Posted on 05/02/2007 7:09:53 AM PDT by presidio9
Should read Islam cult, cult or cult!
There are glimmers, but the work of the sycophantic media seems to be giving the pernicious dnc all the cover they need to remain anti-American without paying for it. Truce ... the enemy needs a good trouncing.
How can we get Thompson to run? The current crop of nominees are all damaged goods. Is there anyone we can all get behind?
I don’t think Fred is prone to urgings. He has either already decided to enter the race or not, but he’s the sort of fellow that relies on ‘timing’. I predict he will announce his running within the next four weeks, if he’s running. You can bet he’s already decided but is holding off for the ‘drama’ ofthe announcement. If he’s running, he will announce sooner, if he’s not running (and he may have already made that decision also) he will let everyone one in late summer. The nation isn’t screwed up enough yet for Newt to toss his big brain into the mix. But who knows, the al qaeda/democrat party axis may yet get ‘er done before the election primaries.
On the atheist's own worldview, it's true that there wouldn't be any reason to respect (or not respect) a random concatenation of atoms, and no justification for why a random accident is owed something. But since the atheist really is created in the image of God, though he denies it, he has instrinsic worth and dignity that is to be respected.
Cordially,
I seem to be making progress with you. You have gone from completely deterministic to random accidents that is good. Now make the last step to the Copenhagen convention (Schrodinger's Cat and kittens) and you will almost be there to the Sum of all Paths. May I recommend "The Road to Reality," by Penrose and "The New Quantum Universe" by Tony Hey and Patick Walters. That should keep you occupied for a while.
But since the atheist really is created in the image of God, though he denies it, he has instrinsic worth and dignity that is to be respected.
I give. You are right, we are all created in the image of Dispater. "DISPATER : Gaulish God, whose name means "the Father," was a primal God of creation who later merged with both Don and Cernunnos (sounds like a trinity to me), the Horned God. The Gauls all believed themselves to be descended from him." Since I might have some Gaulish blood in me that sounds like a likely God. So do you believe Dispater created the universe? Or are you atheistic towards all the rest of the Gods except your own? ^^ Can I call you a 99% atheist?
It seems odd that a person so well-versed in philosophical thought as you should stumble over the simple word, "catholic."
My son is pursuing the Masters in philosopy. I'll let him handle Schrodinger's Cat:^)
Cordially,
When I finish my book explaining my new cosmological concept do you want a copy to eviscerate? My concept is so simple, I’m having trouble stretching the book to sufficient length to please a publisher.
Yes, I would love to. You do realize that new cosmological concepts (that fit the evidence) are few and far between?
It is conceptual, not mathematical. You’ll have fun ripping into it.
I have a Jesuit friend and he just laughed when I asked him what Catholic meant. He said that the only word that may have a more interpretations than Catholic is God. He was clear though that the word Catholic in the Athanasian Creed does not apply to the heretics (Protestants) such as yourself who do not obey the Pope.
My son is pursuing the Masters in philosopy. I'll let him handle Schrodinger's Cat:^)
You are really missing out on some interesting reading. May I also recommend anything by Feynman. His writings are not just dry stuffy physics text books.
What else would you expect a Jesuit to say?:^)
Of course there were not any "Protestants" at that time, just as there was no "Pope" (in the sense in which it later developed of a bishop of Rome (Stephen) claiming to be a bishop of bishops with universal primacy over the whole church )so to say the the Athanasian creed does not apply to Protestants who do not obey the Pope is just anachronistically silly.
Cordially,
On whether men have seen the Father:
>Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty ; Walk before Me, and be blameless” Gen 17:1
>God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the LORD; 3and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty , but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.” Exodus 6:2-3
>Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank. Exodus 24:9-11
Those scriptures certainly seem to indicate that several people have seen God. Or is there a poor translation?
>Why should Webster get to define “definition”?
He won the vote.
It is clear from Scripture that these people saw the Second Person of the Trinity. But NO man has seen the Father.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.