Grailhunter and Breezewood: Where did Christians first lose their way?

[emilynghiem]

For the longest time BreezeWood has consistently protested Christians as teaching falsely, I think starting with the "4th Century".

I cannot follow BW's spiritual statements about Christians needing to repent and correct their misleading theologies. The posts from BW range from spiritialluly poetic but cryptic mystical messages, to very detailed scientific rebuttals (about simgularities and Big Bang talk with ding and others who can go that route).

Can I please ask BreezeWood to restate these arguments against false Christian teachings, and ask Grailhunter to please explain these historical and spiritual statements to me in plain Q&A American 8th grade English.

And same with ding and the whole issue of could something have created the Universe from nothingness.

Thanks
One topic at a time please!

Explain to me like I'm an 8th grade student just trying to get the basic history or framework behind the arguments.

Thanks!

 

[ding]

For the longest time BreezeWood has consistently protested Christians as teaching falsely, I think starting with the "4th Century".

I cannot follow BW's spiritual statements about Christians needing to repent and correct their misleading theologies. The posts from BW range from spiritialluly poetic but cryptic mystical messages, to very detailed scientific rebuttals (about simgularities and Big Bang talk with ding and others who can go that route).

Can I please ask BreezeWood to restate these arguments against false Christian teachings, and ask Grailhunter to please explain these historical and spiritual statements to me in plain Q&A American 8th grade English.

And same with ding and the whole issue of could something have created the Universe from nothingness.

Thanks
One topic at a time please!

Explain to me like I'm an 8th grade student just trying to get the basic history or framework behind the arguments.

Thanks!

Simply put, God creates from nothing. It's a long held Christian and Hebrew belief.

Science confirms the universe was created from nothing. Matter and energy had a beginning.

 

[ding]

This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Yep! God exists because everything came from nothing and science confirms it.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

 

[emilynghiem]

My question for non-Catholics: Why not be Catholic?

.
their history of persecution and victimization of the innocent as their failure to bring to justice the crucifiers of the first century religious itinerant - those writing the 4th century christian bible complicity in that crime and their lack of remorse for their uninterrupted history from the 4th century to the present day.

Here Grailhunter and ding
If BreezeWood does not recognize the RCC as having any special authority, why would it be necessary to recant or correct the past?

If injustice occurs, but in the past, can't we start from today and agree on the right teachings between people responsible for what we have done ourselves?

If BW has a grievance to present to the Catholics and or other Christians "teaching falsely": what is the false and correct teaching. Why not just agree on correct teachings NOW, without arguing over ALL the wrong ways of the past that are greater than just what BW cites.

And how do we set up such a rebuke or correction DIRECTLY with those people?

It seems futile to complain without following up and actually addressing Catholic or Christian leaders who could all unite and agree on how to teach consistently.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here ding and or Grailhunter
Can you please decipher into 8th grade language
this post from BreezeWood that exceeded my ability to interpret indirectly by empathy since I don't follow the science:

So in the context of the Big Bang there is no physical singularity because the universe was expanding and not collapsing. The singularity occurs when running the equations backwards to the point of origin. Black holes may be a different matter.

.

So in the context of the Big Bang there is no physical singularity because the universe was expanding and not collapsing.

.
you are a broken record -

there is no collapse, the compaction occurs without ever changing direction as pointed out previously. the cyclical transition is the moment of singularity.

the same as the boomerang returns to its point of origin never changing direction -

bb - the finite angle of trajectory in a vacuum is the compaction of matter as the mirror image of its expulsion.


your problem of comprehension is yours alone - bb is a cyclical event.

 

[ding]

If @BreezeWood does not recognize the RCC as having any special authority, why would it be necessary to recant or correct the past?

You tell me. Why would it be necessary to recant or correct HIS PERCEPTION of the past? He criticizes what he doesn't believe to validate what he does believe without ever having to examine what he believes. He doesn't even have beliefs. He has arguments against others having beliefs. Do you know what his beliefs are? Do you know what he bases his beliefs upon? No. You don't.

He's not interested in honest discussion. He's here to subordinate Christianity.

If injustice occurs, but in the past, can't we start from today and agree on the right teachings between people responsible for what we have done ourselves?

What injustice are you talking about and how does that involve me?

f BW has a grievance to present to the Catholics and or other Christians "teaching falsely": what is the false and correct teaching. Why not just agree on correct teachings NOW, without arguing over ALL the wrong ways of the past that are greater than just what BW cites.

Feel free to negotiate on behalf of all Catholics and see where that gets you with him. He's not interested in that. He's here to subordinate Christianity.

And how do we set up such a rebuke or correction DIRECTLY with those people?

You don't. He's not interested in that. He's here to subordinate Christianity.

It seems futile to complain without following up and actually addressing Catholic or Christian leaders who could all unite and agree on how to teach consistently.

I'm not complaining. I'm more than happy for him to show his true colors. My pointing out his motivations isn't complaining. It's shining a light on his behaviors.

 

[ding]

Here ding and or Grailhunter
Can you please decipher into 8th grade language
this post from BreezeWood that exceeded my ability to interpret indirectly by empathy since I don't follow the science:

So in the context of the Big Bang there is no physical singularity because the universe was expanding and not collapsing. The singularity occurs when running the equations backwards to the point of origin. Black holes may be a different matter.

.

So in the context of the Big Bang there is no physical singularity because the universe was expanding and not collapsing.

.
you are a broken record -

there is no collapse, the compaction occurs without ever changing direction as pointed out previously. the cyclical transition is the moment of singularity.

the same as the boomerang returns to its point of origin never changing direction -

bb - the finite angle of trajectory in a vacuum is the compaction of matter as the mirror image of its expulsion.


your problem of comprehension is yours alone - bb is a cyclical event.

He is making an argument that the universe has always existed and fluctuates between a big bang and a big crunch.

He - like all atheists - understands the implication of the universe being created and he can't accept that.

 

[BreezeWood]

Here ding and or Grailhunter
Can you please decipher into 8th grade language
this post from BreezeWood that exceeded my ability to interpret indirectly by empathy since I don't follow the science:

So in the context of the Big Bang there is no physical singularity because the universe was expanding and not collapsing. The singularity occurs when running the equations backwards to the point of origin. Black holes may be a different matter.

.

So in the context of the Big Bang there is no physical singularity because the universe was expanding and not collapsing.

.
you are a broken record -

there is no collapse, the compaction occurs without ever changing direction as pointed out previously. the cyclical transition is the moment of singularity.

the same as the boomerang returns to its point of origin never changing direction -

bb - the finite angle of trajectory in a vacuum is the compaction of matter as the mirror image of its expulsion.


your problem of comprehension is yours alone - bb is a cyclical event.

.

this post from @BreezeWood

.
there is no collapse, the compaction occurs without ever changing direction as pointed out previously. the cyclical transition is the moment of singularity.

the same as the boomerang returns to its point of origin never changing direction -

bb - the finite angle of trajectory in a vacuum is the compaction of matter as the mirror image of its expulsion.


your problem of comprehension is yours alone - bb is a cyclical event.
.
.... the post is the simple explanation for a cyclical bb - revolving moments of singularity, transitioning between matter and energy.

the material being expelled (expanding universe) from its origin is directed at a finite angle of trajectory that returns all the material at the same time as a mirror image to the exact same location of its origin forcing by its momentum recompaction causing the conversion from matter back into energy and the inevitable next cyclical expansion when the compaction to energy is complete and a new moment of singularity is achieved.

the boomerang theory -
.
.
the spoken religion of antiquity is only 6 words in length - the triumph of good vs evil - required for admission to the Everlasting.
.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

.
the above is a forgery written in the 4th century christian bible, forgeries and fallacies throughout not just the christian bible but all three desert religions - their recorded histories are similar for their persecution and victimization of the innocent.

they are unrepentant to this day. without justice the religion of antiquity and its final judgment is all but certain. -

not sure emily that you have not understood from the beginning.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks BreezeWood
If all the Biblical Scriptures are forgeries
What do you cite as the Source of the original and true Message, Gospel or teachings/principles of the right eternal laws?

 

[surada]

If @BreezeWood does not recognize the RCC as having any special authority, why would it be necessary to recant or correct the past?

You tell me. Why would it be necessary to recant or correct HIS PERCEPTION of the past? He criticizes what he doesn't believe to validate what he does believe without ever having to examine what he believes. He doesn't even have beliefs. He has arguments against others having beliefs. Do you know what his beliefs are? Do you know what he bases his beliefs upon? No. You don't.

He's not interested in honest discussion. He's here to subordinate Christianity.

If injustice occurs, but in the past, can't we start from today and agree on the right teachings between people responsible for what we have done ourselves?

What injustice are you talking about and how does that involve me?

f BW has a grievance to present to the Catholics and or other Christians "teaching falsely": what is the false and correct teaching. Why not just agree on correct teachings NOW, without arguing over ALL the wrong ways of the past that are greater than just what BW cites.

Feel free to negotiate on behalf of all Catholics and see where that gets you with him. He's not interested in that. He's here to subordinate Christianity.

And how do we set up such a rebuke or correction DIRECTLY with those people?

You don't. He's not interested in that. He's here to subordinate Christianity.

It seems futile to complain without following up and actually addressing Catholic or Christian leaders who could all unite and agree on how to teach consistently.

I'm not complaining. I'm more than happy for him to show his true colors. My pointing out his motivations isn't complaining. It's shining a light on his behaviors.

Subordinate is an interesting choice of words.

 

[ding]

If @BreezeWood does not recognize the RCC as having any special authority, why would it be necessary to recant or correct the past?

You tell me. Why would it be necessary to recant or correct HIS PERCEPTION of the past? He criticizes what he doesn't believe to validate what he does believe without ever having to examine what he believes. He doesn't even have beliefs. He has arguments against others having beliefs. Do you know what his beliefs are? Do you know what he bases his beliefs upon? No. You don't.

He's not interested in honest discussion. He's here to subordinate Christianity.

If injustice occurs, but in the past, can't we start from today and agree on the right teachings between people responsible for what we have done ourselves?

What injustice are you talking about and how does that involve me?

f BW has a grievance to present to the Catholics and or other Christians "teaching falsely": what is the false and correct teaching. Why not just agree on correct teachings NOW, without arguing over ALL the wrong ways of the past that are greater than just what BW cites.

Feel free to negotiate on behalf of all Catholics and see where that gets you with him. He's not interested in that. He's here to subordinate Christianity.

And how do we set up such a rebuke or correction DIRECTLY with those people?

You don't. He's not interested in that. He's here to subordinate Christianity.

It seems futile to complain without following up and actually addressing Catholic or Christian leaders who could all unite and agree on how to teach consistently.

I'm not complaining. I'm more than happy for him to show his true colors. My pointing out his motivations isn't complaining. It's shining a light on his behaviors.

Subordinate is an interesting choice of words.

Not really. It's the goal of socialists. There are at least three active socialists who post on the religious forum whose main goal is to subordinate Christianity.

 

[surada]

If @BreezeWood does not recognize the RCC as having any special authority, why would it be necessary to recant or correct the past?

You tell me. Why would it be necessary to recant or correct HIS PERCEPTION of the past? He criticizes what he doesn't believe to validate what he does believe without ever having to examine what he believes. He doesn't even have beliefs. He has arguments against others having beliefs. Do you know what his beliefs are? Do you know what he bases his beliefs upon? No. You don't.

He's not interested in honest discussion. He's here to subordinate Christianity.

If injustice occurs, but in the past, can't we start from today and agree on the right teachings between people responsible for what we have done ourselves?

What injustice are you talking about and how does that involve me?

f BW has a grievance to present to the Catholics and or other Christians "teaching falsely": what is the false and correct teaching. Why not just agree on correct teachings NOW, without arguing over ALL the wrong ways of the past that are greater than just what BW cites.

Feel free to negotiate on behalf of all Catholics and see where that gets you with him. He's not interested in that. He's here to subordinate Christianity.

And how do we set up such a rebuke or correction DIRECTLY with those people?

You don't. He's not interested in that. He's here to subordinate Christianity.

It seems futile to complain without following up and actually addressing Catholic or Christian leaders who could all unite and agree on how to teach consistently.

I'm not complaining. I'm more than happy for him to show his true colors. My pointing out his motivations isn't complaining. It's shining a light on his behaviors.

Subordinate is an interesting choice of words.

Not really. It's the goal of socialists. There are at least three active socialists who post on the religious forum whose main goal is to subordinate Christianity.

I never thought of that at all.

 

[BreezeWood]

Thanks BreezeWood
If all the Biblical Scriptures are forgeries
What do you cite as the Source of the original and true Message, Gospel or teachings/principles of the right eternal laws?

.

if all the Biblical Scriptures are forgeries
What do you cite as the Source of the original and true Message, Gospel or teachings/principles of the right eternal laws?

.
that's a leap - "if all the Biblical Scriptures are forgeries" - much of that book is originated from spoken conformations of religious underpinning established through verbal narratives - in fact what most christians actually believe without ever reading the christian bible.

the religion of antiquity: eden to noah to the 1st century and to the present day. the triumph of good vs evil - purity as the means for admission to the Everlasting - there is no messiah nor in the 1st century was that ever a consideration - that forgery alone is the corruption of the single christian publication.
.
Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.
.
they spent the entire 4th century writing the christian bible, it is a political document disguised as a religion.
.

.
do you deny that books uninterrupted history of persecution and victimization of the innocent - in what century have they ever been remorseful for their misuse of the 1st century - have they / did they - bring the crucifiers to justice, to this day.

whatother document is there to verify the "religion" of christianity - you rely on, emily.

simply, the interpretation of the 1st century events and the central personage is not the sole purview of a single, politically motivated, domineering organization.

 

[alang1216]

For the longest time BreezeWood has consistently protested Christians as teaching falsely, I think starting with the "4th Century".

I cannot follow BW's spiritual statements about Christians needing to repent and correct their misleading theologies. The posts from BW range from spiritialluly poetic but cryptic mystical messages, to very detailed scientific rebuttals (about simgularities and Big Bang talk with ding and others who can go that route).

Can I please ask BreezeWood to restate these arguments against false Christian teachings, and ask Grailhunter to please explain these historical and spiritual statements to me in plain Q&A American 8th grade English.

And same with ding and the whole issue of could something have created the Universe from nothingness.

Thanks
One topic at a time please!

Explain to me like I'm an 8th grade student just trying to get the basic history or framework behind the arguments.

Thanks!

Simply put, God creates from nothing. It's a long held Christian and Hebrew belief.

Science confirms the universe was created from nothing. Matter and energy had a beginning.

I don't believe Science confirms the universe was created from nothing, we just don't know. Semantics aside, science says matter and energy may be interchangeable but they cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[ding]

For the longest time BreezeWood has consistently protested Christians as teaching falsely, I think starting with the "4th Century".

I cannot follow BW's spiritual statements about Christians needing to repent and correct their misleading theologies. The posts from BW range from spiritialluly poetic but cryptic mystical messages, to very detailed scientific rebuttals (about simgularities and Big Bang talk with ding and others who can go that route).

Can I please ask BreezeWood to restate these arguments against false Christian teachings, and ask Grailhunter to please explain these historical and spiritual statements to me in plain Q&A American 8th grade English.

And same with ding and the whole issue of could something have created the Universe from nothingness.

Thanks
One topic at a time please!

Explain to me like I'm an 8th grade student just trying to get the basic history or framework behind the arguments.

Thanks!

Simply put, God creates from nothing. It's a long held Christian and Hebrew belief.

Science confirms the universe was created from nothing. Matter and energy had a beginning.

I don't believe Science confirms the universe was created from nothing, we just don't know. Semantics aside, science says matter and energy may be interchangeable but they cannot be created or destroyed.

I know of no model which has matter existing as an eternal source. Do you?

 

[ding]

science says matter and energy may be interchangeable but they cannot be created or destroyed.

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[alang1216]

For the longest time BreezeWood has consistently protested Christians as teaching falsely, I think starting with the "4th Century".

I cannot follow BW's spiritual statements about Christians needing to repent and correct their misleading theologies. The posts from BW range from spiritialluly poetic but cryptic mystical messages, to very detailed scientific rebuttals (about simgularities and Big Bang talk with ding and others who can go that route).

Can I please ask BreezeWood to restate these arguments against false Christian teachings, and ask Grailhunter to please explain these historical and spiritual statements to me in plain Q&A American 8th grade English.

And same with ding and the whole issue of could something have created the Universe from nothingness.

Thanks
One topic at a time please!

Explain to me like I'm an 8th grade student just trying to get the basic history or framework behind the arguments.

Thanks!

Simply put, God creates from nothing. It's a long held Christian and Hebrew belief.

Science confirms the universe was created from nothing. Matter and energy had a beginning.

I don't believe Science confirms the universe was created from nothing, we just don't know. Semantics aside, science says matter and energy may be interchangeable but they cannot be created or destroyed.

I know of no model which has matter existing as an eternal source. Do you?

Yet I was always taught neither can be created or destroyed. Sounds eternal to me.

 

[alang1216]

science says matter and energy may be interchangeable but they cannot be created or destroyed.

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Theoretically possible but no evidence to support it?

 

[ding]

For the longest time BreezeWood has consistently protested Christians as teaching falsely, I think starting with the "4th Century".

I cannot follow BW's spiritual statements about Christians needing to repent and correct their misleading theologies. The posts from BW range from spiritialluly poetic but cryptic mystical messages, to very detailed scientific rebuttals (about simgularities and Big Bang talk with ding and others who can go that route).

Can I please ask BreezeWood to restate these arguments against false Christian teachings, and ask Grailhunter to please explain these historical and spiritual statements to me in plain Q&A American 8th grade English.

And same with ding and the whole issue of could something have created the Universe from nothingness.

Thanks
One topic at a time please!

Explain to me like I'm an 8th grade student just trying to get the basic history or framework behind the arguments.

Thanks!

Simply put, God creates from nothing. It's a long held Christian and Hebrew belief.

Science confirms the universe was created from nothing. Matter and energy had a beginning.

I don't believe Science confirms the universe was created from nothing, we just don't know. Semantics aside, science says matter and energy may be interchangeable but they cannot be created or destroyed.

I know of no model which has matter existing as an eternal source. Do you?

Yet I was always taught neither can be created or destroyed. Sounds eternal to me.

Once created through a false vacuum. It is eternal but eventually thermally equilibrates as time approaches infinity which we do not see. Hence our universe had a finite beginning.

So matter cannot be an eternal SOURCE to create universes. It can only exist eternally subject to the laws of physics and thermodynamics such as in our universe.

The law of conservation - energy cannot be created or destroyed - does not apply to the creation of a universe from nothing because the net energy of a closed universe is zero. The energy of matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of gravity. So no laws of conservation are violated because from a net perspective there is no net energy.

Here is the paper on it.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf