Do you know the truth about hell?

[RJM]

Ah! So if I can't prove a negative, it must exist because you say so? Do we dare venture into Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Invisible Pink Unicorns?

You do not demonstrate that things exist outside of human understanding, rather, you demonstrate human understanding often falls short in comprehending reality. I have noted this on multiple occasions here, most often in the evolution arguments.

Black holes were "only" theory not so long ago, and Einstein wasn't even comfortable with the implications. An astronomer came along (Hubble? or someone else, I don't recall offhand) that was able to demonstrate ("find") what Einstein's theory suggested may exist, thereby proving his theory. It had already been proven with the demonstration of gravity bending light, but having another piece of the puzzle shown was icing on the cake. But this is all comparatively recent, and the average person on the street could give a darn, and wouldn't comprehend if you tried to explain...

And even after all of that, "we" (mostly Einstein) still can't explain *what* gravity is! Gravity existed in the stone age, gravity exists now. Can you explain gravity? Tell me please...what *exactly* is gravity? Is it a wave? Is it a particle? Does every subatomic piece of matter suck?



Ah, the crux of the matter.

Seems to me the truth conveyed by Jesus is conveyed by all of the major world faiths. The truth conveyed by Jesus consists of "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" and "love G-d with all your heart, mind, soul and strength." Are these truths not taught in many other faiths as well? So, "better way" is a term relative to where one was born, I would say. Particularly since G-d made all of humanity, and it was VERY good.

Einstein showed that gravity is the warping of the space/time fabric by matter: the greater the mass of matter, the greater the warping. Gravitons/gravity waves have been recently detected. They are unusual in that gravity is insrantaneous -- not limited to light-speed, being an effect of the warping, not an electromagnetic force.

A wave -- like a wave on water -- is the combined movement of particles. The up-and-down oscillation of the particles causes a forward wave movement. Something like that? A lot of work on black holes was/is done by Prof Steven Hawkins.

NOTE: Christ taught: first love God, then love your neighbour -- in that order? The order matters?

 

[juantoo3]

Einstein showed that gravity is the warping of the space/time fabric by matter: the greater the mass of matter, the greater the warping. Gravitons/gravity waves have been recently detected. They are unusual in that gravity is insrantaneous -- not limited to light-speed, being an effect of the warping, not an electromagnetic force.

A wave -- like a wave on water -- is the combined movement of particles. The up-and-down oscillation of the particles causes a forward wave movement. Something like that? A lot of work on black holes was/is done by Prof Steven Hawkins.

Einstein showed the *effect* of gravity, but was unable to isolate it to its component nature. Last I heard, gravitons were one of the educated guesses floating around but to my knowledge had not yet been demonstrated, so if what you say is true then there has been a momentous discovery that has slipped under my radar. That it is unrelated to electro-magnetism is long understood. If I recall, the 4 components of sub-atomic architecture are electricity/electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity. There is some discussion over whether the strong and weak forces may be two sides of the same coin, but overall electricity, strong and weak forces have been synthesized under laboratory conditions. Not so for gravity. Last I heard (its been a few years, around 5) gravity still evades synthetic manufacture. Gravity is the grail, if humans can harness gravity, it would open up vast new industries, particularly in transportation and space flight.

And yes, Dr. Hawking has done a great deal of work regarding black holes. The argument between particles and waves began with Einstein's study of light. How does the light of a far distant star reach us if light is a particle? No matter how huge the star is, if it is far enough away the earth should at certain points fall between the cracks of emanating particles...unless the particles got progressively larger as they travelled, which according to entropy is not possible. The explanation is that these particles behave as waves, and this delves into quantum theory. Interesting (to me anyway) is that Einstein opened the door for quantum mechanics for guys like Heisenberg and Schroedinger, and then became a fierce critic of the field in his later years. A great deal of the math that comes from quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive, and much has yet to be demonstrated, but a great deal of it has been shown to be correct with supporting evidence in large part provided by the various super-colliders. (Using the Swiss Watch method....smash it and see what falls out. )

NOTE: Christ taught: first love God, then love your neighbour -- in that order? The order matters?

I suppose the order may concern some persons. To me, these two are equally important.

 

[juantoo3]

Is the odds of a child entering an abusive home so low, or the nature of the abuse so light, that it should be secondary?
I do disagree with you and I'm a much bigger fan of red tape than you, but I'm not making light of you statements. I'm honestly really surprised!

The difficulty is the threshold being set so low, and the agency being granted powers and immunity that set it above the law, that every parent, *any* parent, can conceivably be guilty of child abuse simply by accusation alone. Parents are hamstrung, a generation has already been raised with little to no discipline and the attitudes that are beginning to pervade society show the adverse effect of this. A man cannot change the diaper of his own child without risking being hauled into court and being publicly defamed and his children taken away and being labeled a child molester...simply because some nosey social worker asks "does daddy touch you there?" and the child innocently saying "yes." I do not disregard your concern over genuine child abuse, but genuine child abuse is just as likely, and statistically more likely in some cases, to come about directly by the system that ostensibly is supposed to protect children. In point of fact, the only thing child protective services actually protects is their workers' fannies. Only a couple years ago a case was uncovered here, where a child in protective custody died by abuse, and the worker who never made an appearance to check on her as they were supposed to yet documented such visits (falsely as it turned out), the child was dead for almost a year before anyone in the service realized it, yet the worker had documented regular visits...even after the little girl died. Rightly, that worker lost their job. But the system protected that person up to that point, it was only after it was undeniably shown negligence on the part of the worker that anything was done! How does this help the child?

I'm sorry, but CPS gets no sympathy from me. I agree with their stated goal, I disagree vehemently with their tactics, their "above the law" position and resulting attitude, they should be held every bit as accountable to the law and to the persons in their care as any other citizen with no special exceptions or provisions. Period.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

The difficulty is the threshold being set so low, and the agency being granted powers and immunity that set it above the law, that every parent, *any* parent, can conceivably be guilty of child abuse simply by accusation alone. Parents are hamstrung, a generation has already been raised with little to no discipline and the attitudes that are beginning to pervade society show the adverse effect of this. A man cannot change the diaper of his own child without risking being hauled into court and being publicly defamed and his children taken away and being labeled a child molester...simply because some nosey social worker asks "does daddy touch you there?" and the child innocently saying "yes." I do not disregard your concern over genuine child abuse, but genuine child abuse is just as likely, and statistically more likely in some cases, to come about directly by the system that ostensibly is supposed to protect children. In point of fact, the only thing child protective services actually protects is their workers' fannies. Only a couple years ago a case was uncovered here, where a child in protective custody died by abuse, and the worker who never made an appearance to check on her as they were supposed to yet documented such visits (falsely as it turned out), the child was dead for almost a year before anyone in the service realized it, yet the worker had documented regular visits...even after the little girl died. Rightly, that worker lost their job. But the system protected that person up to that point, it was only after it was undeniably shown negligence on the part of the worker that anything was done! How does this help the child?

Your position is so one-sided and I think you are exaggerating your every point and I disagree with your conclusions. But there's no debate to be had here, right?

 

[wil]

Try the discussion on our indigenous population...living in a home without running water or electricity is reason enough to remove the kids..

You know, living the way they always had, as we forced them to when we didn't want them in our society

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Try the discussion on our indigenous population...living in a home without running water or electricity is reason enough to remove the kids..

You know, living the way they always had, as we forced them to when we didn't want them in our society

Are you saying a system set up for the protection of children can be abused because of cultural bias and ignorance? Yes I agree with that.

 

[wil]

Are you saying a system set up for the protection of children can be abused because of cultural bias and ignorance? Yes I agree with that.

We talk here about the govt sponsored stealing of aboriginals in Australia as wrong....and we are still.doing it.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

We talk here about the govt sponsored stealing of aboriginals in Australia as wrong....and we are still.doing it.

I don't know if you are responding to anything specific I've said, if you're disagreeing or informing me of something I don't know.

 

[RJM]

Einstein showed the *effect* of gravity, but was unable to isolate it to its component nature. Last I heard, gravitons were one of the educated guesses floating around but to my knowledge had not yet been demonstrated, so if what you say is true then there has been a momentous discovery that has slipped under my radar. That it is unrelated to electro-magnetism is long understood. If I recall, the 4 components of sub-atomic architecture are electricity/electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity. There is some discussion over whether the strong and weak forces may be two sides of the same coin, but overall electricity, strong and weak forces have been synthesized under laboratory conditions. Not so for gravity. Last I heard (its been a few years, around 5) gravity still evades synthetic manufacture. Gravity is the grail, if humans can harness gravity, it would open up vast new industries, particularly in transportation and space flight.

And yes, Dr. Hawking has done a great deal of work regarding black holes. The argument between particles and waves began with Einstein's study of light. How does the light of a far distant star reach us if light is a particle? No matter how huge the star is, if it is far enough away the earth should at certain points fall between the cracks of emanating particles...unless the particles got progressively larger as they travelled, which according to entropy is not possible. The explanation is that these particles behave as waves, and this delves into quantum theory. Interesting (to me anyway) is that Einstein opened the door for quantum mechanics for guys like Heisenberg and Schroedinger, and then became a fierce critic of the field in his later years. A great deal of the math that comes from quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive, and much has yet to be demonstrated, but a great deal of it has been shown to be correct with supporting evidence in large part provided by the various super-colliders. (Using the Swiss Watch method....smash it and see what falls out. )

Yup. You missed it ...

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211

Einstein was always quite clear that gravity was the warping of spacetime by matter. Like a cannonball on a trampoline, causing the rubber to stretch downward to create a 'well' that draws a rolling marble down into it. But in 4 dimensions, sort of, I believe?

But yes, there it is: detection of gravity waves Feb 2016 ...

 

[juantoo3]

Yup. You missed it ...

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211

Einstein was always quite clear that gravity was the warping of spacetime by matter. Like a cannonball on a trampoline, causing the rubber to stretch downward to create a 'well' that draws a rolling marble down into it. But in 4 dimensions, sort of, I believe?

But yes, there it is: detection of gravity waves Feb 2016 ...

Yes, that is an awesome article...and it demonstrates gravity *behaves* as a wave, but still doesn't show what gravity *is.* That part is still a mystery, or so it appears.

Somewhat amusing to me....they've finally pulled the "God Particle" out of the Super Collider, but they haven't pulled the gravity particle out yet.

 

[RJM]

Yes, that is an awesome article...and it demonstrates gravity *behaves* as a wave, but still doesn't show what gravity *is.* That part is still a mystery, or so it appears.

Somewhat amusing to me....they've finally pulled the "God Particle" out of the Super Collider, but they haven't pulled the gravity particle out yet.

Sure. I don't pretend to understand more than the basic basics. A wave is the result of particles oscillating. The particles just move up and down. For instance, the water molecules that reach the beach haven't travelled all the way from where the wave began. The molecules themselves aren't travelling forward with the wave. But a wave can be used to propel something else: like a surfer. My knowledge is quite thin.

 

[wil]

Where is radarmark?

 

[RJM]

Yes, that is an awesome article...and it demonstrates gravity *behaves* as a wave, but still doesn't show what gravity *is.* That part is still a mystery, or so it appears.

Somewhat amusing to me....they've finally pulled the "God Particle" out of the Super Collider, but they haven't pulled the gravity particle out yet.

Gravity needs a large mass because it's a very weak force. You can pick a pin up from a table with a magnet, against the gravitational pull of the whole planet, because magnetism is much stronger. It's the weakness of the force that makes it so hard to detect. And yet it is the force that holds the planets in their places. There's no possibility of a super collider ever bring powerful enough to detect gravitons.

So Christ was stating the law of the universe when he said: To him who has much, more shall be given; and to him who has little, even that little shall be taken away.

 

[RJM]

Where is radarmark?

?

 

[RJM]

Perhaps gravity defines Nature: it is the force that permeates Nature yet operates from outside and beyond Nature -- that binds light, time and space together. It is the force that holds all material things to earth, and which draws downward, to fires of hell in the earth's centre? It works across dimensions: dark matter can only be observed by its gravity, etc.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

?

radarmark was a poster from a while ago and also a physicist, I was a big fan of him.

 

[spockrates]

Just throwing this thought out there if anyone is interested in responding: It seems to me a life after death that is either hell or heaven and no other alternative is contrary to what I believe the moral character of God must be.

 

[RJM]

Just throwing this thought out there if anyone is interested in responding: It seems to me a life after death that is either hell or heaven and no other alternative is contrary to what I believe the moral character of God must be.

I know, morals aside, it's just too incredibly simplistic. As above, so below: an infinite diversity of states and conditions? Whatever one believes God might be, it's probably not possible to simplify heaven and hell.

It's probably lazy thinking, imo. Like: my book tells me this is what I must believe -- fine, no problem -- it's all fixed, no need to think or ask questions. Can God really intend that?

 

[spockrates]

I know, morals aside, it's just too incredibly simplistic. As above, so below: an infinite diversity of states and conditions? Whatever one believes God might be, it's probably not possible to simplify heaven and hell.

It's probably lazy thinking, imo. Like: my book tells me this is what I must believe -- fine, no problem -- it's all fixed, no need to think or ask questions. Can God really intend that?

Agreed. Perhaps it's an oversimplified interpretation of said book? I mean, Jesus' parable of the beggar and the rich man is just that--a parable, which is symbolic. Revelation is also obviously metaphorical. Just thinking out loud.

 

[wil]

So Christ was stating the law of the universe when he said: To him who has much, more shall be given; and to him who has little, even that little shall be taken away.

You do realize how ridiculous these kind of analogies are to most folks don't you? (Both in and out of pews. I've heard preachers try scientizing scripture and congregants roll their eyes