B. John Jones

Ah! You err my friend! The moon is indeed visible during the night of a new moon, just after the sun sets. Yes the governor of night has it's concourse each night. So the moon has concourse with the sun that night, and also with the earth, as a good governor should. ---------- For the record, the requirements that would mostly be questioned for the "Speculations" forum, which I have indeed kept, primarily include: When these claims are presented as precedent to theory, they are a "collection of some thoughts brought on by recent posts and posters," as defined in the moderator's pinned thread, "So you've got a new theory." Also defined there: For example, OP: This requires clarification. In other words, is there a mandate that a poster conform only when the majority is in agreement? And if the majority rejects every evidence of say, extra-natural governance of the natural world, isn't that a breach of science as defined here? OP: This applies most directly to the original poster's opponents. Lord knows, I've tried!

Actually, I was just trying to express genuine gratitude for your sincerity and willingness to share what you've obviously been diligent to learn in science. Your illustrations were very useful and clear. When you stand upright where you are very locally, the earth is flat where you stand. That's what I meant by "very local." Your statement, "Yet another example of logical fallacy . . ." refers to my statement that: When I asked, "Tell me, how do you personally know about the nature of the stars?" I was not basing my argument for a unique earth-moon-sun system on detection of masses near very distant stars being unbelievable. I was justifying my use of time not in hot pursuit of learning about activity near very distant stars or pouring over lists of said presumed activities. It's not a straw man fallacy because I wasn't arguing any of my points on that basis. I was just precluding a necessity of exploring a certain area of vast fields of knowledge. Understood. I would rather be a fool than imply that someone looks like one. 1 Cor. 4:10--https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+4%3A10&version=NIV Not really. The forces are inertia and momentum. The energy is the centrifugal system. A centrifugal system of ball and string would be kept in motion by a living being, as are the motions of earth, moon, sun and satellites, near and far. With what? Water molecules and particles in the atmosphere? Those are mixtures, not collisions. The fact that very minute conclusions are drawn about very piecemeal substances such as atoms, elements and molecules--objects structured very much like the stellar atmospheres, as distant in space before the decimal as these piecemeal elements after the decimal. I'm arriving at educated conclusions. People are afraid to challenge convention.

I just observed that Moses, having written about the moon, over 3,400 years ago, betrays a remarkable phenomenon. At Genesis 1:16 Moses writes, "God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars." Now the fact is irrefutable that the face of the moon visible at night has constant concourse with the sun, and with the earth's dawn and dusk, and with that part of the earth obscured from direct sunlight by the shadow of night. The domain of the moon is over the dome of night (the height of the moon), which is arguably negligible relative to the sun's domain of day, which permeates infinitesimally close to 100% of the "solar system." If we admit Moses' and Scriptural precept, then the moon's authority over the earth would be subject to the authority of the sun, which would confirm this constant concourse between the three, the moon having constant concourse not only with the earth's darkness, but always mediate between the earth and the sun. I think that a very pertinent question for this topic would be, "do any of the terrestrial satellites of the 8 planets in our solar system maintain constant concourse between the particular planet's dome of night and the light of the sun, as does earth's moon?"

Nonsense. Any devoted follower of a figure of Jesus' stature, who would endeavor to write an account of his life, or of the birth of his church, would spend at the very least decades to write such an account. Mark wrote his account between 59-71 years after Christ's birth. Since he was crucified at 33 years of age, the time passing from his death to Mark's account is a mere 38 years, and his was the original. The other 3 gospels depended much on Mark's account, while Matthew's and John's also included eye-witness interaction with the living Christ. Accounts of events, written by men, are human accounts. Every account of every event these proportions, by several eye-witnesses will always appear to clash, even if co-written with the God the Holy Spirit. Imagine Peter and John and Matthew in the mob at the execution, stretching and leaping to see their Lord being lead to Golgotha. They aren't in a single party and are struggling to see and hear everything going on. Their written accounts will not appear perfectly congruous. In addition, if Rome could have discredited even one part of these accounts of Jesus' life, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, or the birth of his church, this man Jesus would have been forgotten. Rome knew very well how to crucify.

So what I'm saying is that all these explicit anomalies working together harmoniously strongly affirms divine creativity. If nature were just a meaningless machine, the universe would be mostly self-destructive without harmonious home-environments and without conscious beings to experience them. But God, by his divine nature of perfect love, chose as a master father to bring into his own house disobedient children of an imperfect world--he even struck his sinless, firstborn Son, Jesus, who took ownership of our own sin, receiving God's divine judgment, on our behalf.

Nature suggests the basis of years being the cycle of 4 seasons, the basis of months being transitions of full moons, and the basis of days being transitions from dusk to dawn. Correct? Scientifically, these bases are far from being in-sync, because, I submit, science is imperfect, nature is not. Nature is logical, and nature is artistic. The things in nature appearing initially as flaws or divine exceptions--shooting stars, rainbows, human injustice--are all a part of someone's masterpiece. Everyone who appreciates art will understand that flaws and exceptions inspire the most beautiful aspects of the final specimens of art.

No, the title is "Islam vs Christianity." The topic is embodied in the opening question: What kind of sword did Christ approve of?

Relative to yours or my very local environment, it is known that the earth is flat. Relative to the universe, it is known that the earth is spherical. What if someone said, "space is a plane?" 1) Personal incredulity = 100% personal certainty based 100% on a person's inability or unwillingness to believe. Personal credulity = 100% personal certainty based 100% on premature belief. 2) Reason seeks to understand, and to be understood, not to refute arguments. 3) "Anti-knowledge," is (has always been) comprised of die-hard commitment to preserving modern conventions. Truth and diligence respect conventions, but always questions and challenges them. 4) Actually, while I was at college I studied beyond the point of exhaustion, and my studies following school have been just as persistent (but more enriching, as they should). Someone is holding the string. Did I say you said it? Indeed, I would rather be a fool, than to imply to my neighbor that they look like one. ---------- For the record, I am not here to argue. The fact is, any person who is very enthusiastic about the scientific views into nature, and much more enthusiastic about the Jesus-kind of faith, is going to meet primarily with opposition in a scientific forum (except his faith be disguised). Yet I cannot help but to seek dialogue.

Thank you very much. I see that you are careful to learn and to explain the things you have learned. So the question asks, "Is earth, moon and sun unique?" How would you answer?

These are the exceptions, which is part of my point. The only viable explanation for a highly ordered universe in which every object is magnetic to every other object, while the proportion of collisions to objects in harmony is still infinitesimally slight, is art. And art requires an artist. Exactly. Art. The only possible mathematical descriptions are relative to a local, assumed, enclosed system which implies a great degree of ambiguity, especially in light of the vastness of the universe and the inconsistencies between the way things are (harmonious, orbital members of the universe) and the the apparent inertia of the same things (inclined to collide due to gravity). AJB was charging that my position requires an intimate knowledge about detection of objects in the stellar atmosphere, which is not the case if such correlation exists. Should I strive to be an expert of every field of science? Not when such correlations do indeed exist. I'm arguing without perfect faith in human reason. You're arguing without faith beyond human reason. Tell me, how do you personally know about the nature of the stars?

How is it off-topic? The OP begins: "To begin this discussion my question is - what type of sword did Jesus bring and how did he use it?" Actually, the Scripture uses these terms and symbols quite frequently.

Science is precisely what it was in the days of the first metallurgists. Technology has evolved but science is the same. A soul is not to be defined, a soul is just to be. Late here in Hawaii. Aloha.

How could it be the opposite? If every object is attracted to every other object, the natural courses of objects would appear to be collision. But the universe is such that they are purposefully arranged to be in in harmony, even being attracted one to the others, orbiting one another rather than colliding. That would require an omniscient Creator.

The question is, "Can science explain everything without admitting there is a God?" Science cannot ever explain the spirit or "thing," inside of a person that let's them have life; to move and breathe and experience it all in full awareness. Science can never duly explain what happens to that spirit or "thing," when it's body of flesh is buried or cremated or otherwise decays. Science can explain the electrical pulses, but if that were the essence of life we would all be robots without senses.

I'm not doubting the existence of the electrical charges detected by electron microscopes. My point is there's a correlation between their detection and our detection of very distant masses. ---------- Newton's gravity says that EVERY object in the universe is in the gravitational pull of the sun, and of every other object in the universe (in direct proportion to the quantity of the 2 masses, and in inverse proportion to the distance between the 2), which I do not doubt, naturally speaking. An eternal intelligence is absolutely certain if all the masses in the universe are orbiting other masses, rather than colliding either to one place of destruction, or in total confusion.

What we observe is natural, by definition. I'm referring to phenomena such as shooting stars, whirlwinds, rainbows, modern precision of human invention, human warfare and injustice, inexplicable acts of human kindness; extreme exceptions to the way nature usually goes. ---------- Get away with? Absolutely not. Back it up? Absolutely. How does science explain our standard basis for measuring time as 365 and some fractions of number of rotations of the earth, and yet the earth never orbits the sun, and the moon never orbits the same earth precisely correlative numbers of times? The calendar is correct because humans govern the earth. But except a creative, omniscient artist governs humans and the universe, nothing really is explicable.

Or I could make an educated guess that's it correlates with the way we "detect," electrons with an electron microscope. ---------- Okay, by modern standards of science, earth and moon are a member of a solar system, correct? How is it proven that 8 other planets are members of that system, and not of another?

A list says little. "Detection," of any mass of matter supposedly far more distant than the sun is not believable, much less claims that masses of matter have been "detected," orbiting them. We need an audit of all these "sacred," lists. ---------- Every object is by nature a satellite of another object. It's orbit is it's state of inertia. And groups of objects with their satellites are very much like atoms comprising masses.

[Clarifying the first part of my answer to the original question: "Absolutely not."] Certainly. Is there even one master in any field science who can begin to count the number of deviations in nature from what appears, by science, to be natural? If so, then we can begin to contemplate your question.

Would you admit or oppose the notion that earth, moon and sun are unique in the universe, without special regard to the "planets" in "our solar system?" I submit that every other "planet," star or terrestrial mass is simply a certain kind of satellite in orbit around another satellite, or in deviation from it's natural orbit, as with a shooting star.

Primarily, he brought the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. Secondarily, he brought the sword as we know it, restrained. In one of the 4 gospels, Christ says to the Apostles before being arrested and crucified, "I have told you not to carry swords, but now I tell you, if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." But when Peter took an arresting soldier's ear with his sword, Christ said, "enough!" healing the soldier's ear. Christ and Paul were in agreement, one having said, "Love your enemies," and the other, "If God be for us, who can be against us?" and "Our battle is not against flesh and blood." Every word spoken in Jesus' name is an offense to many.

Absolutely not. Science is one very useful way of looking at nature.

An invitation to every inclined physicist or cosmologist to admit or escape the notion that the energy and the forces between the earth, the moon and the sun, their substance and motions, are absolutely unique in the universe.