Omegaman 3.0

There too, I watch myself, "If"s can certainly be conditional. but are they always? There is a verse in John, where Jesus said, "If you love me, obey my commandments." At least that is what some versions say. Others point out the the Greek is a bit different. As I first phrased it, it sounds almost like a request. In the Greek, it looks more like a prediction, a description, a diagnostic. "If you love me, you WILL obey my commandments." Some do not perceive a difference in those ideas, to me there is a clear difference. Another IF verse which is interesting: “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, “‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and “‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’” IF? Do we think there is any question in the mind of the devil about who Jesus is? I don't think so. There "if" seems almost like there is a rhetorical element to it, like "If you are the Son of God (and you are), then . . . That IF is almost the same as saying "since". So, I am cautious about "if"s and watch the context closely where they occur, trying to see what the position, the point of the discussion is trying to make. It is hard to comment intelligently on these things, without the specific examples. Also, it is interesting to examine "ifs" collectively, When there is an example (if there is an example, lol) there the scripture says :If you do such and such, you will be saved!" Then you find another that says "If you do this other thing, you will be saved", we should be asking ourselves, does that mean that doing either one of those, and I will be saved, or must I do both of those to be saved. That is not the only question. Another question is, "Is doing this thing what saves me, or does being saved lead to doing this thing?" Just thoughts.

I am very reluctant to take parables beyond what I think is there intention. First, sometime parables are used to hide the truth from some, so what they are revealing might not always be obvious. We have the luxury in some of them to get Jesus explanation of them. Beyond that I get nervous. In the case of the prodigal, I can see a few ways to get possible off course, or beyond it's intention. Some things are not item by item comparable to our spiritual existence, and in my case I know I would bring my prejudice into an interpretation if I was not careful. For example, it the illustration of the son in the parable, we know he had no part in being a son, he did not choose it, and he could not ever stop being a son, he was a son by the nature of who his father was. They would be father and son, regardless of how their relation was strained by the son's behavior. By contrast, Christians are not born as children of God by nature, they are adopted as children, made to be sons and daughters, and adoptees do not choose parents, parents choose them. You can see how thinking along the lines of what is different, could lead one to theological conclusions, which may or may not be valid, but are they the point of the parable?

. . . and no, there is no such thing as a license to sin. Paul anticipated that silly notion: 1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Romans 6 but read the whole chapter!

Some alternative thoughts from the Bible Speaks Today Commentaty:

I listed some once too, here! However, you said something there that is quite accurate I think, that is: one APPEARS to refute that doctrine. I believe that the Bible is the word of God. IF that is true, then those verses might APPEAR to contradict each other, but they do not, God does not contradict himself. Whatever understanding is, or understandings are correct, will understand all of the verses in a way where they harmonize, If they do not, then one can be certain one has a misunderstanding. If any of those verses contradict our understanding, then we need a new understanding! My personal position is OSASIS. Once saved, always saved IF saved. I suggest people look at what Jesus said about eternal life, and believe Him. Then ask yourself also, if it can be lost, it what way was it eternal? Remember, the Bible does not just say they will receive eternal life, it says they already have it. John 3:36 is one such example: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

It is tragic that your friend had found himself in this position, but sometimes actions have consequences. Going to prison for a crime, is one such consequence. Finding life harder forever, can be another. For the unsaved, the consequences can be eternal. It is very important to let people know while they are young and impressionable, that actions have consequences - think things through. That is possible, but how much money do they need? What they NEED usually, is a meal, basic necessities - can usually be had (at least in my country) for the asking. There a churches, charities, rescue missions etc. People do not need a car, a nice apartment, electronics, etc. Those aspects of life are wants, not needs. The Kind of the universe was a homeless man for three years, but His needs were met, He did without extravagant things. I have seen people who are humble enough to ask for a handout from strangers, and when I look at them, they have clothes on their back, and they seem to be reasonably well fed. The are that way without having to rob or mug someone. Just a thought. What I really wanted to address though, is looking at the situation from the standpoint of the potential employer who will not give the person a job. The employer is in business. He/she has put in effort and money to be in business. They have taken risks. sometimes their businesses have failed 2, 3, or 4 times before they were able to scratch out a living. I have had failed businesses myself. If I want my needs to be met from my business, then I need to make decisions that help the business succeed. I did not start the business for the purpose of helping people down on their luck, I do that with charitable giving. It is not the job of the employer to find the person that is down on their luck. My requirements for an employee are specific. Do they have the skills I am looking for? Do they have a work history that indicates they will be a reliable employee? Do they have the social skills that give me confidence that they will get along with me and other employees, and customers too, if it is that kind of job? Do they have the intelligence, sufficient to do the kind of work I can offer? Are the physically and mentally able to do the job I have? The bottom line is, is the person before me, of all people I am considering, the best person I can get for the money I am able to pay? If the person has a felony record, then they may not be the best person for the job, it is that simple. I am not treating that person like a leper, not punishing him, I am looking for a good fit for my business!

As people may notice, those on "staff" at Worthy, have the privilege of posting after a thread is locked! Don't take it personally, nor get frustrated if you cannot do that, there is the next phase of the Pizza Poll you can comment in.

You know what? There is nothing magic about the number 5 (other than I liked eliminating half the choices. However, I am going to go with something almost as arbitrary, getting rid of all the choices people did not want, that got 10% of the votes or more, so . . . The next round will contain: pepperoni mushrooms onions sausage bacon green peppers Stay tuned for round 2! Link to round 2! Thanks all!

Spam on pizza? Hmmm, maybe, it does come in a lot of flavors these days! However, again, not offered at Dominos.

Yeah, I figured not to bother with things that almost no one does (except for the spinach), and the polling is limited to 10 items in the multiple choice question. Also, I stuck with things Dominos offers, so the winner could actually get the pizza they voted for, it the want to! The sounds good though (not sure about the artichokes though)

Thanks! I appreciate it! Maybe it did, I think there is a new vote! Not sure when phase two will begin, I am growing impatient, might just give in once there are enough votes to eliminate the 5 choices, without there being any ties, I guess I should look, maybe that vote did that!

psst . . . it has been! Great idea though, lol!

or, go to the hot topics and say "this topic is locked. It will be unlocked when 5 of you vote in the pizza poll!" LOL

Except that it is a pinned topic, so it stays near the top. I'll unpin in once there are some more votes, and then go onto phase two, but 28 votes is not much of a statistical basis, but I would hold out for 1000 votes as a sample like political posters do!

62 replies (a lot of them mine) but only 28 votes so far. I'll have to see the the official pie thread still exists, and compare, maybe I expect to much. Since pizza is such a critical topic in our day, I am surprised not more are finding this thread and voting - people are are to figure sometimes. Perhaps the problem is here, that pizza toppings are more subjective, so there is not much to argue about passionately. My mistake was clearly not formatting this differently. If you are a Calvinist, vote for pepperoni. If your are a pre-trib rapture believer, vote for olives. If you believe that the authentic gift of tongues is not for today, vote for pineapple, etc,

How do you fix a broken pizza? With tomato paste. Why did the hipster burn his mouth while eating his pizza? He ate it way before it was even cool. What did the pepperoni say to the cheese? “Slice to meat you!” Why does the mushroom always get invited to pizza parties? Because he’s such a fungi! Where do pepperonis go on vacation? The Leaning Tower of Pizza. What type of person doesn’t like pizza? A weird-dough. What did the pizza say when it went out on a date? “I never sausage a beautiful face.” What did the pizza slicer say when he wanted to rob the pizza? “Hand over all your dough or I’ll cut you!” Did you hear about the Italian chef with the terminal illness? He pasta way. Now he’s just a pizza history. Why was the pizzeria desperate for business? Because they kneaded the dough!

Interesting, if anything, I have had the opposite experience, being a Christian makes you more interesting! Who wants to just talk to parrots and clones, I think most people like people with different ideas from theirs - though maybe not always for the most noble reasons.

I have to go with Descartes on that, "I think, therefore I am!" Perhaps you prefer the other version: "I think, therefore I am - I think!"

Peter preaches a sermon in the upper room? I was thinking he did that outside, were all the Jew of various language we outside for the festival!

Whether we are wired that way by evolution because it benefits survival, or something similar (I do think selection by survival is valid) or by God's design, it seems that when we are young we are trusting and innocent, and look to those with better knowledge to guide us and teach us. I think in my personal story, I trusted adults entirely, until the third grade, when I discovered my parents had lied to me about tooth fairies, Easter bunnies, and Santa Claus. I felt embarrassed and betrayed. That is when I started being more of a skeptic. However, somehow I did not distrust all adults. The people who wrote my "Golden Books" about rocks and minerals, astronomy, marine life, fossils, reptiles and amphibians, etc., I thought were trust worthy I can still see the illustrations in my head, and remember some of that facts. I remember that great white sharks grew to be 35 feet long. Apparently, that is not true, but that is what it said and what I believed! Oh well. Probably it is hormones or something, but in my teen years, and into my young twenties, I had some rebellion in me - I became a part time hippy, lol - not an extreme anti-establishment - don't trust the man type, but it was there somewhat. I think parents have a responsibility to teach their children, but you cannot teach what you do not know, at least not without extra resources. As an adult, I understood how much nonsense I had been taught in school, and I think it is worse now. I knew that I knew a lot more, about a lot of things, than the teacher in our local schools did, so we elected to home school our children - parents have the job of parenting (in my opinion) and teaching is naturally a part of parenting. We were not about to trust parenting to government employees, lol. It was a financial sacrifice to have mom stay home, but trying to raise children better was worth never owning a car with under 100,000 miles on it to us. So yes, while collecting all those artifacts of creation was a passion, challenging taught notions about them was nit in my mind in my youth. The fact is, my ego was fed by adults who were always telling me how smart I was - so I loved my hobbies, and I loved being thought to be more knowledgeable than I really was. That was not difficult, since I was more knowledgeable about "science" stuff, than most of the adults around me.

Remember everyone . . . 7 days without pizza, makes one weak!

I answered this earlier, but it was probably unseen, as it was hidden as unfinished previously:

3When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, 4what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Psalm 8

Part two, continuing from above! I probably had more questions now. Previously I had answers. I was the one who knew it all. I knew there was not God. In hindsight, I realize what a stupid thing that was to think. To knew that there is no God, would require omniscience, something that is a trait of God, not of people. I knew the universe was old, I know the earth was old. I knew that life arose from non life, I know life evolved over millions of years, etc. I was a know-it-all! As an agnostic. one who does not know it all, i realized that I knew little to almost nothing. Oddly, as an agnostic, and ignoramus, I was wiser than I had been as an atheist, when I was so full of myself. That had a positive effect though, now I had a measure of humility, which had been lacking before. Now then, I still had immense curiosity, I wanted to know. Being and agnostic as not as satisfying as being an Atheist had been. Now what I had in abundance, was questions! Now, just because I had come to realize that many scientists had agendas and prejudices, and even a sort or religious zeal, I also realized that science was not the problem. Science, is just a word that means knowledge. There is nothing wrong with knowledge. I think the "scientific method" is mostly pretty sound. It is just often ignored when it should not be, and it has limitations. First it does not apply to everything, not all truth can be evaluated with it. The fact is, that one cannot even use the scientific method, to discover if the scientific method is valid. Science, as we generally use the term, is about learning and investigating things in that physical world, and primarily in real time. It is not the best or only method for philosophical questions. We often depend on logic to reason things out, but logic itself, is in the realm of philosophy, not physical science. Historical discovery (discover of things about history) has it's own methods. "Science" sometimes enters there, but it is an aid, not the center of historical method. Things about gods, angels, demons, ghosts and the like, don't fall under the scrutiny of "science". These things are under metaphysics, science cannot prove them, test them, or refute them, UNLESS they invade the physical universe. So, where did all of this leave me as an agnostic? It left me curious, aware of my limitations and the limitations of all people, but . . . it did not leave me as un unbeliever in things science, I was just more cautious now. I should have noticed much sooner, that scientists across time, have disagree with each other. They disagree between branches of science, they disagree among themselves within a branch of science. That is not a bad thing, it drives discussion and investigation, if fuels discovery, and advances happen. When I was an Atheist, there was one thing that annoyed me . . . that was that science was always in flux. The implication was then, that if scientists understood the world one way in 1700, a new way in 1800, and yet another way in the late 1900s, what was going to be different in the later centuries. The trend was unnerving. mean while, I was beginning to notice, that what some (annoying Christians in particular) seems to be able to believe the same things they did about 2000 years earlier, and had not be force to back peddle. I was tempted to think that they were stuck in their superstitions, but was beginning to realize, that their superstitions had not been disproven, though I believed by faith, that they were nonsense. In fact, as I was looking into some of these things, I was noticing that non theology fields, were removing some of the objections to Christianity. History, archaeology, etc. were beginning to validate things those people believed. Had I been focusing on that, I might have come around sooner, but I was still focusing on science. I started having correspondences with some notable scientists. I will recall one in particular, since he has a large impact on my thinking. Dr. Willard Libby. He was a professor at a local university, UCLA. He was instrumental in developing the Radi0 Carbon dating method. I had a question or two for him, and he graciously responded. In his letter to me, he informed me that there were problems with the method as they first used it. It was based on bad information, based on an assumption that turned out not to be true. When I was reading between the line of what he said to me, I realized that he was saying that the method works because the introduce mathematical factors into the results to compensate for the flaws, and make them agree with other dating methods. I had previously figured out that this was not uncommon in matters of dating. While I don't think that scientists were consciously conspiring to fake the results and make everything agree, it had already become obvious to me, that functionally, this was happening, on branch depends on another branch to tell them how old something is, then they use that assumption, to calibrate new methods. It is more than I care to go into here, as it is not the topic, but it is part of how I came to question my previous beliefs. In fact, I began to see the universe, or at least our solar system, as much younger than I had, like maybe in the order of tens of thousands of year, not millions. That, as a science minded agnostic, not as a religious person. Long story shore, it was the quest to disprove theists by using science, that ultimately led to me becoming a theist. Now that is not how I came to the Lord. Scientific inquiry did not reveal the Jesus was the Messiah of the Jew, God in human flesh and all of that, but it is how I become open to the possibility. I also had some ah ha moments, just observing nature, some things stuck me as patently absurd to have evolved unguided by intelligence.

*Raises hand! I was an atheist, had only been in a church a couple of time in my life. Never saw an opened Bible in my home, never say anyone pray, I was never encouraged to seek spiritual things. I was from the earliest days I can remember, interested in the science, and I was supported in that, when my parents bought me microscopes, telescopes, chemistry sets, and the like. I bought a physics experimentation set on layaway as a child. I had snakes, lizards turtles, chipmunks, aquariums, collected rocks, fossils, insects, sea shell, and had an impressive collection of small animals in jars of alcohol and formaldehyde. I was just a science nerd, it was my thing. I had no reason that I knew of, to entertain the notion of God as a reality. I mentioned one time to me dad, that I was an atheist. I don't recall why, I don't think that was a topic, it just came up. perhaps in response to something on the television, we were always watching nature shows. My dad was not science minded like I was, and in retrospect, I'd have to say he was pretty science ignorant. When I mentioned that I was an atheist . . . He got angry and said: "You have to be a complete void to be an atheist!" I did not even know what that meant for sure, but it chocked me that he had such a reaction. Now, more than half a century later, I still find his response to be extremely strange. It never occurred to me that our family was anything but atheists, lol. We had no interest in God, and that being the case, what was the problem with me not beleiving in Him? Weird! In 1968, I was a senior in high school, taking an American Government and Society class. The teacher was conservative, I was not. However, it piqued my interest in politics etc. and eventually bore fruit as I exited my hippy phase a few years later. The teacher, Dr. Roy, was (as far as I know) a Christian, since he mentioned that he taught adult Sunday School at Long Beach Brethren Church. On the first day (I think) of the American Government and Society class, Dr, Roy informed us of a couple of things. One of them was his grading scale. he graded homework and tests, with a bias toward final exams. he was more interesting in what we learned, than how much work we did. The other thing he told us, was that in as much as in the science classes at our school, they taught the theory of evolution, and that religions is part of what makes up our society, he was going to devote a quarter to teaching a view contrary to evolution. We know refer to that as intelligent design, I don't know if that name existed back then. I thought "this guy is a joke!", and I was a thorn in his side that quarter. Problem is, that as smart as I thought I was, and as science minded as I was, I was surprised to learn that I did not seem to be able to pose objections that he could not make reasonable responses to. That should not have bothered me as much as it did, after all, I was just a kid, and lacked experience as a debater or one having to defend science. After all, everyone knew science was true! That quarter ended, as did the rest of the school year, and I graduated in 1969. I had a lot of pride though, and I was not going to let it go. Dr. Roy had made what SOUNDED like a good case for a creator, but I was sure not convinced. This was a public school, and Dr. Roy was not teaching Christianity, he was just making a case for a creator, instead of a cosmology and biology based upon natural causes. I left school, still an Atheist, in fact, perhaps more so than I had been, as I was determined to prove myself right, and religious people like Dr. Roy wrong! That determination made me study, study harder than I had in school. School was something I was compelled to do. Defending science, was now my life's' mission, lol. I consumed relevant part of books, was in the library a lot. I was looking at related topics about biology, paleontology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, etc, etc, and was taking some classes in community college. So, I was reading only the science stuff, not the Bible, not theology, after all, I know those people were all about superstition and wishful thinking, not rational and clear minded like myself. The problem was, the more I got into the science (especially scientific journals, and university level book - not 'popular' science) the more hole I began to see, the more questions were raised, and the more frequent I could see the biases of what the science authors believed. It was not going well, and it was very disturbing to me. Eventually I realized, that what I had thought was science, was just a religion (functionally) which used experiments and technology to support what it supposed was true. I was beginning to see the prejudices, and a certain lack of objectivity, and worse, I recognized that had been true about me also. With that, I suspended my atheism as being almost anti-intellectual, and I guess I was more open minded then, probably what we could call an agnostic. Had I applied that label to myself, and really thought about what it means, I would have realized that agnostic, is literally another word of ignoramus, lol. one who does not know! Still, I WANTED to know. I suppose I had an emotional need to know, and that emotion could have prejudiced me, it certainly motivated me. At this point, I was no longer buying into my former beliefs about evolution, the age of the universe and life, and similar things as settled science, I was not free to take things based on evidence, not on anyone's consensus. I did not HAVE to believe scientists as a matter of tribal loyalty, but I was certainly not accepting religious people as having the answers either.