alphaparticle

First of all "Electromagnetism" and "Gravity" are two different things, one reason is they're two different words. And "Charges"? Where'd you get them....Atoms? That's "Matter"....and there's more than Two. The point is that the formalism is a formalism of fields. You can define an electric field which is produced by charged particles, which allows you to predict the forces that another charged particle would feel were it to be put at a particular point in the field. Likewise it is certainly not useless to constructive a field equation for a configuration of mass-energy so you know how that configuration affects local spacetime. That is what the field equations are for. ===================================================================================================================== I'm calling "Fields"...."Q's" from now on; it's more "descriptive". Space"Time" is a demonstrable Fairytale as I've simply illustrated. The substance of which I have posted on many forums for quite some time without a single refutation, you know why...because it's Irrefutable. I just use the lack of solutions to the Field Equations and the Violation of Bell's Inequality as dressing @ this point----which is quite the statement, I must say. As far as this little attempted back-handed slight.... It's not Anti-"Scientific" it's Demonstrable Anti-"Fairytale" ("Just So" Stories/Begging The Question Fallacies) that is dumbfound-ingly taken for science via Equivocation (Fallacy)...most likely directly due to "a priori" adherence's, that just all random like attempt to cast a negative light on THE ALMIGHTY GOD. And the only reason why it's so "Lopsided" is that I not only say it...."I SUPPORT IT" 6 ways from Sunday. And as an ancillary benefit, I already know well in advance of any potential refuters target and their next 10-20 subsequent moves because I have run every last one through my own personal crucible of Due Diligence x10 00000000000000000. I'm Hard Wired for it; of which, you already know. Of Course, it doesn't hurt to have The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE as my ROCK/Fortress, and knowing that whatever comes along that clumsily attempts to cast that negative light is already Inherently Compromised from jump street somewhere in it's Tenets...ERGO, I'll find it eventually, by attrition if nothing less. It's not backhanded. It's straight up. I'm sick of this subsection being dominated by conspiracy theory armchair 'science'. I am sick of it in particular because this could not be a worse witness in a section that is already unfortunately named 'faith VS science'. There a lot of empirical evidence for General Relativity. I have mentioned many items as has scintillic. This isn't in the realm of pure speculation. I have mentioned specifically that GR somehow manages to predict relativistic corrections necessary for GPS, for light redshifting, explains the anomaly in Mercury's orbit, gravitational lensing, and is being rigorously tested right now with interferometers built to measure the presence of gravitational waves. But all that aside, the main point here is, I cannot begin to imagine where in your mind, or anyone else's mind, this has anything to do with God existing or not! Nothing particular about God's existence, the truth of the gospel, or any other important fundamental truth such as that is even remotely threatened by special or general relativity. This is completely baffling to me. I

================================================================== First of all "Electromagnetism" and "Gravity" are two different things, one reason is they're two different words. And "Charges"? Where'd you get them....Atoms? That's "Matter"....and there's more than Two. The point is that the formalism is a formalism of fields. You can define an electric field which is produced by charged particles, which allows you to predict the forces that another charged particle would feel were it to be put at a particular point in the field. Likewise it is certainly not useless to constructive a field equation for a configuration of mass-energy so you know how that configuration affects local spacetime. That is what the field equations are for.

That is a clearer, more concise version of exactly what I was trying to say. Bro: You're a legend. Legend nah. I just have professional training in this area. It pains me that the Christian representation on this board for some reason tends toward this sort of anti-scientific view which demonstrates an ignorance about, in this case, the physics involved, so I feel compelled to throw in my views so it isn't always so lopsided seeming. I don't get why the dynamics here are that way, but such as it is, I did want to communicate that we believers aren't all this way about scientific matters.

I know I'm late to this party commenting on this, but hopefully it's cool. You don't need 2 masses to have gravity, though you can draw parallels to the case of electromagnetism for how that works formally. In electromagnetism if you have a charge sitting about in space, you can describe the field created by that charge. You then know the force that a charge would experience were it to be place at a particular place in space by that charge. Likewise with gravity you can come up with how an objective distorts the local spacetime. You can then predict how the trajectories of other objects through spacetime are affected by its presence. I want to mention that because quantum mechanics does predict that the gravitational field can be quantized (i.e. gravitons fall out), although certainly that isn't a result of General Relativity. Maybe mentioning that just makes matters more unclear rather than the reverse, but I have a disease...

lol nice If You Can't Ever Observe It Neither Even Measure It Nor Reproduce It For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9 It Must Be Science And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:12 You See O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20-21 No? Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 Dark Energy Is What You May Experience From Eating Dark Chocolate If You Can Ever See It Or So They Say..... Observational astronomy is legit, when it involves very precisely sorts of predictions about what we ought to observe in the world if such and such is true. The restrictions that are being placed on what counts as 'real' science are a bit bizarre in my view.

It's a rather odd coincidence that empirical findings of time dilation fit the expectations of special and general relativity! If the complaint is, where is the empirical evidence? there is one. Likewise for explaining the orbit of Mercury. likewise to explain gravitational lensing. Likewise for the fact that you can elevate many different kinds of 'clocks' and note, empirically, as you want, at different elevations the time dilation effect of being in different parts of a gravitational well. You can look at the redshift of light from different elevations to show this also. And of course, there is the potential for observing gravitational waves, an observational experiment currently being undertaken, which will help to decisively decide the case. According to General Relativity, locally accelerating frames are equivalent to gravity. That is the core principle of it. So put the hourglasses in an elevator with no windows. Have one be close to the surface of the earth, another out in space, neither accelerated. Now imagine accelerating the one in space such that its local acceleration matches g, now you will not be able to tell whether or not you are in a gravitational field or in an accelerating frame. That is a relevant thought experiment. All of this is a rather odd discussion in this thread, considering the researcher in questioned *used* General Relativity as the cornerstone of her calculations in the first place. I am not sure how that obvious point got lost in the exchange.

No. The speed of light is still c in a black hole. It is that local spacetime itself is so warped that light itself can't escape the region. ~ As For Black Holes lol nice

I don't think that is quite true because the technological challenges are truly enormous. However, that being said, I do think it is genuinely true that fusion isn't being funded as a research project as much as it could be, or rationally be, because of powerful oil lobbies.

No. The speed of light is still c in a black hole. It is that local spacetime itself is so warped that light itself can't escape the region.

the reason there are empirical reasons to think black holes exist is because you can observe the gravitational effects of one astronomical object on another and from that infer the masses of these objects. Likewise, you can see what sort of light, whether visible or not, objects emit. So, if you have some object with mass in a certain range that doesn't seem to be emitting any sort of light itself there is a reason to think it could be a black hole. Another way you can infer their existence is again their their gravitational effects, but in this case, via gravitational lensing. So, I see two problems here. One is, this researcher says that her math shows that such objects could not form because they would shed the mass necessary to make a black hole first. Well, empirical evidence suggests there are objects with the necessary mass. The second thing is that there are objects with the requisite mass that themselves don't radiate light. These are pretty good reasons for suspecting that black holes do in fact exist. The second thing is that general relativity is actually used in our technology also. Your GPS uses special and general relativistic corrections in order to work properly. If our understand of that theory is off, it would be rather important to know for lots of reasons.

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-uw-fusion-reactor-concept-cheaper.html Anybody care to wager when cold fusion as a source of energy will actually come to fruition? It's been a few years away since the inception of the idea, though there have been a number of solid technological advances since then.

Afraid not because General Relativity is, as they say, 'nontrivial' haha. The main thing I'd point out is that there are many observations that imply blackholes, or at least something very close to that object, exist. When it comes to observations in the world and someone's math, the former typically wins. That being said, as she publishes this and her works gets peer reviewed we should have a clearer idea if this is a genuine result or if there is a mistake somewhere.

I believe in God as Creator and in evolution. I have never found great difficulty in doing that either, despite the efforts of both sides to convince me this is untenable.

Hi AP An interesting juxtaposition on Peter. I don't think denying the Lord is the unpardonable sin either but certainly what the Lord stated is true so I do believe the act of denying Him is sin and does result in broken fellowship with both Christ and the Father. If we study the case of Peter further we can see this was a very serious matter between the Lord and Peter and we have much to learn by it since it is in all 4 Gospels Point #1: Peter in his own strength stated he would never forsake the Lord and was ready to die for Him and with Him. In my own heart I envision I could do this too but when confronted by the reality of the situation we need the Lord's strength more than ever and our bravado may fail us so we should not rely on it. Luke 22:31-34 And the Lord said,"Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." But he said to Him, "Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death." Then He said, "I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me." Point #2 Please note that the Lord said, "when you have returned to Me". The implication here is one of broken fellowship between them but Jesus Himself prayed for Peter that his faith would not fail and tells him he will return to Him. Peter was given the time to repent of his actions and he publically confessed his sin, documenting it for all time - as it is in all 4 Gospels that we may learn from it. This was a horrible experience for Peter and when he saw the Lord looking right at him in his denial it had to be hurtful. We may not be able to feel the depth of that pain but maybe some of us had experiences of our spouse denying the wedding vows that bind husband and wife, or a family member that denies you as a member of the family, or even friends that after you came to Christ and confessed Him which no longer considered your long friendship. Make no mistake this ranks right up there with sins that maim like a knife to the heart. Luke 22:60-62 But Peter said, "Man, I do not know what you are saying!" Immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, "Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times." So Peter went out and wept bitterly. Point #3 This sin was not winked at as no big deal. It was a terribly big deal! We must remember the Lord's instruction to Peter after the resurrection. John 21:15-9 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep. Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish." This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "Follow Me." In Christ, Pat The part I find most relevant here is point 2. Does returning to Christ here mean that Peter was unsaved during the time he was sinning? I see no reason to think that was the case. There is also no reason to think that sin causing separation from God means that if a believer sins he is unsaved. I suspect it is the case that those who die in agony but without ever denying Christ were very likely helped to that conclusion by the fortification of the Spirit, and who has the Spirit in that sense except those who are saved. There is a list of sins that keeps you out of heaven: 1 cor 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. So the question I have is, as these are listed as sins that keep you out of heaven, does every time a believer steal, exercise greed, get drunk, etc., every time, do they lose their salvation?

The In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3 Great Light In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:4-5 Again Shines Over A Bright New Earth And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. Revelation 22:5 And It Seems To Me Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3 That I Am So But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6 Blessed So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17 Western Science has a lot to do with truth. When you see how successful your physical theories are at making specific predictions, and then using them to design technology that couldn't even be imagined a mere century before, it is very compelling to think you are onto something important and deep about the world. More than that though, western science developed first with believers. It was only in the 20th C (for physics anyway), that a link was made between being very good in your scientific field and being a skeptic about God in some sense. There's no intrinsic reason that should be that way and that is my point. A series of historical happenings led to the current alignment of unbelief and the sciences, 'conservative' Christianity and skepticism of science (and even anti-intellectualism in a wider fashion). Whether or not you think young earth creationism is definitely the case, I am convinced there are far more effective ways of reaching these various communities with the gospel than what is being done right now. How many people bother to take up Paul's methodology and speak to these groups in language that has maximal clarity?

I don't think if you make a verbal denial of Jesus, and then are beheaded, that that would send you to hell. If you make a public denial merely out of fear of pain, torture, death, etc., that isn't a denial in the sense of actual inner rejection. For instance, Peter denied Christ, it seems clear though he didn't really mean it. He was afraid.

Well, I tend to be a young Earther myself, but I do not take the bible to say things beyond which it actually says. For example, while it is true that the vast majority of the uses of the word "day" in the bible, indicate short periods of time, 24 hours is never expressly stated in the creation account. Genesis, deifine a day, as one cycle of lightness and darkness, before the Sun is ever placed in the heavens. So, strictly speaking, a solar day is not specified. Later, the Sun (apparently - referred to as a great light: 14Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. So, it looks reasonable there to assume that from the fourth day onward, a 24 hour day is indicated, assuming the length of a day and light cycle has not varied since then. Of course, if one assume they have never varied, then before the fourth day would seem to be 24 hour days also. To Alpha's question, I think it just depends on people's personal prejudices. If one's prejudice leads on to trus scientists to be in the best position to determine truths like this, then one will tend to accepts a tremendously old universe. If scientists were always correct, never having to amend their theories or offer new ones, then it would be easy to give them a lot of credibility. In fact, I personally give them great credibility on most things that science legitimately addresses. I find their pronouncements on how electricity behaves, to be very credible. Of course we can directly test and observe how electricity behaves. It is much harder for the average to observe the past thousands or millions or billions of years ago, so we are somewhat more skeptical on that topic, knowing that even scientists cannot directly observe the creation/formation of the earth. As it was expressed in the book of Job: 1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, 2“Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge? 3“Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! 4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, 5Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? 6“On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8“Or who enclosed the sea with doors When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; 9When I made a cloud its garment And thick darkness its swaddling band, 10And I placed boundaries on it And set a bolt and doors, 11And I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop’? Etc., etc. God's point; "Since you think you are so smart, and know how it all happened, let me ask you plainly, "Were you there?" God was there, God was the eye witness, God knows how it happened. So, the questions are really: "Did God inspire the Bible to be written? Did the writers express God's thoughts accurately? Is Genesis intended to be taken literally? For myself, I answer those questions in the affirmative, but it is just an opinion, which I cannot prove. Still, it is what guides me, it is where my faith is placed. Not everyone has that sort of faith, I consider it a gift. If I happen to be incorrect, then perhaps it is more of a curse and I am doomed to erroneous conclusions. I have a concern, that if people believe that Genesis should be taken symbolically, poetically etc, then I see no reason why that option is not available to any area of the Bible to which one chooses to apply it. For example, we might imagine that the New Testament narratives are not literally accurate, and Jesus did not really, literally die and rise again from the dead. If we can do that, then of course we should note what the apostle Pauls said (1 Cor 15): 14 . . .and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." Now, I do not at all, envy people like Alpha, who seem to be stuck in a position of a mix of faith and doubt, or a blend of faith is contradictory things, or at least things that are not easily complimentary. In enjoy a certain type of freedom in the sort of faith given me . . . a freedom of concern over what people know about what I believe. In the lines of work whcih I have engages in, I can express my belief in a young earth, or a literal rising from the dead of Jesus, and that He is God, the Creator Himself, in human flesh. If I say such things, people can ponder: "How can someone this seemingly intelligent, believe in such superstitious nonsense?" What they cannot rationally conclude is: "That Omegaman believes such incredulous things, that he cannot possibly be a competent machinist. I am not sure that Alpha, in his field, can expect his peers to assume that his thinking has the clarity to really allow him to be as good a scientist as he could be. So, I probably drifted way off topic, my mind tends to wander a lot. However, I will circle back to where I began, that of conforming one's own beliefs to conform to ones prejudices, aligning them to the ideas and people in whom one has the most faith. Am I more rational to believe that scientists are the class of people who are the most qualified to answer complex questions about the origins of the universe, or is it possible, that I can be just as rational, that theolgians, who have spent lifetimes of study in their field also, might have those answers? More to the point, is rationality itself, the source of truth, or is that also something in which we must have faith? In the final analysis, for me, I neither place faith in scientists nor theologians, neither has enough credibility for me, to instruct me how I must think, what I must believe. Both groups make grievous errors. Whether by choice, or something outside of my willing control, I believe in a personal and intelligent God, who has inspired certain individuals of His choosing, to create a collection of writings now collected in what we call the Bible. I then must use what gifts, talents, skills, intelligence, and other resources at my disposal to arrive at the best conclusions I know how to make, and then to the best of my abilities (God given of of self will) try to live my life in compliance with my beliefs. I enjoyed reading your thoughts about this omega. I have long respected your thoughts and insights, and I don't say t hat to butter you up but I think it is relevant to the post. There are people who are intelligent, and I acknowledge this, who believe in a young earth. I have difficulty wrapping my mind around it, but I don't question that they are smart and I understand, and gain more understanding into some of the reasons for their position. I will never forget the sense of startle when discussing this topic with someone who will remain unnamed, who told me his young earth views. Based on how similarly I think to this person on many topics, it wasn't possible after then to assume that only stupid people would believe this young earth position, as frankly I had previously implicitly assumed. For me it is, and has been, simply what seems to be true. This is a 'is the sky red or blue' type of situation insofar as, if the Bible said the sky is red, I'd have to assume it is somehow metaphorical or should not be taken at face value, because I know for a fact the sky is blue. I don't think that downgrades my view of the Bible as an authority, but it does appear to me to be at times a difficult to comprehend and complicated mixture of stuff. I could be wrong about how I am attempting to understand the Bible as much as I could also be wrong about how I interpret the physical facts about the world. So many facts about the world fit together so neatly with the universe being billions of years old I don't find it possible to downgrade that to 6k years. It's not impossible for me to change my mind, but it seems for that to happen there would have to be an extraordinary change in understanding of physical rules and such. As to your other points, it happens that when I first became a believer I had no idea what to do with the Bible. I believed only a few parts of it, really. I believed them in a very narrow way also, but it was enough to convince me that Jesus had risen from the dead. It was only later with reading, and with experience with the Spirit, that I began to take it in a different way. So for me I work from the opposite scenario you have worried about. I have gone from believing very very little of the Bible and only in a very narrow way, to accepting it as on the whole authoritative. So, I lack the concern that if I fail to take Genesis as a factual historical account I will come to doubt Jesus, in fact I have never taken Genesis that way but have believed in the core gospel. I grant, though, that I am not an exemplar of faith. I waiver, I doubt, a lot, and I am very fortunate God has chosen to be merciful with me. I don't think that is because of my view of the Bible though, the causation there if anything is reversed. It may be that if I had a solid continuous faith I would have a deeper belief in the Bible, apply it more widely more easily- so faith in the basics I think would spill over into these other areas, not the other away around so much.

I couldn't agree more about this. The fact that there is such low religiosity among practicing scientists I am sure does not help to cultivate a sense of trust among the public. After all, why should there be such a mismatch between the scientific community and the general public in terms of belief in God, afterlife, etc? It is suggestive of a bias in the scientific culture and I agree there is one. Likewise that feeds into a pre-existing bias in the conservative Christian (here I just mean more conservative theologically) community against science. None of this is necessary. This disconnect didn't exist in the 19th C, and somehow developed in the 20th C, for historical reasons. And while I think that young earth creationism cannot be accommodated into prevalent scientific models, that shouldn't stop somebody from believing in God, or more specifically accepting the gospel as true either. The situation is pretty polarized right now and it's unfortunate. While I think at this point both sides are at fault, and with the new atheist thing in the last decade perhaps it is worse from the scientific community due to that influence, I think it makes sense for the Christian community to figure out a way to bridge it. It does mean the gospel is not really being communicated to a profession of people, at least not nearly as effectively as it could be.

I am often curious how people in the young earth creationist camp think that the *vast majority* of scientists in their fields think the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe 13.7 billion yrs old but that somehow they've made the discovery it is not. How are these basic facts lost on all these researcher whose expertise should give them the best position to judge such things? At times it seems like some suggest there is a vast conspiracy that keeps the truth from coming out, or that people simply believe what they want and find a model to fit it no matter what facts they encounter. But does history bear this out? I argue no. Consider, for instance, that for decades there was incredible tension and dissension over this very issue in the scientific community itself. Here is why. Geological and fossil evidence seemed to suggest an old earth, hundreds of millions if not billions of years old. On the other hand, estimates about the maximum age of the sun suggested that the earth could not be older than a couple dozen of millions of years old! The result? In response to these conflicting lines of evidence from separate fields arguments ensued that were quite public. Some argued for a uniformitarian view of nature in which there was slow even progress, others argued that the normal nature of things was punctuated by large violent events, and one of the causes of that was explicitly stated as the possible activity of God. It was the facts on the table that caused this argument. And, it would be the facts that resolved it. This situation was resolved when it quantum mechanics was developed and a way for nuclear interactions to cause the processes in the sun established through quantum tunneling. When the calculations were carried through it was estimated the sun was 4.5 billion years old, in the realm that the previous geological arguments had suggested! It was then that the consensus formed. In short, though I do think that there is currently an anti religious bias in the sciences and I agree that will affect some outlooks, in particular when dealing with highly speculative issues such as multiverses and such, where there are facts accessible to all there tends to be converge because the basic facts themselves suggest a basic truth about the physical world.

How is extending some tax break to people already cohabitating going to destroy the core unit of a nation? They are already doing it. Since when should the state determine who and who isn't *really* married? The easiest solution to this is to take the government out of this business altogether.

First, how do you view Israel (Jews)? Second, how would you respond to this friend? God bless, GE Israel =/= Jews, insofar as there is a modern nation state called Israel nowadays, and there are Jews all over. Second, I agree with the friend insofar as I think the main thing is Christ isn't it? What good does it for a random Jew (and I say this as a Jew, with many people I love as Jews!) if he rejects Christ yet is a Jew? You can say, God still promises the land, and descendents. All fine and good, but what is this compared to eternal life? So while I disagree with your friend that all of God's promises to the Jews has been completely fulfilled and therefore void, say, with the land, I do agree with the general notion that the point is supposed to be salvation through Christ. My concern is with all the focus at times with praying for Israel and Jews as God's chosen people and all this that the central point of eternal life through Jesus only is lost.

My response is, the taxation breaks should be extended to consenting adult romantic relationsihps that desire to call themselves legally married. This is just another example of why the state shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. The state is precisely the wrong instiution to look for this sort of moral guidance on.

this is sad, but these are high school bullies and a very isolated incident. I wouldn't liken this to the beginnings of the nazi movement.

"So what would we call the energy that would be large enough, powerful enough and pervasive enough to create the solar system, the planets, the stars, the sun, you, me and everything on earth…come on…that’s right…say it with me…GOD! God is Energy." "God and the soul are creative, loving, abstract energies that invested themselves into creating and sustaining you, me and the world." quotes from the article That is wrong. Very wrong. Wrong theologically and biblically first and foremost. The question of the bad physics is surely a far second to how bad this article is. Energy is a physical, observable, quantifiable, entity. There aren't special 'kinds' that are fragmmented into "joy, love, beauty, peace, compassion, wisdom, harmony, goodwill and strength" That is new age garbage.Doesn't God trascend the created order? after all, God created it all. The guy who authored this blog really has no clue about what energy is in physics, which is apparently what he wanted to discuss by bringing up the mass-energy equivalence relation at the start.

I frankly don't find it relevant at all whether or not the Big Bang occurred to God's existence. The Big Bang model is fairly well established empirically and therefore I accept it. My current faith in God would not be shaken if tomorrow major findings somehow controverted it. Likewise, my belief that God created everything in existence would not be threatened if somehow it were empirically established there are multiverses. Taking the discussion to that place doesn't seem like a particularly fruitful direction as far as I can tell. I don't think it fundamentally think it takes faith to accept the Big Bang, unless you also think it takes faith to accept the existence of electrons or the existence of the electromagnetic force. Faith, though, doesn't seem to be believing in stuff despite lacking evidence. It seems to come about as a response to an interaction with God. I don't have that sort of faith in anything else except God and His works.