Universal Salvation, is everybody eventually led back to heaven/paradise/love?

The ignorance of people is truly astounding. Isn't it?

 

My sentence which I wrote made good sense to me. If there is a problem in interpreting the sentence, then by all means, ask for assistance with that portion which you don't understand (without the innuendos) and you just might get a proper response. It is no fault of mine that you seemingly don't understand common words which bear common definitions.

Then obviously, your interpretation of the clarified as well as the original sentence was in error, if I did not agree with your interpretation.

As stated previously... I wrote what I meant and meant what I wrote.

I said what I meant and meant what I said. If need be, you can always refer to the dictionary and check out the meanings of each word I used in the original sentence and the clarified sentence which I wrote.

 

well, having a fairly good grasp of physics...not likely. Although, I do enjoy the dream. Somehow it would be nice to "archive" the good ones and replay them at will.

 

Saying that the sky is blue is not the same as saying that the sky is not blue. Wow that is profound.

Did you have a point other than spewing the obvious ?

Even in these simple things you contradict yourself because seeing the obviousness of this statement requires "logic". Since you do not follow the rules of logic "Saying the sky is blue is the same as saying the sky is not blue" in the world of Incorp.

 

Does physics explain everything in the physical world? Well, you do replay them at will (at least in part) else you would not be able to relate them to the readers of this forum.

 

Your closing comment above, again shows that you have not comprehended what I said... else you are intentionally attempting to obfuscate the obvious.. the obvious being that one persons description of the blue sky is not necessarily the same description another person would give to the blue sky... in other words the description of the color blue has many variations and are variations that would be dependent upon the persons viewing that sky. You failed again. Thus the sky being blue is subjective.

 

Well, yes, physics does explain where the laws of physics are applicable. And, I'd like the ability to replay then at will, at night, so I can queue them up in a series. Just wishing!

 

That is akin to a Christian saying that the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true.

 

The sky is blue because when light travels through water vapor a specific wavelength of light is emitted.

This wavelength is not "subject" to the interpretation of the observer. It is the same and this has been verified by every independent observer that has bothered to look.

This wavelength is not "arbitrary". You have no clue what you are talking about once again.

 

There you go again with that black magic science while refusing to pay attention to what is in reality. In reality, differing people will provide a differing description of that color 'blue' regardless of the stability of "wavelength". Pay attention to the REALITY of people.

 

Describing what the color blue looks like has nothing to do with the scientific fact that the wavelength of light emitted when light travels through water vapor is not subjective.

Forgive me for not being able to reason with someone who will not admit that the sky is blue.

 

(Bold emphasizing in the above is by me)

Your suggested scenario fits the Rapture or something similar, one that has ramifications far beyond scattered individual or even group occurrences of reincarnation.

There are various rational explanations for a process like the Rapture. David Wilcox has ideas of a dimensional split that leaves the badies behind on the old earth subject to gross turmoil while the more fortunate remainder are shifted along with the more harmonious new world. It’s a neat and attractive way of putting Revelations and apocalyptic processes into a workable perspective, especially if you also take in his vote on the sun being a transmitter that can periodically initiate DNA shifting and other major changes.

There’s also the observation that the big black hole in the center of each galaxy can be an occasional instigator of pandemonium.

Perhaps we should count on one thing: the fundamental principle of progressive evolution. Changes are inevitable.

Where we are in the scheme of changes is uncertain. If we run up against a limited timeline of cycles, the boss folds up shop and dispositions us as the process dictates.

If we are suitable participants where there’s still time to keep contributing to a favorably unfolding reality, then maybe we can postpone any drastic cutoff. We just don’t know. I’d say our fate hangs heavy over our heads. That might account for your sense of potential for change. However, many bad things that seemed to be pending in the recent past didn’t happen. Let’s keep it that way if we can.

If it means anything, consider a tip from George Greene and others who have said that observers from many parts of this sector of the universe are focusing on us because they are intrigued by something unique happening here: an accelerated rate of progressive evolution that has never been tried before anywhere within their territorial reach.

 

Do you often go around changing the goal posts?

 

I didn't. You silly argument is lost and now you are left mumbling meaningless nonsense.

If you are going to accuse me of changing the goal posts then show how I did this. Otherwise shut it.

 

By switching from the subject matter of "color" to the scientific relationship of 'wavelength'. Anymore meaningless mumbling that you want to throw in to further change the goal posts?

 

Are you now claiming that color is not a function of wavelength ? The Color of the sky is directly related to the wavelength of light. The wavelength of light (color of the sky) is exactly the subject matter.

You are claiming that the color of the sky is subjective and this is abject nonsense. The sky is blue. The type of blue is not subjective. It is a exactly the color blue dictated by the wavelength of light passing through a given portion of the sky at that instant. In general that color is blue. Sometimes it is red, orange or pink.

In general the sky is blue on an uncloudy day in the mid afternoon. You want to claim that this is subjective = the sky is not blue. OK go ahead.

I have no desire to try and reason with someone who can not figure out that the sky is blue.

 

No! I am claiming that you are changing the goal posts. Do you have a problem with common vernacular?

Now if you want to get real technical, the sky has no color. Color as you pointed out is a function of the wavelength of light traveling through moisture in the air. And as I pointed out, that color is dependent upon the individual viewer and how he/she wants to describe that particular shade of blue.

Then show PROOF of claim. The sky is subjective = dependent upon the individual viewer and his/her description of that shade of blue.

What shade of blue is the sky giftedone? Be accurate in your description and make sure that the description complies with that of every living person on the face of the earth.

 

The question is not "what shade of Blue" the sky is. This is an example of you moving the goal-posts.

The question is whether or not the sky is blue. You claim that it is not - the color of the sky is subjective.

At the end of the day you are missing the point in any case. As stated previously the sky is just one example of your disingenuous belligerence.

The freezing point of water is another example if this one is easier for you to understand. Your claiming that this is subjective/arbitrary is absolute nonsense.

There is no point in trying to reason with someone who does not understand that the freezing point of water is not subjective. If you can not understand this then fine. I have done my best to explain this and can offer nothing more.

 

The color of the sky is subjective... You even refuse to give your own description of the color blue. Why? Because you are afraid to admit to the fact that the color of the sky is subjective and is dependent upon the description of the color blue by the individual viewer. You refused to give a description of the car which I posted a link to a sample picture ... why... the same reason.... you don't want me to be right in the fact that colors are subjectively determined by the viewer. End of story. The remainder of your posting is merely opinion based upon your own personal dislike toward me as a Christian.

 

I already explained what the color of the sky is based on. Obviously (well to anyone it seems but you) one can not describe (the color blue) LOL

I am not sure why you think me talking about your lack of ability to understand how the freezing point of water is not subjective relates to Christianity.

Every other Christian on the planet (except perhaps those living in the loony bin) has no problem understanding that the sky is blue or that the freezing point of water is not subjective.

This must be some new form of Christianity you have invented. My apologies if one of the tenets of this new religion (that the freezing point of water is subjective) was offended.

 

I did not ask for an explanation of what the color of the sky is based upon. I asked you to describe the color blue that you see in the sky. Shades of blue are descriptions of the varying shades of blue. Now what color is the sky... give us your description of that color. You are dancing all around that question and that challenge. You are indeed afraid to give an honest answer.

There you go changing the goal posts again. This conversation is not about the freezing point of water.. it is about the color of the sky.. REMEMBER.

And you have personally made inquiry of every other Christian on the planet? Right. LOL.

Again... changing the goal posts... Your responses are indeed pathetic examples of someone dancing in circles in avoidance of a simple challenge. Describe the color of the sky... what shade of blue does your mind perceive it to be?

 

I already told you 1) blue and various shades are described by their positions on the electromagnetic spectrum. 2) I also stated that a color can not be described.

As proof of (2) Please describe what a shade of blue looks like without using the term blue.

 

1: I already told you that I did not ask for an explantion of what the color is based on.. I want you to describe (using those shades of blue.... which you are now admitting do exist) what shade of blue the sky is.

2: 7064 M Water Jet See the various charts here: http://imgarcade.com/1/shades-of-blue-color-chart/ See chart labeled 7 of 18

 

I already told you these can not be described in words. If you think they can be described with words then go ahead and try.

For a specific definition of color one can just go to the specific wavelength of light and that is that. That wavelength is not subjective despite your claims to the contrary.

 

I did give you a description using words and numerals without the use of the word "blue". That description was "Water Jet" Haven't you ever seen a jet of water?

Excuse me... wave length is arbitrary because of the numerations used in that system of measurements. Numbers are abstract constructions of the mind. Therefore ... subjective.