Fork of martial artists for Christ, dialogue

[Gerry Seymour]

The universe began to exist.

This is a conclusion, not a fact. It is possible that we simply cannot conceive of something without a beginning, but that such a thing is possible. Nothing we know of the workings of our universe specifically precludes this, so far as I know.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, it's premature to judge before you have all the facts in hand.

On the notion that He is all loving...
He doesn't love everyone. He hates lucifer and his band of fallen angels.

He is powerful, none exists with more power.
Just because He hasn't vindicated Himself yet, doesn't mean that He can't or won't.

He is able to rectify every evil thing that happens to children, such as cancer. But it is unlikely that He will do so at least, while this current mode of creation exists.

He announced that He has a replacement heaven and earth, and that this current one will be retired/destroyed.

He is going to make all things new.
So while His claims are being waited for, they are still already on the record.

This remains to be seen...
In the face of claims that He can't actually or chooses not to act right now, on our human time table ergo He is evil and immoral.

Therefore it's a foregone conclusion to judge Him, with limited facts.

Beyond reasonable doubt. Doesn't really cover that a guy will fix a thing at some undefined time in the future.

You judge on the facts you have. Not the ones you don't.

I understand the celestial tea cup fallacy.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, neither science nor logic makes the assertion that the universe should not exist.

And i don't know does not equal god.

 

[drop bear]

I will be glad to share my personal experiences with you.

But first let me respond to your comment:

"I simply say, a diety cannot be seen or felt or measured. It cannot be proven, nor disproven."

As much as I respect your belief as sincere, I will offer the suggestion that it is incorrect.

The proof of God is right in front of us. What I mean to say is science and logic testify that the proof of God is that the universe exists, when in fact, it should not exist.

Let us take the following three statements as a given:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

We know from direct observation that spontaneous creation of matter/energy has never occurred without a cause or catalyst.

We know that there was a point in time when the universe never existed. It was an empty vacuum of nothingness.

A miracle had to happen, in order that matter and energy, chemistry, physics and all the laws that govern our universe could spring into existence, from nothingness.

Now, that alone doesn't prove the God of the bible is the God who created the universe.

But it is proof of a God.

Now, on to my personal experiences.
I will offer two events.

Fall 2007, Lakehills, Texas
My Aunt had severely bruised the top of her foot. It effected her walk badly, and she was in great pain.

The bruise started at the root of her big toe and covered the whole top of the left foot from side to side, and ended at the ankle.

It was dark blue-black, and I estimate 3'' by 4''. It had been caused by a fireproof safe falling off a shell and landing on her foot, about 9 hours before I arrived.

When I got there, I saw what pain she was in. I asked if she had taken anything for it. She said she had taken some OTC pain relievers, but to no avail.

I was troubled in my heart because I really cared about her. I said I couldn't do anything, but maybe we could pray. I knew she was a firm believer, and we sat down and earnestly prayed that Jesus would heal her for about three minutes.

I went into the kitchen to get a towel and ice.
Suddenly she started yelling for me to come quick, she felt the pain disappearing.

I hurried back. And right in front of our eyes we watched the bruise disappear like a shadow when someone turns on a light.
It completely disappeared in seconds.

Event number two.
July 2009, the Pearl District of Portland Oregon.
I was thrown from my Longboard Skateboard as I was going downhill through a crosswalk.

My wheels came to a sudden stop, because they met streetcar rails that the asphalt had peeled away from.

I was carrying a laptop in a messenger bag.
It landed first, and I speared myself on its edge. I went to the hospital, and chest ex rays showed multiple broken ribs.

I was in the most intense agonizing pain in my life. I hurt when I moved, breathed, I couldn't sleep. I couldn't raise much arms to shoulder level. I could go on at length, but that's not the point.

The point is that I was desperate, and in agony. I cried out to God in tears. I prayed in sincere need, begging.

In short, within 72 hours, I was a recipient of a miracle. The doctor said the soonest I would heal was 5-7 weeks.

I was fully healed, full range of motion and movement and pain free when I got up on the third morning after I prayed.

Now you can write me off as a liar, or mentally unstable. But I know what I experienced.

Now, there are many many times I have not had the prayers answered with the answer I was looking for.

God isn't a genie in a bottle that you rub for wish fulfillment.


Looking forward to hearing from you

Ok. And back to cancer babies
What do you think the motivation behind healing a foot over curing cancer?

 

[TSDTexan]

Where did you get these ideas from? 'Satan' doesn't occupy any prominent role in Jewish theology at all, the word itself just means 'adversary or enemy' with the root word being 'to oppose', there is no supernatural attachment to this. In the opening chapters of the Book of Job , ‘The Satan’ (with the definite article, so the meaning is ‘the Adversary’ and Satan here is not a proper name) is an angel who appears in the council of the angels in order to challenge God to put Job to the test.
The Satan, who acts like a prosecuting attorney, or a district attorney, in G-d's court. However, The Satan has no power or authority in and of himself, rather he must get permission from the Judge, G-d, to do anything.

Tez, welcome to the conversation.

It would be helpful if you were more specific
When you ask "Where did you get these ideas from?"

Which specific ideas? let us numerically order them, so I can respond point by point.

Regarding HaSatan's role in HaShem's courts as an adversary of humanity at large (as in the time of job) and later as an accusing adversary towards Abraham, and his seed.

I have no disagreement with this.
However,
It doesn't mean that he still lives in Heaven, but at intervals is granted access to God's courts.

I read Rashi's comments regarding Satan in the book of Job. And I concur.

His role after the fall where him and his angels lost their first estate is still that role as he functions as an accusing adversary.

Satan had a certain amount of of leeway, and his limit by God was that he couldn't slay Job outright.

 

[TSDTexan]

This is a conclusion, not a fact. It is possible that we simply cannot conceive of something without a beginning, but that such a thing is possible. Nothing we know of the workings of our universe specifically precludes this, so far as I know.

Actually, logic dictates because of the law of thermodynamics, the universe will suffer heat death at one end, and had to have a starting point.

Also philosophically, the idea of an infinite past has been thoroughly worked through. And it simply doesn't work.

 

[Flying Crane]

Actually, logic dictates because of the law of thermodynamics, the universe will suffer heat death at one end, and had to have a starting point.

Also philosophically, the idea of an infinite past has been thoroughly worked through. And it simply doesn't work.

um... care to explain your conclusion a bit more?

 

[TSDTexan]

This is a conclusion, not a fact. It is possible that we simply cannot conceive of something without a beginning, but that such a thing is possible. Nothing we know of the workings of our universe specifically precludes this, so far as I know.

There is no evidence to support the claim that the universe always existed. What evidence exists, shows a definite point of beginning.

This is the consensus view of academia at large the world over.

 

[Tez3]

Tez, welcome to the conversation.

It would be helpful if you were more specific
When you ask "Where did you get these ideas from?"

Which specific ideas? let us numerically order them, so I can respond point by point.

Regarding HaSatan's role in HaShem's courts as an adversary of humanity at large (as in the time of job) and later as an accusing adversary towards Abraham, and his seed.

I have no disagreement with this.
However,
It doesn't mean that he still lives in Heaven, but at intervals is granted access to God's courts.

I read Rashi's comments regarding Satan in the book of Job. And I concur.

His role after the fall where him and his angels lost their first estate is still that role as he functions as an accusing adversary.

Satan had a certain amount of of leeway, and his limit by God was that he couldn't slay Job outright.

You speak as if you think 'Satan' is a name and a specific entity yet it's not, it's The Satan, it's a job description.

Rashi is famous for his commentaries ( not 'comments) but are best read in Hebrew as all the commentaries are because of the nuances. However his commentaries were written not by him but by his students, he had a strange way of working. Students would ask him questions about the text, or he would rhetorically ask questions about specific words, and a student would write short comment in the margin of the parchment text. These answers comprise Rashi's commentary. I prefer Rambam's myself. Commentaries are on going, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz recently completed his.

for those who don't know who Rashi is Who Was Rashi?

And this Judaism 101: Torah and why it's way more complicated than just comments.

 

[Flying Crane]

There is no evidence to support the claim that the universe always existed. What evidence exists, shows a definite point of beginning.

This is the consensus view of academia at large the world over.

Well, what is not known is the conditions exactly at, and prior to, the Big Bang. So a claim that there was nothing before, is not substantiated. It is unknown.

How do you feel this affects a diety?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Actually, logic dictates because of the law of thermodynamics, the universe will suffer heat death at one end, and had to have a starting point.

Also philosophically, the idea of an infinite past has been thoroughly worked through. And it simply doesn't work.

Philosophy is based upon what we can work out, and there are no absolutes from it. Philosophy is not, nor has it ever been, a source of actual evidence. It's a means of thinking through a problem, and the results are always arguable. Besides which, there are (and long have been) philosophers who ascribe to a view of an eternal universe (Aristotle among them).

As for the laws of thermodynamics, they are part of general physics and general relativity. There is much in quantum physics that does not seem to adhere to many of the laws of general relativity. For instance, we have actual evidence of the spontaneous appearance of particles out of empty space (see Quantum Fluctuation). Thus, relatively simple laws like this cannot be said to be absolute regarding beginnings.

While I'm at it, I'll point out that Quantum Fluctuation gives us the possibility of a beginning from nothing (as we currently understand "nothing").

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There is no evidence to support the claim that the universe always existed. What evidence exists, shows a definite point of beginning.

This is the consensus view of academia at large the world over.

It is. But that is a conclusion from information, and not a proven fact. It may never be proven either way. My point is that you're using as absolutes things which are not absolutes. And then you're making absolute deductions from them, which deductions are also not absolutes, so you have second-order uncertainty.

 

[Tez3]

How do you feel this affects a diety?

Gives him a headache?

I don't know if you have seen a lot of the nonsense on the internet and other places that many christians think the 'Big Bang' theory is Jewish propaganda designed to lead the 'faithful' to hell... yes really, just another thing to blame us for.

To be honest most Jews don't care either way how the world started, it isn't a big thing, just as we don't actually mention G-d a lot either. Time spent arguing about that could be better spent doing something actually doing something good. If you think G-d made the world then he can have as easily done the evolution thing along with the dinosaurs etc as create it all in a couple of days, why worry?
And the Lord said 'let there be a Big Bang'

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, and it's this line of reasoning that goes, "I don't understand something (even, science does not at this time understand something) therefore it MUST be proof of a diety."

Well no, I do not buy it. That is so faulty as to be rediculous.

 

[Tez3]

Well, and it's this line of reasoning that goes, "I don't understand something (even, science does not at this time understand something) therefore it MUST be proof of a diety."

Well no, I do not buy it. That is so faulty as to be rediculous.

I don't know why we have to understand everything, somethings are better for being a mystery. We can of course and should question everything, it's a very Jewish trait, hence the commentaries, constantly questioning what is written, and of course we do have a fair share of the world's scientists but we don't always have the answers, perhaps we aren't supposed to because the questions are the important things.

The thing about Judaism, is that we don't actually bring G-d into our faith a lot, we don't 'believe', we know after all we have a written contract with him, we don't feel the need to constantly to prove ( to ourselves?) that a deity exists and we aren't bothered much if other people don't believe, why would we, beliefs should be personal to the individual.

A rabbi once said: "We are closer to God when we are asking questions than when we think we have the answers."

One should never think one has all the answers and that our answers are the only ones that are correct.

 

[Tez3]

His role after the fall where him and his angels lost their first estate is still that role as he functions as an accusing adversary.

"Satan is not a being, but is rather the influences we have compelling us toward that which goes counter to G-d’s Will. These influences are called the “yetzer hara” (evil inclination), otherwise known as Satan, not because Satan is evil, but because these influences drive a person to desire that which is evil.

The yetzer hara will do it’s job but it does not want to succeed. It wants us to succeed in not succumbing, yet most of us fail dismally. Those who do not fail are diamonds in the eyes of G-d.

As to the fallen angel Lucifer of Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 14:12, it is a Christian misunderstanding of the text. Hailail, the name in the text, and not Lucifer (there is no Lucifer anywhere in Hebrew Scripture), is the morning star…VENUS. People would rise at dawn and see one lonely star in the sky, and some assume, in error, that the star had fallen from the Heavens, and the myth of the rebelling angel was born. Hailail is Venus, which can still be seen on certain mornings long after all the other stars have tucked themselves away."

From here, which explains much better than I can.

Ask the Rabbi, JewishAnswers.org » The Jewish View of Satan

 

[Steve]

I would be happy to let you contact my aunt. She has shared her testimony concerning the bruised foot, to other people face to face.

I would need to obtain her permission before giving her contact info to someone she doesn't know, but it should be simple and straightforward.

My Xrays are admittedly more problematic. I did not really want to pay several hundred dollars out of pocket, as my insurance wasn't going to cover the second series of films within a week.

The first showed clear breaks, no miracle in that. At the time I was just very happy to be painfree and able to work. I wasn't concerned with documenting a miracle, but paying my bills.

I wish that I had paid for the second round of Xrays, in retrospect.

I would be happy to submit to a lie detector examination concerning my testimony.

As for the big bang, all physics and astronomy guys concur that nothing existed prior to the big bang.

Nothing existed. Then something happened to cause nothing to produce something.

There remains no observable circumstances to watch and study how an empty realm, or void space can spontaneously cause matter and space between matter to exist.

How the universe came to exist will without time travel be a matter of theory and conjecture.

The position of the Christian is easy. The bible claims divine inspiration, ie God caused men over time to author a record. 66 books over the space of 3400bce to 90ce.
This record makes the claim that God did it.

So we hold that God has given testimony that He created it.

What if you're ribs were healed by Isis or Minerva? Boy, wouldn't that be embarrassing!

 

[TSDTexan]

"Satan is not a being, but is rather the influences we have compelling us toward that which goes counter to G-d’s Will. These influences are called the “yetzer hara” (evil inclination), otherwise known as Satan, not because Satan is evil, but because these influences drive a person to desire that which is evil.

The yetzer hara will do it’s job but it does not want to succeed. It wants us to succeed in not succumbing, yet most of us fail dismally. Those who do not fail are diamonds in the eyes of G-d.

As to the fallen angel Lucifer of Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 14:12, it is a Christian misunderstanding of the text. Hailail, the name in the text, and not Lucifer (there is no Lucifer anywhere in Hebrew Scripture), is the morning star…VENUS. People would rise at dawn and see one lonely star in the sky, and some assume, in error, that the star had fallen from the Heavens, and the myth of the rebelling angel was born. Hailail is Venus, which can still be seen on certain mornings long after all the other stars have tucked themselves away."

From here, which explains much better than I can.

Ask the Rabbi, JewishAnswers.org » The Jewish View of Satan

While that is the position of most branches of Judaism.

It excludes messianic Judaism.

Remember that the Christian faith actually was a sect, of Hebrews, and all of the new Testament was authored by Hebrew men except the two volume book Luke/Acts... who was a "ger" and personally trained by Jesus.

In the gospel of Mathew (which btw was originally penned in Hebrew, for Jewish readers) Satan and Jesus had an encounter.

This was right after Jesus was baptized on the Jordan river by his cousin John the Baptist.

The encounter is between two beings. They talk to each other, and one picks up and carries the other, ( in flight no less ).


Within Christianity the Devil is a synonym for Satan, and vice versa.

One name means "adversary" (also enemy)

The other means "slanderer" (or "the accuser).

Jesus refers to him as "the Father of lies".
It's no big leap to go from accusing adversary to slandering adversary.

The point is the New Testament refers to this being in the male pronoun "he".

The New Testament identifies his fall, his current activities, and his end.

In the bible, the most common synonym for "Satan" is "devil", which descends from Middle English devel, from Old English dēofol, that in turn represents an early Germanic borrowing of Latin diabolus (also the source of "diabolical").

This in turn was borrowed from the Greek word diabolos "slanderer", from diaballein "to slander": dia- "across, through" + ballein "to hurl".



The Book of Revelation twice refers to "the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan" (12:9, 20:2)

About the identity of lucifer (aka Venus) in Christianity... please refer to the following for a full explaination.

Lucifer was borrowed from the Latin translation of the Hebrew OT aka Tanakh, that was performed by Jerome (which was called the Vulgate).

I already the lucifer was VENUS.
During the fourth century when Jerome was translating from the the Hebrew scriptures (what few he had) and Greek translation aka the Septuagint to the Latin of the Vulgate, the planet Venus was called Lucifer. It was called the same in Roman Astrology and Astronomy.

So we see that Jerome made a logical choice of wording in this particular passage and timeframe to associate Isaiah 14:12 with the morning star Venus.

In the original Hebrew the reference is to Heylel ben Shachar. The first Hebrew word Heylel means morning star, literally the planet Venus; from the root word halal meaning to shine or give light, also quite appropriately, to boast . The second word, ben, means son (of).

Shachar translates generally to morning, or properly to dawn.

Also of note, the Roman Catholic Church says : the Father maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the Devil but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).


Is Lucifer Satan? Does the fall of Lucifer describe Satan?


How Did Lucifer Fall and Become Satan?

 

[TSDTexan]

What if you're ribs were healed by Isis or Minerva? Boy, wouldn't that be embarrassing!

Except, I never called out to those pagan false deities. So they never would get credit for healing me (supposing, for your premis that they exist/existed)

 

[TSDTexan]

You speak as if you think 'Satan' is a name and a specific entity yet it's not, it's The Satan, it's a job description.

Rashi is famous for his commentaries ( not 'comments) but are best read in Hebrew as all the commentaries are because of the nuances. However his commentaries were written not by him but by his students, he had a strange way of working. Students would ask him questions about the text, or he would rhetorically ask questions about specific words, and a student would write short comment in the margin of the parchment text. These answers comprise Rashi's commentary. I prefer Rambam's myself. Commentaries are on going, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz recently completed his.

for those who don't know who Rashi is Who Was Rashi?

And this Judaism 101: Torah and why it's way more complicated than just comments.

I chose my wording specifically.

Yes, I know he has a commentary.
I used to own a 5 volume set produced by Artscroll.