100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
I dont know but, but I cant prove they dont. I am skeptical. If you asked me Yes or NO, I would say no |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Modern Mind
|
|
Its by Steve Turner, I Knew it would get a reaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont know but, but I cant prove they dont.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We do not have to talk about theism to put beliefs into perspective. Nubby it appears you are ignoring the idea of what a belief is, and how a person comes to believe something. What is a belief Nubby? What does it take to convince you that there are flying pink elephants? I cant prove to you that pink elephants dont exist anywhere in the universe. I am simply going by the definition of atheism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we encounter an idea, does that idea get automatic approval from us? Is it automatically true, and then we must work to disprove it in our own minds? What is the default stance on belief? So If you find a piece of paper on the ground that says men where once ants, and a witch cast a spell of a colony of ants, and transformed them into people, and this is how all people came to be, would you have to have faith to not believe this to be true? I mean there is nothing to say that this isn't true. Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence (such as the problem of evil) that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true. http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#athe It is about as logical as a turd muffin. Atheists are always being told that to be an atheist you must have a positive belief there is no god. What if we just dont buy it? That does not make us agnostic, agnostic is the belief that we cannot know. There is a distinction huh? I doubt anyone that believes in god has thought to long or hard on this one . . . I really respect you Billy, but I dont think your being fare. "Atheists often tell Christians that their faith is infantile. It’s just fine for the minds of impressionable young children, but laughable in the case of adults. We’ve grown up now, and need to move on. Why should we believe things that can’t be scientifically proved? Faith in God, many atheists argue, is just like believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. When you grow up, you grow out of it. And if you don’t, then you are either mentally retarded or intellectually dishonest. But this is just rhetoric—the attempt to discredit a belief by heaping ridicule upon in. In fact, it is this argument itself that is childish. If this simplistic argument has any plausibility, it requires a real analogy between God and Santa Claus to exist—which it clearly does not. There is no serious evidence that people regard God, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy as belonging to the same category. I stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when I was about six years old. After being an atheist for some years, I discovered God when I was eighteen, and have never regarded this as some kind of infantile regression. As I noticed while researching my book The Twilight of Atheism, a large number of people come to believe in God in later life—when they are “grown up.” I have yet to meet anyone who came to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy late in life! So let’s leave this sort of nonsense behind, and look at a more serious argument, often advanced by atheists." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Most people—including, it has to be said, many atheists themselves!—have the rather simple idea that atheism is about fact, whereas Christianity is about faith. Their ideas are factual; those of Christians are unproven. But it’s not like that. Let me explain by asking a question: can I prove with certainty that there is a God? The short answer is “no.” If you have time to study the history of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God, you’ll know that they are suggestive, but not conclusive. It’s pretty much the universal consensus within philosophy that rational argument does not settle the question of God’s existence, one way or the other. The atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen makes this point clearly when he writes: “To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false . . . All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.” Argument is not going to settle this question, one way or the other. And that means that the outcome is uncertain for the atheist."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Modern Mind
|
|
I like it Abra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It dates much earlier than Mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Nubby
on
Sun 02/01/09 03:03 PM
|
|
I will not quote the cut and paste here but historical validity of the bible is questionable at best. Just like old folk stories, which the bible actually is, there is always a remnant of some place or event that may have actually happened in the story line but it does not make the folk tale historically valid at any point. Faith is just that believing blindly in something someone told you is truth without any proof of any kind. Science is the process of verifying facts to correspond with other facts and then draw a conclusion. No similarity there at all other than they both will be written by man How is the historical validity of the bible questionable? What folklore are you referring to? Biblical faith is not meant to be a vacuous leap as it were. Oh but it is a large leap of faith if you do not believe that the bible is true, right? Just like all scientific theories, it has to be true on more than one plane of facts in order to be considered a fact or true so where else does the bible ring true? Is Jesus part of history in any other town histories? How about birth records and such? Are any of these so called prophets documented anywhere? If not then they are part of folk lore. Folk lore like I said before usually has a smidgeon of something real in it be it a real location or maybe a real person but the rest of the story is someone's imagination, in the case of the bible it is many people's imagination, the original writers of the individual stories, the people who edited these stories to fit what they wanted them to say and the people in power who chose what actually made it into the bible and what was not of the "right" mindset to be included. If you take the TAUGHT reverence out of your thought process and read the bible as a story book, like it should have been done, then you can see the parables and lessons of the writers but you can also see the lack of fact. This comes from a debate btw. William Land Craig and Bart Erhman. Craig argues for the affirmative position. Take the time to read. This is why I treat the ressurection as highly probable. Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following: 1. Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources. We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some of which are extraordinarily early. 2. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus’ burial by Joseph is “very probable,” since it is “almost inexplicable” why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus. For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.” Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following: 1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources. Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb. 2. The tomb was discovered empty by women. In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact. I could go on, but I think enough has been said to indicate why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons: 1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred. Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles. Finally, Paul adds, “he appeared also to me,” at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the early Jesus movement (I Cor. 15.5-8). Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere legends. 2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the appearances. For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and John. The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be reasonably denied that the earliest disciples did have such experiences. Thus, even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion: 1. Their leader was dead. And Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal. 2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief. But then the obvious question arises: What in the world caused them to believe such an un-Jewish and outlandish thing? Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”5 And N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, “That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him." (II) The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. This, of course, was the explanation that the eyewitnesses themselves gave, and I can think of no better explanation. The Resurrection Hypothesis passes all of the standard criteria for being the best explanation, such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth. Of course, down through history various alternative naturalistic explanations of the resurrection have been proposed, such as the Conspiracy Hypothesis, the Apparent Death Hypothesis, the Hallucination Hypothesis, and so on. In the judgment of contemporary scholarship, however, none of these naturalistic hypotheses has managed to provide a plausible explanation of the facts. Nor does Dr. Ehrman support any of these naturalistic explanations of the facts. So why, we may ask, does Dr. Ehrman not accept the resurrection as the best explanation? The answer is simple: the resurrection is a miracle, and Dr. Ehrman denies the possibility of establishing a miracle. He writes, “Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred.”9 This argument against the identification of a miracle is an old one, already refuted in the 18th century by such eminent scholars as William Paley and George Campbell, and is rejected as fallacious by most contemporary philosophers as well. Now I’ve promised to say more about this later; but for now, let me simply say that in the absence of some naturalistic explanation of the facts, Dr. Ehrman’s hesitancy about embracing the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation is really quite unnecessary. Dr. Ehrman would be quite within his rational rights to embrace a miraculous explanation like the resurrection—and so would we. that is so far from any kind of fact it's crazy. These are NOT facts, period. There are 0 facts to support a resurrection. in fact the eveidence shows it not happening. The first recorded appearance story (in terms of when it was written, not when it was supposed to have happened) is of the appearance to Paul, and it is clearly a vision. In one account, he does not see Jesus, only a flash of light (9.3-5), and those with him do not see Jesus, but only hear him (Acts 9.7). Paul could have been speaking in another voice, which the others took as Jesus (or which the author of Acts portrays them as taking to be Jesus, since we don't have their account of it, after all). But the fact that no one, not even Paul, saw Jesus in the flesh makes the point well enough. Most importantly, Paul never says in his letters that he ever saw Jesus in the flesh (he even denies it in Galatians 1). Moreover, this particular encounter in Acts has all the earmarks of something like a seizure-induced hallucination: Paul alone sees a flash of light, collapses, hears voices, and goes blind for a short period. An embolism is sufficient to cause or explain all of this. We can add to this the fact that the earliest manuscripts of the earliest gospel, Mark, do not describe any appearances of Jesus. Paul gives other accounts of his vision which claim that others saw it, too. Doesn't this suggest a genuine vision from God? First of all, there is still never any mention of Jesus appearing in the flesh. Rather, all that appears is a light from heaven (phôs ek tou ouranou, 9.3; ek tou ouranou...phôs, 22.6; ouranothen...phôs, 26.13). So even if several saw the light, it can still have a natural explanation, from lightning to a reflection from a distant object, or even a simple ray of sunlight peaking through a cloud, any of which could also have induced a seizure or affected Paul emotionally, causing an hallucination (or inspiration). And since we don't have the story from any of these other observers, the story could be embellished or fabricated at leisure, for whatever reason. In my opinion, Paul may have seen in Christianity a way to save the Jews from destruction at the hands of the Romans by displacing their messianic motives to rebel, and creating a new Judaism more agreeable to the Gentiles, open to all and thus uniting rather than dividing, and more submissive to outside authority by internalizing and spiritualizing religious faith, eliminating messianic (and violent) emphasis on the Temple, and postponing material and social complaints by referring them to an afterlife. This could have been a deliberate or a subconscious motivator for Paul and others leading the movement. In Paul's case, guilt at what he had done to good people, and admiration for their moral program and fortitude, may have also played an emotional role. I happen to be one who is fairly well read on this subject. I will refute all that in one swoop. "Paul's letter to the Corinthians is dated by Christians and skeptics alike at around AD 54 or 58, but Paul must have received the creed before he could have recorded it in his letter. In fact, Paul tells us that he gave this Gospel to them earlier. Christians and skeptics alike agree Paul visited Corinthians and gave them the Gospel orally about AD 51. Paul tells us that about 3 years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem and saw Peter and James (Galatians 1:18-19). It's likely that Paul received the creed while in Jerusalem. If Christ was crucified in AD 30, then Paul would have been converted a short while later (perhaps 33-35, though more likely as early as 31 and no later than 33), placing his tript o Jerusalem around 36-38. Obviously Paul would have spoken with the two apostles about the Gospel, an assumption which is strengthened by the specific mention of meeting with Peter, James and the Gospel 14 years after his first journey (Galatians 2). So Paul likely received the creed no later than AD 38 directly from the apostles. It's possible that Paul receied the creed even earlier, perhaps while in Damascus 3 years earlier than his trip to Jerusalem. However, as mentioned above, the creed contains a number of items which indicate Semitic origin, making Jerusalem a more likely location." 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. This creed dates earlier than Mark. And they are facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I happen to be one who is fairly well read on this subject. I will refute all that in one swoop.
Paul's letter to the Corinthians is dated by Christians and skeptics alike at around AD 54 or 58, but Paul must have received the creed before he could have recorded it in his letter. In fact, Paul tells us that he gave this Gospel to them earlier. Christians and skeptics alike agree Paul visited Corinthians and gave them the Gospel orally about AD 51. Paul tells us that about 3 years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem and saw Peter and James (Galatians 1:18-19). It's likely that Paul received the creed while in Jerusalem. If Christ was crucified in AD 30, then Paul would have been converted a short while later (perhaps 33-35, though more likely as early as 31 and no later than 33), placing his tript o Jerusalem around 36-38. Obviously Paul would have spoken with the two apostles about the Gospel, an assumption which is strengthened by the specific mention of meeting with Peter, James and the Gospel 14 years after his first journey (Galatians 2). So Paul likely received the creed no later than AD 38 directly from the apostles. It's possible that Paul receied the creed even earlier, perhaps while in Damascus 3 years earlier than his trip to Jerusalem. However, as mentioned above, the creed contains a number of items which indicate Semitic origin, making Jerusalem a more likely location. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. This creed dates earlier than Mark. And they are facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Modern Mind
|
|
"In his book The Doctor and the Soul, holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl writes, "If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity, and environment, we feed the nihilism to which man is, in any case, prone."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Modern Mind
|
|
"We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK as long as you don't hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge. We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy’s OK. We believe that taboos are taboo. We believe that everything's getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated And you can prove anything with evidence. We believe there's something in horoscopes UFO's and bent spoons. Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher though we think His good morals were bad. We believe that all religions are basically the same- at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation. We believe that after death comes the Nothing Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn We believe in Masters and Johnson What's selected is average. What's average is normal. What's normal is good. We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors . And the Russians would be sure to follow. We believe that man is essentially good. It's only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society. We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth. We believe in the rejection of creeds, And the flowering of individual thought. If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky and when you hear State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School! It is but the sound of man worshipping his maker." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
6000 years
|
|
Beware of the sound of one hand clapping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Read your Bible!
|
|
What's the point of force feeding us the bible, and then, when we question things, to tell us we will understand when we have turned to Jesus? There really isn't one, is there? So why do you keep doing it? It's not what Jesus would have done. I try to answer as many questions as I can. If you want to give me one I will try to answer it. One at a time please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Nubby
on
Sun 02/01/09 01:33 PM
|
|
When we encounter an idea, does that idea get automatic approval from us? Is it automatically true, and then we must work to disprove it in our own minds? What is the default stance on belief? So If you find a piece of paper on the ground that says men where once ants, and a witch cast a spell of a colony of ants, and transformed them into people, and this is how all people came to be, would you have to have faith to not believe this to be true? I mean there is nothing to say that this isn't true. Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence (such as the problem of evil) that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true. http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#athe It is about as logical as a turd muffin. Atheists are always being told that to be an atheist you must have a positive belief there is no god. What if we just dont buy it? That does not make us agnostic, agnostic is the belief that we cannot know. There is a distinction huh? I doubt anyone that believes in god has thought to long or hard on this one . . . But Billy its impossible to prove that God does not exist. No one can prove a aboslute negative. To say something doesnt exist anywhere requires infinite knowledge. Its like saying, there are no pink elephants anywhere in the universe and I know this to be true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
6000 years
Edited by
Nubby
on
Sun 02/01/09 12:41 PM
|
|
I didnt say it, so dont expect me to back it up.
There is a large and growing number of respected scientists who (unlike Richard Dawkins and friends) freely acknowledge the limits of the scientific method, and who are open to exploring the possibility of a more positive relationship between science and religion. In fact, there are large numbers of influential scientists, some Nobel Prize winners, who are Christians. One such scientist is Stephen Barr, a theoretical particle physicist at the Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware. He writes, What many take to be a conflict between religion and science is really something else. It is a conflict between religion and materialism. Materialism is regarded as scientific, and indeed it is often called “scientific materialism,” even by its proponents, yet there are no legitimate reasons for considering it scientific. It is rather a school of philosophy, one defined by the belief that nothing exists except matter. However, there is more to materialism than this cold ontological negation. For many, scientific materialism is not a bloodless philosophy, but a passionately held ideology. Indeed, it is the ideology of a great part of the scientific world. Its adherents see science as having a mission that goes beyond the mere investigation of nature and the discovery of physical laws. That mission is to free mankind from superstition in all its forms, and especially in the form of religious belief.[iv] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
6000 years
|
|
It means I am forgiven, it means I have a relationship with God, it means life is not over when I die, it means Jesus is who He claimed to be, "there is no greater love than this, that a man would lay down his life for another man", it means God loves me. A person is forgiven when they can forgive themselves and that is when they will change and become a new person. If you believe that God forgives you no matter what it will lift a great burden off of your mind and soul and perhaps then you can also forgive yourself. I forgive myself for my imperfections and ignorance and when I learn a new lesson in life I am a changed person. I can feel my eternal soul within me and I know I am eternal and that the death of this body is not the end of the true being that I am. Throughout time men and women have given their lives unselfishly for others in times of war and other emergencies. This indeed is the greatest love of all because most of them are not certain if there is any life after death. It means we love each other, we have a connection to each other. I have all of this thing you call "salvation" without the need for belief in someone named Jesus who some claims is God or the son of God. To me, "God made flesh" is a broad term that means that all of mankind is an expression and manifestation of that which we call GOD. We are flesh. We love each other. We give our lives for each other. We forgive each other. That is salvation to me. Salvation is Love and forgiveness. Salvation is living the path of love. I believe we are saved when we realize our divine nature and begin to live as who we truly are. Divine beings. I respect your beliefs, though I disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
6000 years
|
|
THere are many good scientist who take the bible seriously consider John Polkinghorn, close colleague of Stephen Hawking, he himself is a believer in Jesus Christ.
"He was born in Weston-super-Mare and was educated initially in Street and then at The Perse School, Cambridge, where his contemporaries included Peter Hall.[1] Following National Service in the Royal Army Educational Corps from 1948 to 1949, John Polkinghorne read Mathematics at Trinity College, Cambridge (alongside Michael Atiyah), graduated in 1952[2] and then earned his PhD degree in physics in 1955, supervised by Abdus Salam in the group led by Paul Dirac[3]. In 1955 he married Ruth Martin (d. 2006 [4]), a fellow mathematician, and went to CalTech as a Harkness Fellow to work with Murray Gell-Mann. After 2 years as a Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh he returned to Cambridge in 1958, and in 1968 was elected Professor of Mathematical Physics. His students included Brian Josephson and Martin Rees.[5] For 25 years, Polkinghorne was a theoretical physicist working on theories of elementary particles and played a significant role in the discovery of the quark.[6] From 1968 to 1979 he was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, and he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1974. He was Chairman of the Governors of The Perse School from 1972 to 1981." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
6000 years
Edited by
Nubby
on
Sun 02/01/09 10:21 AM
|
|
It means I am forgiven, it means I have a relationship with God, it means life is not over when I die, it means Jesus is who He claimed to be, "there is no greater love than this, that a man would lay down his life for another man", it means God loves me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
6000 years
Edited by
Nubby
on
Sun 02/01/09 10:01 AM
|
|
Its focus is salvation.
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
