Comments on: The Case For A Creator, A Scientist And His Journey From Aethism To Faith http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/ Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:04:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: simon ellison http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-1505 simon ellison Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:36:13 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-1505 How could I have ever have doubted the truth? The internet is chock full of garbage, but sometimes, there is a gem - this film is one such gem. Baruch HaShem indeed! How could I have ever have doubted the truth?

The internet is chock full of garbage, but sometimes, there is a gem – this film is one such gem.

Baruch HaShem indeed!

]]> By: Marc http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-537 Marc Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:29:25 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-537 don't make it so difficult! i have seen the blind get their sight back instantly!! blind from birth... 30 in a row... i have seen legs grow, spines got straitened instant! deaf people from birth hearing and dumb people speaking their first words! God is alive! Search for Him till u drop... don't stop at fighting if Genesis is true. I started with a very simple question "where did life come from" don't go for another question till u solved this one! go search nano-technologie, kwantum fysics U WILL FIND GOD!! When u find Him pray day and light for a revelation of Jesus! U WILL GET IT!!! I GOT IT ALL BUY THIS BOOK: THE LONG WAR AGAINST GOD! (sorry for my crappy english) LIFE GET'S AWESOME WHEN U SEE THIS LIGHT don’t make it so difficult! i have seen the blind get their sight back instantly!! blind from birth… 30 in a row… i have seen legs grow, spines got straitened instant! deaf people from birth hearing and dumb people speaking their first words! God is alive! Search for Him till u drop… don’t stop at fighting if Genesis is true.
I started with a very simple question “where did life come from” don’t go for another question till u solved this one! go search nano-technologie, kwantum fysics U WILL FIND GOD!!
When u find Him pray day and light for a revelation of Jesus! U WILL GET IT!!!
I GOT IT ALL
BUY THIS BOOK: THE LONG WAR AGAINST GOD!
(sorry for my crappy english)

LIFE GET’S AWESOME WHEN U SEE THIS LIGHT

]]> By: Marc http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-1132 Marc Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:29:25 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-1132 don't make it so difficult! i have seen the blind get their sight back instantly!! blind from birth... 30 in a row... i have seen legs grow, spines got straitened instant! deaf people from birth hearing and dumb people speaking their first words! God is alive! Search for Him till u drop... don't stop at fighting if Genesis is true. I started with a very simple question "where did life come from" don't go for another question till u solved this one! go search nano-technologie, kwantum fysics U WILL FIND GOD!! When u find Him pray day and light for a revelation of Jesus! U WILL GET IT!!! I GOT IT ALL BUY THIS BOOK: THE LONG WAR AGAINST GOD! (sorry for my crappy english) LIFE GET'S AWESOME WHEN U SEE THIS LIGHT don’t make it so difficult! i have seen the blind get their sight back instantly!! blind from birth… 30 in a row… i have seen legs grow, spines got straitened instant! deaf people from birth hearing and dumb people speaking their first words! God is alive! Search for Him till u drop… don’t stop at fighting if Genesis is true.
I started with a very simple question “where did life come from” don’t go for another question till u solved this one! go search nano-technologie, kwantum fysics U WILL FIND GOD!!
When u find Him pray day and light for a revelation of Jesus! U WILL GET IT!!!
I GOT IT ALL
BUY THIS BOOK: THE LONG WAR AGAINST GOD!
(sorry for my crappy english)

LIFE GET’S AWESOME WHEN U SEE THIS LIGHT

]]> By: Ed http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-538 Ed Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:55:56 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-538 Hmm. I think the bible could, or maybe should, be forgiven that. I mean nobody expects a Rover Montego to have air bags, satnav and an iPod port so why shouldn't the bible - by a contemporary thinker - be considered to be an ideological work of numerous layers of intersecting symbolic discourse, rather than literal? Isn't any description of an event, rather than the event itself, by definition, representative, anyway? It seems a little to me like proclaiming the carbon dating of the Venitian foundations wrong, and thereby dissassembling the nation's constitutiion, making it's people homeless, building a giant fence around the place with an empty horizon painted on it and then handing out leaflets insisting to everyone the place never existed. And if Atheists are not against the theological or philosophical proposal of the existance of a creatory, and are simply trying to argue that The Bible isn't a literal historical document of fact, why isn't this made clear? It would appear, generally to me, that they are making the statement over and over again that science proclaims there can be no Creator: which simply isn't true or even possible (as argued above), and is so therefore just wrong. Shouldn't we define what we mean by 'Creator' before we start insisting on it's non existence? Or are there factions within Atheism? Or would this simply be, technically, Agnosticism not Atheism? Hmm. I think the bible could, or maybe should, be forgiven that. I mean nobody expects a Rover Montego to have air bags, satnav and an iPod port so why shouldn’t the bible – by a contemporary thinker – be considered to be an ideological work of numerous layers of intersecting symbolic discourse, rather than literal? Isn’t any description of an event, rather than the event itself, by definition, representative, anyway?

It seems a little to me like proclaiming the carbon dating of the Venitian foundations wrong, and thereby dissassembling the nation’s constitutiion, making it’s people homeless, building a giant fence around the place with an empty horizon painted on it and then handing out leaflets insisting to everyone the place never existed.

And if Atheists are not against the theological or philosophical proposal of the existance of a creatory, and are simply trying to argue that The Bible isn’t a literal historical document of fact, why isn’t this made clear? It would appear, generally to me, that they are making the statement over and over again that science proclaims there can be no Creator: which simply isn’t true or even possible (as argued above), and is so therefore just wrong. Shouldn’t we define what we mean by ‘Creator’ before we start insisting on it’s non existence? Or are there factions within Atheism? Or would this simply be, technically, Agnosticism not Atheism?

]]> By: Ed http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-539 Ed Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:55:56 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-539 Hmm. I think the bible could, or maybe should, be forgiven that. I mean nobody expects a Rover Montego to have air bags, satnav and an iPod port so why shouldn't the bible - by a contemporary thinker - be considered to be an ideological work of numerous layers of intersecting symbolic discourse, rather than literal? Isn't any description of an event, rather than the event itself, by definition, representative, anyway? It seems a little to me like proclaiming the carbon dating of the Venitian foundations wrong, and thereby dissassembling the nation's constitutiion, making it's people homeless, building a giant fence around the place with an empty horizon painted on it and then handing out leaflets insisting to everyone the place never existed. And if Atheists are not against the theological or philosophical proposal of the existance of a creatory, and are simply trying to argue that The Bible isn't a literal historical document of fact, why isn't this made clear? It would appear, generally to me, that they are making the statement over and over again that science proclaims there can be no Creator: which simply isn't true or even possible (as argued above), and is so therefore just wrong. Shouldn't we define what we mean by 'Creator' before we start insisting on it's non existence? Or are there factions within Atheism? Or would this simply be, technically, Agnosticism not Atheism? Hmm. I think the bible could, or maybe should, be forgiven that. I mean nobody expects a Rover Montego to have air bags, satnav and an iPod port so why shouldn’t the bible – by a contemporary thinker – be considered to be an ideological work of numerous layers of intersecting symbolic discourse, rather than literal? Isn’t any description of an event, rather than the event itself, by definition, representative, anyway?

It seems a little to me like proclaiming the carbon dating of the Venitian foundations wrong, and thereby dissassembling the nation’s constitutiion, making it’s people homeless, building a giant fence around the place with an empty horizon painted on it and then handing out leaflets insisting to everyone the place never existed.

And if Atheists are not against the theological or philosophical proposal of the existance of a creatory, and are simply trying to argue that The Bible isn’t a literal historical document of fact, why isn’t this made clear? It would appear, generally to me, that they are making the statement over and over again that science proclaims there can be no Creator: which simply isn’t true or even possible (as argued above), and is so therefore just wrong. Shouldn’t we define what we mean by ‘Creator’ before we start insisting on it’s non existence? Or are there factions within Atheism? Or would this simply be, technically, Agnosticism not Atheism?

]]> By: Ed http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-1133 Ed Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:55:56 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-1133 Hmm. I think the bible could, or maybe should, be forgiven that. I mean nobody expects a Rover Montego to have air bags, satnav and an iPod port so why shouldn't the bible - by a contemporary thinker - be considered to be an ideological work of numerous layers of intersecting symbolic discourse, rather than literal? Isn't any description of an event, rather than the event itself, by definition, representative, anyway? It seems a little to me like proclaiming the carbon dating of the Venitian foundations wrong, and thereby dissassembling the nation's constitutiion, making it's people homeless, building a giant fence around the place with an empty horizon painted on it and then handing out leaflets insisting to everyone the place never existed. And if Atheists are not against the theological or philosophical proposal of the existance of a creatory, and are simply trying to argue that The Bible isn't a literal historical document of fact, why isn't this made clear? It would appear, generally to me, that they are making the statement over and over again that science proclaims there can be no Creator: which simply isn't true or even possible (as argued above), and is so therefore just wrong. Shouldn't we define what we mean by 'Creator' before we start insisting on it's non existence? Or are there factions within Atheism? Or would this simply be, technically, Agnosticism not Atheism? Hmm. I think the bible could, or maybe should, be forgiven that. I mean nobody expects a Rover Montego to have air bags, satnav and an iPod port so why shouldn’t the bible – by a contemporary thinker – be considered to be an ideological work of numerous layers of intersecting symbolic discourse, rather than literal? Isn’t any description of an event, rather than the event itself, by definition, representative, anyway?

It seems a little to me like proclaiming the carbon dating of the Venitian foundations wrong, and thereby dissassembling the nation’s constitutiion, making it’s people homeless, building a giant fence around the place with an empty horizon painted on it and then handing out leaflets insisting to everyone the place never existed.

And if Atheists are not against the theological or philosophical proposal of the existance of a creatory, and are simply trying to argue that The Bible isn’t a literal historical document of fact, why isn’t this made clear? It would appear, generally to me, that they are making the statement over and over again that science proclaims there can be no Creator: which simply isn’t true or even possible (as argued above), and is so therefore just wrong. Shouldn’t we define what we mean by ‘Creator’ before we start insisting on it’s non existence? Or are there factions within Atheism? Or would this simply be, technically, Agnosticism not Atheism?

]]> By: Ed http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-1134 Ed Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:55:56 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-1134 Hmm. I think the bible could, or maybe should, be forgiven that. I mean nobody expects a Rover Montego to have air bags, satnav and an iPod port so why shouldn't the bible - by a contemporary thinker - be considered to be an ideological work of numerous layers of intersecting symbolic discourse, rather than literal? Isn't any description of an event, rather than the event itself, by definition, representative, anyway? It seems a little to me like proclaiming the carbon dating of the Venitian foundations wrong, and thereby dissassembling the nation's constitutiion, making it's people homeless, building a giant fence around the place with an empty horizon painted on it and then handing out leaflets insisting to everyone the place never existed. And if Atheists are not against the theological or philosophical proposal of the existance of a creatory, and are simply trying to argue that The Bible isn't a literal historical document of fact, why isn't this made clear? It would appear, generally to me, that they are making the statement over and over again that science proclaims there can be no Creator: which simply isn't true or even possible (as argued above), and is so therefore just wrong. Shouldn't we define what we mean by 'Creator' before we start insisting on it's non existence? Or are there factions within Atheism? Or would this simply be, technically, Agnosticism not Atheism? Hmm. I think the bible could, or maybe should, be forgiven that. I mean nobody expects a Rover Montego to have air bags, satnav and an iPod port so why shouldn’t the bible – by a contemporary thinker – be considered to be an ideological work of numerous layers of intersecting symbolic discourse, rather than literal? Isn’t any description of an event, rather than the event itself, by definition, representative, anyway?

It seems a little to me like proclaiming the carbon dating of the Venitian foundations wrong, and thereby dissassembling the nation’s constitutiion, making it’s people homeless, building a giant fence around the place with an empty horizon painted on it and then handing out leaflets insisting to everyone the place never existed.

And if Atheists are not against the theological or philosophical proposal of the existance of a creatory, and are simply trying to argue that The Bible isn’t a literal historical document of fact, why isn’t this made clear? It would appear, generally to me, that they are making the statement over and over again that science proclaims there can be no Creator: which simply isn’t true or even possible (as argued above), and is so therefore just wrong. Shouldn’t we define what we mean by ‘Creator’ before we start insisting on it’s non existence? Or are there factions within Atheism? Or would this simply be, technically, Agnosticism not Atheism?

]]> By: Rev. Aaron O'Donahue http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-540 Rev. Aaron O'Donahue Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:56:58 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-540 Saying their is room for a creatory philisophically or theologically is quite different from asserting the absolute nature of the literal translation of the bible, flawed by its own intentions, and all the other dogmatic celebrations and rules ascribed by its particular denominations of a very partuicular and peculiarly prescribed denomination that could be named in short: an abrahamic monotheistic deity. Saying their is room for a creatory philisophically or theologically is quite different from asserting the absolute nature of the literal translation of the bible, flawed by its own intentions, and all the other dogmatic celebrations and rules ascribed by its particular denominations of a very partuicular and peculiarly prescribed denomination that could be named in short: an abrahamic monotheistic deity.

]]> By: Rev. Aaron O'Donahue http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-585 Rev. Aaron O'Donahue Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:56:58 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-585 Saying their is room for a creatory philisophically or theologically is quite different from asserting the absolute nature of the literal translation of the bible, flawed by its own intentions, and all the other dogmatic celebrations and rules ascribed by its particular denominations of a very partuicular and peculiarly prescribed denomination that could be named in short: an abrahamic monotheistic deity. Saying their is room for a creatory philisophically or theologically is quite different from asserting the absolute nature of the literal translation of the bible, flawed by its own intentions, and all the other dogmatic celebrations and rules ascribed by its particular denominations of a very partuicular and peculiarly prescribed denomination that could be named in short: an abrahamic monotheistic deity.

]]> By: Rev. Aaron O'Donahue http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-581 Rev. Aaron O'Donahue Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:56:58 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-581 Saying their is room for a creatory philisophically or theologically is quite different from asserting the absolute nature of the literal translation of the bible, flawed by its own intentions, and all the other dogmatic celebrations and rules ascribed by its particular denominations of a very partuicular and peculiarly prescribed denomination that could be named in short: an abrahamic monotheistic deity. Saying their is room for a creatory philisophically or theologically is quite different from asserting the absolute nature of the literal translation of the bible, flawed by its own intentions, and all the other dogmatic celebrations and rules ascribed by its particular denominations of a very partuicular and peculiarly prescribed denomination that could be named in short: an abrahamic monotheistic deity.

]]> By: Rev. Aaron O'Donahue http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-1135 Rev. Aaron O'Donahue Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:56:58 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-1135 Saying their is room for a creatory philisophically or theologically is quite different from asserting the absolute nature of the literal translation of the bible, flawed by its own intentions, and all the other dogmatic celebrations and rules ascribed by its particular denominations of a very partuicular and peculiarly prescribed denomination that could be named in short: an abrahamic monotheistic deity. Saying their is room for a creatory philisophically or theologically is quite different from asserting the absolute nature of the literal translation of the bible, flawed by its own intentions, and all the other dogmatic celebrations and rules ascribed by its particular denominations of a very partuicular and peculiarly prescribed denomination that could be named in short: an abrahamic monotheistic deity.

]]> By: Marc http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-541 Marc Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:06:19 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-541 Baruch HaShem!! Let them all search till they all look straight in he face of YHWH (G'd) Baruch HaShem!! Let them all search till they all look straight in he face of YHWH (G’d)

]]> By: Marc http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2009/03/28/the-case-for-a-creator-a-scientist-and-his-journey-from-aethism-to-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-1136 Marc Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:06:19 +0000 http://radicalfilms.co.uk/?p=982#comment-1136 Baruch HaShem!! Let them all search till they all look straight in he face of YHWH (G'd) Baruch HaShem!! Let them all search till they all look straight in he face of YHWH (G’d)

]]>