DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Secular Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2354--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: bradley Date: June 19, 2015, 10:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I believe that when God created man in His image, it was done on
this planet long after life had been around for some time. Man
was created from the "dust" of the earth which included
everything of the earth which is really stardust which is galaxy
dust, etc. Yet I am clueless as to how much water there is in
the earth, although it is basically a closed system. If you
wish to trust scientists models of the quantity available, then
postulate your theory surrounding the amount they say (although
let us know the amount out of curiosity), and how that applies
to your theory. I am not sure I would reach the same
conclusion as you, but am interested in your theory. Dont let
yourself get riled by our lack of interest, or our self drawn
conclusions. Faith is something that doesnt require lots of
facts to back it up, but I also know that science is much better
at guessing at something that purposefully deviates from
anything that might back up the biblical story. Much of
science is spot on, I just dont know how much of it is truly
trustworthy.
#Post#: 2356--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Amadeus Date: June 20, 2015, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Gaffer:
God gave us eyes and ears and minds, and we should use them.
Next you'll be asking me to question if I live on the earth.
"Earth to Amadeus, come in Amadeus." You assumed I was Mike,
and on what evidence? Hmmm? [/quote]
[font=courier]Should we use our eyes, ears and mind? Certainly,
but how? That is the question, isn’t it?
Why did I make that mistake? My mind is most definitely failing.
Unless the source is identified clearly on it face, I cannot
remember most the details that I have read previously from that
source. So sometimes I forge ahead blindly when it might have
been better to remain silent.[/font]
[quote]And no, I do not think I am doing what Job did.[/quote]
[font=courier]Glad to hear that. [/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
I've studied enough math and science to know about estimates,
that numbers given are seldom known to be trusted implicitly.
I also know that when estimates are given, they are often right
with a margin of error. What I see is if the numbers of
scientists are wrong by a factor of ten, if they estimated the
amount of water to be just one tenth of what it really is, there
still isn't enough water to raise the sea level a half a mile.
One need not know the exact amount of water with complete
precision to draw the conclusion. A person without a
measuring cup or calculator can look at water in a pan and say,
"There is not enough water in that pan to boil eggs in it."
Nor does that person need to ask God if there is enough water in
the pan to boil eggs. [/quote]
:D [font=courier]Smiling[/font]. ;D
[quote]I have never been the most popular person anywhere I was
or at any time. This is an irrelevant personal comment, way
off topic, and you didn't even know who I was. You couldn't
or wouldn't answer the question, just like everyone else; but
you then pretended to know things about me. That's very sad,
Amadeus. [/quote]
[quote]Gaffer:
Actually I was angry when I posted before. Strange how poorly
people can "read" me. In other forums, other people have
accused me of being angry when I was not. Then when I really
am angry, people think I'm feeling sorry for myself. No, no,
no. I feel sorry for you and some others here; and I was angry
at the people who completely ignored the thread. [/quote]
[font=courier]There are probably good and bad reasons for not
responding at all to a thread. No need to feel sorry for me.
Perhaps I know too much for some things and too little for
others. I cannot help myself. Anger could be the right way to
go.[/font]
[quote]Gafer:
Mike, when he set up the site, invited many people to
participate. Honesty requires us to admit he included some
"problematical" people. He promised them they could say
anything here and not be banned. I would have thought people
would have jumped at that; but it seems many did not. My goal,
when taking over the site, was to keep that promise made by
Mike. Perhaps it's a mistake to admit it; but I still intend
to keep that promise not to ban anyone -- if he or she is an
original member who had that promise made to him or her. Be as
outrageous as you want, I won't ban you. I may do other
things, but I won't ban you.[/quote]
[font=courier]From very early on in Christian Internet forums, I
was against banning except in very extreme cases because I
recognized that I knew “too little” and presumed that this was
true of others. [/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
I was angry at them. I have sent out notices announcing topics,
trying to get more people to participate. I was angry about
that and I probably won't send out any more notices.[/quote]
[font=courier]It has been they said that a horse can be led to
water but getting him to drink is something else. Hmm, did I get
that wrong?
[/font]
[quote]I was also angry and remain angry at members who showed
up for a while and then have disappeared. Yes, I'm angry, and I
may do something about it. Some pretended to be so supportive
at first, pretended to be encouraging; but where are they now?
I wish they'd have the balls to delete their accounts to be
honest. I can't ban them because of the promise, but I wish
they'd be honest enough about it to delete their accounts. I'm
through trying to entice them back by announcing topics.[/quote]
[font=courier]You are still angry, aren’t you? You keep coming
up against the flaws of men. Maybe you also know too much and/or
too little. [/font]
[quote] Gaffer:
Yes, if I bore people, I should be content knowing that. It is
obvious -- as plain as the nose on your face -- that people here
are not interested in my opinions or even that much in
reality.[/quote]
[font=courier]Sometimes we feel guilty about not being
interested and try to make up for it. Other times we are so
disinterested we don’t even bother to read, much less
respond.[/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
I asked a question and people pretended I had asked a different
question. It reminded me of how some married couples carry on
odd conversations.
Husband: "Do you know how much money we have in our checking
account?"
Wife: "I didn't buy anything that wasn't necessary." [/quote]
[font=courier]Might this be a place where you know too
much?[/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
Was my question unclear? I asked how much water there is -- is
-- now -- in reality here and now -- in the world. Is there
enough to cover the earth if all the water vapor fell as rain
and all the ice melted. I thought it a clearly worded
question, one that could be answered easily yes or no.
Matthew 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay:
for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.[/quote]
[font=courier]Perhaps we have too many cobwebs in our way to see
clearly and often jump to conclusions warranted only by
misconceptions in our own mind. Back to a “time to remain
silent”.[/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
I did manage to get a "yes" from Patrick but he was talking
about Genesis and his interpretation of it. He reminded me of
the Pope who put Galileo in prison for saying the sun didn't go
round the earth.
Everyone seemed to want to dodge the question. That tells me
or suggests it anyway that people's faith might be shaken if
they faced facts. Facts are threats. I have more faith in
God than to fear facts. I know I have many unusual ideas; and
I am so sure of them that I can predict confidently that someday
science will prove what I believe. Science doesn't undermine
my interpretations of the Bible. If it did, I'd have to wonder
if maybe my interpretations were wrong -- just as the Catholic
Church got around to admitting Pope Urban VIII's interpretation
of the Bible was wrong. I do not mock them for admitting that
a Pope made a mistake. I congratulate them. [/quote]
[font=courier]I wonder if dodging questions is not a common
occurrence for most of us even when we do understand and may
even have a simple answer to the question[/font].
[quote]Gaffer:
So why do people put so much "faith" in the belief of a literal
(by the letter) interpretation of Genesis? Aren't they
deterred by what Jesus said about the letter killing? What is
their faith in then? I begin to wonder. I am troubled. I
wonder if they are willingly ignorant, choosing to hold onto a
tradition taught to them.[/quote]
[font=courier]
Yes, “willing ignorance” may be bliss. [/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by
the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing
out of the water and in the water:
Now my own opinion is that Peter is talking about the three
heavens in that passage, one of fire, one of upper water and one
of lower water; and when I read about Noah's ark with its three
levels, I think I see something about what Peter is talking
about. And it's not physical water.
I also wonder if people are reducing sections of the Bible to
"Jewish fables."
Titus 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of
men, that turn from the truth.
Spiritually, how much water is there -- if people want to talk
about that? I'd say that can be known. The ancient Jewish
Tradition says the ratio of "the earth" to the heavens is 1 to
7, that the physical earth is 1/8 of the total. That is all
they say; but I go on to say half of the total is the Third
Heaven of Fire. The Second Heaven of Air which is 1/4 of the
total; and then there is the lowest Heaven of Lower Waters (the
sea of iniquity to use Colin's phrase) which is 1/8 and the
earth which is the same. Thus the ratio of earth to water is 1
to 4. [/quote]
[font=courier]Hmmm! But, was it boring?[/font]
#Post#: 2357--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: bradley Date: June 20, 2015, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I see you did answer it, just didnt notice it. I dont read
longer posts most of the time, my eyes start blurring. I
usually read in longer posts the first couple sentences, and the
last couple. Still, at the beginning of the thread, I thought
you were trying to prove by scientific estimates, that scripture
is wrong. You didnt seem to do that though, and just said you
thought there used to be more water. How do you think it was
spun off the earth, not an easy task, or perhaps transformed?
#Post#: 2358--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Gaffer Date: June 20, 2015, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Amadeus link=topic=265.msg2356#msg2356
date=1434804479]
Should we use our eyes, ears and mind? Certainly, but how? That
is the question, isn’t it?
[/quote]Eve could use her eyes to see what was "good." People
get that wrong when they say Adam and Eve did not know the
difference between good and evil. They could see that all that
God had made was good and understand that. Genesis says
directly she saw it was good. She should have been content to
learn from experience, by observation -- instead of wanting to
"know" things by imagining them. So I say she could see things
were good. What else did she need to know? God gave her
senses to use so she could observe things and see certain traits
about them; but she wanted to "know" about "other things". If
all of God's works she could see were good, what need did she
have -- at that time -- to know about the bad and good mixed
together?
We do ourselves a great disservice if we dismiss the evidence of
the things we can see, hear and sense. I believe all those
things can tell us something about God. God is always trying
to instruct us; and while nature itself may have been warped by
the Dark Side, enough of what God intended it to be remains as a
witness to His purposes. "Go to the ant," Solomon wrote.
"Consider the lilies," Jesus said. Books and men may lie; ants
and lilies do not.
Nature is a more reliable witness than holy books and holy men.
Holy books and holy men serve a purpose though for people who
cannot see God at work in nature. It may sound preposterous to
some; but I believe everything that happens to me somehow is an
attempt by God to deal with me. Thus, "in all things give
thanks." [quote]Why did I make that mistake? My mind is most
definitely failing. Unless the source is identified clearly on
it face, I cannot remember most the details that I have read
previously from that source. So sometimes I forge ahead blindly
when it might have been better to remain silent.[/quote]Or just
said "Gaffer" instead of "Kerry."
[quote]There are probably good and bad reasons for not
responding at all to a thread. No need to feel sorry for me.
Perhaps I know too much for some things and too little for
others. I cannot help myself. Anger could be the right way to
go.
From very early on in Christian Internet forums, I was against
banning except in very extreme cases because I recognized that I
knew “too little” and presumed that this was true of others.
[/quote]
Some people might benefit from being banned; but the people who
know little are not probably deserving of being banned. I
learned quickly to avoid making certain kinds of statements at
the first forum I was on. If I wanted to avoid looking like an
idiot, I wouldn't speak of things that were doubtful. I learned
to ask myself before posting, "Can someone rip this apart? Do
I really know what I'm talking about?"
Other people do not learn from this school of hard knocks.
Never wishing to admit being wrong, they dig in their heels and
get more stubborn. Some get abusive. I say when they get
abusive, it may be time to ban them or at least give them a
suspension for a while so they can cool off. At LGO, I have put
a few people at times on "moderation." If their posts
continued to break the rules, they wouldn't see the light of
day. But don't think I edited them. No, I wanted them to edit
them. I wanted them to learn how to express themselves in a way
that got their point across without being offensive. I also
think giving temporary suspensions when tempers flare is a good
idea. People seldom mean for real the things they say when
angry. If I think someone may regret what he's writing in
anger, I think I'm doing him a favor by putting him under
moderation. Perhaps he won't be alienating other people as much
and losing friendship and respect.
Looking like an idiot can be a very good thing if the person is
willing to see he was posting out of pride and perceives this
weakness in himself. The fall that follows pride can be a very
good thing.
[quote]It has been they said that a horse can be led to water
but getting him to drink is something else. Hmm, did I get that
wrong?
You are still angry, aren’t you? You keep coming up against the
flaws of men. Maybe you also know too much and/or too little.
[/quote]At the moment, I'm as cool as ice; but I still intend to
take action against some people. Not anyone who's posted in
this thread, rest assured on that. But I may follow the lead
of the man who invited people to his feast in the story given
in Luke 14. I may not be able to compel anyone to come by
sending servants out in the highways and hedges; but I can
express my displeasure by making sure the people who were
invited never show up here even if they later want to. Some
times the best revenge is letting people have things the way
they want -- agree with them and then insist on things being
that way later if and when they change their minds.
What I regret, truly, is expressing my anger around the people
here. Yes, some of them frustrate me at times; but I was more
angry at the people who were not here, for one reason or
another.
What does it matter how much I know about why people didn't
accept Mike's invitation or my notices? Some may be dead, so
why keep sending them emails? Others are not interested for
whatever reasons. Who cares? I don't.
So I shall probably take steps against the people invited here
who didn't come. I don't want them here. Yes, I feel they
rejected me personally; so let them have it that way then. I
reject them too.
Does it matter? Most probably not. But I may take a gleeful
kind of revenge by "banning" people who didn't want to be
members in the first place -- by letting them have things their
way. I felt like deleting some people right then and there for
failing to respond to the notices about threads -- but instead
made the mistake of deleting my own account and venting in
public. I'm over the anger now; but I still am set on taking
action. I try to avoid taking action against other people
when angry -- but I understand how it could look as if I am
still angry.
[quote]Sometimes we feel guilty about not being interested and
try to make up for it. Other times we are so disinterested we
don’t even bother to read, much less respond.Might this be a
place where you know too much?Perhaps we have too many cobwebs
in our way to see clearly and often jump to conclusions
warranted only by misconceptions in our own mind. Back to a
“time to remain silent”.[/quote]
Someone has to start threads if a forum is going to amount to
much. What kind of forum would it be if no one started threads
but wanted to pick and choose which threads to read and respond
to? I'm quite sure some of the things I post bore some people
-- quite sure. But why then don't they post things they find
interesting?
There are days when I have lots of ideas for threads but don't
start any. I figure no one would be interested.
[quote]I wonder if dodging questions is not a common occurrence
for most of us even when we do understand and may even have a
simple answer to the question.
Yes, “willing ignorance” may be bliss. [/quote]
It may also be dangerous to willingly ignorant.
[quote]Hmmm! But, was it boring?[/quote]Not to me, but I retain
curiosity about things. A child is curious -- a child knows he
doesn't know everything and wants to learn.
#Post#: 2359--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Gaffer Date: June 20, 2015, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bradley link=topic=265.msg2357#msg2357
date=1434810232]
I see you did answer it, just didnt notice it. I dont read
longer posts most of the time, my eyes start blurring. I
usually read in longer posts the first couple sentences, and the
last couple. Still, at the beginning of the thread, I thought
you were trying to prove by scientific estimates, that scripture
is wrong. You didnt seem to do that though, and just said you
thought there used to be more water. How do you think it was
spun off the earth, not an easy task, or perhaps transformed?
[/quote]I did not say that exactly. I did not say I thought
there used to be more water. I said that was one possibility.
I don't things can be explained that way however. Still it is
a possibility.
I suggest that maybe our interpretations of the Bible are wrong.
That does not mean the Bible is wrong. Consider these two
passages:
1 Kings 4:34 And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of
Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his
wisdom.
Ezra 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of
heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath
charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in
Judah.
Both statements are true for me in two ways. Physically in
material terms, "all the earth" means "all the known earth."
I don't believe kings from the south of Africa or the east Asia
or chieftains from the Americas visited Solomon -- not
physically. But both statements are true for me in a spiritual
sense too; and in that sense, "all the earth" means "every scrap
of the earth -- even Australia, the Americas and the parts of
the world not known to people in the Middle East then. I think
both David, Solomon and Cyrus influenced earthly events around
the globe.
When I read "all the earth" in Genesis, I read it the same way.
There was a physical flood in the Middle East; and it did wipe
out the nasty things the fallen ones had invented and brought
into being. There were floods elsewhere too but less severe.
But the spiritual flood was completely global -- totally
overwhelming the spiritual forces that sought to degrade man so
much that salvation for anyone would have been impossible.
This flood was a good thing -- an act of Love. I feel
confident of my interpretation since I can see the Love of God
in it. If I don't see Love in a passage, I figure I may not
understand it.
I feel confident too from knowing what some American Indian
tribes taught about a flood in the Americas; and I know too that
the Chinese taught about a flood. The American Indian "myth"
for example says men and animals could talk to each other
before the flood but not after. The Chinese say that "dead
ancestors" would appear to the eldest son to give them advice.
Before the Flood of Noah, many people had spiritual sight -- and
just as some with spiritual sight today do, they often abused
the gift and used it for evil. I believe black magic was
rampant before Noah's Flood.
I read "water" to mean what it means in several other places.
Jonah says he was at the bottom of the mountains -- yet also
says he was in the sea -- and also in "sheol." He visted
"hell" during that three days, just as Jesus later visited hell
with his three days.
Sometimes "water" does not mean physical water.
So I believe physically there was a local flood that covered all
the Middle East and floods elsewhere too -- but the spiritual
flood was the important one. Preserving order in the three
heavens was also important -- and that is shown to me by the
three levels in the ark.
#Post#: 2360--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: bradley Date: June 20, 2015, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I read a book once about the localized flood that made me think
it might be a possibility, will talk more about it later, time
to get myself to work.
#Post#: 2361--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: bradley Date: June 21, 2015, 9:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I remember the book describing that paradise and the land around
it was about where the black sea is today between the middle
east and russia. That there was a big depression in the land
very similar to a large impact crater seen on the moon. Prior
to it raining for the first time, the morning dew would collect
on the sides of the crater and become small rive-lets leading to
small lakes of fresh water. The sides of the crater were high
enough that it blocked out all the land animals outside the
crater from entering. Then during the rain of 40 days, the
mediteranean rose high enough to crest over the top of the
crater and flood the great plain, killing all current
civilization that arose there. The ark rose above the waters
and floated not far away to rest in or about modern day turkey.
It sounds plausible, and no doubt there was flooding
everywhere, but it probably didnt cover every mountain or land,
just all of the highest mountains in the walls of the crater.
There is evidence today of fresh water fossils in the bottom of
the black sea and possibly some structures (not sure about the
later).
#Post#: 2363--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Gaffer Date: June 21, 2015, 7:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Some things don't seem to be known. For example, where "Ararat"
was is still not known really. It was a place name used for a
kingdom in the days of Jeremiah since he refers to it in
Jeremiah 51:27. The current mountain named Ararat may or may
not have been in that area. It could have been named that by
people from that tribe when they moved from their initial
location. Today we have Mount Washington in New Hampshire named
for George Washington, but he never lived there. At any rate,
it would seem strange to me to name only mountain Ararat if you
lived in a kingdom called that that had several mountains. My
guess is the people of Ararat lived close by and when they
moved, they named the mountain that.
Genesis, of course, does not say "Mount Ararat" but "the
mountains of Ararat." But that doesn't stop people from trying
to search for the ark on Mount Ararat; and every so often people
claim to have found it. But if they were seriously looking for
it and relying on the Bible, they would look around the whole
area and not just on that one mountain.
The Yazidis have been in the news lately as a religious minority
in Iraq which ISIS has been trying to wipe out. They say Noah's
ark came to rest on on the highest point of the Sinjar mountains
which is where many fled to during the conflict -- and were
isolated without food or shelter. True or false? I don't
know; but it's easy enough to think that the people of Ararat
moved out of that area of Iraq at some point into Turkey where
they then named a mountain "Ararat."
#Post#: 2368--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Amadeus Date: June 21, 2015, 10:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Gaffer:
Eve could use her eyes to see what was "good." People get that
wrong when they say Adam and Eve did not know the difference
between good and evil. They could see that all that God had
made was good and understand that. Genesis says directly she
saw it was good. She should have been content to learn from
experience, by observation -- instead of wanting to "know"
things by imagining them. So I say she could see things were
good. What else did she need to know? God gave her senses to
use so she could observe things and see certain traits about
them; but she wanted to "know" about "other things". If all
of God's works she could see were good, what need did she have
-- at that time -- to know about the bad and good mixed
together? [/quote]
[font=courier]How many chances does God give us today to correct
out errors? Many more than
Adam and Eve, for as you say they did understand the difference
between good and evil. They understood it better than we do and
for this reason judgment was more quickly pronounced against
them. This also goes back to Luke 12:48.
Starting with the first men, men have built their houses of
confusion so extensively that understanding the truth from
amongst the clutter has become more difficult. God has cut us
some slack.[/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
We do ourselves a great disservice if we dismiss the evidence of
the things we can see, hear and sense. I believe all those
things can tell us something about God. God is always trying
to instruct us; and while nature itself may have been warped by
the Dark Side, enough of what God intended it to be remains as a
witness to His purposes. "Go to the ant," Solomon wrote.
"Consider the lilies," Jesus said. Books and men may lie; ants
and lilies do not. [/quote]
[font=courier] Yes, God has left more clues and message for men
than written scripture. Even the written scripture can be a
problem for a person who does not recognize what some men may
have done with it, either intentionally or unintentionally.
[/font]
[quote]Nature is a more reliable witness than holy books and
holy men. Holy books and holy men serve a purpose though for
people who cannot see God at work in nature. It may sound
preposterous to some; but I believe everything that happens to
me somehow is an attempt by God to deal with me. Thus, "in all
things give thanks."[/quote]
[font=courier]
This is one way of view confirming the truth of a matter through
a double witness. Joseph explained to Pharaoh:
“And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is
because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly
bring it to pass.” Gen 41:32
What we read in the Bible, if our reading (understanding) is
correct can frequently be confirmed elsewhere in God’s creation
if we are paying attention.[/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
Some people might benefit from being banned; but the people who
know little are not probably deserving of being banned. I
learned quickly to avoid making certain kinds of statements at
the first forum I was on. If I wanted to avoid looking like an
idiot, I wouldn't speak of things that were doubtful. I learned
to ask myself before posting, "Can someone rip this apart? Do
I really know what I'm talking about?"
Other people do not learn from this school of hard knocks.
Never wishing to admit being wrong, they dig in their heels and
get more stubborn. Some get abusive. I say when they get
abusive, it may be time to ban them or at least give them a
suspension for a while so they can cool off. [/quote]
[font=courier]While I essentially agree with you on this, you
know that on different forums, moderators and others saying
about the same things as you have obtained some very
questionable (to me questionable) results. The bias does slip
in. With some it is worse (or better) than with others. [/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
At LGO, I have put a few people at times on "moderation." If
their posts continued to break the rules, they wouldn't see the
light of day. But don't think I edited them. No, I wanted
them to edit them. I wanted them to learn how to express
themselves in a way that got their point across without being
offensive. I also think giving temporary suspensions when
tempers flare is a good idea. People seldom mean for real the
things they say when angry. If I think someone may regret what
he's writing in anger, I think I'm doing him a favor by putting
him under moderation. Perhaps he won't be alienating other
people as much and losing friendship and respect. [/quote]
[font=courier]You want them to recognize the need to correct
their ways and prove that they have recognized it. Some, of
course, may never recognize the need.[/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
Looking like an idiot can be a very good thing if the person is
willing to see he was posting out of pride and perceives this
weakness in himself. The fall that follows pride can be a very
good thing. [/quote]
[font=courier]Or… it can be a very final crushing. [/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
At the moment, I'm as cool as ice; but I still intend to take
action against some people. Not anyone who's posted in this
thread, rest assured on that. But I may follow the lead of
the man who invited people to his feast in the story given in
Luke 14. I may not be able to compel anyone to come by sending
servants out in the highways and hedges; but I can express my
displeasure by making sure the people who were invited never
show up here even if they later want to. Some times the best
revenge is letting people have things the way they want -- agree
with them and then insist on things being that way later if and
when they change their minds.[/quote]
[font=courier]While I can certainly see your point, I am find
myself hesitating to fully agree with you, [for me anyway],
because so often I do not know enough to make a good decision.
Of course, sometimes, we have to make decisions with
insufficient knowledge. [/font]
[quote]What I regret, truly, is expressing my anger around the
people here. Yes, some of them frustrate me at times; but I was
more angry at the people who were not here, for one reason or
another. [/quote]
[font=courier]Yes, they may be classed with the church goers who
warm the pew and may even say the right words if pressed but for
the most part remain purposely invisible when it really
matters.[/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
What does it matter how much I know about why people didn't
accept Mike's invitation or my notices? Some may be dead, so
why keep sending them emails? Others are not interested for
whatever reasons. Who cares? I don't.
So I shall probably take steps against the people invited here
who didn't come. I don't want them here. Yes, I feel they
rejected me personally; so let them have it that way then. I
reject them too. [/quote]
[font=courier]Some undoubtedly did reject your personally, but
to be honest, your general honesty has favorable impressed me
during the time I have known you. While, as I said, many of the
details of your history and even beliefs are often not recalled,
the general impression of integrity is remembered. [/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
Does it matter? Most probably not. But I may take a gleeful
kind of revenge by "banning" people who didn't want to be
members in the first place -- by letting them have things their
way. I felt like deleting some people right then and there for
failing to respond to the notices about threads -- but instead
made the mistake of deleting my own account and venting in
public. I'm over the anger now; but I still am set on taking
action. I try to avoid taking action against other people
when angry -- but I understand how it could look as if I am
still angry.[/quote]
[font=courier]I can see your viewpoint from the outside, but it
is difficult to fully understand, because my own lack of
experience in some areas: My naivety? [/font]
[quote]Gaffer:
Someone has to start threads if a forum is going to amount to
much. What kind of forum would it be if no one started threads
but wanted to pick and choose which threads to read and respond
to? I'm quite sure some of the things I post bore some people
-- quite sure. But why then don't they post things they find
interesting?
There are days when I have lots of ideas for threads but don't
start any. I figure no one would be interested. [/quote]
[font=courier]Long ago I used to work at starting threads, but
my reasons for doing so were, I now believe, wrong. I wanted
something that I was seldom if ever going to get and usually or
probably did not need anyway.
Unless someone is interested already in a measure in what
interests you, how fruitful is the conversation likely to be? Of
course, until we know what the other guy’s interests are, where
are we to start?
[/font]
#Post#: 2373--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Kerry Date: June 22, 2015, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Amadeus link=topic=265.msg2368#msg2368
date=1434942534]
How many chances does God give us today to correct out errors?
Many more than
Adam and Eve, for as you say they did understand the difference
between good and evil. They understood it better than we do and
for this reason judgment was more quickly pronounced against
them. This also goes back to Luke 12:48. [/quote]
I see your point and agree; but I'm not completely sure if the
sentence on Adam and Eve couldn't have been fixed if they had
repented. Yes, they "died" when they ate of the forbidden
fruit; but isn't everything possible with God? They both tried
to shift the blame, not wanting to admit wrong doing. Can God
forgive us if we don't repent but instead try to blame others?
Take the concept of "mortal sin." The concept there is knowing
something is a sin and persisting in it. It can be forgiven, of
course. But that sentence of death is still hovering over the
person unless he repents.
[quote]Starting with the first men, men have built their houses
of confusion so extensively that understanding the truth from
amongst the clutter has become more difficult. God has cut us
some slack.[/quote]
He has also blinded eyes. I believe if God knows men would
reject the truth were it shown to them, He blinds them to it.
Sins of ignorance are more easily forgiven than coming to know
the truth about something and then rejecting it.
[quote]Yes, God has left more clues and message for men than
written scripture. Even the written scripture can be a problem
for a person who does not recognize what some men may have done
with it, either intentionally or unintentionally. [/quote]The
prophet warned about it, saying the Word of God could be a
snare; but to the pure, all things are pure, and to the impure
all things are impure.
[quote]This is one way of view confirming the truth of a matter
through a double witness. Joseph explained to Pharaoh:
“And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is
because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly
bring it to pass.” Gen 41:32
What we read in the Bible, if our reading (understanding) is
correct can frequently be confirmed elsewhere in God’s creation
if we are paying attention.[/quote]How symbols are used can also
be studied. I am convinced that the prophets are usually
consistent in how they used metaphors. It took me a long time
to study Revelation since I had to stop so often to look up how
other books used words. Among other things, I remember looking
up "grass."
[quote]While I essentially agree with you on this, you know that
on different forums, moderators and others saying about the same
things as you have obtained some very questionable (to me
questionable) results. The bias does slip in. With some it is
worse (or better) than with others. [/quote]
I try to give people I disagree with or dislike more breaks. I
think I erred too much in this direction at LGO.
[quote]You want them to recognize the need to correct their ways
and prove that they have recognized it. Some, of course, may
never recognize the need. [/quote]Then they go on to another
forum.
[quote]Or… it can be a very final crushing. [/quote]Well, yes,
and that goes back to the principle that you can't make
decisions for people -- even God doesn't do that -- but you can
force them to make a decision. If they take a fall as a result
of pride, it's up to them how to respond. Pride, if carried to
its worst extreme, becomes suicidal, I think, where the person
would prefer to die than to admit he was wrong. I think
Pharaoh felt so humiliated he wanted to die; and he was so evil
he didn't care how many Egyptians he took with him.
[quote]While I can certainly see your point, I am find myself
hesitating to fully agree with you, [for me anyway], because so
often I do not know enough to make a good decision. Of course,
sometimes, we have to make decisions with insufficient
knowledge. [/quote]I would not agree with someone if what he
decided was immoral and affected other people; but when someone
makes a decision, I don't feel guilty agreeing with him and
carrying on from there. Paul said it was even okay for
Christians to get over their spouses in some cases.
1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him
depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such
cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Similarly Jesus told his disciples if a city did not receive
their message to leave it and shake the dust off their feet.
Sometimes we need a way of settling things. Even when people
don't do what I want, I think the best thing to do may be to
agree with them. Then I can move on. Why fret over people if
they don't care about you? I was fretting over this forum and
about people who don't want to join it. I was wrong. They
don't owe it to me to join here. But I can stop fretting by
agreeing with them.
[quote]Yes, they may be classed with the church goers who warm
the pew and may even say the right words if pressed but for the
most part remain purposely invisible when it really
matters.[/quote]The story of Gideon comes to mind too.
[quote]Some undoubtedly did reject your personally, but to be
honest, your general honesty has favorable impressed me during
the time I have known you. While, as I said, many of the details
of your history and even beliefs are often not recalled, the
general impression of integrity is remembered. [/quote]
Yet for some, I know my honesty is hard to take. Some people
would prefer to ignore inconvenient facts. They prefer to
present a whitewashed version of things.
[quote]I can see your viewpoint from the outside, but it is
difficult to fully understand, because my own lack of experience
in some areas: My naivety? [/quote]I think hope is good if it's
reasonable, but there is a false form of hope too which
fantasizes unrealistically and which leads to continuing
disappointment. When people let you know by word or deed of
their intentions, then I think it's unrealistic to hope they'll
change their minds. It may even be a sin since God gave them
the right to make decisions for themselves -- and I would hoping
they didn't have free will unless it pleased me.
[quote]Long ago I used to work at starting threads, but my
reasons for doing so were, I now believe, wrong. I wanted
something that I was seldom if ever going to get and usually or
probably did not need anyway. [/quote]
I often don't have clear cut ideas where I want a thread to go
when I start it. Things are too unpredictable for that to work
out most of the time.
[quote]Unless someone is interested already in a measure in what
interests you, how fruitful is the conversation likely to be? Of
course, until we know what the other guy’s interests are, where
are we to start? [/quote]
Someone has to say what interests him. If no one took the
first step, where would a forum be?
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page