is happening in our old world.
When we think of eternity I guess most would think of time without end, year after year.
That could make a lot of lawns to mow, a lot of meals to prepare, metaphorically speaking, yes?
But wouldn’t eternity be more like a spherical time where there is no beginning, no end, no middle, no passage of time, no passing of years but an existence beyond that value system?
No before, after, since , becauses, consequences, ageing, ….I cant really imagine it .

95. Fat Zero

Fat Zero

From my perspective, God is equally happy to count in small numbers as well as large.
We have evidence of his satisfaction in 1s and 2s as much as in billions and trillions.
Happy to save 2 ants in the ark or have trillions of kilometres between stars.

I wonder does that number system include zeros.
How happy is God to count the number of things in zeros?
Is zero a number?
Does zero exist?

So is there an existence of things which exist as zero, or nothingness?
Is there a real non-reality?
What is zero, and what is nothing?
Is it both nothing and infinity?
Because the concept of infinity encompasses numbers from zero to forever, then zero is as real as 1 or 2.
Does that then encompass the Christian value of Hope?
Hope would be defined as something waiting to happen but which has not yet happened, which is therefore a zero..a pregnant pause, a big fat nothing: we have the concept, I just feel no one recognises nothing as a value.
But when I say no-one, do I mean zero people waiting on nothing to happen at a point in time which never existed to be observed by nobody and therefore not existing?
Possibly.
And possibly you could word it better…any

94. More on THE question

Re The Question of the Century..

How do we know it is God who has spoken?

I am inclined to think we need more discussion on SIGNS.
But in the meantime...HOW DO WE KNOW IF SATAN IS SPEAKING?

Do we ask Satan for a sign ?

I guess most will say, I dont want to go there, Ross.

But that is to help us think it thru... faith is not the whole answer.

PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS BELOW