needimprovement

Of course there is an objective way for telling which parts of the Bible are literal and which contain figurative language. Check out the Catholic Church. What makes the Catholic Church unique is that it is commissioned by Jesus Christ to interpret, teach and preserve the Divine Revelation contained in Holy Scripture. The best source for the Catholic Deposit of Faith is: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4 Link: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I am not a philosopher, or a theologen. I am a simple Christian. I could not tell you even what these "principles of logic" are, let alone whether I properly apply them. You asked for my explanation of the passage, and I wished to give it, but with the understanding that I expressed. If my explanation fails because I have not properly applied some principle of logic... What can I say? I'm at a loss to understand how anything that I said in my reply indicates God changing in any way. A loving parent places different restrictions on a 2 year old than on a 6 year old than on a 10 year old than on a15 year old than on..... The reasons that the restrictions change is not bcause the parent changes, but because the child does. The Laws under which the Children of God functioned may have changed over the centuries, but that does not equate to God's changing. Lets' look at this. If we take this law litterally then the Jews could not wage war, nor could they have capital punishment for any crime, up to and including murder. In fact, at what point do we stop this rule. Is it OK to kill animals? How about Plants? How does noe survive without killing something? Now if we take this in the manner intended, it speaks to murder. Since the passage under consideration deals with a specific punishment for a specific crime under the Law, it is not murder. "I just can't see"...provides the key here and is something I addressed early on. It is indeed difficult for us to understand these things within their proper context. Analogy time here.... If you saw some thugs coming down the street would you automatically kill them? No - because you have no cause to kill them. To kill them without cause is murder. Which is not Love. If your family was being attacked by these thugs who were intent on raping and killing you and them, would you kill the thugs? Would you kill the thugs out of hate for them or Love for your family? While I grant that the emotion of anger and hate would be a huge contributing factor in you ractions, the real motivator would be the Love of your family rather than your hate fo the thugs. So it is possible to Kill out of Love.

Its an established rule - one cannot prove something based only on mathematically derived theoretical premises. While we may one day elevate ourselves with new math and new knowledge, today's mind must agree the universe is finite - which is a very scary thought for anti-creational science. Speech is the most scary thing for ToE

I doubt that. Why do you say that? Reasons I doubt is you have no way to know what "emotion," if any, is being experienced, except verbal humans can give a self report, which may or may not be truthful and even if it is truthful, may not be correct. What IS easy and readily confirmable is body movements.

Most of the time we interpret Scripture literally, but we must realize Scripture speaks metaphorically or symboically at times, which is not to be taken as anything but a symbol or metaphor. But it is proper to realize that those metaphors do mean something specifically and are not to be generalized or brushed off as something totally allegorical, at least not as the primary interpretation. Usually those metaphors and symbolic language can be understood clearly by other passages of Scripture or oftentimes good ol' common sense. Some symbolic language such as we see in Revelation takes a great deal of study which requires all of Scripture to be consulted and factored in. But we can also see from the New Testament that allegory has a place in interpreting Scripture, since the NT authors themselves did so, as well as analogically and morally. That is done by following the Church that Jesus Christ established, that is the Catholic Church.

This is because of our knowledge status only. A true miracle is totally based on empirical laws which can be performed by any advanced mind. Miracles like the parting of the sea is possible if one knows the inner workings of the quarks which make up water, like H and O, and what their attributes are and how they can be made to react against other forces. In ancient times, a gun would be seen as a miracle. But there is no difference between a cell being made to carry blood to the heart, a seed becoming a pineapple and a strong easterly wind making locusts appear when they should not. What needs to be realized is if the surrounding factors in a described miracle are authentic, like the amazing description of a plague of locusts appearing like a dark cloud and blocking out the sun: many farmers know this as certainly an authentic description. The advent of spells are also authentic for ancient times, but this is now replaced with science. Humanity would not have survived without spells and voodooism - there was no medicine then, this faculty introduced in the Hebrew bible, which first separated occultism with scientifically based medicine with the ID, treatment and quarantine of contagious diseases like leprosy. One day, humans will be able to move Jupiter 5% to the left - which seems like star trek now.

Your view is heavily influence by false and distorted knowledge. You confuse hypothesis for theories and you make claims about history that is mostly exaggerations and distortion about what really happened. I feel sorry about anybody who is folly enough to take you seriously. You are an excellent example of somebody who has been blinded by meta-naturalism posing as scientific knowledge. A singularity is a problem only if you hold to a particular philosophical world view; mainly naturalism. I have no problem if people can find a legitimate way of removing the singularity. But most people are attempting this purely on the basis that the alternative is unacceptable to philosophical naturalism. Its no surprise to me that most of these so called theories (hypothesis) cannot even be validated empirically. They assert something outside of the universe; out of reach of being falsified. Its irrelevant why I am attracted to it. I could be attracted to the idea that 2+2 = 4, but this does not in anyway remove the legitimacy of the fact that 2+2 does equal 4. The scientific evidence points to a singularity. If the singularity was nothing more than an assertion you wouldn't have people working so hard to remove it. I am merely pointing out that a singularity necessarily involves a non-physical element. Now if you know of a valid "theory" that disproves the singularity, well that's just fine. Again you are distorting what I have been saying. It seems to me that you don't really know what you are talking about. I don't know much either, but at least I can determine the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. If scientists are willing to point to the scientific evidence which they believe supports their atheism, then the theist has a legitimate right to point to scientific evidence which they believe supports theism. And if the scientific atheist is honest, they will accept that the real evidence at this point in time points to a singularity; an absolute beginning of what we understand to be physical. Now they can argue that perhaps one day some theory will come along which will remove the singularity. That's fine, so long as they are willing to accept that the singularity could be here to stay for good, and that the metaphysical consequences of this being the case is supernatural in proportion. This is just your assertion distorting information that my link provided. You can ignore it if you like, but this just shows how venomously opposed you are to the idea that you could be wrong. Pride is a killer of intelligence

If there were no god, there would be no atheists!

One is God-breathed and one is not. What are you trying to take literal?The 6 days of Creation? Or what God is trying to tell us in the Creation account? There's a huge difference. For instance, what would the ancient world have thought if the Creation account included billions of years of evolution (with a Divine hand behind it) and plants and animals rising out of the primordial ooze?

In my OP, I was referring to rules pertaining to faith, and more specifically rules we live by today (such as weekly mass attendance etc.). Obviously I was not clear on this. My apologies. As for your statement, "of the rules of science and mathematics, (being) the focus of this forum. Although I do understand this is a science forums, but the sub-forum is called, "Religion" contained in the Forum "Philosophy". I shall attempt to do so, but I fear that our difference in world views may preclude effective communication. Please bear with me and keep an open mind. First of all, let me be clear about who's hypothesis this is. It is not mine but Christ our Lord whom I quoted in my opening post. It is He who tells us that all the Law and all the Prophets are based on the two great commandments - Love of God, and Love of neighbor. Such passages as above are difficult to understand as we look back on the world of 3000 years ago. They are also difficult to understand and reconcile if we do not see them within the context of a spiritual growth and journey. If one looks at the OT in the light of the journey from the fall of man in the Garden up through the redemption of man on the cross, one sees God placing tighter and tighter controls on us. Leading us back from the evils of the fall into the light of redemption. The Laws of Deuteronomy are examples of setting such limits that had not existed before. God is lovingly teaching and raising his children just as any loving parent would, in keeping with their capacity to understand and learn. Therefore it is necessary to look at such things as the Laws of Deuteronomy within the context of the times and not try to impose our modern understandings onto them. Understanding the above, Lets look at some of the specifics of the passage. First, It applies to towns "given by God" to His people. These are not towns outside of the juresdcition of Isreal. Second, the issue is not with outsiders believing differently but with insiders becoming corrupted, and corrupting others. Third it requires a careful examination of facts and proofs, Then, and ONLY then is the prescribed punishment carried out. Thus we can see from the opening portion that this is not a blind rush of hate, but a carefully examined circumstance that is to be dealt with in a carefully prescribed way. Such Laws would only be necessary if they are designed to carefully codify and control behavior that had previously been "out of control". Certainly by todays standards the punishment seems harsh, but by "today's standards" punishments common a hundred years ago are seen as harsh. It is impossible for us to judge whether this punishment prescribed was too harsh or not. We are not immersed in the cultures of that time. About the best comparison we can makein this case is to cancer in the body. If one finds they have cancer, often the treatment is to cut out the diseased tissue, and even some ot the healthy surrounding tissue in order to assure that all of the disease is removed. The sacrifice of this tissue is seen by the body as a whole as good and healthy for it preserves the life of the whole. Often times we are left with a scar to remind us of our brush with death. In the case of the town, it is removed, like a cancer, and the scar, the unrebuilt town left as a reminder. Harsh? To our eyes yes. Loving? Yes in that such action preserved the health of the nation of Isreal from which our ultimate salvation was to come through Christ Our Lord. This then is my explanation, woefully indaquate I'm afraid, but that fault lies with me and not with God.

I am talking about third super power of 9, which has remained uncalculated thus far (to the best of my knowledge). I will be enlightened, if you have calculated this. You are brilliant to catch the mistake, Mr Skeptic. I have given this poser often to people good in maths, students as well teachers, but I can count on my fingers the few who were able to catch the fundamental mistake. Any poser looks easy, when the answer is thrown in. For example, going back to "What time is it", so far there is no reply other than the obvious 12 hrs which any child would give. Now after looking at the calculation you may say "Oh that was simple"!

Have a good life. Good bye.

No. I'm just a simple believer in God. How does one see the immaterial? Well, Jesus is a God-man (God the Son) ***** edited

Is it reasonable to claim, as does the behaviourist school of psychology, that "mind" or "consciousness" does not exist? Behaviourists seem to have lost their mind. Perhaps "life" does not exist either, since no one has seen it under a microscope.

Sure, its possible. Although I don't think that the expanding space is old, having done the same journey before. I see the fundamental quarks of nano-matter as appearing to be new stuff, same as each new life has not been here before. But this is conjecture. The infinite factor remains. I whole heartedly negate this premise, its grasping at straws. Infinite volume and oppositte of density [rarer] increase is a contradiction: the universe is getting denser, not rarer. For me, the only definition of infinite is also seen in the Hebrew, namely it is not subject to change. Understand what a change really means - its a replacement [negation] of what is less transcendent. I whole heartedly negate this premise, its grasping at straws. Infinite volume and oppositte of density [rarer] increase is a contradiction: the universe is getting denser, not rarer. For me, the only definition of infinite is also seen in the Hebrew, namely it is not subject to change. Understand what a change really means - its a replacement [negation] of what is less transcendent. The universe has not stopped expanding or growing. The expansion is not from a pushing out factor because there was no 'where' to push out to when the BB occured, or is alledged to have occured. Understand that what is outside a finite universe cannot be understood - because it comes under a premise which is not physical or resembling anything in physicality. We can safely conclude that pphysicality is new stuff or only limited to this universe - because whatever is seen in this universe cannot also be seen outside this universe - it violates the finite factor. The bottom line of your arguement is that the universe IS finite, al beit you have presented novel surmising how this would be. I fail to understand the auto mode of rejecting anything if it comes from the Hebrew bible, even when science and logic is the given premise. This even when the age of the universe is accepted - as if that says anything other than a finite universe! Humanity does not possess a document of greater veracity than the Hebrew bible all things considered. Christianity and Islam's greatest act was to acknowledge this and covet what they saw - that which KO'd the Hellenist philosophy hands down. And it is for the same reason I see a great light in the Hebrew writings - nothing whatsoever to do with belief and religion.

It is shortly before 9:15 and not after, since the hour-hand has shot past the mark of '9' so equidistant minute-hand will be before the mark of '3'. Say, the answer is "9 hours X minutes". According to proposition, the angle between the minute hand and "mark 3" of the watch is equal to the angle between the hour hand and "mark 9" of the watch. We know in 60 minutes the minute-hand rotates 360 degrees. Therefore the minute hand travels @ 6 degrees per minute(360/60=6), and the hour hand rotates 360/12=30 degrees in 60 minutes, and hence travels @ 1/2 degree per minute (30/60=1/2). Therefore, (15-X) minutes corresponds to 6(15-X) degrees (this is the angle between the minute hand and "mark 3"). And in X minutes the hour hand makes X/2 degrees with "mark 9". Therefore X/2=6(15-X) Therefore X=180/13 mnts Therefore X=13 minutes 50 and 10/13 seconds. So, the answer is: 9 hour, 13 minutes, 50 and10/13 second. In the same way other positions can be worked out.

I’m just curious..., how do psychologists measure mental states such as greed, love, anger, hate, desires, hopes, pain, etc?!? I guess the simplest way to quantify mental states is to simply survey people and ask them to rate how happy they consider themselves to be on a scale of 1-10, or something similar. Can you not use Psychology to learn how the brain works? For example what part does what?

Thank you for your replies, ajb. If I am understanding you correctly, using general relativity you can show that gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light. There has to be a motion, such as an interaction between two or more gravitating objects, to produce gravity waves, right? You said it requires a lot of symmetry. My question is, would a lone object in an empty universe produce gravity? Or would an interaction between it and another object be a necessary requirement? It would seem to me that gravity would still hold the individual atoms in a lone star together, even if there were no other object to "detect" the gravity? Is the term "gravity waves" the same as "gravity" itself?

Just hitting the link. What's a "tensor perspective"? Is it the same as “vector perspective”? (i.e. having direction) Thanks.

There can be no OUTER, OTHER SIDE or LIMIT here - these are post-universe factors. Just as we could not fathom radar a 100 years ago, we equally cannot fathom anything which is not like anything contained in this universe - our mind's wiring cannot perform this feat. If there is anything outside or pre this universe, it cannot be anything which is already contained in this universe - else the finite factor becomes violated. This says not even a non-physical [spiritual?] material can exist outside this universe. It is not a question which must align with science, itself a post-uni faculty and solely reliant on pre-existing stuff in this universe. E.g. 2 + 2 cannot equal 4 when there is no 2.

I'm sorry, you must be requiring remedial math, most of the world is not China. There are 6,697,254,041 people in the world. There are 1,324,655,000 people in China, which means it has 20% of the worlds population. India with 17% of the worlds population has a 80.5% Hindu population. But just to toy on the notion about China, cause almost a 3rd of them openly admitted to being religious when asked. World Wide, there is a big number of people who believe in Religion over all (per the CIA World Fact book). 1. Christians 33.32% 1. Roman Catholics 16.99% 2. Protestants 5.78% 3. Orthodox 3.53% 4. Anglicans 1.25% 2. Muslims 21.01% 3. Hindus 13.26% 4. Buddhists 5.84% 5. Sikhs 0.35% 6. Jews 0.23% 7. Baha'is 0.12% 8. other religions 11.78% 9. non-religious 11.77% 10. atheists 2.32% So your in the 11.77% or the 2.32%?

Of course I did not offer "proof", since we were merely discussing how to read the Bible. You mean can I provide evidence for the falsity of pagan polytheistic myths? From philosophical reasoning, there are the traditional demonstrations for the existence of the one, true God. These could be discussed here, except that I suspect you have no background in classical philosophy. That is your belief. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion? No religion can provide the evidence, especially historical evidence, for its truth as can the Judeo-Christian. You have not paid due attention to the distinctions I have made. When I spoke of myths, I stipulated that I was not using the term in the sense of something that is not true. A myth in the sense in which I using the term can very well be based in reality, and in some cases, actual historical events, though it may express those realities in figurative language. One cannot arbitrarily dismiss the historical realities or the moral truths, or the religious truths, or the philosophical truths behind the metaphors merely because they are being taught using figurative language. Why do you think I need to question my assumptions? Or, better yet, Why do you assume, and assume so from the outset, that my beliefs are merely assumptions? It is you who are operating on assumptions, and have yet to find the truth. I have studied all the major religions, the myths of the Greeks and Romans, the history of civilization, the major philosophical systems, and more. You do not understand Catholicism because you have no faith. Understanding only comes through faith. Without faith, you have a long, arduous journey, one fraught with many perils, on the road to truth. There is no royal road to ultimate truth. You have to make the necessary effort. You should spend some years studying classical philosophy. Classical philosophy is emimently thought that has been thought out. I accept the truth of the Bible soley on the authority of the Catholic Church. Adhering to the infallible teaching of authority of the Church keeps one from many errors and pitfalls, and it opens up the mind and the heart to Reality itself. To quote from G.K. Chesterton, "In my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect." Consider further what G.K. Chesterton said: "It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist, as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom -- ...that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall: there are an infinity of angles at which one falls: only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect (Orthodoxy)." You should read "Heretics" and "Orthodoxy" by G.K. Chesterton. Reading will add some content to your discussion.

I sense some frustration in the above post. Moontanman, Perhaps the sourse of your frustration, and the reason that you think the OP is, how'd you say, "disingenuous" is because the OP was directed toward Catholics and Christians in general. I make that clear in my OP where I say: So - My question is, can we, as catholics and as christians, trace every rule back to this "rule of Love"? You are obviously neither Catholic or Christian and therefore are unable to properly grasp the context of the question. Hence your frustration.....and your tantrum..... May God,in His mercy, send you an angel wiser than I who can guide you and soften your heart.

sorry for unclear question. thank you for the responses...i am beginning to understand... Look at it this way. Object A (doesn’t exist) – can be calculated? No Object B (existing but, for example, not in motion or zero) – can be calculated? I don’t know. Calculation could be in terms of time and space.

Big deal is? * Half the world calls him a Muslim. * Most of the world still believes in creationism proportionally as much as North American's do. * They have all sorts of superstitions and beliefs in Ghosts. * End of life is a fact of life in Socialist health care systems. * Mobile Biological breeders were found in Iraq. * Everyone knows the world and the sun revolves around them. * I don't got a answer for this one, OLD Testament anyone? * The Supreme Court is not a popularity contest, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them that knew names if Justices is because of the NRA ratings. * Geographical literacy all over the world is dropping. Did you know 80% of Europeans think Canada and the US are the same country? * Only Immigrants need to know that one. * Using religion as a blanket to hide from, is only done in North America, everywhere else they'll arrest you, toss you in a cell and deport you at best if your caught spreading hate in the guise of religion. Many places simply execute you. * The same thing twice?