Messages

I didn't say Christ's teachings wern't focused on harmony, peace and uncondidtional love. I said his "message in a nutshell" was not "to focus our minds on harmony, peace, and unconditional love." I'm sure Christ isn't against any of those things, but his teachings didn't, primarily focus on them.

Much of what Christ did was directly in opposition to the thinking of the time. The Pharisees controlled all spiritul life in isreal, but Christ claimed that their ways were wrong. The Pharisees made a monopoly of the temple, discluding anyone they jugged as "unclean" from temple worship. They created books explaing hunderates the "implied" laws in the ten commandments, and a book including thousands of ways these laws could be broken. For example, the Pharisees claimed that spitting into the dust on the sabbath was a sin, because moving the dirt in this way could be seen as plowing. Plowing was work, and working on the sabbath was disrespectful to the holy day. Christ, however came into a synagogue and, against the pharisees' teachings, healed a cripple there on the sabbath. The Pharisees there saw him, and comfronted him. "And they asked him, Is it lawful or allowable to cure people on the Sabbath days? - that they might accuse Him. But He said to them, What man is there among you, if he has only one sheep and it falls into a pit or ditch on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? How much better and of more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful and allowable to do good on the Sabbath days." (Mathew 12, 10b - 12) Christ was always teaching against the Pharisees' tyranical rule over all aspects of Jewish life, and the Parisees hated him for it. In almost all he did, he caused an upheaval in the Jewish culture. Considaring this, how can anyone claim that all of his teachings were based on finding harmony, peace, and unconditional love? He supported these ideas, but did not exclusivly promote them.

My icon is a fracticle of my own finding.

"It seems that intelligence is required to make something ordered."
Which is why conventional science supports Christianity, if you care to belive in conventional science. So what i can't undersand is why they have a "Big Bang" theory or theory of evolution if they're contradicting themselves.

"Therefore, the trick is to focus our minds on harmony, on peace and unconditional love. It is Christ's message in a nutshell."

I don't remember Chist saying any of those things. It's not that I don't repect peace and unconditional love, but I don't think Christ promoted those ideas exclusively.

Every law in the universe leads, ultimatly, in the direction of balance. Heats moves to distribute itself evenly throught the entire universe, and mass tends to come together. The problem is, Entrophy is not chaos. Entrophy is the ability of a system to be changed without a substatial change in the overall consistensy within the system. So, to use the classic "messy room" example, if you moved an object in a messy room, or a cleaned room, in which system would the change be more aparent. The textbook answer is, of coarse the messy one, but this ignores chaos theory's (chaos theory: a theory which states that all "chaotic" actions are actualy extreamly complex reactions, which embodies what I think volcomstone was tring to say in the last paragraph of his original post), assertion that the mess or "high entrophy" room is realy the result of complex patterns of distribution, not actual chaos, so if you were to analyse the behaveour patterns of the person who uses said messy room, it should be just as apparent when an object is moved as in the "low entropy" clean room. The only difference is that in the case of the clean room, the method of distribution is known to the observer, because the clean room corrosponds to an ordered method of organization, more readily recognised by the human brain then the behavour pattern organization of the messy room. So the only real issue of the universe's constant flow of events, is that forces tend to because less and less usable. This is because the "usablity" of a force depends on it's potential energy, and all potential energy derives from an object defieing a law that can potentialy act upon it. So you see, once everything conforms to all the laws that could possible act upon it, the potential energy for the universe will be zero, and everything must come to rest.

This means, however, that potential energy can be revived by a change in the laws that govern the system, which would explain the entierer unverse's uncany ablity to seamingly derive from nothing.

After writing these things down, I am reminded of an occurence of this exact nature (changing of laws) as the basis of a Science Fiction book by Isaac Asimov, titled The Gods Themselves

Stop Vol. Just, stop. You're comparing influence on an philsonphical level to influence on a phisical level. Because of the identical terms, and the similairty between the methods, it may seam at first that somthing is possible that is obviously imposible, or, a reverse paradox. But, you failed to convince your audiance that the two ways of analyzing the situation were part of the same system, and confusion ensued. The object observed is affected by an observer, but this only applies to the information gathered by the observer, not the acctual object itself itself. Confusion of the mind's idea of the object, and the actual object in reality is common, mostly to those who belive that there is no acctual object beyond what is observed. This thinking was introduced as part of you original post, but it introduces the problem of where the event originated form, if not from an extierier reality, as the observer would not have any experiance to use as a referance to what the observed object should consist of, and nothing would be observed at all.