alphaparticle

I don't think all belief in God is a mechanism to explain things at all. But, if that's all it is for someone, then I can see how that might get undercut by scientific knowledge. I believe in God for reasons that are very difficult to clearly explain and I don't find that my scientific knowledge lessens that.

that sounds like the makings of an extra creepy dream...

Figuring out what would be modest and immodest isn't really that difficult. If she is wearing something too tight, or showing parts of her body that only a husband should see, then that is immodest. And the same goes for the man. That's not the same everywhere at all times. That's why i keep asking about the capris, an outfit understood by the vast majority of Americans now to be modest would have been scandalous 200 years ago. Cobalt 200 years ago might have said that's because she shouldn't be showing those parts, say, her shins, off to the public. That's why it seems like the intentions of the woman in question matter a lot, and her culture, before she's judged to be a 'harlot' or loose or seeking the attention of men, or whatever. It seems like perhaps we should seek to not assume the worst about people unless the facts really dictate that, and we don't know that right off the bat based on clothing alone.

It used to not be acceptable in society for women to wear pants or to wear skirts that didn't fall to their feet. Do we really want to say that we ought to require that? There's clearly a cultural element to all this, particularly when we want to understand the intentions of the woman in question. If she is dressing appropriately to the standards of her society why impute to her ill intent? Again you speak of the subject in a worldly view, and you seem to suggest that to be naked in public is okay, as long as it is the fashion and society accepts it. The fact is we can talk about this subject being right or wrong all we want, but what we think doesn't really matter, it is what God thinks that matters and he clearly tells us in the word not to cause a brother (or sister) to stumble. If we cause a brother to stumble, two have sinned, the one who stumbled and the one who caused the brother to stumble. No, that isn't what I said. What I said is that if you want to judge a woman for what she is wearing it makes no sense to *not* take into account the cultural standard since what is modest in one place and time is completely different in another. That is just a fact. In 1800 US it would be completely inappropriate for a woman to go around in an outfit that is considered perfectly fine to us now, say, capris and a t shirt. Similarly, if a woman went to Saudi Arabia now wearing that she would be considered extremely immodest. Not taking into account the place and time you are at will not allow you to properly judge the intentions of the person wearing whatever it is they are are. The other thing that people should take into account is the feelings of the person in question, who is told that their clothing is 'inappropriate'. The way that people are talking about women in this thread disturb me. It doesn't matter where you live.Half dressed with half of your body showing is not excepted by God.It is not modest.Whether you live in the United States or Timbuktu.Although I might add the exception might be to natives who have never seen civilization. Is a woman wearing capris and t-shirts being modest, yes or no? I guess that would depend where she is at, but off hand I would say no. Wear a T-shirt that would have Sexual quotes or any other quote that would promote sin and I would say yes. Why have you not answered my questions, like this one, should a women wear a bikini to Church? Oldzimm So a woman that tried to go a church, in 1800, wearing a t shirt and capris would be considered very immodestly dressed. It seems like we are somewhat agreeing on this point though, that there is a cultural element. If a woman just walked into a church wearing a bikini I'd find it very strange. People just don't go around wearing bikinis here, so I'd wonder what's up. In that case intentions and circumstance would matter a lot.

That's pretty much all deism is, isn't it? I thought it was centered on the notion that there is a god, and he created everything, but he isn't particularly concerned with us or our worship. It's basically just a filler to answer some unanswered questions. Functionally speaking, deism is a lot like atheism, in that deists aren't concerned about gods in their day to day lives. Insofar as the concept isn't taken any further than positing God as an explanatory hypothesis over a body of facts I suppose that is right. I'll give it some further thought.

thank. Yeah I was agreeing with you on that one robby, and expanding some.

I don't see how evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The issue I have with these arguments is that they tend to be very vague, 'systems tend toward increasing disorder, not order!' That's not a very helpful premise as it stands. I find it more helpful to make it more specific and in terms closer to how it originated in thermodynamics, perhaps, in terms of energy available to do work. As systems develop with time, the amount of energy to do work goes down. In fact this is one way we know how the arrow of time goes at all. If I drop a bucket of paint into a swimming pool, and record it, you can very easily tell if I try to run the video backward. If I put an ice cube in the middle of my floor, it will melt as it comes into equilibrium with the surrounding environment, thereby increasing entropy also. But suppose I put the ice cube instead in my freezer, which uses mechanical energy to pump heat. Now the ice cube won't melt, but at the expense of pumping more heat into my environment. So if the ice cube is the system, the entropy remains the same (and I could use it to decrease the entropy of other 'systems'), but if you consider the environment of my room, it is still increasing. That's why I don't find the argument brought up in your snippet helpful. It matters a great deal that the earth is an open system. What is needed is a way to take energy from the sun, which constantly irradiates the earth, and turn it into usable energy, or energy in sea vents from the hot core. Then at least you have a temperature differential which could drive mechanical processes or, more importantly here, chemical reactions. Then you can have local decreases in entropy, at the cost of the larger system.

meta, there are believers out there who are also scientists, but let me ask you this, why so few proportionally? The proportions are quite a bit lower in the scientific community, a fact I often ponder. robby, I suppose if the reason that someone believes is God is because they need God as a mechanism to explain phenomenon x, and once phenomenon x is explained using naturalistic means there is no longer any reason to believe, this may explain some of it.

Stolen by whom? The Pharisees and the Saducees had no motive to steal the body. In fact, they had all the reason in the world to produce a body. Certainly, Peter and company could not have stolen the body. Their motive is only logical after the fact, something they never would have expected and made no sense at the time. It would not have fit with their beliefs regarding not only the messiah, but it goes against their belief in a general resurrection. I thought the story was the Jews accused the Christians of stealing the body, so they could claim that he resurrected. That would honestly make sense if you believe that: Jesus is dead and in a tomb. The tomb is now empty. His followers are claiming he's alive. Unless the Jews saw him alive, it would be quite reasonable to assume that his body was stolen. If they did see him alive and wanted to discredit the Christians, it would make sense to lie and say they stole to body to try and squash rumors of the resurrection. I guess what I'm saying is I have never heard this presented as the Jews stealing the body. First, the disciples were Jews also so there is a bit of an anachronism there. Second, the missing body is coupled with Jesus' disciples seeing his resurrected body physically. They were convinced enough that it was real to commit their lives to the cause for that fact alone.

I find this interesting, but what I find kind of discouraging is that all of the scientists who most clearly believed in God are old timey, not that they aren't cool. Einstein did not believe in God is a traditional sense and really seemed to be deifying nature itself often (in language that is used by scientists who are atheists even now not infrequently). Planck seems to possibly have been deistic or a pantheist. It's a curious question to me, why there are so few scientists who are clearly believers in the full sense, though I do know there are some.

Isn't this in bold at least in part subjective to the culture you live in? What is a subdued, plain manner here in the U.S.? What is a subdued, plain manner in say S. Africa, Brazil, India, etc.? As far as Biblical passages are you referring to 1 Tim 2:8-10? 1 Tim 2:8-10 8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. ...or perhaps 1 Peter 3:1-7? 1 Peter 3:1-7 3 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. 7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. God bless, GE I have to agree with this. What if a woman goes around dressed in amish clothes, outside of an amish community, in part to advertise how modest and righteous she is? What if she is doing it to get adulation and enjoys playing the martyr if people criticize her? In the meantime, a woman who lives in a community in which the vast majority of women more revealing clothing, merely thinks she's dressing appropriately, without much more thought. Why is the latter woman sinning but the former woman not? Alpha, you keep beating a dead horse in this thread, because you keep looking at this through worldly eyes and not though spiritual eyes. Hey we didn't make the rules, God did and who are you or any of us for that matter, that can say " God I think you went a little to far on this one". As for your last post, it's an easy answer, both women could be sinning. The Amish woman for she might be prideful, God hates pride, and the other woman because her cloths might be too revealing. Now lets look at this topic from a different angle. People go to the beach, people wear swimsuits at the beach, women wear bikinis at the beach, no big deal because it is the beach and people do swim there (believe it or not). Here a man with a problem with lust should not go to the beach, it's not helping him break the chains of lust. (I might add here that there are some so called swimsuits that shouldn't be worn at the beach either. Little Johnny might be looking at more then the sea shells.) Now should those women wearing the bikinis at the beach wear them to Church? (NO,not even if their being baptized) The man with a problem with lust goes to Church to break those chains, he sitting in a pew and here comes these women in wearing bikinis, what is he to think? He is going to think that he can't break his chains because going to Church isn't helping him. (and a soul is lost) Oldzimm Do you think that a woman who wears a t shirt and capris is sinning?

I agree with you brother. Jonah was indeed reluctant. I think thre raeson for this can be explained further in chapter 4... Jonah 4:1-3 4 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 2 So he prayed to the Lord, and said, “Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm. 3 Therefore now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live!” Jonah was very displeased and angry... This indicated that Jonah had a conversation with God as to why he didn't want to go to Nineveh... In essence Jonah was saying "The reason I didn't want to go was because you God are merciful, slow to anger, an abounding in love." Jonah's attitude to me could be the result of a few options... A. Jonah didn't want to look dumb B. God's going to do whatever he wants (Calvinism) C. Jonah didn't love the people of Nineveh Thoughts? Also what stood out to you when you read the book again? God bless, GE So re-reading this a couple things. One is, Jonah thought he could flee from God, despite knowing he worshiped "the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land". Why did he think he was going to get away with it and what was Jonah doing fast asleep in this ship running from God? Next, Jonah is in the belly of the fish for 3 days, and 3 nights. I get the allusion to Christ. But barring that, are we to think he didn't before think to ask God for help, or merely that God kept him there for that long for a greater point? Perhaps that question has less bearing if we switch to 'allegorical mode' but even with that the question remains. Alright, the next thing that interests me is what this means about prophecy and the interesting interplay between God's foreknowledge. Jonah prophesied "Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" yet, that clearly did not happen. That gives me a clue that prophecy is certainly a lot more than future-telling, and also, that God is responsive to what people do on some level. As to the last question, it's even worse than I remembered. Jonah would rather die than lose face, or so he says anyway. Another thing from this episode is that God cared about these people "You are concerned about the bush, for which you did not labor and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, which there are more than a hundred twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?" As an extra side note, there's also a reason we shouldn't be deliberately cruel to animals, as God lists them as objects of some kind of moral concern.

Isn't this in bold at least in part subjective to the culture you live in? What is a subdued, plain manner here in the U.S.? What is a subdued, plain manner in say S. Africa, Brazil, India, etc.? As far as Biblical passages are you referring to 1 Tim 2:8-10? 1 Tim 2:8-10 8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. ...or perhaps 1 Peter 3:1-7? 1 Peter 3:1-7 3 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. 7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. God bless, GE I have to agree with this. What if a woman goes around dressed in amish clothes, outside of an amish community, in part to advertise how modest and righteous she is? What if she is doing it to get adulation and enjoys playing the martyr if people criticize her? In the meantime, a woman who lives in a community in which the vast majority of women more revealing clothing, merely thinks she's dressing appropriately, without much more thought. Why is the latter woman sinning but the former woman not?

It used to not be acceptable in society for women to wear pants or to wear skirts that didn't fall to their feet. Do we really want to say that we ought to require that? There's clearly a cultural element to all this, particularly when we want to understand the intentions of the woman in question. If she is dressing appropriately to the standards of her society why impute to her ill intent? Again you speak of the subject in a worldly view, and you seem to suggest that to be naked in public is okay, as long as it is the fashion and society accepts it. The fact is we can talk about this subject being right or wrong all we want, but what we think doesn't really matter, it is what God thinks that matters and he clearly tells us in the word not to cause a brother (or sister) to stumble. If we cause a brother to stumble, two have sinned, the one who stumbled and the one who caused the brother to stumble. No, that isn't what I said. What I said is that if you want to judge a woman for what she is wearing it makes no sense to *not* take into account the cultural standard since what is modest in one place and time is completely different in another. That is just a fact. In 1800 US it would be completely inappropriate for a woman to go around in an outfit that is considered perfectly fine to us now, say, capris and a t shirt. Similarly, if a woman went to Saudi Arabia now wearing that she would be considered extremely immodest. Not taking into account the place and time you are at will not allow you to properly judge the intentions of the person wearing whatever it is they are are. The other thing that people should take into account is the feelings of the person in question, who is told that their clothing is 'inappropriate'. The way that people are talking about women in this thread disturb me. It doesn't matter where you live.Half dressed with half of your body showing is not excepted by God.It is not modest.Whether you live in the United States or Timbuktu.Although I might add the exception might be to natives who have never seen civilization. Is a woman wearing capris and t-shirts being modest, yes or no?

It is very simple God has set forth a moral code in everyman and as man exercises his will either for or against that code determines what authority will be for that man, Either the world and all that is contained therein or God -which is guided by His Holy Spirit and His Word... Love, Steven The Bible doesn't lay down a dress code in detail. What counts as modest now (capris and t shirt) would have been obscene 200 years ago. The Bible does not lay down a dress code?Yes it does. Matthew 5:27-29“You have heard that it was said to those of old,[a] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[b] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. Proverbs 7:10And there a woman met him, With the attire of a harlot, and a crafty heart. That's not a dress code. A dress code would be "if women don't wear skirts down to the ankles they aren't being modest". No, that is entirely lacking.

It is very simple God has set forth a moral code in everyman and as man exercises his will either for or against that code determines what authority will be for that man, Either the world and all that is contained therein or God -which is guided by His Holy Spirit and His Word... Love, Steven The Bible doesn't lay down a dress code in detail. What counts as modest now (capris and t shirt) would have been obscene 200 years ago.

It used to not be acceptable in society for women to wear pants or to wear skirts that didn't fall to their feet. Do we really want to say that we ought to require that? There's clearly a cultural element to all this, particularly when we want to understand the intentions of the woman in question. If she is dressing appropriately to the standards of her society why impute to her ill intent? Again you speak of the subject in a worldly view, and you seem to suggest that to be naked in public is okay, as long as it is the fashion and society accepts it. The fact is we can talk about this subject being right or wrong all we want, but what we think doesn't really matter, it is what God thinks that matters and he clearly tells us in the word not to cause a brother (or sister) to stumble. If we cause a brother to stumble, two have sinned, the one who stumbled and the one who caused the brother to stumble. No, that isn't what I said. What I said is that if you want to judge a woman for what she is wearing it makes no sense to *not* take into account the cultural standard since what is modest in one place and time is completely different in another. That is just a fact. In 1800 US it would be completely inappropriate for a woman to go around in an outfit that is considered perfectly fine to us now, say, capris and a t shirt. Similarly, if a woman went to Saudi Arabia now wearing that she would be considered extremely immodest. Not taking into account the place and time you are at will not allow you to properly judge the intentions of the person wearing whatever it is they are are. The other thing that people should take into account is the feelings of the person in question, who is told that their clothing is 'inappropriate'. The way that people are talking about women in this thread disturb me. Capri's and a T shirt is a far cry from the possibilities of women wearing low tops and short mini skirts to Church. Oldzimm Why? they would have been seen as extremely offensive by a church in 1800 US. That's my point, we shouldn't assume the worst about these women's intentions. That's what bugs me in this thread. She could have merely thrown on something in her closet, that she bought because her friends wear similar things and she thought it was cute. People are making these comments like she's obviously out to get the attention of men, references to possible slutty behavior, etc., and I find that implication distasteful.

D. mild indifference to which it is of the above . I don't know how much I care if Jonah literally spent 3 days in a fish or not. It doesn't change anything for me or how I read it.

1. I remember two things striking me when I first read this in particular. The first was that Jonah was extremely reluctant, but God made His will happen anyway. And the second thing was, Jonah was saddened by the fact that people repented and weren't destroyed. What kind of response is that? The people listen and devastation is averted, so I'm going to sulk? I remember thinking, here is Jonah, kind of a jerk, yet God uses him anyway, hope for the rest of us.

It used to not be acceptable in society for women to wear pants or to wear skirts that didn't fall to their feet. Do we really want to say that we ought to require that? There's clearly a cultural element to all this, particularly when we want to understand the intentions of the woman in question. If she is dressing appropriately to the standards of her society why impute to her ill intent? Again you speak of the subject in a worldly view, and you seem to suggest that to be naked in public is okay, as long as it is the fashion and society accepts it. The fact is we can talk about this subject being right or wrong all we want, but what we think doesn't really matter, it is what God thinks that matters and he clearly tells us in the word not to cause a brother (or sister) to stumble. If we cause a brother to stumble, two have sinned, the one who stumbled and the one who caused the brother to stumble. No, that isn't what I said. What I said is that if you want to judge a woman for what she is wearing it makes no sense to *not* take into account the cultural standard since what is modest in one place and time is completely different in another. That is just a fact. In 1800 US it would be completely inappropriate for a woman to go around in an outfit that is considered perfectly fine to us now, say, capris and a t shirt. Similarly, if a woman went to Saudi Arabia now wearing that she would be considered extremely immodest. Not taking into account the place and time you are at will not allow you to properly judge the intentions of the person wearing whatever it is they are are. The other thing that people should take into account is the feelings of the person in question, who is told that their clothing is 'inappropriate'. The way that people are talking about women in this thread disturb me.

I find this uncharitable.

Yes but the blame could go both ways, could it not? If I have a friend with a drinking problem and is trying to stay dry or even if he is not on the wagon, Knowing he has a problem, wouldn't it be a sin for me crack open a beer in front of him? The Bible tells us not to do anything that would cause our brother to sin (stumble). If I remember right, I think the original post was about one or two women in a Church that may have dressed on the less conservative side. I can't say yea or nay on how they were dressed, because I don't know, but if they were wearing short miniskirts or low cut tops and as sisters in Christ, why would they dress to cause a brother to stumble? People have this idea that they must be good enough before they come to Christ and that's not true. People come to Christ for his mercy, love, and strength to break the chains of sin that is holding them down. If we all waited to be good enough to become sons and daughters in Christ, Church would be a very lonely place. So knowing there could be men in the congregation with a problem with lust, why then would women dress provocatively (if they were) causing a brother to stumble? maybe they don't know that. Maybe they think they are merely being fashionable. Maybe she does have bad intentions, so what. My point is that the guy in question should learn to deal. Truth is, we don't know how she was actually dressed. If she were dressed as is acceptable in our society I don't think it's cool for the guy referenced in the OP to complain. Now there is a word and a line that are pet peeves of mind. The word fashionable, the line "..acceptable in society..", these are things of worldly matters, and at times could be created by satan. If the fashion of the time were to be naked in public and it were acceptable by society, would that make it okay? (I don't think so) OneWithGod, congratulations on breaking those chains. Oldzimm It used to not be acceptable in society for women to wear pants or to wear skirts that didn't fall to their feet. Do we really want to say that we ought to require that? There's clearly a cultural element to all this, particularly when we want to understand the intentions of the woman in question. If she is dressing appropriately to the standards of her society why impute to her ill intent?

Yes but the blame could go both ways, could it not? If I have a friend with a drinking problem and is trying to stay dry or even if he is not on the wagon, Knowing he has a problem, wouldn't it be a sin for me crack open a beer in front of him? The Bible tells us not to do anything that would cause our brother to sin (stumble). If I remember right, I think the original post was about one or two women in a Church that may have dressed on the less conservative side. I can't say yea or nay on how they were dressed, because I don't know, but if they were wearing short miniskirts or low cut tops and as sisters in Christ, why would they dress to cause a brother to stumble? People have this idea that they must be good enough before they come to Christ and that's not true. People come to Christ for his mercy, love, and strength to break the chains of sin that is holding them down. If we all waited to be good enough to become sons and daughters in Christ, Church would be a very lonely place. So knowing there could be men in the congregation with a problem with lust, why then would women dress provocatively (if they were) causing a brother to stumble? maybe they don't know that. Maybe they think they are merely being fashionable. Maybe she does have bad intentions, so what. My point is that the guy in question should learn to deal. Truth is, we don't know how she was actually dressed. If she were dressed as is acceptable in our society I don't think it's cool for the guy referenced in the OP to complain.

Sure old, and if she is asking for advice offering that to her makes sense in terms of how she advertises herself and her values. But what I really wanted to get across in my post is that blame for sin should not be placed on others. But, on the flip side, suppose she goes around wearing a tight miniskirt. Whose problem is it if she causes sin? Whatever if she is an unbeliever? It's dangerous thinking in my mind to place the blame on her because that is what leads to demands she cover up so she doesn't cause problems for others, and where does that end? A pretty face could be enough to cause issues. In my mind it's like people who have a personal problem with drinking demanding that no one else do it either, and then blame others if they have problems.

Private businesses should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they want. For instance, I think white supremacists who own a store should be able to keep out blacks, Jews, etc. Now, I think it would be immoral for them to do this, and I would hope their store fails, but they should have a legal right to make that decision about their services and property. That would extend to cases involving same-sex marriages very easily, and business.