Latest theories

[ReinyDays]

If you're talking gravity ... you're talking GR ... and GR maintains cause-and-effect principles ... one follows the other as time passes ... it's only in QM that God rolls them laughing bones with the universe (1.47% house take) ...

First off ... gravity doesn't exist ... it's an artifact of our own frame-of-reference ... the Earth travels in a perfectly straight line through space, it is space itself that curves around our sun, thus giving the illusion of an elliptical orbit ... rock-fights on merry-go-rounds is a good example of something we've all done and know what happens (the little girl that got hit is out of the hospital finally, looks like only five years PT and she'll be able to walk again) ...

I think you're trying to compare Newton's gravity with Einstein's time ... it doesn't work ... and be careful getting your science understanding from YouTube videos ... take some classes so you can get the broader picture of what's being said ... this is post-graduate material and short little middle school presentations leave way too much out ...

 

[james bond]

Time and space are connected, and there is no free will, everything has happened at once. Past, present & future is an illusion.

Space is time.

I would say time is space. Notice God said, "In the beginning..." Space only gives you the three dimensions. Time gives you the three dimensions and time.

For example, we have three dimensional space which can be represented by the x, y, and z-axes. If someone lives in flatland, then we can put an orange there which will look circular to the flatlanders. Thus, we can affect the second and first dimensions from the third.

 

[james bond]

If you're talking gravity ... you're talking GR ... and GR maintains cause-and-effect principles ... one follows the other as time passes ... it's only in QM that God rolls them laughing bones with the universe (1.47% house take) ...

First off ... gravity doesn't exist ... it's an artifact of our own frame-of-reference ... the Earth travels in a perfectly straight line through space, it is space itself that curves around our sun, thus giving the illusion of an elliptical orbit ... rock-fights on merry-go-rounds is a good example of something we've all done and know what happens (the little girl that got hit is out of the hospital finally, looks like only five years PT and she'll be able to walk again) ...

I think you're trying to compare Newton's gravity with Einstein's time ... it doesn't work ... and be careful getting your science understanding from YouTube videos ... take some classes so you can get the broader picture of what's being said ... this is post-graduate material and short little middle school presentations leave way too much out ...

That's the effect of gravity which you are describing which GR does well. I still think it's the attraction between masses as Newton pointed out. The large masses end up curving spacetime because of its attractive force. For example, matter doesn't just fall into the black hole because space time is really curved beyond the event horizon. Matter becomes spaghetti.

 

[ReinyDays]

That's the effect of gravity which you are describing which GR does well. I still think it's the attraction between masses as Newton pointed out. The large masses end up curving spacetime because of its attractive force. For example, matter doesn't just fall into the black hole because space time is really curved beyond the event horizon. Matter becomes spaghetti.

That's how Newton defined force ... "action from a distant" ... worked well until the advent of current electricity ... when Michael Faraday demonstrated electric force is a field valve rather than a vector ... James Maxwell proved this ... and Einstein applied it to gravity ... QM is all about fields I believe ... Newton was wrong, or perhaps provided the next shoulders to stand on ...

Matter is spaghetti that didn't get stirred enough ... clumpy ... so say the colander heads ...

 

[james bond]

That's the effect of gravity which you are describing which GR does well. I still think it's the attraction between masses as Newton pointed out. The large masses end up curving spacetime because of its attractive force. For example, matter doesn't just fall into the black hole because space time is really curved beyond the event horizon. Matter becomes spaghetti.

That's how Newton defined force ... "action from a distant" ... worked well until the advent of current electricity ... when Michael Faraday demonstrated electric force is a field valve rather than a vector ... James Maxwell proved this ... and Einstein applied it to gravity ... QM is all about fields I believe ... Newton was wrong, or perhaps provided the next shoulders to stand on ...

Matter is spaghetti that didn't get stirred enough ... clumpy ... so say the colander heads ...

You are bamboozled by scientific atheism that has eliminated Newton to prop up Einstein's GR because you are a Frannie. The attraction is between objects of any size. The apple still falls from the tree towards Earth due to gravitational force. In a vacuum, two objects of different masses still fall straight down and the same rate due to gravitational force. Objects are attracted towards the center of the Earth. That still can be explained by Newton's law of gravitation. It explains things on Earth and in our solar system well. This gravitational force explains how our solar systems is held in place. I mentioned the black hole and the area of the event horizon is its surface. There, gravity is a gravitational force that fits into Newton's universal gravitation well. It's more difficult to explain with Einstein's curvature in spacetime.

Einstein's gravity is an effect due to larger massive objects in the universe curving spacetime. In this theory, gravity isn't a force but due to the curvature of spacetime. His math behind it explains the gravity of the universe or at a distance well. If one is discussing objects above the Earth, in space, or faster moving objects, then his math explains everything well.

People end up arguing about how our solar system is held in place, but I think that's due to gravity being a force. May the force be with you. I think this force explain the rotation of the planets around the sun. Maybe you can explain how the planets rotate or spin around its axis.

 

[ReinyDays]

You are bamboozled by scientific atheism that has eliminated Newton to prop up Einstein's GR because you are a Frannie. The attraction is between objects of any size. The apple still falls from the tree towards Earth due to gravitational force. In a vacuum, two objects of different masses still fall straight down and the same rate due to gravitational force. Objects are attracted towards the center of the Earth. That still can be explained by Newton's law of gravitation. It explains things on Earth and in our solar system well. This gravitational force explains how our solar systems is held in place. I mentioned the black hole and the area of the event horizon is its surface. There, gravity is a gravitational force that fits into Newton's universal gravitation well. It's more difficult to explain with Einstein's curvature in spacetime.

Einstein's gravity is an effect due to larger massive objects in the universe curving spacetime. In this theory, gravity isn't a force but due to the curvature of spacetime. His math behind it explains the gravity of the universe or at a distance well. If one is discussing objects above the Earth, in space, or faster moving objects, then his math explains everything well.

People end up arguing about how our solar system is held in place, but I think that's due to gravity being a force. May the force be with you. I think this force explain the rotation of the planets around the sun. Maybe you can explain how the planets rotate or spin around its axis.

It explains things on Earth and in our solar system well.

Almost ... the exception is the orbital parameters of Mercury ... and Newton himself was aware of this discrepancy ... it's actually pretty obvious if you do the math ... if we assume the mass of the sun is much much greater than the masses of the four inner planets, then we can use the default form of Newton;'s equation:

F = G (msun/r^2) [where F=gravitation, G=universal gravitation constant, msun= mass of sun, r=distance between]

This is a perfect predictor of the orbits of Venus, Earth, Mars and the Moon around the Earth, thus it's exceptional useful in our day-to-day activities if that includes a lot of open ocean navigation using a sextant ... Mercury has always failed this equation and we were using the denominator r^2.000000000000235 ... clear as a bell, you can do the math yourself easy enough ...

Einstein had Special Relativity in hand ... (that's about time, and not gravity) ... which predicted the dilation of time ... and he realized Mercury was traveling at relativistic speeds and so was experiencing the passage of time at a different rate than we here on Earth ... from this he thought he could cipher out a more basic understanding of gravity and this is what we know as GR today ...

We'll need a decent sized camera and a total solar eclipse to demonstrate how starlight bends around the sun ... say a 2 foot aperture ... I believe it was a 4 foot camera they used during the 1919 Australia total solar eclipse which completely and fully verified GR ... an abundance of evidence pours in on a daily basis ...

TimeSpace curves right here across our computer desks ... but safely ignored ... much like platting a small town on a flat piece of paper ... strictly speaking wrong, but close enough to define property lines ...

I honestly don't know what a "Frannie" is ... because I'm competent in basic math skills? ... or because I can gloss my way through more advanced math skills? ... I freely admit to only getting through the first four pages of the preface of my tensor calculus textbook, yeesh, haven't bothered learning differential geometry yet ... if this upsets you, you can sue me at 125 E. 8th Ave., Eugene, OR ... let me know, I'd be happy to send you the packet you'll need, I'm a helpful kind of guy that way ...

 

[james bond]

Almost ... the exception is the orbital parameters of Mercury ... and Newton himself was aware of this discrepancy ... it's actually pretty obvious if you do the math ... if we assume the mass of the sun is much much greater than the masses of the four inner planets, then we can use the default form of Newton;'s equation:

F = G (msun/r^2) [where F=gravitation, G=universal gravitation constant, msun= mass of sun, r=distance between]

This is a perfect predictor of the orbits of Venus, Earth, Mars and the Moon around the Earth, thus it's exceptional useful in our day-to-day activities if that includes a lot of open ocean navigation using a sextant ... Mercury has always failed this equation and we were using the denominator r^2.000000000000235 ... clear as a bell, you can do the math yourself easy enough ...

Einstein had Special Relativity in hand ... (that's about time, and not gravity) ... which predicted the dilation of time ... and he realized Mercury was traveling at relativistic speeds and so was experiencing the passage of time at a different rate than we here on Earth ... from this he thought he could cipher out a more basic understanding of gravity and this is what we know as GR today ...

Yep, that's right. My bad, I'm the Frannie in this case. Gravity is confusing. I overlooked Mercury and also got the black hole wrong. When we get closest to the dominant attraction, then the gravitational field is very strong and Newton's law of gravitation equation doesn't hold. It's when an object is not close to the sun or black hole that the objects would orbit it as the law of gravitation. Einstein's GR formula applies better for Mercury and at the event horizon of black holes where gravitational field is a strong.

NASA has a pretty good handle on Einstein's GR and SR. It explains the event horizon of black holes and where an object (spacecraft) is in orbit close to Earth where the gravitational field is strong to curve spacetime -- 10 Things Einstein Got Right – NASA Solar System Exploration

ETA: Do you think ding knows this? He's a heretic if you ask me. Not much into creation science, but loves to talk God .

 

[ReinyDays]

Yep, that's right. My bad, I'm the Frannie in this case. Gravity is confusing. I overlooked Mercury and also got the black hole wrong. When we get closest to the dominant attraction, then the gravitational field is very strong and Newton's law of gravitation equation doesn't hold. It's when an object is not close to the sun or black hole that the objects would orbit it as the law of gravitation. Einstein's GR formula applies better for Mercury and at the event horizon of black holes where gravitational field is a strong.

NASA has a pretty good handle on Einstein's GR and SR. It explains the event horizon of black holes and where an object (spacecraft) is in orbit close to Earth where the gravitational field is strong to curve spacetime -- 10 Things Einstein Got Right – NASA Solar System Exploration

ETA: Do you think ding knows this? He's a heretic if you ask me. Not much into creation science, but loves to talk God .

The rule of thumb is ... for things that are very very big, we use GR ... for things that are very very small, we use QM ... for things human-sized, Newton reigns supreme ...

NASA doesn't use GR for their work ... they don't build things that go fast enough to have to take this into consideration ... these are engineers, not astrophysicists ... their job to get the satellite into orbit or beyond ... the satellite owners take over from there ... it's JPL, Princeton, the military and the like who have to take GR into consideration ... other than the GPS system, GR isn't used outside theory ...

Ding is a Christian ... as I am ... we hold to the Second Covenant ... "Love your brother as you love yourself" ... Creationism is a matter of the First Covenant and Man has been release from those bounds (if he so chooses) ... I'd hate to think you're just cherry-picking out of the Old Testament the rules and laws that fit your own lifestyle ... so, generally, when you bring up Creationism, I assume you're dragging disobedient children out into the wilderness and stoning them to death ... as our Bible commands us ... digging your toilet pit 24 cubits from your home ... intolerant of women wearing men's clothing (like pantsuits) ... only Satan would have us taking what we want out of the Bible and ignore the rest ... I'm sorry, if you choose to live by the Letter of the Law, you have to live by every letter of every law ... that's 15% of your gross income to the "Rebuilding the Third Temple" fund in Israel ...

I admire you for being a Creationist ... sad you don't think much of Christians ... most of us are nice people ...

 

[ding]

Almost ... the exception is the orbital parameters of Mercury ... and Newton himself was aware of this discrepancy ... it's actually pretty obvious if you do the math ... if we assume the mass of the sun is much much greater than the masses of the four inner planets, then we can use the default form of Newton;'s equation:

F = G (msun/r^2) [where F=gravitation, G=universal gravitation constant, msun= mass of sun, r=distance between]

This is a perfect predictor of the orbits of Venus, Earth, Mars and the Moon around the Earth, thus it's exceptional useful in our day-to-day activities if that includes a lot of open ocean navigation using a sextant ... Mercury has always failed this equation and we were using the denominator r^2.000000000000235 ... clear as a bell, you can do the math yourself easy enough ...

Einstein had Special Relativity in hand ... (that's about time, and not gravity) ... which predicted the dilation of time ... and he realized Mercury was traveling at relativistic speeds and so was experiencing the passage of time at a different rate than we here on Earth ... from this he thought he could cipher out a more basic understanding of gravity and this is what we know as GR today ...

Yep, that's right. My bad, I'm the Frannie in this case. Gravity is confusing. I overlooked Mercury and also got the black hole wrong. When we get closest to the dominant attraction, then the gravitational field is very strong and Newton's law of gravitation equation doesn't hold. It's when an object is not close to the sun or black hole that the objects would orbit it as the law of gravitation. Einstein's GR formula applies better for Mercury and at the event horizon of black holes where gravitational field is a strong.

NASA has a pretty good handle on Einstein's GR and SR. It explains the event horizon of black holes and where an object (spacecraft) is in orbit close to Earth where the gravitational field is strong to curve spacetime -- 10 Things Einstein Got Right – NASA Solar System Exploration

ETA: Do you think ding knows this? He's a heretic if you ask me. Not much into creation science, but loves to talk God .

You could fill volumes with the things ding doesn't know, JB. I never claimed to know everything or to be special in any way. But I look for truth and like solving puzzles and I am very curious.

You are correct though I don't believe in creation science. I believe it is a bunch of bunk. And like I said the other day... I am perfectly fine with your worldview. I am perfectly fine with your literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe that all things are part of God's plan. So I accept how things are. I have faith that everything works out for the best possible outcome that can possibly exist for 7 billion journeys of free will and every journey before that and every journey after that. I have faith in God who I perceive as being infinite love, infinite goodness, infinite beauty, infinite truth, infinite logic, infinite wisdom, infinite justice, infinite mercy and infinite being. Mind you, I am not saying God has those attributes, I am saying God IS those attributes. I have peace because I believe God is those things. Which is how I know everything works out according to His plan.

But our two different views (allegorical vs literal interpretation of Genesis) will probably never be able to be reconciled when we discuss science. It just isn't possible. So what purpose does the conversation serve. I can't see one. I want you to take the journey you are on. I don't think I am part of that journey. I don't want to influence your journey. My journey is studying what God created so I can better understand God and God's ways. It is my belief that God can be known through human reason and the chief tool I have in my toolbox is studying what God created. If you are interested in the basis of my beliefs that is fine. But let's not keep trying to convince one another.

Fair enough?

 

[ding]

Now... a couple of comments on the OP and some of the comments that have been made.

Time is a measure of the expansion of the universe. Nothing more, nothing less. No physical property of time exists.

The belief that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle means that outcomes are random is flawed. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability which means the outcomes are according to the laws of conservation and can never be truly random on a macroscopic scale. Particles are constantly being forced to choose. So just because we can't observe everything and predict the outcome deterministically that doesn't mean there wasn't a reason for the outcome. It only means we lack complete information. We live in a logical universe where every effect had a cause. Just because we don't know the exact cause, doesn't mean there wasn't one.

Lastly, free will is choice. At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. Nothing we do is pre-determined. We have control over the choices we make. We control our own destiny. To see it any other way means we have no power to control our destiny and is fatalistic thinking which is used as an excuse to fail and blame others for our failures.

 

[james bond]

NASA doesn't use GR for their work

Sheesh, you didn't read the link I posted. It shows how they use it.

Ding is a Christian ... as I am ... we hold to the Second Covenant ... "Love your brother as you love yourself" ... Creationism is a matter of the First Covenant and Man has been release from those bounds (if he so chooses) ... I'd hate to think you're just cherry-picking out of the Old Testament the rules and laws that fit your own lifestyle ... so, generally, when you bring up Creationism, I assume you're dragging disobedient children out into the wilderness and stoning them to death ... as our Bible commands us ... digging your toilet pit 24 cubits from your home ... intolerant of women wearing men's clothing (like pantsuits) ... only Satan would have us taking what we want out of the Bible and ignore the rest ... I'm sorry, if you choose to live by the Letter of the Law, you have to live by every letter of every law ... that's 15% of your gross income to the "Rebuilding the Third Temple" fund in Israel ...

This is S&T section so I am going by what creation scientists say and what the Bible literally states (mostly in Genesis). You have a mixture of some liberal science and what you believe the Bible says.

For example, instead of the Second Covenant, it is the Noahic Covenant which states there won't be another global flood again. As for the second commandment from Jesus which you refer, it is love your neighbor as you love yourself. The first commandment from Jesus is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. IOW, Jesus condensed the ten commandments for Moses and us.

 

[ReinyDays]

This is S&T section so I am going by what creation scientists say and what the Bible literally states (mostly in Genesis). You have a mixture of some liberal science and what you believe the Bible says.

For example, instead of the Second Covenant, it is the Noahic Covenant which states there won't be another global flood again. As for the second commandment from Jesus which you refer, it is love your neighbor as you love yourself. The first commandment from Jesus is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. IOW, Jesus condensed the ten commandments for Moses and us.

Mat 22:40: "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." ... including Genesis ...

Yes, this is S&T ... what experiment can we perform in the lab to test Creationism? ... here's a pile of dirt, show me how we make Man ...

Jesus condensed the ten commandments for Moses and us.

Thus rendering Creationism obsolete and vexation of Spirit ...

 

[james bond]

I don't believe in creation science. I believe it is a bunch of bunk.

What parts don't you believe in regards to spacetime? Do you not agree that God created spacetime and the three dimensions of space with "In the beginning?"

The OP mentioned free will. This is everything. God gave the angels and humans free will.

Obviously, we have the past, present, and future.

If you don't believe in God created as he stated in 7 days (rested on 7th day), then what did he create? What part of creation science is bunk? The global flood? Tower of Babel?

 

[james bond]

Time is a measure of the expansion of the universe. Nothing more, nothing less. No physical property of time exists.

You got things backwards.. The expansion of the universe can happen because of time. Nothing can move without time.

I stopped reading after that haha.

 

[ReinyDays]

Do you not agree that God created spacetime and the three dimensions of space with "In the beginning?"

Not even sure what this means ... define spacetime and these "three dimensions of space" ... and focus on the differences please ...

then what did he create?

The Spirit ...

 

[ding]

I don't believe in creation science. I believe it is a bunch of bunk.

What parts don't you believe in regards to spacetime? Do you not agree that God created spacetime and the three dimensions of space with "In the beginning?"

The OP mentioned free will. This is everything. God gave the angels and humans free will.

Obviously, we have the past, present, and future.

If you don't believe in God created as he stated in 7 days (rested on 7th day), then what did he create? What part of creation science is bunk? The global flood? Tower of Babel?

What parts don't you believe in regards to spacetime? Do you not agree that God created spacetime and the three dimensions of space with "In the beginning?"

I believe God willed existence into being. Existence being space and time or the material world. And that man arose from that creation.

If you don't believe in God created as he stated in 7 days (rested on 7th day), then what did he create?

I do believe that God created existence. I don't believe Genesis is a literal description of that process. I believe Genesis is an allegorical description of that process. God created existence. So there's the beginning. From that beginning creation evolved in steps or stages until such time that man arose from that creation. All according to God's will.

What part of creation science is bunk?

The part that takes allegory and turns it into science.

The global flood? Tower of Babel?

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 800 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom. Shame on us.

The OP mentioned free will. This is everything. God gave the angels and humans free will.

Do angels have free will? How do you know angels have free will? I don't know that they do or they don't. You should make a thread about this explaining how you know they do. I would be very interested in reading the biblical references.

Obviously, we have the past, present, and future.

Yes, we can remember the past but not the future. The GR field equations work perfectly well in reverse as they do in forward but no one has ever been able to reverse the direction of time. Even if the universe began to contract the arrow of time would not reverse. The question of time is not a new question. It's been discussed for a long time. Google "The problem with time." There is no physical phenomenon of time. It is just a way to mark the passage of physical events that do exist in the physical world.

 

[ding]

Time is a measure of the expansion of the universe. Nothing more, nothing less. No physical property of time exists.

You got things backwards.. The expansion of the universe can happen because of time. Nothing can move without time.

I stopped reading after that haha.

The expansion of the universe happened because matter anti-matter annihilation (there were 1 billion antimatter particles for every 1 billion and 1 matter particles) released enormous amounts of energy as matter was converted into radiation per Einstein's E=mc^2 which propelled the remaining matter particles outward.

The expansion of the universe did not happen because of time. Time is just a way of marking physical events relative to other physical events.

 

[ReinyDays]

Just a small follow-up to young ding's excellent post ... and this is another's interpretation I'm repeating ...

There is evidence of a genetic bottleneck in humans around 50,000 years ago ... total human population on the entire planet was in the thousands if not hundreds of individuals ... this is the start of the Oral Tradition, evenings around the campfire telling stories and teaching moral lessons ... generation after generation ... with the advent of writing then we get a snapshot of this Oral Tradition as it existed 6,000 years ago ...

The Spiritual Earth was created by God ... of the flesh, the Bible teaches it as "vainity and vexation of Spirit" ...

 

[ding]

Just a small follow-up to young ding's excellent post ... and this is another's interpretation I'm repeating ...

There is evidence of a genetic bottleneck in humans around 50,000 years ago ... total human population on the entire planet was in the thousands if not hundreds of individuals ... this is the start of the Oral Tradition, evenings around the campfire telling stories and teaching moral lessons ... generation after generation ... with the advent of writing then we get a snapshot of this Oral Tradition as it existed 6,000 years ago ...

The Spiritual Earth was created by God ... of the flesh, the Bible teaches it as "vainity and vexation of Spirit" ...

Thank you. Can you tell me more about.... " The Spiritual Earth was created by God ... of the flesh, the Bible teaches it as "vainity and vexation of Spirit" ?"

 

[ReinyDays]

Thank you. Can you tell me more about.... " The Spiritual Earth was created by God ... of the flesh, the Bible teaches it as "vainity and vexation of Spirit" ?"

1] The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2] Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
3] What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

-- Ecclesiastes 1

Here we're interpreting "vanity" as "of the flesh" or "concern over the flesh" ... think Vanity Smurf, the one who was always admiring himself in his mirror ... what profit did he enjoy in such labors? ... only being more attractive to that broke down whore they kept around ...

Further:

14] I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

-- ibid

I could go on cherry-picking lines, best you read the whole of the book yourself and perhaps see how this all fits into context ... from this we can see where the precept "If you interpret the Bible literally, you're wrong" comes from, not that I entirely agree ... but I do completely agree with the converse "If you don't interpret the Bible spiritually, you're wrong" ... every passage in every book has a moral lesson ... stories told around the campfire to teach folks a better way to live their lives based on millennia of human experiences ...

We'll never know when humans first realized that bother/sister babymaking was a bad idea ... long before we understood this on the DNA level ... but there it is prohibited 3,500 years ago ... and we do (correctly) interpret this in the flesh, but the deeper spiritual meaning is more significant and more important to understand ... babymaking by convenience, without the difficult task of building a proper marital relationship ... and thus we can extend this understanding to our co-workers, aunts and uncles, trees, sheep, the list goes on ... this convenience is easy and lazy satisfying only the flesh, and vexing the of the spirit ... turning our eyes from God ...

Much of the rest of the Bible is beyond my understanding ... I was a profound and active whoremonger when I came to Christ ... so this and some other passages rung true for me and showed me exactly how I had to change to follow Christ ... and to this day, chasing skirt is something I must be on my guard against ... speaking to a woman's face rather than her breasts ... and I'm absolutely a better man today by setting aside my lustful cravings and attending with a whole heart matters of God and the Holy Spirit ...

I can leave work everyday lamenting that this is where I met her ... but there it is ... a line I will not cross under any circumstances ...

ETA: "In the beginning, God created [spiritual] Earth and [spiritual] Heaven" ... two people looking at each other agreeing that living like animals isn't all that great of an idea ... thus the advent of "brotherhood" and the end of ceasless fighting over mates and resources that we see among the beasts of the field ... God is Love ...