Ted Cruz

wildL SPQR wrote:

The bible is just a series of great stories with good morale(s) and symbolisms, it's not the word of god more than a greentext on reddit is.

I don't use reddit. So I can't say whether God speaks with reddit or not. But I do know that in some Bibles, the quoted words spoken by Jesus are often printed in red type to help people with the distinction of who's speaking in a dialogue.

That aside, how can you say that the Bible has good morals? How could its stories be great? Unless it is truthful from cover to cover, it contains lies. If the Bible has even one lie in it, then how could it be said to be the Word of God? How could anyone put their trust in even just a small portion of the Bible if at least part of it isn't true?

I believe the Bible is wholly true, through and through. I believe it is indeed the Word of God and an actual part of God -- a part of Jesus, Himself. If I believe in Jesus, but not the reason for His coming to earth (to redeem us from sin and death) then what point would my faith have? If Genesis is just a bunch of stories, then there is no basis for that redemption because original sin would be a meaningless concept.

Adam and Eve rebelled against God and ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is a fact that God reveals in Genesis chapter 3. It was penned by Adam himself in one form or another and it represents the first written work in human history having been written by Adam -- though authored by God -- nearly 6000 years ago.

Because of that fact, Jesus necessarily came to us because we as humanity -- were unable to follow the laws that God had since given man. We are wretched and fallen creatures who have been separated from the relationship with God that Adam once had. He was kicked out of Eden and told that he would no longer live forever as a mortal. So God reduced his years from infinite to under a thousand. And, about 1600 years later, the years of humanity would be reduced to about 200 or less years after the flood. Several hundred years after that, mankind was reduced to less than 100 years. There's a valid scientific reason for that fact, but I'm not getting into that right now.

Anyway, without the truth of Adam's sin, there would be no need for Jesus' redemptive plan. Without Jesus's redemptive plan, there's no need for Jesus. Without Jesus, there's no need for the Bible. Thus, if the Bible isn't true in all parts, then it is a pointless book and the so-called "good" moral stories within would be nothing but fables that some odd cultists ritualize with.

No, with the Bible -- like with God -- it's all or nothing. I am a believer through and through. That's why -- for example, when talking about Christ -- I say things like "There is no other name under Heaven by which man must be saved." Because I'm actually paraphrasing the Apostle Peter from Acts 4:12 in the Bible.

I am a Christian. I'm saved by the blood of Christ poured out for me. I believe wholeheartedly. I am a believer -- all for all. I'm in it to win it, so to speak. So I don't pussyfoot around the truth. And, as I said in a prior post, the cross offends. I am truly sorry that it offends you. But regardless of the consequences, I cannot stop preaching and reaching others for the family and Kingdom of God. Even if it means my death through martyrdom.

That's something I both fear and aspire to. I don't want to face the guillotine. But if my death helps even one other soul -- even yours -- come to accept the Lord, then it will have been completely worth it. And even if I never reach another, and I'm still called to account for my faith at my execution, I will stand for the Kingdom of God and give Him the glory by laying down my life for Him just as He laid down His life for me. My life belongs to God, anyway. He purchased it in blood. I am no longer my own, but His. And there is no greater love a man can have for another than to give his life for his friends.

Jesus wants you to be His friend, too.

Diabolical wrote:

wildL SPQR wrote:

"some awesome stuff"

"a very long and boring missionary text about his love for jesus"

TL DR

Pablo22510 wrote:

Carl Wilson wrote:

Evidence that God exists surrounds us! There is almost 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009% chance that the people around you, plants around you, and animals just came into existence. BTW, I misses many more zeros, but would probably be banned for spamming if I added all of them.

Proof?

wildL SPQR wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Carl Wilson wrote:

Evidence that God exists surrounds us! There is almost 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009% chance that the people around you, plants around you, and animals just came into existence. BTW, I misses many more zeros, but would probably be banned for spamming if I added all of them.

Proof?

oh my god, yes this is the proof we have been waiting for! it's so simple!!

Kehsct wrote:

wildL SPQR wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Carl Wilson wrote:

Evidence that God exists surrounds us! There is almost 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009% chance that the people around you, plants around you, and animals just came into existence. BTW, I misses many more zeros, but would probably be banned for spamming if I added all of them.

Proof?

oh my god, yes this is the proof we have been waiting for! it's so simple!!

There is still a chance. Plus, it was through millions of years of evolution. Not just a second. Spontaneous Generation has been disproved since the 1700s.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Kehsct wrote:

wildL SPQR wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Carl Wilson wrote:

Evidence that God exists surrounds us! There is almost 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009% chance that the people around you, plants around you, and animals just came into existence. BTW, I misses many more zeros, but would probably be banned for spamming if I added all of them.

Proof?

oh my god, yes this is the proof we have been waiting for! it's so simple!!

There is still a chance. Plus, it was through millions of years of evolution. Not just a second. Spontaneous Generation has been disproved since the 1700s.

You can't disprove spontaneous generation. It's extremely unlikely, but still possible. The world could have started 5 minutes ago. That is, if time is actually linear.

Kehsct wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Kehsct wrote:

wildL SPQR wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Carl Wilson wrote:

Evidence that God exists surrounds us! There is almost 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009% chance that the people around you, plants around you, and animals just came into existence. BTW, I misses many more zeros, but would probably be banned for spamming if I added all of them.

Proof?

oh my god, yes this is the proof we have been waiting for! it's so simple!!

There is still a chance. Plus, it was through millions of years of evolution. Not just a second. Spontaneous Generation has been disproved since the 1700s.

You can't disprove spontaneous generation. It's extremely unlikely, but still possible. The world could have started 5 minutes ago. That is, if time is actually linear.

Then why does everybody teach that spontaneous generation is fake? A lie made up by in the absence of science.

Last Thursdayism (alternately Last Tuesdayism or Last Wednesdayism) is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under Last Thursdayism, books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and literally everything (including your memories of the time before last Thursday) were all formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state such that they appear much older.

This theory is used by certain creationists to explain how the Earth is only 6000 years old. They claim that the universe was spontaneously created 6000 years ago.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Last Thursdayism (alternately Last Tuesdayism or Last Wednesdayism) is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under Last Thursdayism, books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and literally everything (including your memories of the time before last Thursday) were all formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state such that they appear much older.

This theory is used by certain creationists to explain how the Earth is only 6000 years old. They claim that the universe was spontaneously created 6000 years ago.

I am a Young Earth Creationist. And I've never heard any creationist espouse that. What I teach is that everything indeed was created roughly 6000 years ago. The one exception that you seem to be hinting at is where did the starlight come from?

Well, some creationists try to claim that the stars are all accelerating away from us but were originally very near to us. This is a scientific fallacy, though as the gravitational forces involved would have ripped apart the earth. Before realizing this problem, I considered the idea to be a possibility, though I never really espoused it, myself. So, I try to discourage other Creationists from using this "proof".

The best reason for existing starlight is much simpler in my mind. This spoiler includes basic science from Genesis chapter one.

But here's the part about why starlight reaches us from so far away:

+++ WARNING +++ GEEK PROTECTION REQUIRED +++

+++ PUT ON NERD GLASSES FOR SAFETY +++

The scientific principles that justify this theory are far too complex to include here, but I can point anyone who wants to research this further to some good reading materials that treat this subject with good research and objectivity. Just pm me to learn more.

I hope this isn't too technical. But don't reply with the useless statement of "TLR" ... as I've included the details within a spoiler. If you can't handle a little reading, then don't bother to participate in the discussion. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Diabolical wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Last Thursdayism (alternately Last Tuesdayism or Last Wednesdayism) is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under Last Thursdayism, books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and literally everything (including your memories of the time before last Thursday) were all formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state such that they appear much older.

This theory is used by certain creationists to explain how the Earth is only 6000 years old. They claim that the universe was spontaneously created 6000 years ago.

I am a Young Earth Creationist. And I've never heard any creationist espouse that. What I teach is that everything indeed was created roughly 6000 years ago. The one exception that you seem to be hinting at is where did the starlight come from?

Well, some creationists try to claim that the stars are all accelerating away from us but were originally very near to us. This is a scientific fallacy, though as the gravitational forces involved would have ripped apart the earth. Before realizing this problem, I considered the idea to be a possibility, though I never really espoused it, myself. So, I try to discourage other Creationists from using this "proof".

The best reason for existing starlight is much simpler in my mind. This spoiler includes basic science from Genesis chapter one.

Spoiler

I don't believe God created the light en route. But I do believe he created the scientific laws that allow energy to be transmitted as light. That is the light created on Day one of creation ("Let there be light"). To me, that was the creation of energy and darkness was the matter. In other words, on the first day of existence, God created all matter as a blank slate and then added energy (i.e., electrons). This is also why photons follow the Biblical principles of light and darkness. The Bible treats darkness as a place and light is what fills a place.

Day four of creation was when God "lit the furnace" so to speak of the stars and radiated energy was allowed to be emitted. Thus the sun and stars shown while the planets and moon reflected that light. Day three saw the creation of vegetation but they couldn't have survived without the creation of the sun on day four to emit the light needed for photosynthesis.

So, there is light and darkness. Matter was created first, followed by energy. The earth was then specifically formed and then filled with vegetation. Then the stellar bodies were created. This is in direct opposition of the evolutionary concepts of the order of creation. This also helps to disprove the evolutionists who try to mix evolution and the Bible.

But here's the part about why starlight reaches us from so far away:

+++ WARNING +++ GEEK PROTECTION REQUIRED +++

+++ PUT ON NERD GLASSES FOR SAFETY +++

Spoiler

The concept that the speed of light as a constant is mathematically incorrect. It is based on poor assumptions about the nature of gravity in relation to light. The notions taught about black holes hint at the truth, but -- unfortunately -- fail to help people make the leap of understanding to realize that light speed is actually variable. Black holes do hint at the causality. The conceptualization of the lack of visible spectral light is based on it not escaping a black hole due to the immense gravity. The point is that the gravity is so strong that the light cannot escape its grasp.

Again, some scientists kinda get close to understanding this principle when they deal with the lensing affect that a stellar mass has on light waves that actually travel around their edges. This is a theory widely accepted by astronomers. Then there also is the concept of wave lengthening that occurs with the Doppler effect -- another theory widely accepted by astronomers.

In the case of the Doppler effect, a light wave will actually increase its period between wave crests, creating a "red-shift" in the visible light. This is determined to actually slow down the radiative wave such that light speed has already been proven not to be constant even within the entire spectrum (x-rays are already known and proven to travel faster than the speed of visible light...which is a part of why x-rays can escape black holes while visible light cannot).

Now, when you realize that light speed can travel at different speeds, it is therefore acceptable to anticipate that the speed of radiation is variable even for specific wavelengths. The determining factor occurs in relation to a gravity source.

Already it is known that time is perceived to travel faster away from a gravity source. Clocks on satellites in space have to be adjusted to run slower to account for this. Without a full understanding of this concept, GPS satellite data would be useless to us on earth.

The same is logically true of the speed of light. If the force of gravity can affect visible light via black holes, lensing, and the Doppler effect (which some might volunteer as not being gravity related, rather an effect of long-term light-wave degradation...but there is no reasonable basis for this), then it is reasonable and actually logical to assume that the force of gravity affects the speed of light.

The hypothesis that I espouse -- which uses mathematical principles that better fits the formulas of the General Theory of Relativity than the commonly-accepted alternative math using light speed as a constant -- suggests that the further away from the pull of gravity that a photonic wave of radiation gets, the faster it travels...much faster.

Therefore, according to my hypothesis, when a star shines, the speed of light goes fairly fast away from the star -- toward us, for example. As that light leaves its originating solar system, it continually accelerates...bending its path to and fro as affected by other stellar objects. Eventually it reaches a zenith of speed that occurs at some point roughly midway between us and its origination.

Then, after that zenith point (not necessarily the midpoint because the source gravitational pull is likely not equal to the destination gravitational pull), the light actually begins to decelerate as it approaches the gravity source at the photonic wave's ultimate destination.

So, by this concept, the light speed of photonic wave radiative light that reaches us from distant galaxies may have only just left there a mere few years ago...or decades perhaps...or maybe just months...or weeks.

The reason why this is not a well understood concept is that -- when measuring the speed of light in our own solar system, the numbers are based on very short distances. The speed of light is determined for a meter of distance. Thus a light-meter is then converted to light year and it's based on a relatively short measuring distance used to determine the light speed.

Now, if we were able to measure the speed of light over a short distance and then compare it to a specific measurement across a much longer distance, then the variable speed of light ought to be able to be detected. However, since that would be the final nail in the coffin of uniformitarianism, I believe that most astronomers and physicists would refuse to accept any proof of this (fanaticism among evolutionists is stronger than ISIS in many cases).

The scientific principles that justify this theory are far too complex to include here, but I can point anyone who wants to research this further to some good reading materials that treat this subject with good research and objectivity. Just pm me to learn more.

I hope this isn't too technical. But don't reply with the useless statement of "TLR" ... as I've included the details within a spoiler. If you can't handle a little reading, then don't bother to participate in the discussion. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I can do better, though. I have a theory on why it's not only plausible, but likely that some sort of higher being, known as God, exists. I will prepare all the necessary graphics and put it in your religion thread.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

I can do better, though. I have a theory on why it's not only plausible, but likely that some sort of higher being, known as God, exists. I will prepare all the necessary graphics and put it in your religion thread.

But I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm just telling about my faith and the things related to that. This is my witness. And the people on Call of War are a part of many tribes and nations ... though mostly of one tongue.

Oh, and thanks for the acknowledgement.

Its not even funny how off topic we get..

how did we get from "Ted Cruz" to this..

Yeah, let's get back on topic for this thread.

wildL SPQR wrote:

Yeah, let's get back on topic for this thread.

I think reserve psychology might work..

"lets not get back on topic"

Back on topic...

GreatbigHippo wrote:

Back on topic...

The topic got ... off topic ... because it's about Ted Cruz. And passionate Christians like myself like to talk about passionate Christian Hero politicians like Ted Cruz because Ted Cruz knows how to govern without abandoning his Christian principles.

That's why I voted for Ted Cruz in the Oregon Primaries in spite of him relenting and dropping out of the race.

I still want Ted Cruz for President (though I'd be find with Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum...or myself), but I've already written as to why I don't believe God will allow a good Christian leader to lead our nation until (if we ever survive) we have been sufficiently punished by Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton as a nation and turn back to our one true God.

Diabolical wrote:

The topic got ... off topic ... because it's about Ted Cruz. And passionate Christians like myself like to talk about passionate Christian Hero politicians like Ted Cruz because Ted Cruz knows how to govern without abandoning his Christian principles.

That's why I voted for Ted Cruz in the Oregon Primaries in spite of him relenting and dropping out of the race.

I still want Ted Cruz for President (though I'd be find with Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum...or myself), but I've already written as to why I don't believe God will allow a good Christian leader to lead our nation until (if we ever survive) we have been sufficiently punished by Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton as a nation and turn back to our one true God.

and believes all that, world created in 7 days stuff....

after Rick Perry, Ted Cruz is the worst Republican candidate. And a disgrace to Conservative Ideals

oceanhawk wrote:

Ted Cruz denies evolution..

and believes all that, world created in 7 days stuff....

So do I.

I'm a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) through and through.

Diabolical wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Ted Cruz denies evolution..

and believes all that, world created in 7 days stuff....

So do I.

I'm a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) through and through.

I Beleive in God, but the 7Days stuff, is proven false by Science,

I'm with Ocean. It is impossible for a world to be made in 7 days UNLESS you use highly advanced technology that we can't even fathom yet.