Re: the Theology of Pastor Frank

From: Pastor Frank (PF_at_christfirst.com)
Date: 01/14/05 

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:03:14 +0800

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:OuiFd.116370$K7.37900@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> news:1105539627.6003c4d271ab1d74b4f45ddfddae4158@teranews...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:n6NEd.114071$K7.84098@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > "DZ" <insert@emailhere.com> wrote in message
> > > news:5hLEd.239$w_3.3938@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > > >
> > > > I'm no scientist nor purport to be an egghead in any manner, but
isn't
> > it
> > > > true that 1,500 years ago, humans thought that the Earth was the
> centre
> > of
> > > > the universe? When someone came up with the theory that we were just
> > > another
> > > > body floating in space, I'm sure the majority laughed and ridiculed
> him.
> > > > Turns out he was right...
> > > > And then around 500 years ago, didn't people believe the Earth was a
> > flat
> > > > plane? When someone came up with the theory that the planet was
indeed
> a
> > > > sphere, I'm sure the majority laughed and ridiculed him. Turns out
he
> > was
> > > > right?
> > > >
> > I don't know the entire earth being a flat plane. We all can see
> > mountains and vallies. My world isn't flat but concave, for I live in a
> > valley. But I believe the world for others can be flat or even convex
> > because I have seen it.
> > On the other hand I havn't been away far enough from this earth to
see
> > it being ball shaped. Have you?
>
> I have not opened your skull to see if you have a brain. However from the
> evidence of this post I suspect you have none. But I guess we will never
> know until we actually open you up will we? You maliciously posted to a
lot
> of newsgroups (which over the years I have found is a typical crank
> tactic) - I post out of sci.physics.relativity a science forum. So let us
> see what an actual scientist has to say when explaining to a school child
> what should be obvious (I am not one - simply a guy interested in
science) -
> http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99427.htm
> 'In fact, science does not work by conclusively and indisputably refuting
> bad hypotheses. Instead, hypotheses stand or fail on their ability to
> explain known observations, and to predict the outcome of observations
that
> haven't been performed yet. Let's take the flat earth versus round earth
> hypotheses as an example. A round earth is the most stable shape
according
> to gravitational theory; a flat earth would tend to collapse toward the
> center, and people standing near the edges would feel a gravitational pull
> toward the center of the flat surface instead of perpendicular to the
> surface. Your teacher could counter that gravitational theory is wrong;
> magic holds us to the earth. This may be true, but it doesn't explain why
> gravitational theory works so well at explaining how things fall, and the
> observed trajectories of the planets and their moons. You could tell your
> teacher that photographs of the earth from space show that it is round,
just
> like the globe model in your classroom. He could counter that those
> photographs are government fakes. Perhaps so, but we can see that other
> planets and moons are round; wouldn't it make more sense to say that the
> earth is round, too? Your teacher could say that the earth is special and
> different. You could ask how numerous people have sailed or flown around
> the earth if the earth is flat. He would have to say that every one of
> these people, separated as they are in time and space, belongs to the same
> great conspiracy aimed at brainwashing us into supposing that the earth is
> round. You could ask him about the communications networks that are
linked
> by satellite - how can you have satellites orbiting a flat earth? He
might
> then tell you that there really aren't any satellite links - everything is
> connected by wires, or a close-packed array of relay antennas. We could go
> on and on, and I bet that in your classroom you HAVE gone on and on. As
you
> see, there is no single fact you could tell your teacher that he couldn't
> dispute in some way. If you step back and look at it, though,what kind of
> world would it have to be if your teacher were right? Gravity doesn't
> function here like it does everywhere else in the solar system, there's a
> huge conspiracy reaching across hundreds of years to convince us (for no
> apparent reason) that the earth is round instead of flat, the progression
of
> the seasons, and even of day and night, are controlled by the gods.
> Eventually, a reasonable person would have to concede that it would make a
> lot more sense to agree that the earth is indeed round. There are some
other
> theories to explain things that do not meet this test of scientific
> reasonableness, yet are still put forth and defended by many people in
> society. This example of the flat earth hypothesis lets you see how
> difficult it is to change someone's mind when they're set on some strange
or
> unrealistic theory. It also lets you see that just if a theory "can't be
> disproven" doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct, or that it should
be
> taken seriously for very long.'
>
> > To believe that the earth was round, I
> > would have to believe someone. Should I be like you giving credence to
> those
> > calling themselves scientists, but not to ministers of a faith? Wouldn't
> > that be hypocritical and bigoted?
>
> Typical crank rubbish. First science is not based on faith (examined
> carefully it has a kind faith - a belief experiments are repeatable etc -
> but that is more or less what is required to actually carry out the
> scientific method). It is religion that is based on faith. Since it is
> obvious you are religiously motivated and sci.physics.relativity is a
> physics forum let us see what an actual physicist has got to say about
God -
> http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/godless.html
> 'Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in a God who is the creator of the
> universe, the architect of its structure, and the author of the laws of
> physics. The laws of physics are elements of theoretical models that
> physicists develop to describe observations. The global laws can be seen
to
> follow from the requirement that our theoretical model be independent of
any
> particular point of view. They correspond to the symmetries of a
> structureless void. Complex structure in the universe can be understood to
> follow from spontaneous (random) broken symmetries. "Nothing" is unstable;
> we expect something rather than nothing. The laws of physics look just as
> they can be expected to look if there is no God. We conclude beyond a
> reasonable doubt that a God who is the creator of the universe, the
> architect of its structure, and the author of the laws of physics does not
> exist.'
> But such is doing those of genuine religious sensibility a disservice.
They
> can actually reconcile their religious beliefs with science rather than
> resort to irrational tripe. It is the more difficult course but a much
more
> reasonable one.
> Rest of religious rant mercifully snipped.
>
    You did a good job concerning science, but a lousy job in regards to
religion. My attempt above was to show, that most people's beliefs are a
matter of having to take someone's word for it. Few people go through the
pain of actually analyzing the available data logically the way you did,
they would rather just believe what others tell them.
    Religion is simplistic in dealing with science because it's main
objective is not to explain scientific facts, but to establish consensus on
what is good and what is evil, and to motivate people to pursue the good.
Science doesn't deal with qualities and so sometimes society thinks it's
"good" to kill people to acquire property, and other times it is "evil".
    Jesus came to make love and care the standard by which good and evil is
to be measured. Killing is seldom an act of love, especially to acquire
property, and therefore were we to follow Jesus consequentially, waging war
would be impossible. However though we all agree, that war is hell and
should be abolished, we keep justifying war, with often the most flimsy
excuses, and people will follow. If we had strong Christian leadership
people would not follow and decision-makers would have a hard time
inflicting violence upon others. See below

Pastor Frank

                LOVE
    Jesus in Jn:13:34: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
    Jesus in Jn:13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples,
if ye have love one to another.
    Jesus in Jn:15:12-13: This is my commandment: That ye love one another,
as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends.
    Jesus in John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command...
    Jesus in John 14:21-24 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the
one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will
love him and show myself to him." He who does not love me will not obey my
teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who
sent me."
    Jesus in Mt:7:21-23: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy
name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never
knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Semi Plausible FTL
    ... distorted view of physics due to living at the bottom of a deep gravity ... a flat Earth is a reasonable hypothesis if you never ... Why does he think the Earth is a large ... And chemical bonds are very weak, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: the Theology of Pastor Frank
    ... Let's take the flat earth versus round ... It is religion that is based on faith. ... >> physics forum let us see what an actual physicist has got to say about ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Commentary: Bush and Darwin
    ... you teach them that the earth is round? ... Flat or round?" ... > It is obviously absurd to argue that children should be taught both ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another transitional fossil found.
    ... same time believed that the earth is flat, ... even if it doesn't say "flat" outright. ... want to cover a round earth, so that the tent will cover "everything ... interpretation as unreasonable, and I think it should be ignored. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Another transitional fossil found.
    ... same time believed that the earth is flat, ... even if it doesn't say "flat" outright. ... The metaphor of a tent on flat ground, besides matching normal tents, ... want to cover a round earth, so that the tent will cover "everything ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading