General Music Chat

?
What the heck are you talking about Jimmy?
That has nothing to do with some Science folk attempting to expalin away religion, and by creating Science as their religion then attempt to silence those of opposing views, and vise versa.

Science has provided us with many good things and some not so good like the A bomb and HIV.
Science may provide you with knowing where you fit in the cosmos (kinda like on the flat planet that the sun revolves around) I see science as being in a constant state of growth, always changing and updating our information. I supose that is science by definition.
I see the love of Christ as an eternal constant.
An ideal of man, in constant change (sience) and an eternal constant (Christ) cannot be mutually exclusive.
You and I have, and can continue to have differing points of veiw without infringing on each other rights, can we not? That is not true for many on both sides of the debate. And that is unfortunate because it limits their vision of the beauty of both.

I like science. And all my goodies. AC loopers, etc. probably vaccines too. I don't think it impinged my rights. Not sure what you thought I meant. Or if that was directed at me. What I meant was I don't want to keep anybody down or be kept down.

word

What's up with this?
http://www.geocities.com/craigmaxim/craig.html

I am a world renowned critic of a cult called "The Unification Church" or popularly known as the Moonies. They deceive people to get them indoctrinated into their belief system.

Through prayer, God lead me out of it, after 2 years, giving me a series of dreams, one per night for a week in a row.

When I left the group, and after a couple of years deciphering how they use certain techniques to manipulate their members, I realized I could warn others about them, and I became a vocal critic of the cult, and the politicians and world leaders which are involved with them. Like the Bush family for one.

This got me interviewed world wide for my knowledge on them, and I have been mentioned in maybe a dozen books on the subject, and someone even wrote an entire book about my own life and experiences there, and how I ended up becoming one of their most effective critics.

Most recently, I was interviewed a few years ago for a John Gorenfeld book called "Bad Moon Rising" and he has several paragraphs on my experiences.

You can search and read some of these paragraphs on Amazon.com if you look the book up there. I've also been interviewed on Fox News, The Washington Post, National Television in Japan, The UK, France, and many others.

I posted about this in another thread. But as you said, you don't read my posts when they are long.

.

In other words, a completely unaltered voice would not be heard more than 20 feet away. So the crowds that heard Jesus' voice weren't hearing it UNDISTURBED, and UNCHANGED.

You are misunderstanding me.

By unaltered, I mean that it is the sound wave of Jesus voice itself. It has not been altered by being translated into electrical impulses.

So, if modern technology enhancing the ability to get the Word out is wrong, then the Bible should be passed down word of mouth instead of using the MODERN printing presses.
God gave man the intellect to build PA systems as well as printing presses. The same printing presses that were used to print the books and newsletters that tell your story.
Why are you trying SO hard to prove that Neanderpaul's faith is wrong just because they use a PA system. Jesus didn't carry a Bible, and yet, that is where all your points are coming from. Lighten up, dude.

I am light dude.

It is Neanderpaul which is living an uneccessarily strict code of made-up ethics, to separate themselves from other Christians, not me. You in fact, just confirm some of my points. You would not belong to the Church of Christ yourself, because like Jesus, you are too practical for them, and not strict enough on yourself and everyone else.

His church does not allow Musical Instruments for worshipping God in service. The early church was too poor to have buildings, let alone expensive musical instruments, and they have turned the limitations of a poor church, into a new moral code, assuming that it was because musical instruments DO NOT BELONG in a worship service, rather than the truth of the matter, which is that the early church was poor, and they used the money collected to feed the hungry and spread the word into other countries. Once the church became more wealthy, there was extra money to afford having elaborate buildings and pews and organs and priestly garments. Before the church became the state religion of Rome, this was not possible. They were poor and persecuted, they met in private homes, and they were thrown to Lions. So it is not surprising that the church would meet privately in homes and NOT attract attention by having musical instruments blaring, which they could not afford anyway.

But I will NOT find this point to be trivial, where Christianity is concerned.

Their church, like hundreds and thousands of others, have found the most TRIVIAL of doctrines to split over, and make up their own brand and name, of Christianity. In separating the body of Christ, the trivial, becomes NOT SO TRIVIAL.

This is one of the reasons why, Christianity is declining in moral power, and becoming ineffective in the world, while Islam and Atheism grow to epic proportions.

.

The same error prone brain responsible for textual criticism is also responsible for coming up with scientific theories, and then trying to show a possible solution that works. Ironically, because you find one solution that explains the theory doesn't mean there isn't another one that also explains it, but scientists usually stop at the first success and call that truth. Utility does not equal truth.

The difference is that science is NOT a religion, which claims absolute truth IN SPITE of evidence to the contrary. Faith is not required in science, testable results are.

And you are wrong, that scientists stop at the first success. It is possible that a scientist who has a personal success will publish his results, but then what happens? Scientists from ALL OVER THE WORLD will then work to replicate his results, and independently CONFIRM whether he was correct or not.

.

You talk about scientists as if they were one big united group, but that's not how it is at all. Scientists are highly competitive; when one writes a paper promoting a new theory, there's three ready to provide opposing theories. Science does not stop when the first theory is published; the theory is tested, refined and either supported or denounced. That is the beauty of science; it is self-cleansing and seeks to find the truth regardless of the man speaking. I really don't care what religious people believe or do, as long as it doesn't impinge on my rights.

Jimmy,

I was addressing 2 points.

point 1. Craig undercut his own argument.
If brain A is disfunctional, and therefore cannot be trusted in reading, why should we think the disfunction doesn't also affect our ability to reason through the scientific method?

point 2. If truth is understood as "certainly" true, then science as a method cannot yield it. It can give you usefulness, but not truth in the sense Craig is trying to pass it off as.

The term "truth" really has become a bastardized equivocation for "supported belief".

The scientific community IS competitive, for sure – to the point that if you propose something outside of the the scientific community's consensus (norm), you'll be defrocked, minimalized or at best have an "uphill battle" to be recognized as legitimate.

All men, including scientists have their presuppositions by which they include or exclude what is a possible theory. In addition, because we do not have infinite knowledge of the universe, we cannot know whether we proposed “the right theory” to investigate.

Science is useful in the same way a gun is useful. You can hammer nails with it, but that doesn’t mean it’s a hammer. It gets the job done, but might get you in the end

My brain is always dysfunctional depending on which side I'm using at any given time. Words is words. There are a lot of words out there these days. "Look at my lyric, look at me, I'm hot totty!"

I'd go with science any day. It got us into this mess, it can get us out provided that the people working in that field are not imbued with rhetoric and chains.

Provided nothing hits us we should go a long way. Mind my personal belief is that Mothership will arrive either on time or too late. (Hedging bets!) It's a house of cards frankly and just one wisp on mornings breeze.......

"Nay the farmer draws the plough with the shield for the plunderers are everywhere!"

There's a quote.

L@@k it up

Chippy, you are a great example for all of us to follow. You say what you believe and you say it with a smile. Great quote

My brain is always dysfunctional depending on which
side I'm using at any given time. Words is words. There are a lot of words out there these days. "Look at my lyric, look at me, I'm hot totty!"

I'd go with science any day. It got us into this mess, it can get us out provided that the people working in that field are not imbued with rhetoric and chains.

Provided nothing hits us we should go a long way. Mind my personal belief is that Mothership will arrive either on time or too late. (Hedging bets!) It's a house of cards frankly and just one wisp on mornings breeze.......

"Nay the farmer draws the plough with the shield for the plunderers are everywhere!"

There's a quote.

L@@k it up

Wow, this is a long read! Craig, do you think you are a prophet? You sound like you think that at the very least. Neanderpaul, do you realize that the church that Jesus started is the Roman Catholic church? All other churches broke away from it after Martin Luther started the protestant movement. It doesn't matter if you practice like Jesus did, without instruments or whatever, you cant possibly state that you practice what Jesus did! Your church follows the New Testement, Jesus followed the old, and he even said you need to follow the old law and the new. Just my 2 cents

point 1. Craig undercut his own argument.
If brain A is disfunctional, and therefore cannot be trusted in reading, why should we think the disfunction doesn't also affect our ability to reason through the scientific method?

Chris,

Everything involving a human being contains the possibility for error. You haven't undercut MY argument. You undercut your own, because YOU are the one who cannot affford to admit this. Not me. Not any other rational human being. It is YOU who has a vested interest that writing in a book, and the millions of COPIES of it printed, can never be in error.

You are an extremist.

It is humorous that you try and use rational and intellectual reasoning, when in fact, you are an extremist, pushing an extremist position.

point 2. If truth is understood as "certainly" true, then science as a method cannot yield it. It can give you usefulness, but not truth in the sense Craig is trying to pass it off as.

This whole line of reasoning is ridiculous. The scientific method CAN ascertain truth, to the degree that ANYTHING can be known to be true. When mathematical calculations are used, for example, to determine the thrust and force necessary to go to the Moon, the amount of oxygen needed, what kind of protective clothing is necessary, etc... and this is found to be true, how can you claim that it is a THEORY?

It was a THEORY what the Moon's atmosphere consisted of BEFORE actually going to the Moon. Calculations were made, hypothesis developed, and these were shown to be accurate when the Moon landing was successful.

Chris, there are so many branches of science, and these tend to overlap into one another, that discoveries in one field end up impacting another. It occurs on a regular basis that discoveries in one field of science, will end up verifying previous hypothesis in another field.

You seem completely ignorant of any of it.

Is that the case?

Why would you believe anything at all? Do you believe we went to the Moon? Do you believe the Earth is rounded? Do you believe that the Earth rotates around the Sun? Do you believe in gravity? All these are scientific discoveries, not religious ones.

Why should you believe any of them?

All I am saying is that previously held myths of Creation and the Flood, were widely known and accepted throughout the world. These were passed down in each respective culture, throughout centuries. It was shared by oral traditions, as the ancients did before writing, and so they had no reason to question them. There was nothing at the time to dispute them. These got included as a part... just a PART of the Bible.

Why should that mean I cannot trust the testimony of the disciples, thousands of years afterward, in regards to what they lived and witnessed?

Why do you insist on throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

.

Wow, this is a long read! Craig, do you think you are a prophet?

I just know that He has trained me for some important purpose.

And people from many walks of life have had dreams and visions about my value and usefulness to God, for some future purpose. These include some well known Psychics, a Prince of Zaire, and devout Christians.

It has bothered me in the past, because nothing in my life seemed worthy of these inspirations or my own feelings that God was going to use me in a major way. I find myself asking at times: "Where is it God? I don't see it, and I'm just getting older." I've wondered at times whether I had failed in some way, and He had given up on me, but then some powerful sign, would show me that He still has His hand on me, and that I would understand when the time comes.

I feel that this "time" is very very near now.

At the gates.

Part of this involves music, and another part I believe, is that I am supposed to pull together the things He has shown me over the last decades, and publlish them, or spread them somehow.

I'm going to start working on this very soon, and if it is what I am supposed to be doing He'll let me know, and show me which doors to open and walk through.

.

Neanderpaul, do you realize that the church that Jesus started is the Roman Catholic church? All other churches broke away from it after Martin Luther started the protestant movement.

Wow, that's a whole nother can of worms. The catholic Church doesn't even resemble the Church Christ started. The catholic church isn't even in the bible. Nor is the term protestant or the term rapture for that matter. Peter was a pebble. The church wasn't founded on him. It was founded on the bedrock truth that Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God. We do follow the Church Christ started. He said to preach, teach, pray, sing, take the lord's supper on the first day of the week and give as we have been prospered on the first day of the week. We do all of that and nothing else. I am a member of the Church that follows Christ. I am a Christian with no suffix or prefix.

It is Neanderpaul which is living an uneccessarily strict code of made-up ethics, to separate themselves from other Christians, not me.

They are guidelines necessary and easy to find and read in God Breathed words. The thought of separating myself doesn't enter my mind. The thoughts of following clear examples and instructions are my guide and goal. Just because I am following God's word doesn't mean I am not in the right spirit.

His church does not allow Musical Instruments for worshipping God in service.

I don't have a Church. I worship with Christians. the Church Christ bought with his blood. He asked us to sing. That is all he said about music. It's so easy.

The early church was too poor to have buildings, let alone expensive musical instruments, and they have turned the limitations of a poor church, into a new moral code, assuming that it was because musical instruments DO NOT BELONG in a worship service, rather than the truth of the matter, which is that the early church was poor, and they used the money collected to feed the hungry and spread the word into other countries.

He told us everything else he expects from us in worship. Why wouldn't he tell us if he wanted instruments.

A human came up with the idea to add an instrument. It is not God breathed.

That is not arguable.

We do those things. We go to Tanzania every year, and Mississippi, and our own valley. we do feed the poor as well.

But I will NOT find this point to be trivial, where Christianity is concerned.

Their church, like hundreds and thousands of others, have found the most TRIVIAL of doctrines to split over, and make up their own brand and name, of Christianity. In separating the body of Christ, the trivial, becomes NOT SO TRIVIAL.

So you get to decide which laws and instructions and example are trivial? By what authority Craig? Dreams?

Miracles ceased Craig. You're on Swaggart ground now.

1 cor 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

You never back anything you say up with God's word. The answers are there.

Why do you even call yourself a Christian if you don't believe the promises God made in his inspired word.

We did not say we are going to take away instruments and then cause a split. Instead someone else said they were going to add instruments and we wouldn't allow it based on biblical guidelines. Then they left.

Here it is in black and red. Did the Church Christ started have instruments? No? Well did he tell them to? No? Well that's clear enough for me.

If you want to add to it you go ahead but it is exactly that - adding to it. At that point you are saying you know better than God what God wants.

Your church follows the New Testement, Jesus followed the old, and he even said you need to follow the old law and the new.

Actually he said the new law fulfilled the old law and that if you keep part of the old law, I.E. animal sacrifice, you were a debtor to the whole law.

1 Cor 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

The new law is perfect. We are no longer under the old law.