mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) (09/18/86)
[Given the unstable nature of net.reality these days, I've cross-posted to talk.religion.misc too. Apologies to all Easily Offended Followers of the Towel of Turneep, Et Al. :-)] > [On Prayer and Saints] >> See John 16:23-27, esp. v.23 (along the the lines of 'if you ask the Father >> for anything he will give it to you in my name' (Jesus speaking)), and also >> the text of the Lords Prayer, which I take to be a template for our prayers. > > Obviously one point of difference, since I would say an example rather than a > template. I think we are saying the same thing. It is not a limiting thing, but is the basic form you ought to observe. What you say in a specific prayer depends on a lot of other things. As an example/template though, this is the way to go with prayer. >[...] Now, I stand open to correction on these points, and welcome it, but >it also seems to me that the ``Our Father'' is also a short and simple prayer, > free of grandeloquence, without long litanies, and that Jesus was talking about > people who make a big display of their prayers when he gave us this prayer. > (I'm also open to correction on this point; I'm at work and have not got a > NT handy) I don't know the text of the "Our Father" prayer (not the same as what Protestants call The Lord's Prayer, is it?), but I believe the passage you are talking about is in Mark (6:6 I think). Interestingly enough, this is another place where he explicitly talks about praying to the Father ("when you pray to your Father who is in secret, pray also in secret" or something like that, from the NAS translation and my memory :-). >> Jesus explicitly says to pray to God the Father. He (Jesus) never said that we >> should pray *to* him, only to the Father in his name. The Holy Spirit is >> supposed to be a companion and a comforter, but not one to whom one prays. > > I understand your point on a rational level; on the other hand if Creator, > Redeemer, and Spirit are one and coequal, it seems an overnice point that > we may/should pray to God as Father but not as Holy Spirit, especially since > Jesus emphasized His oneness with the Father. Now this is an interesting point. The idea and doctrine of the Trinity is found nowhere in the Bible. I am not sure, but I believe it evolved from one of the Bishop's Councils 'round about 300-500 A.D.. I also think that the idea of the Trinity that some people accept (one God, one being, three different manifestations) is mistaken. The verses where Jesus talks about himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit make it clear (to me) that we have here three separate beings (call them one God if you wish; I think at this level it is little more than word play) who jointly participate as God, joined in purpose but with different emphases. I know this is almost heresy for many Christians (my mother, for example), and yet I believe the N.T. bears me out. Certainly the references to the nature of God in the Gospel of John, during the stoning of Stephen, during John's Apocalyptic revelation, and in Jesus' own speech are open to interpretation at the very least. Given that I believe that God the Father is a separate being from Jesus (the Son) and the Holy Spirit (the Comforter), it is not difficult to see why I believe that Jesus is being quite specific in his statements about praying to the Father ass opposed to anyone else. > from Mole End Mark Terribile -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (09/21/86)
>>>Jesus explicitly says to pray to God the Father. He (Jesus) never said >>>that we should pray *to* him, only to the Father in his name. The Holy >>>Spirit is supposed to be a companion and a comforter, but not one to >>>whom one prays. >>I understand your point on a rational level; on the other hand if Creator, >>Redeemer, and Spirit are one and coequal, it seems an overnice point that >>we may/should pray to God as Father but not as Holy Spirit, especially since >>Jesus emphasized His oneness with the Father. In article <7653@tekecs.UUCP> mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) writes: >.. . . . .... . . .... .. . I also think that the >idea of the Trinity that some people accept (one God, one being, three >different manifestations) is mistaken. >.. . . ..... .. .... The verses where Jesus talks about >himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit make it clear (to me) that we have >here three separate beings (call them one God if you wish; I think at this >level it is little more than word play) who jointly participate as God, joined >in purpose but with different emphases. The problem with understanding how three can be one is that science has not yet found the cosmology to explain it. GOD (The Father) exists only in one dimensional space and he fills it infinitely. Angels (and our souls) exist in two dimensional space and occupy a space of area. By our own senses our physical bodies exist here in three dimensional space. Now GOD can extend HIMSELF into the second and third dimensional space, while still maintaining HIS EXISTENCE in One Space. To extend in this way HE actually takes on substance in those two other domains. That substance in our space is matter and in two space is hypermatter. But as much as we are one being which includes a hypermatter soul and a matter body GOD too is ONE. This is a GRAND thing for GOD to do since, otherwise, we would be deprived of DIRECT contact with GOD, since we can only respond to substance of our own type. PRAYER is petition or a requesting communication. If I had telepathic powers and could communicate "concepts" directly from my soul to the soul of another, then I would be aware of the others point of view and know that I had "gotten through". But, now that only comes by speaking from my soul through my body and vice versa with another human. My concepts have to be translated or represented by picture mosaics of "words". Now the idea may have been encoded and decoded okay and then again maybe not. By analogy consider a stone mosaic of an apple tree with red green brown blue white and black stones making up the scene of leaves, branches, apples, grasses, sky and clouds. The red stones would easily be recognized as "apples". But they are not and eating them could break your teeth. So be careful reading the "mosaics" of the Bible. Look for the "reality" pictured not the picture. When we address each other do we say, "Hey brain of bill, would you please help me with this programming problem?" ? If you "feel" like you need help with some deficit you have and it seems easier to ask mental image Christ, I'm sure the mail will get to the "Center of Power". +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/21/86)
In article <256@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: > > The problem with understanding how three can be one is that science > has not yet found the cosmology to explain it. This is not a problem for science. 3 feet is 1 yard not 3 yards; the only way 3 can "be" 1 is to write 3X = 1Y and note that X != Y where X and Y are different classes (omitting X=Y=0 case). You are just "squaring the circle" when you try to have X=Y != 0. Actually the posting is quite instructive. It is a classic example of the confusion, frequently exhibited by pseudo-scientists, as to what constitutes an "explanation". In this gem, the unexplained is introduced as exotic unsubstantiated assertions and definitions, in order to explain that which is unexplained. > GOD (The Father) > exists only in one dimensional space and he fills it infinitely. -Assertion /Definition > Angels (and our souls) exist in two dimensional space and occupy > a space of area. -Assertion /Definition >... Now GOD can extend HIMSELF into the second and third dimensional space, > while still maintaining HIS EXISTENCE in One Space. -Assertion /Definition > To extend in this way HE actually takes > on substance in those two other domains. -Assertion /Definition > That substance in our space is matter and in two space is hypermatter. -Definition > But as much as we are one being which includes a hypermatter soul and a > matter body GOD too is ONE. -Assertion >... This is a GRAND thing for GOD to do since, > otherwise, we would be deprived of DIRECT contact with GOD, since > we can only respond to substance of our own type. -Assertion Introducing 7 unexplained assertions/definitions to explain away your pet irrationalities, that you don't understand, just doesn't cut it. Padraig Houlahan.
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (09/22/86)
> In article <1270@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >Actually the posting is quite instructive. It is a classic example of >the confusion, frequently exhibited by pseudo-scientists, as to what >constitutes an "explanation". In this gem, the unexplained is introduced >as exotic unsubstantiated assertions and definitions, in order to explain >that which is unexplained. Padraig H. repeats seven definitions (see below) given in an innovative hypothesis which extends cosmology to include a place for "spiritural beings" including GOD, and even the somewhat baffling problem of the Trinity. NOTE: tri + unity. What was particularly upsetting to Houlahan was the number of new definitions and that no "explanation" was given. The reason for that was that this hypothesis grew out of problems in physics and cosmology and not religion, so it's not exactly appropriate for this news group. Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look around for "strange things" to put in these strange places. The generalized physics of the substances can be interpolated from ordinary physics and calculus. The stuff of one space is infinitely dense while the stuff of our space and two space is not. Also only one object can exist in one space. That's for two reasons: There are no gradients or "edges"; and since there is no existing lesser dimension, it can't be cut or "divided" into segments like lines in two space can. Consequently, only a single entity can occupy one dimensional space. Incidentally, zero dimension is a trivial or null space (lines are able to be cut in two space because lines can "intersect"). Then too we can estimate the "time" characteristics of this substance. This is "interpolation" from the time characteristics of ordinary matter, but it seems not at all unreasonable. That is that since the matter has "infinite density" time passes at a "zero" rate. OR as I explained else where, it means that the "real present time" expands in width infinitely into both the future and the past. That means the substance exists simultaneously at all times. That's not the case for our matter (less then 10^-24seconds). Note that I didn't develop any reason for the "infinite density of matter" in that space, but I can do that another time. Think that it takes energy to compress a "coil spring" or an elastic ball. Now think of the how much energy it would take to compress all of the nucleii (little powerful elastic balls) into an line of infintismal volume. Anyway, the problem I was trying to solve had nothing to do with "where's GOD or what's the Trinity", it had to do with the source for the "energy /information" of the big bang. And, it looks like it came from a decay of a chunk of "two space" NOT GOD. Well sort of NOT... it's that old trickle down theory, since 2 space and hypermatter "spilled forth" from 1-space, it all can be traced backed to GOD the Ultimate source. Then too since time is quantized, information frames are refreshed at enormous rates, so that the Creator has his finger on things always. Another "religous" result is that there has to have been at least two creations. Try to find that in the Bible! On the science side, there are some really new, predictable and "measurable" things that fall out like the magnetic field densities on rapidly spinning and precessing neutron stars, that "multinegative nucleii" (Helium and heavier) are unstable and can NOT exist, and a few other nifty little goodies. So what if it's spooky that substance can be interpolated in both spaces and that the one space substance looks DIVINE. These SEVEN definitions could be generlized to a couple of simple statements. Do you want to try if for us Houlihan. (Skip the followin > and >> stuff) >In article <256@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >> GOD (The Father) >> exists only in one dimensional space and he fills it infinitely. > -Assertion /Definition >> Angels (and our souls) exist in two dimensional space and occupy >> a space of area. > > -Assertion /Definition > >>... Now GOD can extend HIMSELF into the second and third dimensional space, >> while still maintaining HIS EXISTENCE in One Space. > > -Assertion /Definition > >> To extend in this way HE actually takes >> on substance in those two other domains. > > -Assertion /Definition > >> That substance in our space is matter and in two space is hypermatter. > > -Definition > >> But as much as we are one being which includes a hypermatter soul and a >> matter body GOD too is ONE. > > -Assertion > >>... This is a GRAND thing for GOD to do since, >> otherwise, we would be deprived of DIRECT contact with GOD, since >> we can only respond to substance of our own type. > > -Assertion > >Introducing 7 unexplained assertions/definitions to explain away your >pet irrationalities, that you don't understand, just doesn't cut it. Apparently, our position, being at the center of the universe is being threatened again. "Oh dear, I thought the two lesser spaces were empty." "Shucks, Come to think of it I never even gave it a thought." +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/22/86)
In article <257@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: > ... > What was particularly upsetting to Houlahan was the number of new > definitions and that no "explanation" was given. The reason for that > was that this hypothesis grew out of problems in physics and cosmology > and not religion, so it's not exactly appropriate for this news group. The criticism is still valid since the sciences physics and cosmology - in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum. > Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look > around for "strange things" to put in these strange places. The generalized > physics of the substances can be interpolated from ordinary physics and > calculus. I'll bet. > ... The stuff of one space is infinitely dense while the stuff of > our space and two space is not. Also only one object can exist in one > space. That's for two reasons: There are no gradients or "edges"; and > since there is no existing lesser dimension, it can't be cut or "divided" > into segments like lines in two space can. Consequently, only a single > entity can occupy one dimensional space. Incidentally, zero dimension is > a trivial or null space (lines are able to be cut in two space because > lines can "intersect"). This is garbage for the following reasons: - You are confusing mathematical constructs - lines, surfaces, volumes- which are used to MODEL the physical world, with the physical world. - Mathematically, a line perhaps may be treated as being infinitely thin, however in physics no substance is known to be infinitely thin. Physicists are limited in their ability to resolve detail by the famous Uncertainty Principle. The nearest physical construct you could construct would be to refer to a line of particles, however there are no infinitely small particles that I'm aware of. - A 1-dimensional system can have gradients along it. - A 1-dimensional system can have edges i.e. {x| 0.0 <= x <= 1.0} has edges at 0.0 and 1.0. - A 1-dimensional system can be cut and divided ie the previous set can be partitioned into {x | 0.0 <= x <= 0.5} and {x| 0.5 < x <= 1.0}. - "can" and "might" are not the same. Even if we were to go off the deep end and go along with you, why SHOULD an "entity" exist there? But since a line can be partitioned ad infinitum, your "logic" now allows for an infinite number of "entities". - Even if you don't like the previous objection you are not off the hook. There are an infinite number of n-spaces that can fit into an m-space if m > n (ignoring partions for the present). This still permits an infinite number of your infinite density entities to exist. To some extent I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I am assuming that you understand that lines are 1-dim objects, points have zero dim. etc. in spite of the fact that there is evidence that you are confused even at this level. If this is the case I won't press the edge/gradient/partition objections above. > Then too we can estimate the "time" characteristics of this substance. > This is "interpolation" from the time characteristics of ordinary matter, > but it seems not at all unreasonable. That is that since the matter has > "infinite density" time passes at a "zero" rate. How did you "interpolate" this result from "time characteristics of ordinary matter"? What are the "time characteristics of ordinary matter"? >...OR as I explained else > where, it means that the "real present time" expands in width infinitely > into both the future and the past. Really? Can you give us an example of "artifical present time"? Or of time that doesn't "expand in width"? > Anyway, the problem I was trying to solve had nothing to do with "where's > GOD or what's the Trinity", it had to do with the source for the "energy > /information" of the big bang. And, it looks like it came from a decay of > a chunk of "two space" NOT GOD. Well sort of NOT... it's that old trickle > down theory, since 2 space and hypermatter "spilled forth" from 1-space, it > all can be traced backed to GOD the Ultimate source. Then too since time > is quantized, information frames are refreshed at enormous rates, so that > the Creator has his finger on things always. Another "religous" result is > that there has to have been at least two creations. Try to find that in > the Bible! > > On the science side, there are some really new, predictable and "measurable" > things that fall out like the magnetic field densities on rapidly spinning > and precessing neutron stars, that "multinegative nucleii" (Helium and > heavier) are unstable and can NOT exist, and a few other nifty little > goodies. As a result of your "cosmology" or that which astronomers and physicists dabble in? > So what if it's spooky that substance can be interpolated in both spaces > and that the one space substance looks DIVINE. > > These SEVEN definitions could be generlized to a couple of simple statements. > Do you want to try if for us Houlihan. I don't have to try and make sense of someone else's garbage. > "Oh dear, I thought the two lesser spaces were empty." > "Shucks, Come to think of it > I never even gave it a thought." You can say that again. Padraig Houlahan.
sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm) (09/24/86)
Expires: Sender: In article <257@prometheus.UUCP>, in defense of a set of assertions and definitions which he gave to try to justify God, the Trinity and ???, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >What was particularly upsetting to Houlahan was the number of new >definitions and that no "explanation" was given. The reason for that >was that this hypothesis grew out of problems in physics and cosmology >and not religion, so it's not exactly appropriate for this news group. > >Once the cosmology was "invented", however, it was interesting to look >around for "strange things" to put in these strange places. I *think* what you're saying is that one-space, two-space, three-space and the Big Bang come from scientific hypotheses, and you then tried to hang God, the Trinity, Angels and Man onto it. This doesn't address Praig's criticism. What you in fact are doing is dreaming up a cosmology that would like to tie God and the Big Bang theory together. What it appears that you are doing is taking the scientific hypothese of the Big Bang and deriving God, the Trinity, Angels and Man. Which do *you* think you're trying to do? Mr. Koloc proceeds with additional pseudo-scientific hand-waving, and ends with: >Anyway, the problem I was trying to solve had nothing to do with "where's >GOD or what's the Trinity", it had to do with the source for the "energy >/information" of the big bang. And, it looks like it came from a decay of >a chunk of "two space" NOT GOD. Well sort of NOT... and >So what if it's spooky that substance can be interpolated in both spaces >and that the one space substance looks DIVINE. The Big Bang theory indeed cannot explain what events preceded it. If you take the Big Bang theory to be true, you can try to explain what caused it by inventing a "god" and saying that "god started it". If you do this, you have *defined* "god" to mean "that which caused the Big Bang." If you then want to extrapolate Souls, Angels, and the Trinity from this god, well good luck. You're not going to do it by appealing to physics. Since "god" generally refers to a supernatural being, I'd caution against trying to tie god to the Big Bang (a (theoretically) natural phenomenon). Better to say "some unknown natural phenomenon caused the Big Bang" and leave it at that. -- Steve Nahm UUCP route: {amd|cae780}!ubvax!sxnahm sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP Internet address: amd!ubvax!sxnahm@decwrl.DEC.COM