| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Joy Oink" |
| Date: |
18 May 2007 12:26:08 PM |
| Object: |
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
'Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.'
'Albert Einstein
'Irritating' Facts
It was 1916 and Albert Einstein didn't like where his calculations were
leading him. If his theory of General Relativity was true, it meant that
the universe was not eternal but had a beginning. Einstein's calculations
indeed were revealing a definite beginning to all time, all matter, and
all space. This flew in the face of his belief that the universe was
static and eternal. Einstein later called his discovery 'irritating.' He
wanted the universe to be self-existent'not reliant on any outside
cause'but the universe appeared to be one giant effect.
In fact, Einstein so disliked the implications of General Relativity'a
theory that is now proven accurate to five decimal places'that he
introduced a cosmological constant (which some have since called a 'fudge
factor') into his equations in order to show that the universe is static
and to avoid an absolute beginning. But Einstein's fudge factor didn't
fudge for long. In 1919, British cosmologist Arthur Eddington conducted an
experiment during a solar eclipse which confirmed that General Relativity
was indeed true'the universe wasn't static but had a beginning. Like
Einstein, Eddington wasn't happy with the implications.
He later wrote, 'Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present
order of nature is repugnant to me.' I should like to find a genuine
loophole.''1' By 1922, Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann had
officially exposed Einstein's fudge factor as an algebraic error.
(Incredibly, in his quest to avoid a beginning, the great Einstein had
divided by zero'something even schoolchildren know is a no-no!) Meanwhile,
Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter had found that General Relativity
required the universe to be expanding. And in 1927, the expanding of the
universe was actually observed by astronomer Edwin Hubble (namesake of the
space telescope).
Looking through the 100-inch telescope at California's Mount Wilson
Observatory, Hubble discovered a 'red shift' in the light from every
observable galaxy, which meant that those galaxies were moving away from
us. In other words, General Relativity was again confirmed'the universe
appears to be expanding from a single point in the distant past.'2' In
1929 Einstein made a pilgrimage to Mount Wilson to look through Hubble's
telescope for himself. What he saw was irrefutable. The observational
evidence showed that the universe was indeed expanding as General
Relativity had predicted. With his cosmological constant now completely
crushed by the weight of the evidence against it, Einstein could no longer
support his wish for an eternal universe. He subsequently described the
cosmological constant as 'the greatest blunder of my life, and he
redirected his efforts to find the box top to the puzzle of life.
Einstein said that he wanted 'to know how God created the world. I am not
interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that
element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.''3' Although
Einstein said that he believed in a pantheistic God (a god that is the
universe), his comments admitting creation and divine thought better
describe a theistic God. And as 'irritating' as it may be, his theory of
General Relativity stands today as one of the strongest lines of evidence
for a theistic God. Indeed, General Relativity supports what is one of the
oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God'the
Cosmological Argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geisler, N. L., & Turek, F. (2004). I don't have enough faith to be an
atheist (72). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
| User: "altheim" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
18 May 2007 03:09:48 PM |
|
|
"Joy Oink" <j_oink-21@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
[snip] ...as 'irritating' as it may be, his (Einstein's) theory of
General Relativity stands today as one of the strongest lines of evidence
for a theistic God. Indeed, General Relativity supports what is one of the
oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God'the
Cosmological Argument.
No no no - someone is grabbing at straws. Stephen Hawking,
for one. would not agree and in the spontaneous singularity
leading to the Big Bang he has offered a perfectly plausible
alternative.
--
altheim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracii Guns Hyatt" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
18 May 2007 04:33:10 PM |
|
|
"altheim" <altheim@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:gKn3i.103$CE.68@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Joy Oink" <j_oink-21@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
[snip] ...as 'irritating' as it may be, his (Einstein's) theory of
General Relativity stands today as one of the strongest lines of evidence
for a theistic God. Indeed, General Relativity supports what is one of the
oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God'the
Cosmological Argument.
No no no - someone is grabbing at straws. Stephen Hawking,
for one. would not agree and in the spontaneous singularity
leading to the Big Bang he has offered a perfectly plausible
alternative.
Ask his wife! If she believed her husband, then why is she a
born again evangelical! (-:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
19 May 2007 04:39:59 AM |
|
|
"Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_H20@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ipOdnW-a1MQDhtPbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com...
"altheim" <altheim@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:gKn3i.103$CE.68@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Joy Oink" <j_oink-21@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
[snip] ...as 'irritating' as it may be, his (Einstein's) theory of
General Relativity stands today as one of the strongest lines of
evidence
for a theistic God. Indeed, General Relativity supports what is one of
the
oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God'the
Cosmological Argument.
No no no - someone is grabbing at straws. Stephen Hawking,
for one. would not agree and in the spontaneous singularity
leading to the Big Bang he has offered a perfectly plausible
alternative.
Ask his wife! If she believed her husband, then why is she a
born again evangelical! (-:
Who knows and even more importantly, who the ***** cares?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "altheim" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
18 May 2007 04:58:19 PM |
|
|
"Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_H20@hotmail.com> wrote:
"altheim" <altheim@freeuk.com> wrote:
"Joy Oink" <j_oink-21@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
[snip] ...as 'irritating' as it may be, his (Einstein's) theory of
General Relativity stands today as one of the strongest lines of
evidence
for a theistic God. Indeed, General Relativity supports what is one of
the
oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God'the
Cosmological Argument.
No no no - someone is grabbing at straws. Stephen Hawking,
for one. would not agree and in the spontaneous singularity
leading to the Big Bang he has offered a perfectly plausible
alternative.
Ask his wife! If she believed her husband, then why is she a
born again evangelical! (-:
I guess this is what happens to people who can't keep up.
--
altheim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
18 May 2007 07:52:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 May 2007 17:33:10 -0400, "Tracii Guns Hyatt"
<traciig_H20@hotmail.com> wrote:
"altheim" <altheim@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:gKn3i.103$CE.68@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Joy Oink" <j_oink-21@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
[snip] ...as 'irritating' as it may be, his (Einstein's) theory of
General Relativity stands today as one of the strongest lines of evidence
for a theistic God. Indeed, General Relativity supports what is one of the
oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God'the
Cosmological Argument.
No no no - someone is grabbing at straws. Stephen Hawking,
for one. would not agree and in the spontaneous singularity
leading to the Big Bang he has offered a perfectly plausible
alternative.
Ask his wife! If she believed her husband
If she knew enough to understand her husband's theories she'd be a
cosmologist. She isn't and she doesn't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
19 May 2007 03:09:36 PM |
|
|
On May 18, 10:33 pm, "Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"altheim" <alth...@freeuk.com> wrote in messagenews:gKn3i.103$CE.68@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
"Joy Oink" <j_oink...@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
[snip] ...as 'irritating' as it may be, his (Einstein's) theory of
General Relativity stands today as one of the strongest lines of evidence
for a theistic God. Indeed, General Relativity supports what is one of the
oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God'the
Cosmological Argument.
No no no - someone is grabbing at straws. Stephen Hawking,
for one. would not agree and in the spontaneous singularity
leading to the Big Bang he has offered a perfectly plausible
alternative.
Ask his wife! If she believed her husband, then why is she a
born again evangelical! (-:
Which one of them is the scientist, fucknuts? And which one of them
believes (mistakenly judging by the evidence offered here in Usenet)
in religious tolerance?
Hint: Both questions have the same answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pister Cuntie, ordained ignoramus master" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
19 May 2007 06:10:04 PM |
|
|
On May 18, 10:33 pm, "Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"altheim" <alth...@freeuk.com> wrote in messagenews:gKn3i.103$CE.68@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
[snip] ...as 'irritating' as it may be, his (Einstein's) theory of
General Relativity stands today as one of the strongest lines of evidence
for a theistic God. Indeed, General Relativity supports what is one of the
oldest formal arguments for the existence of a theistic God'the
Cosmological Argument.
No no no - someone is grabbing at straws. Stephen Hawking,
for one. would not agree and in the spontaneous singularity
leading to the Big Bang he has offered a perfectly plausible
alternative.
Ask his wife! If she believed her husband, then why is she a
born again evangelical! (-:
Which one of them is the scientist, fucknuts? And which one of them
believes (mistakenly judging by the evidence offered here in Usenet)
in religious tolerance?
Hint: Both questions have the same answer.
Last One Off Earth, Turn Out the Lights
Related Audio/Video Downloads
http://breakpoint.org/media/dkContent/6492/051607_BP.mp3
Modern Desperation
A few weeks ago, the world famous physicist Stephen Hawking came one step
closer to his dream of going into space: He took a flight in a "specially
modified aircraft" that allowed him to experience weightlessness.
Hawking, who is almost completely paralyzed by Lou Gehrig's disease, said
that the purpose of his flight was to "encourage public interest in space."
Not out of the kind of "new frontier" optimism, but out of a despairing
view of humanity.
For Hawking, the goal for space travel isn't to seek out new life or even
to boldly go where no man has gone before-it's to ensure the survival of
the human race.
After the flight, Hawking said that "life on Earth is at an ever-increasing
risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden global warming,
nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers." Thus,
colonizing other worlds may be our only chance of surviving our own folly.
If this sounds like Hawking-who is Isaac Newton's successor at Cambridge
University, the most prestigious chair-has been watching a bit too much of
the Sci-Fi Channel, he's not alone in his bleak assessment. In a recent New
York Times' op-ed, Robert Wright of the New America Foundation described
what he called "an apocalyptic vibe in the zeitgeist."
Wright argued that it's "not hard to imagine how the technological
sophistication that got us to the brink of global civilization could be our
undoing." He cited "classic nuclear apocalypse," "eco-apocalypse," and
"terrorism" as three possible factors that could lead to a "planetary death
spiral."
These are hardly isolated examples. These days, if you want lectures on
human depravity and the looming apocalypse, the best places aren't churches
or Christian book stores-it's prestigious op-ed pages and science
departments of universities.
It's clear that the anti-religion crowd is growing desperate, the result of
all their angry rejection of the hope of the Gospel.
Oddly enough, there is something almost biblical in this kind of talk.
Almost, that is. This recognition of the human capacity for folly and
self-destruction is a welcome alternative to the naïve utopianism and
belief in progress that dominated so much of twentieth-century thinking.
But it's only part of the truth.
What's missing is the solution to what C.S. Lewis called our "bentness."
After all, even if we do escape the bounds of Earth to colonize new
planets, our fallen human nature will accompany us on the trip and the
cycle of folly will start all over again.
That's why the real "logic of human destiny" (to borrow a phrase from
Wright), is the Gospel. It not only describes the human condition
correctly, it provides an answer to that condition-an answer that can be
implemented on this world, not Rigel IV.
Instead of removing us from this planet, God came down to this fallen
world. In living and dying as one of us, He transformed our humanity in a
way that can break the power of sin and folly.
What needs modifying is us, not our spacecraft. The best antidote to the
"apocalyptic vibe" Wright describes is hope-not in what man can accomplish
on or off this planet, but in what God has done and continues to do, His
kingdom, and the assurance that our human destiny is Heaven, not Mars.
By Chuck Colson
5/16/2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Further Reading and Information
"A Long-Awaited Taste of Outer Space," Washington Post, 27 April 2007.
"Hawking: Weightlessness Will Be 'Bliss'," Associated Press, 24 April 2007.
Robert Wright, "Planet of the Apes," New America Foundation, 27 April 2007.
Regis Nicoll, "Unlocking the Mystery of the Universe, Parts One, Two, and
Three," 21 July 2006.
Allen Thornburgh, "Gore's Faith," The Point, 28 March 2007.
Regis Nicoll, "The Scourge of the Earth," The Point, 15 May 2007.
BreakPoint Commentary No. 070102, "Brooking No Debate: Scientism, Crowbars,
and Bats."
--
"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your
pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and
turn to attack you. "(Matthew 7:6 RSV)
.. There's no hurry?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrmDWn6awMA
"The best way to drive out the devil, if he will
not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and
flout him, for he cannot bear scorn."
.. How to Spot a Counterfeit
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there
will be false teachers among you. They will secretly bring in
destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and
will bring swift destruction on themselves (2 Peter 2:1).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, Christianitys worst nightmare" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
19 May 2007 09:25:44 PM |
|
|
On May 20, 12:10 am, Melchizedek<john_loiodice@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Hit the mark, didn't I? Don't worry, I do eventually get bored with
shooting fish in a barrel.
After a few months.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pister Cuntie, ordained ignoramus master" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
19 May 2007 10:57:21 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Kutchie, Christianity's worst nightmare" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1179627944.229417.187410@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 12:10 am, Melchizedek<john_loiodice@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Hit the mark, didn't I? Don't worry, I do eventually get bored with
shooting fish in a barrel.
After a few months.
Nope!
The Priviledged Planet
A 60 minute video documentary
There is an opinion, common among scientists and intellectuals, that our
Earthly existence is not only rather ordinary, but in fact, insignificant
and purposeless. The late astronomer Carl Sagan typifies this view in his
book "Pale Blue Dot":
Because of the reflection of sunlight the Earth seems to be sitting in a
beam of light, as if there were some special significance to this small
world. But it's just an accident of geometry and optics.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have
some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of
pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic
dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help
will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
But perhaps this melancholy assumption, despite its heroic pretense, is
mistaken. Perhaps the unprecedented scientific knowledge acquired in the
last century, enabled by equally unprecedented technological
achievements, should, when properly interpreted, contribute to a deeper
appreciation of our place in the cosmos.
In this 60-minute video documentary we will explore a striking feature
of the natural world. A feature as widely grounded in the evidence of
nature as it is wide-ranging in its implications: the conditions that
allow for intelligent life on Earth also make it strangely well suited
for viewing and analyzing the universe.
The fact that our atmosphere is clear; that our moon is just the right
size and distance from Earth, and that its gravity stabilizes the
Earth's rotation; that our position in our galaxy is just so; that our
sun is its precise mass and composition: all of these factors (and many
more), are not only necessary for Earth's habitability; they also have
been surprisingly crucial for scientists to measure and make discoveries
about the universe.
Mankind is unusually well positioned to decipher the cosmos. To put it
more technically, "measurability" seems to correlate with habitability.
But is this correlation between the existence of complex life and our
ability to make scientific discoveries simply a coincidence or the result
of blind chance? Or does it point to a deeper explanation? The Privileged
Planet will examine these questions in a remarkable search for evidence
of design and purpose within the universe.
Utilizing stunning computer animation and the visual archives of NASA,
the Hubble Space Telescope Institute, the European Space Agency, and
leading observatories throughout the world, the program will present a
spectacular view of our planet, galaxy, and the entire cosmos.
Astronomers and physicists including Paul Davies, Robert Jastrow, and
Donald Brownlee will share their insights and opinions.
The result is an extraordinary documentary and a fascinating look at a
timeless question:
What is our significance within the grand scheme of the universe?
Available ===> http://Bibleweb.Info/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, Christianitys worst nightmare" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
20 May 2007 05:44:30 AM |
|
|
On May 20, 4:57 am, "Pister Cuntie, ordained ignoramus master"
<PC_oim...@shotmail.com> wrote:
"Pastor Kutchie, Christianity's worst nightmare" <use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote in messagenews:1179627944.229417.187410@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 12:10 am, Melchizedek<john_loiod...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Hit the mark, didn't I? Don't worry, I do eventually get bored with
shooting fish in a barrel.
After a few months.
Nope!
The Priviledged Planet
A 60 minute video documentary
There is an opinion, common among scientists and intellectuals, that our
Earthly existence is not only rather ordinary, but in fact, insignificant
and purposeless. The late astronomer Carl Sagan typifies this view in his
book "Pale Blue Dot":
It is absolutely and unarguably true that the cosmic scheme of things
doesn't care about us. It is unconscious.
What consciousness does is to give us the power to make a difference
to our own little fragment of reality, and to understand the whole of
it through intellectual endeavour backed up with scientific research
and discovery.
What religion does is provide a framework for false consciousness and
anti-intellectualism as demonstrated in your constant posting of other
peoples diatribes without any exercise in comprehension - not even
paraphrasing. This tells anybody reading your posts that you are not
thinking at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
21 May 2007 05:01:39 PM |
|
|
In article <464dd565$0$16274$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Joy Oink said...
Einstein said that he wanted 'to know how God created the world. I am not
interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that
element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.''3' Although
Einstein said that he believed in a pantheistic God (a god that is the
universe), his comments admitting creation and divine thought better
describe a theistic God.
Your latter-day distortion of one of Einstein metaphors
counts greater than the man's unambiguous denials?
And as 'irritating' as it may be, his theory of
General Relativity stands today as one of the
strongest lines of evidence for a theistic God.
Likewise, people like you will hail whatever scientists
discover in the 21st century as "the strongest evidence for
a theistic god." Then as now, you will follow, not lead.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
18 May 2007 07:49:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:26:08 -0400, "Joy Oink"
<j_oink-21@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In fact, Einstein so disliked the implications of General Relativity'a
theory that is now proven accurate to five decimal places
If that's as little as you know about GR, the rest of your post can't
be worth reading.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
18 May 2007 12:32:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:26:08 -0400, "Joy Oink"
<j_oink-21@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
'Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.'
A mined "quote" taken totally out of context by the Liars For God.
[whole slew of the dishonest little *****'s lies snipped]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracii Guns Hyatt" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
18 May 2007 04:38:25 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:mgor43togunbtatngba05va52f01l4dov4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:26:08 -0400, "Joy Oink"
<j_oink-21@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
'Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.'
A mined "quote" taken totally out of context by the Liars For God.
[whole slew of the dishonest little *****'s lies snipped]
.. "I believe, in order to understand."
1 Corinthians 1:26-31 (NASB95)
26 For 1consider your acalling, brethren, that there were bnot
many wise according to 2the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
27 but aGod has chosen the foolish things of bthe world to shame
the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of bthe world to shame
the things which are strong,
28 and the base things of athe world and the despised God has
chosen, bthe things that are not, so that He may cnullify the things
that are,
29 so that ano 1man may boast before God.
30 But 1by His doing you are in aChrist Jesus, who became to us
bwisdom from God, 2and crighteousness and dsanctification, and
eredemption,
31 so that, just as it is written, "aLet him who boasts, boast
in the Lord."
[1]
1:26 Having spoken of the gospel itself, the apostle now turns to the
people whom God calls by the gospel (vv. 26-29). He reminds the
Corinthians that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty,
not many noble are called. It has often been pointed out that the text
does not say "not any" but not many. Because of this slight difference,
one English lady of noble blood used to testify that she was saved by the
letter "m."
The Corinthians themselves had not come from the upper intellectual crust
of society. They had not been reached by high-sounding philosophies but
by the simple gospel. Why, then, were they putting such a premium on
human wisdom and exalting preachers who sought to make the message
palatable to the worldly-wise?
If men were to build a church, they would want to enroll the most
prominent members of the community. But verse 26 teaches us that the
people men esteem so highly, God passes by. The ones He calls are not
generally the ones the world considers great.
1:27 God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the
wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the
things which are mighty. As Erich Sauer says:
The more primitive the material, the greater-if the same standard of art
can be reached-the honor of the Master; the smaller the army, the
mightier-if the same great victory can be won-the praise of the
conqueror.? 3
God used trumpets to bring down the walls of Jericho. He reduced Gideon's
army from 32,000 to 300 to rout the armies of Midian. He used an oxgoad
in the hand of Shamgar to defeat the Philistines. With the jawbone of a
donkey He enabled Samson to defeat a whole army. And our Lord fed over
5,000 with nothing more than a few loaves and fishes.
1:28 To make up what someone has called "God's five-ranked army of
fools," Paul adds the base things of the world and the things which are
despised and the things which are not. Using such unlikely materials, God
brings to nothing the things that are. In other words, He loves to take
up people who are of no esteem in the eyes of the world and use them to
glorify Himself. These verses should serve as a rebuke to Christians who
curry the favor of prominent and well-known personages and show little or
no regard for the more humble saints of God.
1:29 God's purpose in choosing those of no account in the eyes of the
world is that all the glory should accrue to Himself and not to man.
Since salvation is entirely of Him, He alone is worthy to be praised.
1:30 Verse 30 emphasizes even further that all we are and have comes from
Him-not from philosophy, and that there is therefore no room for human
glory. First of all, Christ became for us wisdom. He is the wisdom of God
(v. 24), the One whom God's wisdom chose as the way of salvation. When we
have Him we have a positional wisdom that guarantees our full salvation.
Secondly, He is our righteousness. Through faith in Him we are reckoned
righteous by a holy God. Thirdly, He is our sanctification. In ourselves
we have nothing in the way of personal holiness, but in Him we are
positionally sanctified, and by His power we are transformed from one
degree of sanctification to another. Finally, He is our redemption, and
this doubtless speaks of redemption in its final aspect when the Lord
will come and take us home to be with Himself, and when we shall be
redeemed-spirit, soul, and body.
Traill delineated the truth sharply:
Wisdom out[side] of Christ is damning folly-righteousness out[side] of
Christ is guilt and condemnation-sanctification out[side] of Christ is
filth and sin-redemption out[side] of Christ is bondage and slavery.? 4
A. T. Pierson relates verse 30 to the life and ministry of our Lord:
His deeds and His words and His practices, these show Him as the wisdom
of God. Then come His death, burial, and resurrection: these have to do
with our righteousness. Then His forty days' walk among men, His
ascension up on high, the gift of the Spirit, and His session at the
right hand of God, have to do with our sanctification. Then His coming
again, which has to do with our redemption.? 5
1:31 God has so arranged it that all these blessings should come to us in
the Lord. Paul's argument therefore is, "Why glory in men? They cannot do
any one of these things for you."
[2]
1:26-28 God disdained human wisdom, not only by disallowing it as a means
to knowing Him, but also by choosing to save the lowly. He does not call
to salvation many whom the world would call wise, mighty, and noble (cf.
Matt. 11:25; 18:3, 4). God's wisdom is revealed to the foolish, weak, and
common, i.e., those considered nothing by the elite, who trust in Jesus
Christ as Savior and Lord. God clearly received all the credit and the
glory for causing such lowly ones to know Him and the eternal truths of
His heavenly kingdom. No saved sinner can boast that he has achieved
salvation by his intellect (v. 29).
1:30, 31 The redeemed not only are given salvation by God's wisdom rather
than by their own, but are also graciously given ("by His doing") a
measure of His divine wisdom, as well as imputed righteousness (Rom. 4:5;
2 Cor. 5:21), sanctification from sin (Eph. 2:10), and redemption by God
(Eph 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19) in order that, above all else, the Lord will
be glorified (cf. Gal. 6:4).
1:31 Quoted from Jer. 9:24.
[3]
The same is still true. Look around. How many of you are listed in Who's
Who in America? The only place most of us would find our names would be
in Who's He?!
[4]
The Lord uses weak things in order that only He gets credit. Why? Is He
on some huge ego trip? Is He saying, "I don't want anyone else to get any
glory because I need to be affirmed?" Obviously not! God uses weak things
not because of a lack in His nature, but due to a lack in ours. You see,
God knows when He uses someone who is impressive in the eyes of the
world, people set themselves up for a huge fall because they look to him
rather than to God. Therefore, He says, "I don't want any flesh to glory
because all flesh will fail ultimately."
It was not until Uzziah died that Isaiah saw the Lord high and lifted up
(Isaiah 6:1). Who was Uzziah? One of the most powerful, successful,
gifted kings in the history of Judah and Israel, Uzziah increased the
boundaries of the nation, ushered in economic prosperity, and invented
war machinery. Yet although his name was on the lips of all people (2
Chronicles 26:8), it wasn't until he died that Isaiah saw the Lord.
The Lord still allows people to die-not physically-but in the estimation
of others in order that our focus can more clearly be upon Him.
Therefore, wise is the man and mature the church that realizes that
Uzziah's death is not a reason to quit. Instead, it's a reason to say,
"Once again, Lord, I see that You are the only One upon whom I can truly
and totally rely."
[5]
The Lord uses weak things in order that only He gets credit. Why? Is He
on some huge ego trip? Is He saying, "I don't want anyone else to get any
glory because I need to be affirmed?" Obviously not! God uses weak things
not because of a lack in His nature, but due to a lack in ours. You see,
God knows when He uses someone who is impressive in the eyes of the
world, people set themselves up for a huge fall because they look to him
rather than to God. Therefore, He says, "I don't want any flesh to glory
because all flesh will fail ultimately."
It was not until Uzziah died that Isaiah saw the Lord high and lifted up
(Isaiah 6:1). Who was Uzziah? One of the most powerful, successful,
gifted kings in the history of Judah and Israel, Uzziah increased the
boundaries of the nation, ushered in economic prosperity, and invented
war machinery. Yet although his name was on the lips of all people (2
Chronicles 26:8), it wasn't until he died that Isaiah saw the Lord.
The Lord still allows people to die-not physically-but in the estimation
of others in order that our focus can more clearly be upon Him.
Therefore, wise is the man and mature the church that realizes that
Uzziah's death is not a reason to quit. Instead, it's a reason to say,
"Once again, Lord, I see that You are the only One upon whom I can truly
and totally rely."
[6]
1:26-31
Paul turned from the content of the gospel to the Corinthian believers to
strengthen his argument that the gospel he preached contradicted human
expectations. God had chosen "nobodies" rather than the "beautiful
people" of Corinth. They themselves were evidence that God's
"foolishness" confounds the wise. Jeremiah 9:23-24, with its emphasis on
boasting in one proper thing or another improper thing, lies behind this
pericope.
1:26 This verse reflects that there were few in the Corinthian assembly
who came from the higher intellectual and influential levels of their
society. This characteristic has marked most local churches throughout
history.
1:27-28 The Old Testament is full of illustrations of God choosing less
than promising material for His instruments. His method did not change
with the coming of Christ nor has it changed since then.
"Things that are not" are things that are nothing. They are non-entities
in the eyes of the world. The "things that are" are those things and
individuals that the world values highly. Paul did not mean that God
cannot or will not save the affluent, but the glory of the gospel is that
God's mercy extends to those whom the affluent tend to write off.
1:29 God has chosen this method so the glory might be His and His alone.
How wrong then to glorify His messengers! Glorying here has the idea of
putting one's full confidence in some inappropriate object to secure
ourselves.
1:30 God is the source of the believer's life in Christ (cf. v. 2).
Righteousness, sanctification, and redemption are metaphors of salvation,
the result of the wisdom we find in Christ (cf. 6:11). Righteousness
focuses on our right standing in the sight of God, sanctification on His
making us more holy, and redemption on our liberation from sin.
1:31 This loose quotation from Jeremiah 9:24 summarizes Paul's point.
Instead of emphasizing the Lord's servants and what they have done we
should focus on what the Lord Himself has done in providing wisdom and
power in Christ.
God's purpose was not to make a superficial splash but to transform
lives, something the Corinthians could see in their own experience.
"The issue of election is particularly strong in 1 Corinthians. Paul
opens the letter by affirming not only his call ('called to be an apostle
of Christ Jesus by the will of God') but also that of the Corinthians
('called to be saints,' 1:2). This conviction reappears in the final
verse of the thanksgiving, functioning there as part of the ultimate
ground for Paul's confidence (1:9): 'God is faithful; by him you were
called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.' When the
issue surfaces again a few verses later with renewed rhetorical emphasis
(1:24, 26-30), it becomes clear that the concept of election or call no
longer merely undergirds Paul's argument; it has instead become the focus
of this argument. The Corinthians, it seems, have not grasped what
election means."38
[7]
1:26-31
Inversion of Status
1:26-29. Roman social class was based on birth ("nobility") rather than
on wealth; but by either criterion, most of the Corinthian Christians
derived from the lower ranks of society, which made up the vast majority
of ancient society. Paul's guarded language here ("not many"-NIV)
suggests that some, however, were of higher status, no doubt including
the owners of the homes in which the churches met. This passage reflects
Jeremiah 9:23, paving the way for Paul's explicit quotation of Jeremiah
9:24 in 1 Corinthians 1:31.
1:30. Both Jewish and Greek literature sometimes personified wisdom.
Christ as divine Wisdom (8:6; cf. Jn 1:1-18) functions as righteousness,
sanctification and redemption, changing the person completely for God.
The law was considered both wisdom (Deut 4:6) and righteousness (Deut
6:25).
1:31. Here Paul paraphrases Jeremiah 9:24: one should boast in knowing
and understanding God rather than in human wisdom.
[8]
.. "I believe, in order to understand."
.. ==//==
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Lit see
a Rom 11:29
b Matt 11:25; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:8
2 I.e. human standards
a James 2:5
b 1 Cor 1:20
b 1 Cor 1:20
a 1 Cor 1:20
b Rom 4:17
c Job 34:19; 1 Cor 2:6; 2 Thess 2:8; Heb 2:14
a Eph 2:9
1 Lit flesh
1 Lit of Him
a Rom 8:1; 1 Cor 4:15
b 1 Cor 1:24
2 Or both
c Jer 23:5f; 33:16; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9
d 1 Cor 1:2; 6:11; 1 Thess 5:23
e Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7, 14; Col 1:14
a Jer 9:23f; 2 Cor 10:17
[1] New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The
Lockman Foundation.
? 3 (1:27) Erich Sauer, The Dawn of World Redemption, p. 91.
? 4 (1:30) Traill, further documentation unavailable.
? 5 (1:30) Arthur T. Pierson, The Ministry of Keswick, First Series, p.
104.
[2]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (1 Co 1:26). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.
[3]MacArthur, J. J. (1997, c1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic
ed.) (1 Co 1:26). Nashville: Word Pub.
[4]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (1015).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
[5]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (1015).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
[6]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (1015).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
38 38. Jouette M. Bassler, "Paul's Theology: Whence and Whither?" in
Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, p. 15.
[7]Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the
Bible (1 Co 1:25-31). Galaxie Software.
NIV New International Version
churches *?Church. The Greek term used in the New Testament reflects the
terms often used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word for the
"congregation" (qahal) of Israel: "church" (assembly) and "synagogue"
(gathering). Although some scholars have suggested that Jesus could not
have spoken about the church during his earthly ministry, the Dead Sea
Scrolls used the Hebrew term for God's community; hence Jesus could use
this word in talking about his future community (Mt 16:18; 18:17). The
term was in common use in Greek culture for "assemblies," especially
citizen assemblies in cities. (The popular modern surmise that the Greek
word for "church," ekklesia, means "called-out ones" is thus mistaken;
that sense is actually more appropriate for "saints," i.e., "those
separated [for God].")
law *?Law. "Torah" (the Hebrew word behind the Greek word translated
"law") means literally "instruction" and "teaching," not just
regulations. It was also used as a title for the first five books of the
Old Testament (the Pentateuch, the books of Moses) and sometimes for the
whole Old Testament. This commentary uses the translation "law" because
it is familiar to readers of most translations, even though the English
term's semantic range is much narrower than the Jewish concept.
[8]Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background
commentary : New Testament (1 Co 1:24-31). Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
18 May 2007 04:43:28 PM |
|
|
On May 18, 5:38 pm, "Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:mgor43togunbtatngba05va52f01l4dov4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:26:08 -0400, "Joy Oink"
<j_oink...@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
'Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.'
A mined "quote" taken totally out of context by the Liars For God.
[whole slew of the dishonest little *****'s lies snipped]
....snip of Hyatt's pointless stupidity...
Look moron, we don't believe in your fairy tale. Quoting from the
book from which is is taken is pointless. Should I quote from the
Vedas? Now if you have verifiable evidence, please present it.
Otherwise *****-off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracii Guns Hyatt" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
18 May 2007 04:44:35 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message news:1179524608.285048.9130@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 18, 5:38 pm, "Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:mgor43togunbtatngba05va52f01l4dov4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:26:08 -0400, "Joy Oink"
<j_oink...@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
'Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.'
A mined "quote" taken totally out of context by the Liars For God.
[whole slew of the dishonest little *****'s lies snipped]
...snip of Hyatt's pointless stupidity...
Look moron, we don't believe in your fairy tale. Quoting from the
book from which is is taken is pointless. Should I quote from the
Vedas? Now if you have verifiable evidence, please present it.
Otherwise *****-off.
U1st! (-:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
18 May 2007 04:47:23 PM |
|
|
On May 18, 5:44 pm, "Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in messagenews:1179524608.285048.9130@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 18, 5:38 pm, "Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:mgor43togunbtatngba05va52f01l4dov4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:26:08 -0400, "Joy Oink"
<j_oink...@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
'Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.'
A mined "quote" taken totally out of context by the Liars For God.
[whole slew of the dishonest little *****'s lies snipped]
...snip of Hyatt's pointless stupidity...
Look moron, we don't believe in your fairy tale. Quoting from the
book from which is is taken is pointless. Should I quote from the
Vedas? Now if you have verifiable evidence, please present it.
Otherwise *****-off.
U1st! (-:
Evidence of what? Moron. An atheist is simply someone that doesn't
believe in your idiotic, sadistic, self-contradictory delusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Jackanapes" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
20 May 2007 12:32:41 AM |
|
|
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Andres64 said...
On May 18, 5:44 pm, "Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in messagenews:1179524608.285048.9130@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 18, 5:38 pm, "Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Christopher A.Lee" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:mgor43togunbtatngba05va52f01l4dov4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 13:26:08 -0400, "Joy Oink"
<j_oink...@ohyalikeit.com> wrote:
In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE
'Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.'
A mined "quote" taken totally out of context by the Liars For God.
[whole slew of the dishonest little *****'s lies snipped]
...snip of Hyatt's pointless stupidity...
Look moron, we don't believe in your fairy tale. Quoting from the
book from which is is taken is pointless. Should I quote from the
Vedas? Now if you have verifiable evidence, please present it.
Otherwise *****-off.
U1st! (-:
Evidence of what? Moron. An atheist is simply someone that doesn't
believe in your idiotic, sadistic, self-contradictory delusion.
That's Loiodice's classic response "U1st" - that's about the most
intelligent response you'll get from him. Oh wait, he also says "Nope!"
He's a master of the cut & paste. Plonk it! You guys are getting trolled
by John Loiodice, Christian spammer who has expanded his garbage posting
into A.A. and other atheists groups. He's moved into your groups because
everyone in a.f.j.c. has kill-filed him. No one left there to annoy. He
will flood your group with this ***** and rarely respond to you. He has
NO intention to debate anything that he posts. He wants attention, so
starve him of it.
Here are a few of his sock-puppet names:
Melchizedek
Tracii Hyatt
In The Pink
Sexual Chocolate
Pelvic Elbow
Berry Jackoffkowski
She's So Fat
St. Jockofgrapes
Free Gift
Nope!
Jack Vulva
"e" <0@john@14-6.info>
-1
0
BoliviaMan
Cleaver
dirt clod
Ed
Liver Jack Brotheranapes" <jo_231lj@pigsville.com>
oldwetdog@john-14-6.com
Peppy
PHAP
pumparrotworld
Puppetworld
U Liken It Yet!
Wet Spot
Joy Oink
Dead Liver Oinkinapes
Larey Jockokisski
Feather Kiss *****
--
St. Jackanapes ~ Bearer of The One True Liver ~
Ordained Minister & Holy Saint of The Universal Life Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSITE: http://www.jackanapes.ws | FORUM: http://www.voy.com/20630
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SAY GOODBYE TO JERRY FALLWELL: http://www.jackanapes.ws/jerry.html
"Thou hast the keys of Paradise, oh just, subtle, and mighty opium!"
-Thomas De Quincey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
18 May 2007 07:50:09 PM |
|
|
On 18 May 2007 14:43:28 -0700, Andres64 <andresc64@excite.com> wrote:
On May 18, 5:38 pm, "Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
...snip of Hyatt's pointless stupidity...
Look moron, we don't believe in your fairy tale. Quoting from the
book from which is is taken is pointless. Should I quote from the
Vedas? Now if you have verifiable evidence, please present it.
Otherwise *****-off.
She's fucked up - isn't that the same?
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Jackanapes" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
18 May 2007 11:08:11 PM |
|
|
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Al Klein said...
On 18 May 2007 14:43:28 -0700, Andres64 <andresc64@excite.com> wrote:
On May 18, 5:38 pm, "Tracii Guns Hyatt" <traciig_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
...snip of Hyatt's pointless stupidity...
Look moron, we don't believe in your fairy tale. Quoting from the
book from which is is taken is pointless. Should I quote from the
Vedas? Now if you have verifiable evidence, please present it.
Otherwise *****-off.
She's fucked up - isn't that the same?
Tracii is a man named John Loiodice, a Christian troll that we've all
kill-filed months ago. He rarely responds to these religious postings,
so neither should you. It encourages him. Here's some of his names:
Melchizedek
In The Pink
Sexual Chocolate
Pelvic Elbow
Berry Jackoffkowski
She's So Fat
St. Jockofgrapes
Free Gift
Nope!
Jack Vulva
"e" <0@john@14-6.info>
-1
0
BoliviaMan
Cleaver
dirt clod
Ed
Liver Jack Brotheranapes" <jo_231lj@pigsville.com>
oldwetdog@john-14-6.com
Peppy
PHAP
pumparrotworld
Puppetworld
U Liken It Yet!
Wet Spot
Joy Oink
Dead Liver Oinkinapes
Larey Jockokisski
Feather Kiss *****
Tracii Hyatt
--
St. Jackanapes ~ Bearer of The One True Liver ~
Ordained Minister & Holy Saint of The Universal Life Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSITE: http://www.jackanapes.ws | FORUM: http://www.voy.com/20630
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SAY GOODBYE TO JERRY FALLWELL: http://www.jackanapes.ws/jerry.html
"Thou hast the keys of Paradise, oh just, subtle, and mighty opium!"
-Thomas De Quincey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE |
19 May 2007 09:23:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:26:08 -0400, Joy Oink wrote:
And as 'irritating' as it may be, his theory of
General Relativity stands today as one of the strongest lines of evidence
for a theistic God.
No it doesn't.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
