Christmas Crossword, December 19 2024...
Crosswords4 mins ago
Does God Keep Time?
35 Answers
Which poet’s words do you want applied to you?
This one:
“Time goes, you say? Ah no!
Alas, Time stays, we go.”
Or this one:
“All day long I will bless you,
And I will praise your name to time indefinite, even forever.”—Psalm 145:2.
Which one it is will depend on whether you really know what time it is.
This one:
“Time goes, you say? Ah no!
Alas, Time stays, we go.”
Or this one:
“All day long I will bless you,
And I will praise your name to time indefinite, even forever.”—Psalm 145:2.
Which one it is will depend on whether you really know what time it is.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodlife. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What brand of watch Sandy? Rolex? Cartier? Or do you think he would go for those oversized, overblinged models favoured by degenerate gamblers and rap artists? :)
For myself, I like these quotes about time ;
“Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.”
and this one..
“Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.”
For myself, I like these quotes about time ;
“Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.”
and this one..
“Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.”
Man is impatient to get things done in the brief time that life allows him. Sometimes his efforts prove premature, and so fail to achieve the intended goal. But his desire to see results during his own lifetime dominates his thinking. Mistakenly, he tends to judge God on the basis of such human experience, with all its limitations.
Take sin for instance nobody know why we humans grow old and die. And yet the Bible does.
Take sin for instance nobody know why we humans grow old and die. And yet the Bible does.
@goodlife One really has to question where you get your scientific information from.
Our knowledge, through the use of the scientific process, gets more comprehensive each day. So yes, we do know why humans age and die.We have even identified the mechanisms, the how, in many cases. Its probably true to say that there is a notional maximum upper limit for how long humans can live - but that changes by the generation. Average life expectancy from birth was around 30 odd years - that has only changed relatively recently. The change has been amazing and rapid - over several decades, the equivalent of a generation.Now, humans can look forward to a global life expectancy is around 65 years, and if you are fortunate enough to be born in one of the developed countries, like the US, Japan, Europe, that average life expectancy is closer to 80.
Given that, from a biological perspective, we could be regarded as a biomechanical vehicle for the propagation of genes, we do remarkably well :). If we are able to crack the code to prevent the degradation of our telemeres, and if we are able to kickstart neural cell regeneration, our lives could be extended much longer.
All this, brought to you by those kind people at Science......
Our knowledge, through the use of the scientific process, gets more comprehensive each day. So yes, we do know why humans age and die.We have even identified the mechanisms, the how, in many cases. Its probably true to say that there is a notional maximum upper limit for how long humans can live - but that changes by the generation. Average life expectancy from birth was around 30 odd years - that has only changed relatively recently. The change has been amazing and rapid - over several decades, the equivalent of a generation.Now, humans can look forward to a global life expectancy is around 65 years, and if you are fortunate enough to be born in one of the developed countries, like the US, Japan, Europe, that average life expectancy is closer to 80.
Given that, from a biological perspective, we could be regarded as a biomechanical vehicle for the propagation of genes, we do remarkably well :). If we are able to crack the code to prevent the degradation of our telemeres, and if we are able to kickstart neural cell regeneration, our lives could be extended much longer.
All this, brought to you by those kind people at Science......
The problem is that the scientists still do not know just why it is that human cells, after a period of years, fail to reproduce their kind and thus to maintain the body’s needed supply.
What do believe that is the maximum age anyone could live? The Bible, for example, states that “Moses was a hundred and twenty years old at his death. His eye had not grown dim, and his vital strength had not fled.” (Deut. 34:7) Perhaps you will accept this as also possible, since the difference is only some six and two-thirds years.
What, then, of Moses’ ancestor Abraham, who, according to the Scriptural Record, lived “a hundred and seventy-five years” before dying? (Gen. 25:7, 8) And what of Abraham’s ancestor Shem, who is reported at Genesis 11:10, 11 as living six hundred years, or his great-grandfather Methuselah, whose days prior to the global flood “amounted to nine hundred and sixty-nine years and he died”? (Gen. 5:25-27) Would you draw the line somewhere between certain ones of these men and view the other ages as “unscientific” or “unreasonable”?
Yes,People, then, may reject the possibility of Methuselah’s age, even joke about it. But they cannot do so on truly scientific grounds, for genuine science admittedly knows no certain or absolute limit to human life
you cannot because God is the life giver. And that is all for now.
What do believe that is the maximum age anyone could live? The Bible, for example, states that “Moses was a hundred and twenty years old at his death. His eye had not grown dim, and his vital strength had not fled.” (Deut. 34:7) Perhaps you will accept this as also possible, since the difference is only some six and two-thirds years.
What, then, of Moses’ ancestor Abraham, who, according to the Scriptural Record, lived “a hundred and seventy-five years” before dying? (Gen. 25:7, 8) And what of Abraham’s ancestor Shem, who is reported at Genesis 11:10, 11 as living six hundred years, or his great-grandfather Methuselah, whose days prior to the global flood “amounted to nine hundred and sixty-nine years and he died”? (Gen. 5:25-27) Would you draw the line somewhere between certain ones of these men and view the other ages as “unscientific” or “unreasonable”?
Yes,People, then, may reject the possibility of Methuselah’s age, even joke about it. But they cannot do so on truly scientific grounds, for genuine science admittedly knows no certain or absolute limit to human life
you cannot because God is the life giver. And that is all for now.
@ Woofgang No, I would say we are fairly clear on both the why and the how of death, tbh.
The why only becomes a source of angst, I think, if you agonise over "the meaning of life". As I said in my previous post, humans can be viewed as essentially a biomechanical vehicle whose job it is to pass on genetic information to the next generation.Once that job is done, as far as nature is concerned, the vehicles job is done, and it is a slow shutdown :)
Now, if you want to get really metaphysical and start wondering about why life has this desire to reproduce at all,you could probably have an interesting discussion, but for me it does just come down to biochemistry.
@goodlife - No one but the most evangelistic and fundamental of christians believes the bible can be relied upon to offer substantive scientific fact. Since the overwhelming majority of it, as with the koran, can be dismissed as a collection of folk myth, legend and cautionary tales, it follows that it is a completely unreliable source for anything beyond a bit of sermonising.
To believe in the age of methuselah as 900 odd years old based upon a literal interpretation of the bible would be to make the same credulous mistake, as Archbishop Ussher did - believing in the inerrancy of the bible - when devising his chronology of creation : essentially counting the number of "begats" to arrive at the date of the Creation as being nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC. It is, frankly, a preposterous assertion to use the bible or the koran ( lets keep everyone happy and criticise all religions equally here) as a foundational truth for anything scientific.
I think, in the absence of some of the more truly creative sci-fi solutions becoming a reality, we can determine that the maximal upper limit of human life, in very exceptional cases, is not going to be very much more than where we are now. And goodlife - before you start making assertions like "you cannot because God is the life giver. And that is all for now" - First you have to offer evidence for this god of yours - incontrovertible evidence, which you cannot.
The why only becomes a source of angst, I think, if you agonise over "the meaning of life". As I said in my previous post, humans can be viewed as essentially a biomechanical vehicle whose job it is to pass on genetic information to the next generation.Once that job is done, as far as nature is concerned, the vehicles job is done, and it is a slow shutdown :)
Now, if you want to get really metaphysical and start wondering about why life has this desire to reproduce at all,you could probably have an interesting discussion, but for me it does just come down to biochemistry.
@goodlife - No one but the most evangelistic and fundamental of christians believes the bible can be relied upon to offer substantive scientific fact. Since the overwhelming majority of it, as with the koran, can be dismissed as a collection of folk myth, legend and cautionary tales, it follows that it is a completely unreliable source for anything beyond a bit of sermonising.
To believe in the age of methuselah as 900 odd years old based upon a literal interpretation of the bible would be to make the same credulous mistake, as Archbishop Ussher did - believing in the inerrancy of the bible - when devising his chronology of creation : essentially counting the number of "begats" to arrive at the date of the Creation as being nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC. It is, frankly, a preposterous assertion to use the bible or the koran ( lets keep everyone happy and criticise all religions equally here) as a foundational truth for anything scientific.
I think, in the absence of some of the more truly creative sci-fi solutions becoming a reality, we can determine that the maximal upper limit of human life, in very exceptional cases, is not going to be very much more than where we are now. And goodlife - before you start making assertions like "you cannot because God is the life giver. And that is all for now" - First you have to offer evidence for this god of yours - incontrovertible evidence, which you cannot.
-- answer removed --
My god!!! did she/he actually type all that and the expect anybody to even read it let alone understand it??
LazyGun
@ Woofgang No, I would say we are fairly clear on both the why and the how of death, tbh.
The why only becomes a source of angst, I think, if you agonise over "the meaning of life". As I said in my previous post, humans can be viewed as essentially a biomechanical vehicle whose job it is to pass on genetic information to the next generation.Once that job is done, as far as nature is concerned, the vehicles job is done, and it is a slow shutdown :)
Now, if you want to get really metaphysical and start wondering about why life has this desire to reproduce at all,you could probably have an interesting discussion, but for me it does just come down to biochemistry.
@goodlife - No one but the most evangelistic and fundamental of christians believes the bible can be relied upon to offer substantive scientific fact. Since the overwhelming majority of it, as with the koran, can be dismissed as a collection of folk myth, legend and cautionary tales, it follows that it is a completely unreliable source for anything beyond a bit of sermonising.
To believe in the age of methuselah as 900 odd years old based upon a literal interpretation of the bible would be to make the same credulous mistake, as Archbishop Ussher did - believing in the inerrancy of the bible - when devising his chronology of creation : essentially counting the number of "begats" to arrive at the date of the Creation as being nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC. It is, frankly, a preposterous assertion to use the bible or the koran ( lets keep everyone happy and criticise all religions equally here) as a foundational truth for anything scientific.
I think, in the absence of some of the more truly creative sci-fi solutions becoming a reality, we can determine that the maximal upper limit of human life, in very exceptional cases, is not going to be very much more than where we are now. And goodlife - before you start making assertions like "you cannot because God is the life giver. And that is all for now" - First you have to offer evidence for this god of yours - incontrovertible evidence, which you cannot.
LazyGun
@ Woofgang No, I would say we are fairly clear on both the why and the how of death, tbh.
The why only becomes a source of angst, I think, if you agonise over "the meaning of life". As I said in my previous post, humans can be viewed as essentially a biomechanical vehicle whose job it is to pass on genetic information to the next generation.Once that job is done, as far as nature is concerned, the vehicles job is done, and it is a slow shutdown :)
Now, if you want to get really metaphysical and start wondering about why life has this desire to reproduce at all,you could probably have an interesting discussion, but for me it does just come down to biochemistry.
@goodlife - No one but the most evangelistic and fundamental of christians believes the bible can be relied upon to offer substantive scientific fact. Since the overwhelming majority of it, as with the koran, can be dismissed as a collection of folk myth, legend and cautionary tales, it follows that it is a completely unreliable source for anything beyond a bit of sermonising.
To believe in the age of methuselah as 900 odd years old based upon a literal interpretation of the bible would be to make the same credulous mistake, as Archbishop Ussher did - believing in the inerrancy of the bible - when devising his chronology of creation : essentially counting the number of "begats" to arrive at the date of the Creation as being nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC. It is, frankly, a preposterous assertion to use the bible or the koran ( lets keep everyone happy and criticise all religions equally here) as a foundational truth for anything scientific.
I think, in the absence of some of the more truly creative sci-fi solutions becoming a reality, we can determine that the maximal upper limit of human life, in very exceptional cases, is not going to be very much more than where we are now. And goodlife - before you start making assertions like "you cannot because God is the life giver. And that is all for now" - First you have to offer evidence for this god of yours - incontrovertible evidence, which you cannot.
Latest Posts
Editor's Blog6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Crosswords37 mins ago
