Hello to all viewing this. I am not posting this in judgement of anyone or their beliefs. I am simply posting this for those that feel they need something to help them believe - something to help them see the glorious splendour of our Lord and Maker.
Reasons to believe:
/ Proof:
1. The Holy Bible - just look at how many years The Bible has been around for. There are
countless Bible manuscripts. Even in this day and age they are still finding manuscripts. To those of you that claim its just a story book or something someone invented, ask yourself honestly how that can be? If someone invented the Old Testament and then someone else invented the New Testament (what I have seen claims of online) how would it be possible to have so many documents. There are thousands of Bible manuscripts that have been found all over the world. If it was just a story someone wrote then how could there possibly be so many manuscripts splattered all over the world? If you don't believe me do a little research online. If you do a little more research you will see that History and the Bible do in fact back each other up.
2. Incorruptable Bodies of The Saints - I am not Catholic and I am not familiar with many Catholic beliefs and ways. But you have to admit that there is something very mystical about the fact that the bodies of saints don't decay. Look up St. Bernadette of Lourdes.
3. Colors and Animals - For those that believe The Planet Earth just somehow "popped' into existance without the help of God, look in the mirror. Don't you think that you are a unique design? Look at your features and how clever the whole human form is. How could something like you just "evolve" out of nothing and with no help from a Supreme Being? Look at animals, there are so many species and all are so unique. Look at nature and all the colors and really think deeply to yourself.
4. Miracles - There are countless miracles that have happened throughout the ages. So many things that medical science can't explain. In fact there are tons of things that plain science can't explain on its own either.
There are many, many proofs of our Makers existance, and I will keep adding more to this thread when I have the time. For those of you who doubt another sure proof is prayer. Prayer for as long as it takes and you too will start to feel something amazing inside of you. Just try it. Prayer is a very powerful thing.
Remember as well that everyone on these boards are here for you. Feel free to join and ask questions about anything you would like to know concerning Christianity and of course Universal Salvation.
Bless you all
Dee
Quote from: DeeDee on November 13, 2008, 10:33:04 AM
For those of you who doubt another sure proof is prayer. Prayer for as long as it takes and you too will start to feel something amazing inside of you. Just try it. Prayer is a very powerful thing.
Bless you all
Dee
Yes, amen. Prayer is a very powerful, and can override whatever state you're in.
Those who seek the truth, who are pure in heart, will see God. We should never be surprised by people's rejections the to the existence of God, because it does hit people's deepest soul. They count the cost and it is too weighty. But arguments do go along way in tearing down the false picture, and for any interested there is a great overview of some of the arguments for the existence of God here: http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/18_god-existence/peter-kreeft_god-existence.mp3
Davo
The existence of God cannot be proven scientifically. Nor does it need to be. It can, however be discussed from a philosophical standpoint. The ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle accepted the existence of God based on philosophical reasoning.
Plato reasoned that the universe could not have been created out of nothing. (Ex Nihilo)
Aristotle held that a "prime mover" or "unmoved mover" must have set the universe in motion.
Parmenides said that "nothing can come from nothing".
The essence of these arguments is that, even traced back to its earliest form, the highly compressed single ball of matter that exploded to create the universe had to have come from somewhere. Where? Creationism gets too specific and literal for me. I prefer not to limit God in His ability to create the universe as He saw fit. Understanding it starts with understanding the purpose for it. (Our being here in the first place) That is a much deeper matter.
The problem is that creationists have tried to argue that it is a science. It is not a science.
Quote from: alihaymeg on December 13, 2008, 08:25:33 AM
The existence of God cannot be proven scientifically.
Mmm, but if you can find scientific facts that where unknown during writing the Bible it is some proof of a higher intelligence. No solid proof for a God because it also can be alien intelligence.
PROPHECIES FULFILLED BY JESUS CHRIST
The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains over 300 references to the coming Messiah. All of these were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and they established a solid confirmation of His credentials as the Messiah; the Anointed One (King; Priest; Saint); Intercessor (to release or deliver; help; meet; seek; accompany).
Many of the prophecies concerning the messiah were totally beyond human control:
Birth: Place, time, manner of.
Death: Peoples reactions, piercing of side, burial
Resurrection: Where did His body go?
By using the modern science of probability in reference to just eight of these prophecies --- the chance that any man might have lived to fulfill all eight prophecies is one in one hundred trillion!
To illustrate this: If we take 100 trillion silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas, they would be two feet deep. Now we mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly --- all over the state. Now blindfold a man and let him travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick only one silver dollar. What chance would he have of picking the right one? The same chance that the prophets would have of writing just eight of these prophecies and having them all come true for any one man --- if they had written them without God's inspiration!
The chance of any one man fulfilling all of 48 prophecies is one in 10 to the 157 power. The electron is about as small an object as we can imagine. if we had a cubic inch of these electrons and tried to count them, it would take us (at 250 per minute) 19,000 time 19,000 time 19,000 years to count them. Now mark one of them, and thoroughly stir it into the whole mass. What chance does our blindfolded man have of finding the right electron? --- The same chance as one man of fulfilling 48 of the prophecies about Christ, without being the Son of God!
Jesus Christ fulfilled every prophecy written about the coming Messiah --- over three hundred of them! Would that have been possible had He not been the Son of God?
Here is a short listing of some of the hundreds of prophecies concerning Christ:
Linage Genesis 3:15; 9:26: 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; 2 & Samual 7:12-16
Son of God Psalm 2:6-7
Virgin birth Isaiah 7:14
Birthplace Micah 5:2
Piercing of side Zechariah 12:10
Darkness Psalm 22:2
Vinegar Psalm 69:21
Mocking Psalm 22:6-8
Nakedness Psalm 22:17
Gambling for clothes Psalm 22:18
Unbroken bones Psalm 34:20
Burial Isaiah 53:9
Resurrection Psalm 16:10; Hosea 6:2; Psalm 30:3,9; Isaiah 53:10
Assention to right hand of God Psalm 110:1; 68:18; Proverbs 30:4; 24:3-10
Check out C.S. Lewis' argument (currently known as "Argument from desire".)
"Most people if they really learn to look into their own hearts would know that they want and want acutely something that they cannot have in this world. There are all sorts of things in this world that offer to give it to you, but they never keep their promise. The longings which arise in us when we first fall in love, or first visit some foreign country, or first take up some subject that excites us, are longings which no marriage, no travel, no learning can ever fully satisfy. There is something we grasped at in that first moment of longing which fades away in the reality. Creatures are not born with desires, unless some satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger, there is such a thing as food. A duck wants to swim, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire, there is such as sex. If I find in myself a desire, which nothing in this world can satisfy, then I was made for another world." --C.S. Lewis.
There is a world out there that many of us don't know about; I find all too many people stepping back from Apologetics and saying, "That's not for me" when it absolutely is, it is our hope.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/08_arguments-for-god/peter-kreeft_arguments-for-god.mp3
There is the music of Van Morrison, therefore there is a God.
:grin:
QuoteThere is the music of Van Morrison, therefore there is a God.
That's a good point.
QuoteNo solid proof for a God because it also can be alien intelligence.
Technically God is extra terrestrial.
Yep.
But that term is usually used for lifeforms from our own universe (perhaps parallel universes too)
I hope they never find us if aliens do exist. We would probably be seen as an infestation.
Quote from: alihaymeg on December 13, 2008, 02:05:06 PM
That's a good point.
Haha yep, that is the Argument from aesthetic experience.
Hi all,
I have to be honest and say this thread could do with people taking some 101 classes in science and in particular evolution. You have to offer more than 'Gee look at all this neat stuff in the universe - I have no idea how it all works so God must have done it'.
As a non-believer I have spent many years studying faiths (with emphasis on Christianity) and have at least read and studied all the books in the Bible many times over - I would at least expect the same kind of familiarity by the Christian community with the intricacies of opposing views to their own.
Here is a link to a Christian web site that explains why many scientific concepts that Christians generally disagree with (and don't understand too well) are in fact correct (but that doesn't stop him being a Christian). Mostly it deals with evolution and why flood geology is just plain wrong http://home.entouch.net/dmd/
All the best,
Jeff - The Agnostic Universalist.
Agnostic Universalist eh?
That's interesting. I actually am in the process of trying to educate myself about other world religions. From what I can tell so far, they all point to the same place; God. They use different names for Him, but they all seem to have some level of truth revealed in them. It seems reasonable to me that God would have revealed Himself in some capacity to all peoples.
The only reason I say that the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically is that the principals that we use as proof are not universally accepted as truth. Some examples would be virgin birth, resurrection, etc. After having gone to several Atheist forums and having my brains beat out by those guys, I had to take a serious look at what I presumed to know. After some deliberation I realized that the essence of belief in God is faith. I cannot say anything that is provable beyond a shadow of doubt for every person on the planet. It is, and will always be a matter of faith.
That is a very sensible approach - I am not here to hassle people for their beliefs I just ask them to find out something about a subject before trying to refute it with arguments that just aren't up to the job.
Yep, nobody seems to understand that these are strictly matters of faith. There is no irrefutable proof.
God wants us to have faith, if we could prove there's a God we wouldn't need faith. At least that's my opinion.
The fact there is anything at all proves theres a cause!
Anything made has a maker!
Sit and study an ant for an hour. (Seriously, just do it). Then wonder how it did all the things it just did with a brain so small you cant even see it.
And thats all im saying about this EVER because the debates are never ending on this subject!
Atheism, the peculiar belief that everything came out of nothing, for no reason whatsoever. :)
Quote from: jabcat on December 13, 2008, 08:41:38 AM
PROPHECIES FULFILLED BY JESUS CHRIST
The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains over 300 references to the coming Messiah. All of these were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and they established a solid confirmation of His credentials as the Messiah; the Anointed One (King; Priest; Saint); Intercessor (to release or deliver; help; meet; seek; accompany).
Many of the prophecies concerning the messiah were totally beyond human control:
Birth: Place, time, manner of.
Death: Peoples reactions, piercing of side, burial
Resurrection: Where did His body go?
By using the modern science of probability in reference to just eight of these prophecies --- the chance that any man might have lived to fulfill all eight prophecies is one in one hundred trillion!
To illustrate this: If we take 100 trillion silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas, they would be two feet deep. Now we mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly --- all over the state. Now blindfold a man and let him travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick only one silver dollar. What chance would he have of picking the right one? The same chance that the prophets would have of writing just eight of these prophecies and having them all come true for any one man --- if they had written them without God's inspiration!
The chance of any one man fulfilling all of 48 prophecies is one in 10 to the 157 power. The electron is about as small an object as we can imagine. if we had a cubic inch of these electrons and tried to count them, it would take us (at 250 per minute) 19,000 time 19,000 time 19,000 years to count them. Now mark one of them, and thoroughly stir it into the whole mass. What chance does our blindfolded man have of finding the right electron? --- The same chance as one man of fulfilling 48 of the prophecies about Christ, without being the Son of God!
Jesus Christ fulfilled every prophecy written about the coming Messiah --- over three hundred of them! Would that have been possible had He not been the Son of God?
Here is a short listing of some of the hundreds of prophecies concerning Christ:
Linage Genesis 3:15; 9:26: 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; 2 & Samual 7:12-16
Son of God Psalm 2:6-7
Virgin birth Isaiah 7:14
Birthplace Micah 5:2
Piercing of side Zechariah 12:10
Darkness Psalm 22:2
Vinegar Psalm 69:21
Mocking Psalm 22:6-8
Nakedness Psalm 22:17
Gambling for clothes Psalm 22:18
Unbroken bones Psalm 34:20
Burial Isaiah 53:9
Resurrection Psalm 16:10; Hosea 6:2; Psalm 30:3,9; Isaiah 53:10
Assention to right hand of God Psalm 110:1; 68:18; Proverbs 30:4; 24:3-10
The Only problem with prophecy is it is only as good as you trust the person who wrote it. Its all very well to write after His death that He was born in Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy, its another thing again to BELIEVE it...as obviously there is no evidence
Quote from: Banksy on November 10, 2009, 12:36:47 PM
The Only problem with prophecy is it is only as good as you trust the person who wrote it. Its all very well to write after His death that He was born in Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy, its another thing again to BELIEVE it...as obviously there is no evidence
You can trust the Holy Spirit.
"for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:21"
Quote from: jabcat on November 11, 2009, 05:05:26 AM
You can trust the Holy Spirit.
"for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:21"
If someone doesn't believe that the New Testament is God-inspired and infallible cover-to-cover, then a quote from it isn't going to be very convincing, no?
One can go there at their own peril. I don't have to convince. God will take care of that.
Quote from: jabcat on November 11, 2009, 08:16:57 AM
One can go there at their own peril. I don't have to convince. God will take care of that.
Well, I'm just sayin', the purpose of this thread seems to be to convince others of the existence of God and other related things, so it seems to me that it would be good to have the arguments in it be sound in nature... no? Otherwise we're just reassuring ourselves of what we already believed, which doesn't seem too productive.
The scriptures are sound to me Gab. If you, me, or anyone else doesn't see them as sound, and won't listen, then that quickly becomes between each of us and God.
It may be true, we probably can't "prove" God, at least to certain people. He calls us to declare Him, but God reveals Himself. He gives the faith to believe, or fits vessels of dishonor for destruction (Romans 9) – which I believe He will restore. All according to His plan and mercy ("...have seen the outcome of the Lord's dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful." Js. 5:11).
So even though I did weigh in on this thread with Biblical proofs, it's true that if someone doesn't believe, then they will have to be purged and brought to belief in God's timing (I'm purged on a regular basis for my shortcomings, unbelief, etc.).
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy
Benjamin Franklin (I think), with Martin Luther and his sidekick Philip Melanchton in agreement I suppose!
In that case you found an error in the Bible :laughing7:
Psalm 30:5 Weeping may last for the night, but there is a song of joy in the morning.
But if you add beer to the mix the song is in the evening and the sorrow/headache in the morning :laughing7:
I am enjoying your posts lizzybeth. :HeartThrob:
Hey Gals .. hee hee :icon_flower: Good to see ya SQ :thumbsup:
I to have been reading your Posts Lizzybeth and I also feel the same way you do about being perfect , I think only God can decide who is and who is not perfect / Complete in Him , till He gets done with us we wait upon the Lord ..
and
I am not perfect by no means , till the Lord finishes His work in us all ,
be blessed sis :HeartThrob:
Quote from: rosered on March 23, 2010, 03:00:53 PMI am not perfect by no means , till the Lord finishes His work in us all ,
The work on Rose Red is never finished. If the work stops the house dies :laughing7:
Quote from: alihaymeg on December 13, 2008, 08:25:33 AM
The existence of God cannot be proven scientifically. Nor does it need to be. It can, however be discussed from a philosophical standpoint. The ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle accepted the existence of God based on philosophical reasoning.
Plato reasoned that the universe could not have been created out of nothing. (Ex Nihilo)
Aristotle held that a "prime mover" or "unmoved mover" must have set the universe in motion.
Parmenides said that "nothing can come from nothing".
The essence of these arguments is that, even traced back to its earliest form, the highly compressed single ball of matter that exploded to create the universe had to have come from somewhere. Where? Creationism gets too specific and literal for me. I prefer not to limit God in His ability to create the universe as He saw fit. Understanding it starts with understanding the purpose for it. (Our being here in the first place) That is a much deeper matter.
The problem is that creationists have tried to argue that it is a science. It is not a science.
Agreed belief in God does not come from science. We can not prove the existance of God. With that said, I can't look at a tree and not see God. When I wake up in the morning I feel God's presence...well maybe after my coffee. :winkgrin: I have seen his handiwork through my life and need no further convincing.
Perhaps science will one day prove the existence of God, I don't think it would convert many though.
Quote from: jabcat on December 13, 2008, 08:41:38 AM
PROPHECIES FULFILLED BY JESUS CHRIST
The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains over 300 references to the coming Messiah. All of these were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and they established a solid confirmation of His credentials as the Messiah; the Anointed One (King; Priest; Saint); Intercessor (to release or deliver; help; meet; seek; accompany).
Many of the prophecies concerning the messiah were totally beyond human control:
Birth: Place, time, manner of.
Death: Peoples reactions, piercing of side, burial
Resurrection: Where did His body go?
By using the modern science of probability in reference to just eight of these prophecies --- the chance that any man might have lived to fulfill all eight prophecies is one in one hundred trillion!
To illustrate this: If we take 100 trillion silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas, they would be two feet deep. Now we mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly --- all over the state. Now blindfold a man and let him travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick only one silver dollar. What chance would he have of picking the right one? The same chance that the prophets would have of writing just eight of these prophecies and having them all come true for any one man --- if they had written them without God's inspiration!
The chance of any one man fulfilling all of 48 prophecies is one in 10 to the 157 power. The electron is about as small an object as we can imagine. if we had a cubic inch of these electrons and tried to count them, it would take us (at 250 per minute) 19,000 time 19,000 time 19,000 years to count them. Now mark one of them, and thoroughly stir it into the whole mass. What chance does our blindfolded man have of finding the right electron? --- The same chance as one man of fulfilling 48 of the prophecies about Christ, without being the Son of God!
Jesus Christ fulfilled every prophecy written about the coming Messiah --- over three hundred of them! Would that have been possible had He not been the Son of God?
Here is a short listing of some of the hundreds of prophecies concerning Christ:
Linage Genesis 3:15; 9:26: 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; 2 & Samual 7:12-16
Son of God Psalm 2:6-7
Virgin birth Isaiah 7:14
Birthplace Micah 5:2
Piercing of side Zechariah 12:10
Darkness Psalm 22:2
Vinegar Psalm 69:21
Mocking Psalm 22:6-8
Nakedness Psalm 22:17
Gambling for clothes Psalm 22:18
Unbroken bones Psalm 34:20
Burial Isaiah 53:9
Resurrection Psalm 16:10; Hosea 6:2; Psalm 30:3,9; Isaiah 53:10
Assention to right hand of God Psalm 110:1; 68:18; Proverbs 30:4; 24:3-10
Jesus only fulfilled half of the prophecies concerning the Messiah. One reason why Jews don't accept Jesus is their argument that he only fulfilled half of the Messianic Prophecies. The reason why this is is because there are what appear to be 2 Messiahs in the Old Testament. The suffering servant and the Lion of Judah. Jesus fulfilled the suffering servant role and will fulfill the Lion of Judah prophecies when he returns. The Jews couldn't imagine the same Messiah who comes, leaves and then comes back and thus the confusion. When Christ came they were expecting the Lion not the Lamb. Who would wait for and hope for the arrival of a suffering servant? It wasn't the popular Messiah to expect but that's who came fulfilling half of the prophecies.
ALL VERY INTERESTING POSTS .
I MUST SAY THOUGH THAT IN MY CASE I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A NATURAL BELIEVER AND NEVER DOUBTED THAT THERE WAS A GOD .
TO GROW UP IN HIS CREATION, HOW COULD I THINK OTHERWISE FOR EVEN THE APOSTLE PAUL HAS SAID THAT NONE OF US HAVE ANY EXCUSE TO NOT SEEK THE LORD BECAUSE OF THE REALITY OF THE NATURAL SURROUNDINGS THAT WE ARE BORN INTO AND THE CONSCIENCES THAT WE ARE BORN WITH .
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH SCIENCE OR EVOLUTION PER SAY.
THEY HELP EXPLAIN TO ME SOMETHING OF HOW GOD'S CREATION WORKS, SO TO ME THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE CURRENT POLITICAL ARGUMENT THAT IS GOING ON THESE DAYS ABOUT TEACHING EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM, IF IT WERE DONE FAIRLY WITH NO PARTICULAR POLITICAL SLANT TO IT BUT THAT BEGS THE QUESTION "IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO THAT?"
I BELIEVE IN CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM ( I.E. THE RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS) BUT THINK THAT FROM WHAT I'VE READ ON THIS SITE THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE TO KEEP THIS DISCUSSION OF "IS THERE A GOD" GOING IF IT BRINGS GLORY TO GOD AND NOT TO ANY ONE PARTICULAR POINT OF "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" REGARDING EVOLUTION OR CREATIONISM .
AS FOR THOSE WHO ARE NON-BELIEVERS ON THIS THREAD , I SAY WELCOME AND STICK AROUND .
WE WELCOME YOUR THOUGHTS AND SEE WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM BUT TO PARAPHRASE JABCAT , GOD IS DRAWING ALL MEN TO HIMSELF AND THE FACT THAT YOU ARE EVEN ON THIS SITE IS EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE SEEKING ( AND BEING DRAWN ).
I GET THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WANT TO BE CONVINCED JUST AS THE APOSTLE THOMAS WANTED TO BE CONVINCED ALL THE TIME WHICH IS WHY HE IS AFFECTIONATELY CALLED "DOUBTING THOMAS ".
THAT'S OK.
LOOK AT ALL OF THE APOSTLES.
THEY PRETTY MUCH MAKE UP THE PERSONALITIESS AND TYPES THAT WE SEE IN PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD TODAY PLUS THE SEED OF FAITH "OF" CHIRST DOESN'T ALWAYS FALL ON FERTILE SOIL ALL THE TIME, BUT NOT TO WORRY, THAT DOESN'T KEEP GOD FROM DRAWING YOU TO HIMSELF. HE WILL NEVER STOP DOING THAT FOR HE VENER GIVES UP ON ANY OF US.
WILLIAM BARCLAY, A GREAT SCOTS CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR, IS QUOTED AS SAYING THAT " GOD HAS A SECRET STAIRWAY TO EVERY HEART" AND I SAY THAT HIS IRRESISTABLE LOVE AND GRACE WILL BRING ALL TO HIMSELF , IF NOT IN THIS AGE BUT IN THE AGE / AGES TO COME.
OUR JOB IS TO NOT BE A HINDRANCE TO GOD'S "DRAWING TO HIMSELF" BY NOT BEING LOVING AND UNDERSTANDING TO THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING AND INQUIRING.
IT WOULD JUST BE BETTER IF YOU CAME AROUND IN THIS LIFE, IN THIS "AGE OF GRACE " FOR IN THE NEXT AGE "THE CHEESE GETS BINDING".
"The problem is that creationists have tried to argue that it is a science. It is not a science." - said by one of our posters.
The problem is that evolutionists believe that it's science. Wrong. True science is:
1.) observable
2.) testable
3.) repeatable
4.) falsifiable.
Neither creation or evolution fits the definition of science. Unfortunately, evolutionists act as though creationists don't believe in real science when nothing could be further from the truth. Real science is what gave us a man on the moon, communications, computers cars, planes, etc.
God cannot be proven scientifically.
No God cannot be proven scientifically.
Creationism cannot be proven scientifically.
Evolution cannot be proven scientifically.
IMO, neither one should have any part in a science curricula for education. (and I taught high school biology) :Peace2:
So You Say Prove To Me There Is A God
Prove to me there isn't.
As Paul said in Romans 1:20 - Everything that can be known about Father can be learned through the study of creation. Of course this means also, science, physics, mathematics, astronomy, biology. The list is truly endless. There is no excuse.
If evolution was without design, then surely we would have eyes in the back of heads, be at least 3 times stronger and 30 times smarter and have the missing hand that is always needed when two is not enough. Of we would be able to see in the dark and I guess we wouldn't mind walking around naked.
Physics and Science have done more to prove the existence of Father than they have ever did to disprove. It's not the data, just the perspective it is viewed from.
Love Julie :HeartThrob:
Quote from: ItIsFinished on February 10, 2010, 03:38:12 AM
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy
Benjamin Franklin (I think), with Martin Luther and his sidekick Philip Melanchton in agreement I suppose!
LIKE :laughing7:
Quote from: JeffA on January 06, 2009, 11:53:32 AM
Hi all,
I have to be honest and say this thread could do with people taking some 101 classes in science and in particular evolution. You have to offer more than 'Gee look at all this neat stuff in the universe - I have no idea how it all works so God must have done it'.
As a non-believer I have spent many years studying faiths (with emphasis on Christianity) and have at least read and studied all the books in the Bible many times over - I would at least expect the same kind of familiarity by the Christian community with the intricacies of opposing views to their own.
Here is a link to a Christian web site that explains why many scientific concepts that Christians generally disagree with (and don't understand too well) are in fact correct (but that doesn't stop him being a Christian). Mostly it deals with evolution and why flood geology is just plain wrong http://home.entouch.net/dmd/
All the best,
Jeff - The Agnostic Universalist.
Hey Jeff.
I'm a believer.
You have a good point.
IMO, anyone should know God's existence cannot be proven, not by any method.
We believers believe because of his work in our lives and hearts.
I personally have ample reasons (not proof) that God is real.
I have so many reasons, that no one will ever convince me he's not real.
For me, it's far too much to be mere coincidence.
I, like you, am tired of people coming up with lame "science" to explain things when they don't know what they are talking about.
I have a masters degree in a science-related field and have studied things like evolution and climate/weather.
I believe many of the bible stories, like the great flood and the 6-day creation, to be allegorical.
Frankly, if these stories are taken strictly literally, they are missing the point of the stories - and they all have a point!
The point? To teach us about the nature of the god whose existence we cannot prove.
As several have already pointed out, it's all about faith.
Best wishes to you in your search for truth!
JBerton.
http://inner-monastery.blogspot.com/p/faith-or-science.html
sorry no time.. catching a plane in a few hours.. this is a study I did a few years back.. Not that most here don't know all of it! :girlheart:
Quote from: JBerton on November 21, 2013, 11:50:47 PM
Quote from: ItIsFinished on February 10, 2010, 03:38:12 AM
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy
Benjamin Franklin (I think), with Martin Luther and his sidekick Philip Melanchton in agreement I suppose!
LIKE :laughing7:
Blech! I think beer is proof that men have weird taste... ;-P
So...
If the creation story is just an allegorical story, I guess Raising Lazarus from the dead was just an allegorical story.
The parting of the red sea, the plagues on Egypt, the virgin birth, Jesus rising from the dead and walking on water are all allegorical since science has 'proved' them impossible. What a relief. Every story men have told me is just a story I no longer have to believe. Thank God he gave us agnostics so we would know God never meant for us to take his word as correct.
BTW, anyone here think they have a proof of evolution, I'll be happy to give you information where your "proof" has been discredited by evolutionary scientists themselves. Talk about believing in miracles! :Peace2:
Quote from: ded2daworld on November 21, 2013, 07:16:01 PM
Creationism cannot be proven scientifically.
Evolution cannot be proven scientifically.
To observe and prove one or the other, a time machine is needed. Only with a time machine can we go back and see the changes in species over time, or see if all the plants and animals were there together from the beginning. Lacking that, looking at fossils is only a guessing game.
Quote from: ded2daworld on November 22, 2013, 04:40:14 PM
So...
If the creation story is just an allegorical story, I guess Raising Lazarus from the dead was just an allegorical story.
The parting of the red sea, the plagues on Egypt, the virgin birth, Jesus rising from the dead and walking on water are all allegorical since science has 'proved' them impossible. What a relief. Every story men have told me is just a story I no longer have to believe. Thank God he gave us agnostics so we would know God never meant for us to take his word as correct.
BTW, anyone here think they have a proof of evolution, I'll be happy to give you information where your "proof" has been discredited by evolutionary scientists themselves. Talk about believing in miracles! :Peace2:
And who do you think you are going to convince of truth using sarcasm?
Sarcasm stinks.
There is nothing unscriptural about believing some of the bible stories are allegorical.
Peace? If you really want peace, dispense with the sarcasm!
Is that what God's love is about?
Truth must be distributed with love.
Got love? --> Got truth.
I knew God as child, my relationship with Him has been developing since then. I cant doubt it! When I see his creation & see how beautfil it is, how did that come from nothing!?
Someone had great care when they were making us & things around us!
I'm studying dental hygiene & have gotten to anatomy & physiology. Let me tell you all! The intricate working of each system, each part that has a purpose & how all these systems works together to make us up.. Every time I study I think, God, you're a Man of great imagination & wisdom. You knew just what to do! I almost come to tears!!
God spirit is among us, I believe its hard not to feel it! But maybe its difficult for those whose hearts have not yet been softened by God.
Hello
Quote from: rrich7 on January 21, 2014, 07:59:00 AM
I knew God as child, my relationship with Him has been developing since then. I cant doubt it! When I see his creation & see how beautfil it is, how did that come from nothing!?
Someone had great care when they were making us & things around us!
I'm studying dental hygiene & have gotten to anatomy & physiology. Let me tell you all! The intricate working of each system, each part that has a purpose & how all these systems works together to make us up.. Every time I study I think, God, you're a Man of great imagination & wisdom. You knew just what to do! I almost come to tears!!
God spirit is among us, I believe its hard not to feel it! But maybe its difficult for those whose hearts have not yet been softened by God.
[Psa 139:14 KJV] I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well.I don't think it's difficult for anyone on this forum to believe that Yah created all things. No one is questioning that. The method by which he created all things is sometimes hotly debated. Perhaps we should not use the word "evolution" (oops! I meant the "e-word") since it scares people. :winkgrin: I don't think "softness of heart" (or hardness of heart) is the problem. :Peace2:
Faith is a gift from God.
It is given in measure.
He has mercy on those whom He will have mercy.
We believe because God revealed our belief to us.
Thanks be to God!, Who has shown us His plan!!
Some of us can be a little hard headed sometimes tho (like me:o) LOLOL
Jabcat,in regard to half the prophecies fulfilled. I wish you would start another thread..on the half [yet] to be fulfilled. I think that
would be real interesting. and a great topic/discussion. TY :girlheart:
I have many times wandered if I should write a book about that. I am surrounded by atheists who behave as though they're the wise ones. I also observed atheism from a psychological perspective and I have to admit that often it is related to some sort of conflict with parents.
those who are deaf will never hear but through a miracle.
The existence of god cannot be proven or dis proven but, the existence of and omnipresent energy can be proven. Atoms make up everything. But what makes atoms. Electrons, male and female static energy. Which not only makes up all solids, it also flies around surrounding every thing at every moment in the air. You can see it out side if you just look. SO this energy that flows through and around every hing in the universe and also reacts intelligently all the time is something comforting to look at.
Hi Iamhe ,
Acts 17 has one of my favorite proofs of that...........
22 So Paul, standing before the council,[e] addressed them as follows: "Men of Athens, I notice that you are very religious in every way,
23 for as I was walking along I saw your many shrines. And one of your altars had this inscription on it: 'To an Unknown God.' This God, whom you worship without knowing, is the one I'm telling you about.
24 "He is the God who made the world and everything in it. Since he is Lord of heaven and earth, he doesn't live in man-made temples,
25 and human hands can't serve his needs—for he has no needs. He himself gives life and breath to everything, and he satisfies every need.
26 From one man[f] he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand when they should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries.
27 "His purpose was for the nations to seek after God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him—though he is not far from any one of us.
28 For in him we live and move and exist.
As some of your[g] own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
29 And since this is true, we shouldn't think of God as an idol designed by craftsmen from gold or silver or stone.
30 "God overlooked people's ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him.
31 For he has set a day for judging the world with justice by the man he has appointed, and he proved to everyone who this is by raising him from the dead."
Quote from: JeffA on January 06, 2009, 11:53:32 AM
Hi all,
I have to be honest and say this thread could do with people taking some 101 classes in science and in particular evolution. You have to offer more than 'Gee look at all this neat stuff in the universe - I have no idea how it all works so God must have done it'.
As a non-believer I have spent many years studying faiths (with emphasis on Christianity) and have at least read and studied all the books in the Bible many times over - I would at least expect the same kind of familiarity by the Christian community with the intricacies of opposing views to their own.
Here is a link to a Christian web site that explains why many scientific concepts that Christians generally disagree with (and don't understand too well) are in fact correct (but that doesn't stop him being a Christian). Mostly it deals with evolution and why flood geology is just plain wrong http://home.entouch.net/dmd/
All the best,
Jeff - The Agnostic Universalist.
I have to agree with part of Jeff, the Agnostic Universalist's ( :HeartThrob: bless his heart) post. I think we should know a bit about this topic.
(Even though
most of us "believe" because of an experience we've had with God! hard to prove to us someone we know doesn't exist...)
So I (and I know others have too) looked into it a few years back and found out I LOVE science! It's SO interesting! All kinds of science.. and there are so many many creative and awesome creatures!! colorful and beautiful and all so unique.
These words and ideas are not mine but others have said them or written them, I just, so far, can remember some of it.
"Science" which is observation, does not prove evolution, nor even support it.
Evolution is a belief like any other. Not aLL scientists believe in the theory.
Atheistic evolutionists most often believe that people of faith do not believe in natural selection - do not believe there has been, and is,
change. This is a very untrue perception on their part! :smile:
And, they believe natural selection is the same as evolution
as to origins of life. Natural selection can be called "mini-evolution" and "origins" as "Maxi-evolution".. world's and worlds away from each other!
By observation it's easy to see that "every thing with its
own seed and after its own
kind" I.e. within the dog/wolf kind, can be mixing of traits - traits which are present in the genetic code (instructions)
(where does information come from?) But there are NO dog-cats.
Darwin, or those after him, thought much of the "peppered moth" - on one island they were white, on another they were brown. Voila! PROOF of evolution as origins, yes?! Because they evolved away from each other/apart.
-- No!! On one island, researchers found there was white lichen on the trees.. the brown moths were picked off and the white ones thrived. Vice versa on the other island, no white lichen on the brown trees.
-- this is natural selection (
selection a` la natural)...
We may have heard that bacteria evolves resistance to antibiotics?? :smile: the antibiotic kills off the non resistant and the resistant multiply. Again trait was present. Not a new trait developed/evolved...
Trees during drought.. with the ability in their dna code to grow deeper roots will survive and multiply, if the ability to not grow deeper roots is not in the code, they will not survive. This is natural selection. (I don't know how they miss that word se-lec-tion.. ..of traits present.)
So.. they say cow evolved from the whale - i kid you not. The bird evolved from the flying squirrel.. no matter that a birds bones are hollow, feather light, perfect for flight.. and a squirrel does not fly he leaps.
Have we heard of Lucy? She was later found to be an orangutan.. Peking man, found with tools, later found to be monkeys the tools were used on (grisly story that)..
-- Piltdown man? pieces of a human skull and an ape like jaw, an out and out fraud.. A few years back time magazine, blazing headline.. missing link found (again :laughing7: ) - no headline when later discovered pieces were ten miles apart and in different layers in time (in the geologic layers)..
Speaking of the layers.. Precambrian layer, nothing. Cambrian, bursts with variety of life forms..
Richard Leakey, a leading atheist paleo-anthropolist said "..if further pressed I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving" - PBS documentary 1990
..That there aRe fossils... all around the world they find billions of dead things buried in mud and sand and carried by water.. looks like a tide in places.. The state of preservation shows very rapid burial.. tracks, ripple marks, even rain drop marks turn up, and can only be preserved by very rapid covering. (A flood handed down legend is present in all lands.. as so was a 'mother goddess' a first 'god' in all lands... fuzzy memories of Eve? handed down..
There ARE other ways of dating the earth than the popular one which can be used to suggest the huGe amounts of time they need for their theory to be any where near plausible.
(Thank God for spellcheck, I shudder to think what my posts would look like without it! :eek: )
HELIUM. Evaporates (rises, like ones voice) so quickly, there should be none in our atmosphere.
There's an element in the middle of granite which is like an alka seltzer.. it fades and fizzles out. Very quickly. If granite evolved over millions of years, it could not be there. Some non-atheistic scientists have called this the "thumbprint of God" - they call something else that too I heard not long ago but I forget what it was..
I could go on and on.. but :faint: so long winded!!
The atheistic branches of science (peer pressure) are in control. Papers written up not in support of their theory are not published in their science journals or what not.. Definitely not listened to.
The 2nd highest law of science, the law of entropy states that all matter (and communication) is in a state of falling apart. Not in a state of improvement.. less order, not better, not more complex or able. (Hence our school room experiment of passing information from one end of the class to the other. Same applies to all matter and the genetic code.) Matter evolved into the so highly complex life? That would be quite the miracle.
Some will say, oh but the sunlight entering the system suspended the 2nd law of science, see that leaf on the tree? how it utilizes the sunlight for energy and increased order? (Improvement.) Proof, matter can suspend the 2nd law of science.
Well, pluck that leaf from off of the
living tree.. and what happens to it? It burns up! Same principal as the farmer's compost pile. It heats up, is falling apart. :Chinscratch: is reminding me of the LOF..
Is it only my drapes the sunlight fades? Only my house, car and body tending toward falling apart? Leave your old chevy in the sunny field for a few decades and just watch what happens to it. (This part I did think of all on my own :laughing7: )
Is it 113 amino acids had to line up exactly perfectly in a specific order in order for that first spark of life to form? The one top mathematicians have said is mathematically impossible. Something like one to the 50th degree.. however that works (i never even conquered algebra..) but seen as impossible no matter how big their god time could be, how many millions, oops now billions.. soon trillions? of years..
Just like the 26 letters of the alphabet make up all sentences, all paragraphs, all books and novels.. so the 110? elements make up all things which are.. If a novel doesn't happen randomly, how could all things that are come about randomly?
So "in the beginning there was nothing.. and nothing exploded and became everything.." Now that's quite an immaculate conception!!
You see, it takes MORE faith to believe in evolution (as to origins). And that faith, as 'they' (God bless 'em) like to accuse Christians of, is just about always, blind faith. They simply believe what they are taught. something christians are ridiculed for..
:blush: :blush:
sorry for the long post! And there's so many more points.. so many facts and trivia..!
And it's such an exciting topic!! ..and there is surely no reason to ever have to be defensive on this topic.. but rather can take the offensive, without being offensive :laughing7: Like comparing the Rock to shifting sand! Let it be proved any of the points of this popular theory (which turned christendom on its ear!! the strong delusion and false prophet who helps the little horn, but is
not the little horn, imo)
Besides.. most of us "believe" because of an experience we've had with God!
I'm a little wary about posting in here because I can see the way the wind is blowing so to speak and now I'm here blowing in the other direction.
Obviously, in the past I didn't believe it possible to prove that God existed because God's a BIG thing and were little things and can't can't our head around such a thing.
And then I discovered something, probably the most controversial argument for the existence of God going. And I did accept it, but that was rather because I didn't understand it. Assertions were being made that I couldn't see how they could be made. But I was aware it was probably due to my own failings that I didn't understand it so I investigated it more thoroughly and revised my position rather. And then I discovered a rare and uncommon version of the argument and I came to believe that actually it does work both in this version and the original. Although it isn't universally helpful to Christians. In case you don't know I am talking about the ontological argument.
Now, in order for me to explain the new version and how, to me, it works I'll need to explain the original as I understand it, but that's difficult because it's an involved argument and can be hard going. But here it is the original ontological argument.
The ontological argument was proposed by Anselm in his work Proslogion as an attempt to present a concise arrangement of a proof for God's existence that he had already presented in his previous work Monologion. Now in order to understand the argument you first need to understand that Anselm defined 'man' as 'rational mortal animal'. He understand the rational human mind was a tool to investigating the world outside which was inherently rational. If you don't believe the universe is rational the argument won't work. But, of course, no one really believes that; if you don't believe that the universe is rational then no argument works.
The argument runs as follows and it is very important that you follow this so that a big responsibility for me. The argument says that god is "that-than-which-nothing-greater-can be-conceived." This description appears in various renderings due to translation but the point is that God is the greatest thing you can ever begin to think about.
But this is just a thought, isn't it? People can think of anything why should we think anything and everything we can think of exists? We know many things we can think of don't exist, why can't Go be one of those things?
Well, Anselm argues, because the idea of God exists in our "understanding" this basically means our reason. We know what the phrase above means and we can analyze it and discern its implications. Anselm points out the we know know the concept of God exists in our mind, we are aware of it, but even as we are aware of it we could have this concept conceived as existing in the world as well and since that would be greater there must logically be a God in reality to correspond to it. The rational world outside must reflect the rational chain of thought in your mind, or it wouldn't be rational.
Anselm later goes on to argue that we could, indeed must, conceive God as a necessary being, that is a being that is the source for its self as much as it is everything else and isn't dependent on anything else for its existence and so can't be threatened by the possibility of one of those things being remove and it losing its existence. Anselm demonstrates this would be 'greater.'
This is the most controversial argument going because if it works it works finally and proves that God exists but people obviously aren't happy to except this certainly not with its implications and it being so simple but no one has actually managed to prove it doesn't work. They just suspect it and try to point out its flaws but no one seems able to finally show it.
The biggest argument against it is that you can't say existence is a property of something since something has to exist before it can have properties at all. So you can't say things have degrees of existence, it can't really be 'greater' to exist in either the mind or the world.
The thing is that this line of reasoning actually makes Anselm's point. The argument comes from a materialistic mindset. The idea that the only things that exist are the things that exist materially in the world. Therefore it only recognizes two states of being either something exists or something does not exist with no middle ground obviously God is not a material being so cannot exist.
But Anselm was a Philosopher and to him there were, very obviously, three states of being. Non-beings, identical to the materialists 'does not exist', greater than this is non-instantiated beings existing only as thoughts or ideas but not in the material world and finally greater than this is instantiated being identical to 'does exist' iof which there is at least one example out there in the world.
The point Anselm has here is that imagine a computer or a light bulb or a car. Easy, yes? You've seen these things you know they exist. But you also know, if you think about it there was a time where someone invented these things. There might have been plans for them expressing ideas for them based on the ideas in the inventor's mind but none existed in the world out they because they hadn't been made yet. But before this there was a time when even the inventor had not conceived the idea and at this point the things were non-beings. They did not exist at all. Imagine trying to talk about a car or a light bulb or a computer to people who've never seen any, you might well struggle to be understood. It's hard for people to imagine such things when they never experienced them which is why existing in the mind is greater than not existing at all things that exist in the mind are comparable and debatable things that don't exist can't even be thought of. They not even represented as ideas.
But things that exist in the mind usually only exist in the world if someone makes them. They can't instantiate themselves. But the thing is, on Anselm's argument God can and does and must instantiate Himself and thus He must exist.
If there's any interest I'll move on to the newer 'clearer' rendering in the next post.
Sorry if this is a bit of a mess.
It is not a mess CST ,
You are just saying simply that God cannot be understood except in concepts of harsh realities ?
Things the animal mind can taste touch and feel and instinctively understand , to reason with an animal that has limits ?
For instance an animal is instinctively afraid of fire , so the concept of being afraid of fire, God has used to describe punishment ?
so the carnal mind is the flaw ? or enemy against the Spirit being Life itself .. Which describes God as Love or Spirit or even as a consuming fire
These things are not tangible , but can be expressed though material objects that the carnal mind can grasp in the world as we know it ?
Well the thing is until you know what a light bulb is used for even as a baby , they have no idea what it is
Before the invention of that knowledge to even make one none had a clue as what a light bulb is .
I am trying can you tell ?
I can, friend Rose, I'm not sure whether you're succeeding or not. The Ontological Argument is pretty involved, if I'm knew if you understood it as I'd stated it I'd think it was less of a mess.
The idea is that concept of God while not being able to be completely thought has to correspond to something that exist. The OA fascinates me because to me it really seems to work and there are lots of ways you can frame it to show that it works. But it somehow can't convince even though it works and therefore should convince.
Hebrews 1 directs the ontological argument to Jesus, don't you think?
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.
Also John 1:18
No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him.
and John 14:7
"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."
Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?
Why would I attempt such a proof? It is the corollary that needs proving, the proof should be that there is no God.
Yes, it is considered impossible to prove a non-existence. Not my problem. How many times have I heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs? "No God" is an extraordinary claim. Archaeology and history make it clear that even the earliest men had a belief in a god. Believing in a god is definitely an ordinary, nearly universal claim. The extraordinary claim is the one burdened by a need to be proven.
I'd agree but it's getting materialists, which is basically who we're talking about here, to recognize that they are making an extraordinary claim. That is how the OA is meant to work, kind of. It's meant to show that the claim 'there is no God!' is as extraordinary as can be and can't be true.
Quote from: Reverend G on April 26, 2016, 04:28:33 PM
Why would I attempt such a proof? It is the corollary that needs proving, the proof should be that there is no God.
Yes, it is considered impossible to prove a non-existence. Not my problem. How many times have I heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs? "No God" is an extraordinary claim. Archaeology and history make it clear that even the earliest men had a belief in a god. Believing in a god is definitely an ordinary, nearly universal claim. The extraordinary claim is the one burdened by a need to be proven.
I Agree
Proving the non-existence of God involves ignoring a lot of powerful evidence to the contrary.
The continuing record in the hearts and minds of men that respond to some "consciousness" of God- tho it may take many different forms in thought and identity- is in itself substantial, tho not perhaps conclusive, evidence that there is a God.
According to a Gallup Poll....
According to Gallup's 2002 Index of Leading Religious Indicators*, 88% of those with postgraduate degrees believe in God or a universal spirit, compared to 97% of those with a high school education or less. More dramatically, postgraduate degree holders are less likely than those with a high school education or less to believe that religion can answer today's problems, by a margin of 51% to 68%. And those with a high school education or less are more likely than their postgraduate counterparts to say that religion is "important" or "very important" in their lives (65% to 53%). All this would seem to confirm that highly educated individuals put less emphasis on the role of religion than less educated individuals do.
The percentage difference is only 12 percent. While the writer of the article tries to slant the conclusion in a particular direction- the actual statistics objectively viewed reveal clearly that the vast majority of people in any educational level believe in the existence of some form of God-regardless of their opinion about the influence of "religion"- which may be a reflection of spirituality among many respondents- not the lack of it.
To ignore this almost universal consciousness in mankind or to attribute it only to "lagging myths and superstitions" from primitive man- is a real denial of evidence that more likely ought to be interpreted as a substantive connection to something universally recognized and therefore real on some level.
:thumbsup:
The author also makes no recognition of the effect of the collegiate environment itself. Academia has a higher than average percentage of atheists and angry agnostics in its ranks. This may be related to the high degree of leftist thinkers in academia as well. These persons, as teachers of young minds, have definitely been known to attempt to impress their worldview on their students. Considering that factor, the difference between college graduates and non-collegians is rather small.
I skipped over all other posts besides
Quote from: CST on April 16, 2016, 06:25:18 PM
the ontological argument.
If there's any interest I'll move on to the newer 'clearer' rendering in the next post.
to keep my mind on course for when CST posts the newer 'clearer' version.. I'm taking the first sort of along the lines of if man can think of it.. it exists.. although some things which exist are still only in the mind (rhetorical - but there's something missing here? As it pertains to God's existence).. but also there has to be that one "greatest" thing.. (mankind right now thinks that is man? also rhetorical, just thinking outloud :laughing7: ) I'm sure I'm not getting it all, but I'm not done trying..
thanks CST, as we know, it's not always easy expressing these things..
I'm going to read the rest of the posts too.. as this is a topic that always interests me. But I'm keeping my mind clear for the newer rest of the version.. (I can get easily sidetracked, lol)
No hurry.. (don't get me wrong.. never pressure! :smile: )
Quote from: Hannibal Flavius on May 02, 2016, 07:00:38 PM
My opinion of the best proof of God is in the secret hidden mystery of the Temple deign and the comings and goings of the Temple, what the priests do in officiating the 7 feasts and their promises.
Moses had come down the mountain and he was about to marry God to the whole congregation but when Moses came down and found them committing adultery, and worshipping the works of their own hands, he went back to the mountain and then he brought down something completely different. He brought down a design for the ark of the covenant where one was not needed before.
Israel stood on the mountain under a canopy and they were about to be married and transformed after a symbolic consummation where they would have all given birth, their bodies would have given birth to sons of God.
But since they were committing adultery, and since they were worshipping the work of their hands, God brought down a design for a Tabernacle and an ark of the covenant and this is the great mystery.
The design of the Temple is that of the human anatomy of a woman and the ark of the covenant was put behind a veil that represented the veil inside a virgin where she has no door, and neither is there a door into the Holy of Holies.
The ark of the covenant is a uterus but there was originally no need for this when Moses came down the first time with a law of grace, but he went back up to the mountain and he brought down a harder law that they would try and become pregnant from then on.
Those priests were all dressed in their seed, and they represent the sperm of man going into the Holy of Holies one time a year trying to get a temple pregnant as to give birth to a righteous son.
None of the priests were able to do this until Jesus came and with his last breath, that veil was ripped from top to bottom showing a legal consummation. There has to be a legal witness with the blood and the water, and so Jesus side was pierced and the water and blood flowed out on the earth and it was a witness of consummation. Jesus was then planted in the earth as a seed and he became the first born son into a new kingdom where many sons would follow.
The Earth had literally become pregnant and Jesus was raised as the new Adam, a new guiding spirit within a bride, and the bride is literally that blood and water taken from his own body and these are two witnesses.
The proof that there is a God is that 40 authors were writing about a Temple being a woman and waiting on a consummation but none of the authors knew what they were even speaking about and none of them contradict each other.
That's not humanly possible.
The feast days all teach of a bridegroom and a bride. The bridegroom came and he has betrothed a bride from his own body and the bride waits on Rosh Hashanah as a wedding day and Yom Kippur as a day of consummation and the feast of Tabernacles is for the birth of a new son where Shemini Atzereth is a circumcision, the great eighth day.
40 authors over a 1500 year period all wrote about the Temple being a woman and giving birth to many sons, but none of the authors were actually aware of the mystery they were writing about..
Something so simple was hiding behind all those little laws all that time.
Hmm, you seem to be suggesting that God produced a plan B there because the Israelites took Him by surprise and started committing Adultery and Idolatry with a Golden Calf while Moses was up on the mountain. While I find what you are saying interesting and worth investigation and consideration and could contain much truth and originally took it that the sin the Israelites committed interrupted God's conversation with God and the Tabernacle wasn't a new idea God just hadn't gotten around to telling Moses about it yet. Nevertheless from what I've heard about what some scholars have said about the Tabernacle and its role in the scripture it's certainly incredible interesting.
I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion that the Temple was considered female by all the ancient Biblical writers to be as incredible as you suggest. Remember Hebrew is not a gender neutral language, I don't know but I suspect that the word here for temple may be a feminine one. And then treating and talking about the temple like it was female would be the most natural thing to do.
Quote from: marie glen on May 03, 2016, 12:08:08 AM
I skipped over all other posts besides
Quote from: CST on April 16, 2016, 06:25:18 PM
the ontological argument.
If there's any interest I'll move on to the newer 'clearer' rendering in the next post.
to keep my mind on course for when CST posts the newer 'clearer' version.. I'm taking the first sort of along the lines of if man can think of it.. it exists.. although some things which exist are still only in the mind (rhetorical - but there's something missing here? As it pertains to God's existence).. but also there has to be that one "greatest" thing.. (mankind right now thinks that is man? also rhetorical, just thinking outloud :laughing7: ) I'm sure I'm not getting it all, but I'm not done trying..
thanks CST, as we know, it's not always easy expressing these things..
I'm going to read the rest of the posts too.. as this is a topic that always interests me. But I'm keeping my mind clear for the newer rest of the version.. (I can get easily sidetracked, lol)
No hurry.. (don't get me wrong.. never pressure! :smile: )
Hee, hee thanks. maybe I shouldn't have said 'clearer' this is a tricky argument at the best of times and words like that are prone to mislead.
I think you've basically understood what I've said pretty well which is a mixture of how I perceive the argument to be understood generally and how I think it should be understood from reading Anselm but which I don't think all other readers have spotted.
As far as I can tell, the observation that anything we can conceive exists at least in the mind is unique to me (and maybe Anselm) because Anselm uses the phrase "exists in the understanding" and that statement presupposes existence.
It's like modern materialists like that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are identical in their non-existence but they're not. If told i had to get rid of one of them I could analyse the concept to decide which is 'greater' and therefore more worth keeping (it's Santa Claus for me, sorry Tooth Gal).
But, yes the point is this is to undermine an argument used by detractors of the Ontological Argument who claim it doesn't work because 'existence' is neither a predicate or a perfection and therefore the concept can't be used that way, my observation is that oh, yes it can and the original argument takes that it is. It's not simply an oversight on Anselm's part.
More generally, a lot of people are commenting on the fact that the more 'intellectual' people are the less inclined they are to religion. Atheists love to cleave to this to say that smart people reject God and only stupid believe tend to believe in Him.
I don't buy this. There's a logical flaw in this reasoning in that becoming educated means dedicating a lot of your time to whatever you are choosing to educate yourself in. This can result in religious and spiritual pursuits getting crowed out to the point where they no longer figure in your life. This has nothing to do with being smarter and everything to do with neglecting serious investigation into what might be good arguments for God.
That post makes me uncomfortable... are there dolphins in the Bible?
Quote from: CST on May 03, 2016, 08:33:10 PM
That post makes me uncomfortable... are there dolphins in the Bible?
Yeah it seemed weird to me too--check out Numbers 4...different translations say different animals--one says beaver and one says manatee. I have no idea which animal the passage is truly referring to. I may dig more but for now it seems to be a semi-aquatic animal.
Beaver, manatee, goat, badger, porpoise, deal...ok it's a little weird that every translation has a different animal.
http://biblehub.com/numbers/4-6.htm
Even weirder is the fact that I read that it wouldn't have been badger as it was considered an unclean animal and it also couldn't have been any of those sea animals because they were also considered unclean because they were sea creatures without scales.
It seems to me that the Hebrew word tahash should have been interpreted as a color (blueish/purplish) and not an animal according to this article:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Badger_skins_(Bible)
Quote from: Hannibal Flavius on May 03, 2016, 11:53:18 PM
God has used pretty much every creature to show his truth, the outer covering of the Tabernacle is made of dolphin skin and so it was seen as a cloud, that God dwells in a dark cloud, but it is dolphin skin and a dolphin has two lives, one of air and one of water and the sea is sitting right there in the court, the great sea of Solomon has 3 millions gallons.
The alter of incense also has it's dolphin skins and what would come to mind is the colors of the veil because they are taken from two seas. The alter of incense says," Nobody comes to the father but by me." you offer prayers through Christ as he is the alter who lifts your prayers up to God and this alter of incense in carried into the Tabernacle by two poles and a piece of cloth in the way you would carry a dolphin, and with it's own dolphin covering, one might imagine a dolphin standing on his fin as being a creature taken from the water and now he has become a new creature of air.
I believe Moses took Israel through the valley of whales where they would have seen ancient dolphin bones, monsters as they were, and extinct.
Everyone must be taken from the waters, every creature in the sea, and that dolphin fits right in with the Tabernacle. To have seen the Tabernacle moving through the wilderness was to see a dolphin swimming in the sand as they saw that very thing in the valley of whales.
Oh, the Sea Cows! Yeah, they're Dugongs so I understand but like GiL points out it's hard to be sure how we can know exactly what each Hebrew word for each Animal means when we haven't got books, hence why there are so many differences in translation.
However, I've got good news and bad news for you, I checked my admittedly dubious, Hebrew Lexicon and discovered that all the Hebrew words used for Temple (except the ones of the sides of our heads) are masculine so it is curious they kept using feminine terms for it.
But the bad news is that I checked my Bible I discovered that you have misremembered the book of Exodus, Moses goes up the mountain he is given the instructions for the Tabernacle
and then he is sent back down because the children of Israel are cheating on God and His covenant. There wasn't a plan B Moses didn't go up the mountain and come up with 'something completely different' the instructions for the Tabernacle were there from the get go, nothing obvious changed in what God was doing.
Quote from: GodIsLove on May 04, 2016, 12:54:53 AM
Quote from: CST on May 03, 2016, 08:33:10 PM
That post makes me uncomfortable... are there dolphins in the Bible?
Yeah it seemed weird to me too--check out Numbers 4...different translations say different animals--one says beaver and one says manatee. I have no idea which animal the passage is truly referring to. I may dig more but for now it seems to be a semi-aquatic animal.
Sorry, I misread the post slightly and was taking the term "submissive female" negatively, the negativity being reinforced by the repetition. I no longer think that the term was necessarily meant negatively.
Quote from: GodIsLove on May 04, 2016, 04:30:03 AM
Beaver, manatee, goat, badger, porpoise, deal...ok it's a little weird that every translation has a different animal.
http://biblehub.com/numbers/4-6.htm
Even weirder is the fact that I read that it wouldn't have been badger as it was considered an unclean animal and it also couldn't have been any of those sea animals because they were also considered unclean because they were sea creatures without scales.
It seems to me that the Hebrew word tahash should have been interpreted as a color (blueish/purplish) and not an animal according to this article:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Badger_skins_(Bible)
Yeah, I should point out that the other part of the tabernacle roof was goats hair, they don't seem to have the best rep in the Bible either, however they are really valuable which may be the point (or part of it). I think it might be presumptuous to say that our God, who can make all things clean, wouldn't instruct unclean animals to be used for the Tabernacle simply on account of that. But I get that that's not your own claim.
Quote from: alihaymeg on December 13, 2008, 02:07:25 PM
QuoteNo solid proof for a God because it also can be alien intelligence.
Technically God is extra terrestrial.
Moreso, being outside of, and not subject to the laws of nature, He is supernatural.
Amen, He has to be, really.. or we would have the same question(s)... Also the idea has lodged itself in my head, that anything imperfect fades. That being the source of the Law of Entropy, 2nd law of science.. To be the ever living one, He can only be perfect.. (Which of course He is :smile: )
(Therefor, surely? the 'end' of all this, human history, etc. can only be the very best one possible!?)
:Chinscratch: maybe that's why evolutionary scientists won't move the debate along to "what sort of designer behind what is?" They know - even though whomever, is essentially an 'extraterrestrial' - to be a mere extraterrestrial just won't cut it!
Of course, what do they care about natural law and the most accepted laws of science? Their whole theory doesn't comply! (As far as I can see, anyway.)
:Peace2: God bless!
Quote from: GodIsLove on May 04, 2016, 04:30:03 AM
Beaver, manatee, goat, badger, porpoise, deal...ok it's a little weird that every translation has a different animal.
http://biblehub.com/numbers/4-6.htm
Even weirder is the fact that I read that it wouldn't have been badger as it was considered an unclean animal and it also couldn't have been any of those sea animals because they were also considered unclean because they were sea creatures without scales.
It seems to me that the Hebrew word tahash should have been interpreted as a color (blueish/purplish) and not an animal according to this article:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Badger_skins_(Bible)
...I thought this interesting.. the word "tachash" -
it is strange all the different meanings![pasted from http://studybible.info/strongs/H8476 ]
תּחשׁ
tachash
takh'-ash
Probably of foreign derivation; a (clean) animal with fur, probably a species of antelope
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:
תּחשׁ
1. a kind of leather, skin, or animal hide
a. perhaps the animal yielding the skin
1. perhaps the badger or dugong, dolphin, or sheep
Origin: probably of foreign derivation
TWOT: 2503
Parts of Speech: Noun Masculine
Quote from: marie glen on May 05, 2016, 05:12:53 PM
Amen, He has to be, really.. or we would have the same question(s)... Also the idea has lodged itself in my head, that anything imperfect fades. That being the source of the Law of Entropy, 2nd law of science.. To be the ever living one, He can only be perfect.. (Which of course He is :smile: )
(Therefor, surely? the 'end' of all this, human history, etc. can only be the very best one possible!?)
:Chinscratch: maybe that's why evolutionary scientists won't move the debate along to "what sort of designer behind what is?" They know - even though whomever, is essentially an 'extraterrestrial' - to be a mere extraterrestrial just won't cut it!
Of course, what do they care about natural law and the most accepted laws of science? Their whole theory doesn't comply! (As far as I can see, anyway.)
:Peace2: God bless!
Ah, Marie Glen the original 'optimist'. That is the definition of optimism you are citing there, you do know that?
Quote from: marie glen on May 05, 2016, 05:26:33 PM
Quote from: GodIsLove on May 04, 2016, 04:30:03 AM
Beaver, manatee, goat, badger, porpoise, deal...ok it's a little weird that every translation has a different animal.
http://biblehub.com/numbers/4-6.htm
Even weirder is the fact that I read that it wouldn't have been badger as it was considered an unclean animal and it also couldn't have been any of those sea animals because they were also considered unclean because they were sea creatures without scales.
It seems to me that the Hebrew word tahash should have been interpreted as a color (blueish/purplish) and not an animal according to this article:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Badger_skins_(Bible)
...I thought this interesting.. the word "tachash" - it is strange all the different meanings!
[pasted from http://studybible.info/strongs/H8476 ]
תּחשׁ
tachash
takh'-ash
Probably of foreign derivation; a (clean) animal with fur, probably a species of antelope
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions:
תּחשׁ
1. a kind of leather, skin, or animal hide
a. perhaps the animal yielding the skin
1. perhaps the badger or dugong, dolphin, or sheep
Origin: probably of foreign derivation
TWOT: 2503
Parts of Speech: Noun Masculine
I'm not sure that there's any real reason for the animal to be clean given the circumstances it'll almost certainly be some material they plundered from the Egyptians.
QuoteI believe that just the fact Moses went back to the mountain proves he didn't bring down the same law.
Proves?
While I understand what you are saying and dont particularly object to it, I see no conclusive evidence that Moses returning to the mountain was to alter the law, since according to the narrative, God wrote it.
Even if such a thing were possible, there is no imperative logical evidence to offer, so again, your statement seems to emphatic for its own scriptural validations, or rather, lack of them.
But it is an interesting speculation.
Prove it! Prove it! Prove it! OK, I'll try :smile: :mwink:
Let's present the argument thus following a process called adjacent reasoning. Here, first is Anselm's original argument:
1. God is described as being 'That Being Than Which No Greater Being Can Be Conceived' (premise)
That is Anselm's original argument, Thomas Aquinas tried to object to such an argument on the ground that not everyone conceived God such. Neglecting the point that if such a being existed and could be shown to exist it would supersede any god that they did conceive of and would indeed be God.
2. All beings exist (tautology)
A tautology, for those who don't know, is basically a statement where you repeat yourself without contradiction. In the case of logic like this it is equal to a 'truism' which is a statement that must be true.
It's worth mentioning that this statement doesn't 'prove' that there is such a being as God and He exists, the point is that the words 'being' and 'exist' are variants on the same verb and so both describe the same thing. Technically there are no non-existent beings.
3. Any being 'Than Which No Greater Being Can Be Conceived' must be a necessary being' (tautology)
This is the weakest point is the argument because it is not immediately obvious that the statement is correct, it follows the reasoning of the original ontological argument that to conceive of a 'Being Than Which no Greater Being Can Be Conceived' that isn't a necessary being is not to conceive it correctly.
Because this is difficult we will drop this line of reasoning and move on to it's adjacent neighbour.
1. God is described as being 'That Being Through Which All Beings Have Their Being' (premise)
Basically every thing that exists exists because of God. I don't even Aquinas could find objection to this. God made all things, that is what it is to be God.
2. All beings exist (tautology)
Identical to the above that is why this is adjacent reasoning.
3. Any being "Through Which All Beings Have Their Being' must be a necessary being (tautology)
Again, perhaps not immediately obvious in the text as written Anselm argues for the truth of this is his work Monologion. The point here is that a necessary being causes everything except (or perhaps including) it's self. Therefore it can be dependent on nothing for if it created everything but was not necessary it would have to have created something it its self was dependent on and so that wouldn't make sense. So it must have created all things except its self and be dependent on nothing and thus be a necessary being.
So having covered both adjacent paths they can now meant and complete the chain of logic.
4. All necessary beings necessarily exist (tautology)
The most obvious tautology in the chain, that is exactly what a necessary being is.
5. God is a necessary being (tautology)
Following steps 1 and 3
6. God necessarily exists (tautology)
Following steps 4 and 5 and so:
7. God exists (TAUTOLOGY)
The statement 'God exists' is a tautology and a truism and must be true. Therefore the opposite statement 'God does not exist' must be false .
This shouldn't be surprised when addressing a God who, when asked His name simply revealed it to be 'I AM BEING'.
Well, I think it works. They'll be something wrong with it. Someone always finds something wrong with it.
Quote from: CST on May 10, 2016, 01:34:51 PM
Prove it! Prove it! Prove it! OK, I'll try :smile: :mwink:
Let's present the argument thus following a process called adjacent reasoning. Here, first is Anselm's original argument:
1. God is described as being 'That Being Than Which No Greater Being Can Be Conceived' (premise)
That is Anselm's original argument, Thomas Aquinas tried to object to such an argument on the ground that not everyone conceived God such. Neglecting the point that if such a being existed and could be shown to exist it would supersede any god that they did conceive of and would indeed be God.
2. All beings exist (tautology)
A tautology, for those who don't know, is basically a statement where you repeat yourself without contradiction. In the case of logic like this it is equal to a 'truism' which is a statement that must be true.
It's worth mentioning that this statement doesn't 'prove' that there is such a being as God and He exists, the point is that the words 'being' and 'exist' are variants on the same verb and so both describe the same thing. Technically there are no non-existent beings.
3. Any being 'Than Which No Greater Being Can Be Conceived' must be a necessary being' (tautology)
This is the weakest point is the argument because it is not immediately obvious that the statement is correct, it follows the reasoning of the original ontological argument that to conceive of a 'Being Than Which no Greater Being Can Be Conceived' that isn't a necessary being is not to conceive it correctly.
Because this is difficult we will drop this line of reasoning and move on to it's adjacent neighbour.
1. God is described as being 'That Being Through Which All Beings Have Their Being' (premise)
Basically every thing that exists exists because of God. I don't even Aquinas could find objection to this. God made all things, that is what it is to be God.
2. All beings exist (tautology)
Identical to the above that is why this is adjacent reasoning.
3. Any being "Through Which All Beings Have Their Being' must be a necessary being (tautology)
Again, perhaps not immediately obvious in the text as written Anselm argues for the truth of this is his work Monologion. The point here is that a necessary being causes everything except (or perhaps including) it's self. Therefore it can be dependent on nothing for if it created everything but was not necessary it would have to have created something it its self was dependent on and so that wouldn't make sense. So it must have created all things except its self and be dependent on nothing and thus be a necessary being.
So having covered both adjacent paths they can now meant and complete the chain of logic.
4. All necessary beings necessarily exist (tautology)
The most obvious tautology in the chain, that is exactly what a necessary being is.
5. God is a necessary being (tautology)
Following steps 1 and 3
6. God necessarily exists (tautology)
Following steps 4 and 5 and so:
7. God exists (TAUTOLOGY)
The statement 'God exists' is a tautology and a truism and must be true. Therefore the opposite statement 'God does not exist' must be false .
This shouldn't be surprised when addressing a God who, when asked His name simply revealed it to be 'I AM BEING'.
Well, I think it works. They'll be something wrong with it. Someone always finds something wrong with it.
Amen!! ..."Adjacent reasoning" :thumbsup:
I believe there has to be something (one) greater than what we see.. and beyond atoms and the like, which we don't see. To me "creator" makes sense. But all that exists - and it's rather awesome and complex, etc - simply "coming about" by chance, and, or, lacking purpose, simply seems to me to make no rational sense.
...If all life evolved from one life form.. how many transitional life forms - living and fossil - would there be?? and why are they still "missing"? There's really only a handful of what's called possible transitional life forms.. One being the horse, which the line goes back and forth as to the size and as to the hoofs (tho I can't remember exactly how) but why would either of these characteristics 'evolve' back and forth?
People believe bacteria 'evolves' a resistance to anti-biotics. But what happens is the antibiotic kills off the nonresistant and the resistant multiply. This, as we know, is natural "selection" a separating of traits present in the dna instruction code.
Most folks believing the theory of evolution as to origins do not know the difference between macro 'evolution' (origins) and natural selection, long known before Darwin's theory. The ideas of mud to man.. or whale to land cow.. or 'flying' squirrel to bird are fAr removed and worlds away from "natural selection". Whit moths / brown moths - where there's white lichen on the trees, the brown moths are picked off, and the white multiply. Where there is no white lichen on the trees, the opposite. Natural selection of traits present..
To a devout nonbeliever, we likely cannot "prove" the existence of God.. But more importantly, no one has ever "proven" life springing from matter.. or the universe forming somehow on its own, I don't care how sub atomic they may get.. In order for the universe to exist, there had to be a creative force.. Whether intelligent or not.. Something.
my :2c: :smile:
I believe man's adult fairy tale to be the false prophet / teacher / prophecy(!) which has caused the "falling away" of christendom from the faith which made it great.. It being the "great delusion"... jus sayin' :smile:
I don't have a major with evolution or natural selection once it get's going but I do have a logical problem with it actually getting going.
All life on Earth supposedly evolved from one, single celled life form which multiplied by cell division so lets imagine that life form. There's one of them. Now it needs to reproduce so to do that one of two things happens:
a - it splits into two of its self completely successfully. They then split into two more each which split into two more until...
b - (one of the cells undergoes a mutation as)it splits creating either two new creatures that are identical or two new creatures that are different or one new creature and the original creature
Evolution depends on this happen but the problem seems to be that a soon as this change occurs or eventually there comes a point where both creatures has to survives but as what generation is this. What does it matter if all the life on the planet can be traced back to this one creature when it's easily perfectly possible that up to 50% of either of it could have different second generation relatives and 25% different third generation relatives. In principle the relationship could become very thin very quickly but, so far as I can tell, the theory of evolution suggests that it hasn't.
Oh! I was wondering how they would get two out of one when there's only one.. and no male and female.. I forgot about the splitting cell.. :laughing7:
And every life since, from that one cell.. wow, what a "miracle"! Especially if all or even most, or some. of the changes were mutations.. as I have heard that mutations are very rarely, if ever, improvements..
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Yeah, but the point is that thinks that aren't improvements tend to destroy the creature they're part of sooner or later that's how evolution works. But here's the thing, in a single celled organism one mutation that takes will completely change the organism into something different. This isn't true in multi-celled organisms. Presumably then the more cells and organism has the lower its propensity to evolve because there are more possibilities for it to evolve into and survive and develop when it is single celled. While in multi-celled organisms there are lots of potential mutations that just won't be situated to do anything at all and, probably, many more possibilities of those.
Mutations can come about either by mistakes in cell copying of itself (replication, as we always need new cells) and by environmental causes? Or by losing genetic info, or inserting new info..?
I found many sites listing the idea of beneficial mutations.. but isn't the genetic code subject to the 2nd law of science, the law of entropy stating all matter tends toward entropy/falling apart..?
Is this the crux of the whole matter? In the theory of evolution as origins of life and variation of life, how does all the improvement occur if one of the natural laws most affecting everything is the 2nd law of science/entropy? ...that both matter and communication (which the dna code is both) break down over time (and w/ communication, space/distance) - as the grade school experiment of starting a sentence at one end of class whispered and passed along to each classmate, until the last, and comparing the two as to its accuracy or breakdown.. (I'm sure there's some sort of technology which overcomes this to a degree, what with our iphones, etc! but I haven't a clue what that might be!)
I did a google search for sites listing "positive mutations" but to me is the question, are these actually mutations? or variations? (Variation being separation of traits present, but mutation being loss of, or adding of, information? or is the adding of information, really simply variation of traits present? or change in information, by dropping a letter (so to speak).. One such page - http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans
But I like this page, I'm currently reading today, in between lawn mowing and other chores :gsmile:
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/are-mutations-part-of-the-engine-of-evolution/
:Peace2: :girlheart:
P.S. - "So You Say Prove To Me There Is A God" --- Prove to me there isn't God! :laughing7:
It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics I believe you are referring to and it doesn't scientifically mean all matter grades towards decay it's just uses allegorically as such because that tends to be our experience on the macroscopic level. Our experience is that the propensity for replication failure increases across the board as we all get older. But that, of course, doesn't stop them happening when we're younger.
Entropy deals with the concept that the universe is a closed system and contains a finite amount of energy which is used up in work. Energy cannot be created or destroyed but only changed from one form to another is the Law for the Conservation of Mass/Energy so the idea is that energy can neither enter or leave the system.
But it can be used up to reach a state that it can no longer be used for work when there is no longer enough energy to do any work we will have reached a state called 'the heat death of the universe' where basically nothing can happen anymore because the energy in the universe can't be used to do anything.
Entropy describes the propensity for the universe to do this. In short the energy in the universe runs down the hill but has no way of running back up the hill afterwards.
Grade school game? You mean Chinese Whispers don't you. Fascinating to get onto that as an example.
Not sure how many examples you'll find of 'positive' mutations. I continue to hold that the identification is rather subjective on things like that.
Personally, I know this isn't an evolution debate page, but for now I want to throw it out there for others reading this that may feel the same:
I believe in evolution GUIDED by God. There's no way it is all random chance and mutations but rather that an intelligent creator is guiding it all.
For example, how each species has adapted to its climate and environment as well as how it exists in a perfectly symbiotic relationship with all of the other plants, animals, insects, even bacteria etc.
Interestingly, I have been pondering the "punishments" of Adam and Eve. Eve was punished by having to endure painful childbirth. Well scientifically humans do have much more difficult labors and deliveries because our skull size is large compared to our pelvis (walking upright and larger brains)--well what if this was when God endowed humans with larger brains to know good and evil. So not a punishment of having to endure pain in childbirth but a consequence of knowing good and evil, which animals do not.
And Adam's punishment is essentially to have to farm for food, which is also a consequence of greater knowledge than the animal kingdom. Animals must just hunt and forage, but farming, while difficult, is also beneficial (can ensure survival, begin to produce excess food to store for later to protect against famine, some can farm while others can do other tasks within the tribe).
So I have been entertaining the idea that this is when humans were created out of the animal kingdom by God, and set apart on a journey to learn good from evil in a process of ongoing creation versus creation as a one time event.
CST, I never heard it called "Chinese Whispers"! How interesting! :smile:
I was rather fascinated once, listening to an "intelligent design" scientist talking about origins.. I always remember just this little part of it. He was talking about how the debate 'evolves' ( :laughing7: ). Intelligent design/creationists said it is in the natural order that matter erodes, not improve. (I don't fully get the 1st law of science, somehow matter and energy are interchangeable? tho that may be the wrong word! the amount of energy stays the same, it just changes?)
So then, the evolutionary scientists said "well, energy coming into the system, changes things. The sun (for instance?) superseded the law of entropy long enough for life to form."
So what's the intelligent design scientist, on the dvd I was watching, do? He plucked a leaf off a tree. Then he said "set this leaf in the sunlight and what will happen to it? While it is on the tree - alive - it will use the energy of the sun (I can't think of the right word) and produce energy.. or nutrient.. aka, improvement. But if you pluck it off the tree and it no longer is alive, the sun will burn it. It will disintegrate it.
[...wait.. what.. if there's no life, it will burn.. hmmm, thinking of other threads..]
The leaf is like a compost pile. I've never had a compost pile, but I know it heats up, gets very hot. Everything sort of burning as it all breaks down. And you want the compost pile to be in the sun.
I really enjoy watching such dvd's. I watched a really good debate one on youtube. I think it's still there. But it's 3 hours long! But boy is it ever good! Ken Hovind and someone... I want to watch the one with Ken Ham and Bill Nye.
I read two pages on the www.answersingenesis.org site today, well, i'm still reading the second one. I haven't visited answers in genesis for a long time, I forgot how much I like reading these sorts of information.
Today I read how if there was oxygen in the atmosphere when the first biocells formed (wrong word again?) the oxygen would have burned them up unless they had a survival mechanism for protection form it. And if there was no oxygen, which oxygen makes up the ozone, then ultra violet rays would burn it up.. (And water breaks apart amino acids.. so life forming originally in the ocean..?)
It's kind of sad (actually very sad) that the only thing that has been taught in public education is man's current theory (which is losing water all the time) and in the universities has been exclusively taught even longer.. (yep, then we had the animal house type movies.. talk about change to the culture -the false prophet gives birth to the flood of the harlot which ruins the earth all 7 continents (imo)
As a scientist if you don't toe the line as far as evolution, you won't get any of your papers published.. ("peer" pressure!) may even find yourself unemployed. And as a public school teacher.. well..
I'm going to reread those answers in genesis dot org pages from time to time so I can use the right words! I was in an atheist / intelligent design debate forum lately, and tho I didn't do too bad, i could surely do better.. However, I think i did do a tad better than some others who kept threatening the atheists with 'hell'! :mshock: :faint: Thank Yahweh for a sense of humor! ("The Divine Comedy"!) I do surely like to tell folks about 1 tim 4:10! or another and so far I've not been kicked off or blocked..
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/can-natural-processes-explain-the-origin-of-life/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/are-mutations-part-of-the-engine-of-evolution/ I posted this earlier in this thread while I was reading it.. it turned out to be very good!
:Peace2: :gsmile:
p.s. - there's tons of Kent Hovind debates on youtube..!
I found answers in genesis dot org on youtube..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvEDnlH3G1c
I liked listening to this guy.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anyCaRSGJAg - Why Science Needs Faith and Faith Needs Science | Alister McGrath, PhD
by Theology, Philosophy and Science (on youtube)
GodIsLove.. that's pretty creative! It seems kind of romantic in some way.. It feels like your story takes place in Eden.. Very interesting theory! :thumbsup: :smile:
Quote from: GodIsLove on May 13, 2016, 04:26:06 AM
Personally, I know this isn't an evolution debate page, but for now I want to throw it out there for others reading this that may feel the same:
I believe in evolution GUIDED by God. There's no way it is all random chance and mutations but rather that an intelligent creator is guiding it all.
For example, how each species has adapted to its climate and environment as well as how it exists in a perfectly symbiotic relationship with all of the other plants, animals, insects, even bacteria etc.
Interestingly, I have been pondering the "punishments" of Adam and Eve. Eve was punished by having to endure painful childbirth. Well scientifically humans do have much more difficult labors and deliveries because our skull size is large compared to our pelvis (walking upright and larger brains)--well what if this was when God endowed humans with larger brains to know good and evil. So not a punishment of having to endure pain in childbirth but a consequence of knowing good and evil, which animals do not.
And Adam's punishment is essentially to have to farm for food, which is also a consequence of greater knowledge than the animal kingdom. Animals must just hunt and forage, but farming, while difficult, is also beneficial (can ensure survival, begin to produce excess food to store for later to protect against famine, some can farm while others can do other tasks within the tribe).
So I have been entertaining the idea that this is when humans were created out of the animal kingdom by God, and set apart on a journey to learn good from evil in a process of ongoing creation versus creation as a one time event.
Hmm, I certainly like that thinking and don't like to reject it out of hand and in fact I'd like to embrace it in many ways. But I also have some other information to bear on some of that which I hope to come to later.
Bu do I believe in evolution guided by God? I believe in evolution as an idea of God that He has implemented and because it is a wise and good idea which He has implemented well it comes off.
However how directly guided it is I'm not so sure. Even Isaac Newton didn't like the idea of the 'tinkerer' God who had to step in every five minutes to stop His creation falling apart. That sounds like God had done a bad job and I agree.
Genesis says that on the seventh day God ended His work of creation because it was complete and I think that makes evolution a very good bet for explaining new species appearing on the planet which otherwise would have no explanation because God has told of He's stopped creating stuff.
But you said that God increased the pains of woman in labour. Yeess, I think I read somewhere (though I forget quite where at present) that that's not quite true. That's how Christians choose to interpret what the Hebrew of the Bible says but it's not actually meant to be understood that way. If I remember rightly. Certainly it's the only part of the woman's punishment which God directly take credit for. He declares "I will..." and then says He'll do it. I noticed that but it's just possible I conflating that with confirmation of the other part of the punishment where God basically seems to say woman will serve man which He doesn't take direct credit for and makes little sense because it seems to reward Adam for sinning to some degree.
At the same time though I did already find the idea of God telling the woman He'll increase her pain in childbirth as a bit off too. Increase from what? She's never given birth before how would she know? Is there meant to be some psychology here? She gives birth in torment and then wonders what it would be like if she hadn't sinned? It's very strange. I'll try and find what I think I read about the Hebrew if I can. Although maybe I've misremembered. The correlation between man's produce and women's produce certainly seems plausible.
Quote from: marie glen on May 13, 2016, 05:35:56 AM
CST, I never heard it called "Chinese Whispers"! How interesting! :smile:
I was rather fascinated once, listening to an "intelligent design" scientist talking about origins.. I always remember just this little part of it. He was talking about how the debate 'evolves' ( :laughing7: ). Intelligent design/creationists said it is in the natural order that matter erodes, not improve. (I don't fully get the 1st law of science, somehow matter and energy are interchangeable? tho that may be the wrong word! the amount of energy stays the same, it just changes?)
So then, the evolutionary scientists said "well, energy coming into the system, changes things. The sun (for instance?) superseded the law of entropy long enough for life to form."
So what's the intelligent design scientist, on the dvd I was watching, do? He plucked a leaf off a tree. Then he said "set this leaf in the sunlight and what will happen to it? While it is on the tree - alive - it will use the energy of the sun (I can't think of the right word) and produce energy.. or nutrient.. aka, improvement. But if you pluck it off the tree and it no longer is alive, the sun will burn it. It will disintegrate it.
[...wait.. what.. if there's no life, it will burn.. hmmm, thinking of other threads..]
The leaf is like a compost pile. I've never had a compost pile, but I know it heats up, gets very hot. Everything sort of burning as it all breaks down. And you want the compost pile to be in the sun.
I really enjoy watching such dvd's. I watched a really good debate one on youtube. I think it's still there. But it's 3 hours long! But boy is it ever good! Ken Hovind and someone... I want to watch the one with Ken Ham and Bill Nye.
I read two pages on the www.answersingenesis.org site today, well, i'm still reading the second one. I haven't visited answers in genesis for a long time, I forgot how much I like reading these sorts of information.
Today I read how if there was oxygen in the atmosphere when the first biocells formed (wrong word again?) the oxygen would have burned them up unless they had a survival mechanism for protection form it. And if there was no oxygen, which oxygen makes up the ozone, then ultra violet rays would burn it up.. (And water breaks apart amino acids.. so life forming originally in the ocean..?)
It's kind of sad (actually very sad) that the only thing that has been taught in public education is man's current theory (which is losing water all the time) and in the universities has been exclusively taught even longer.. (yep, then we had the animal house type movies.. talk about change to the culture -the false prophet gives birth to the flood of the harlot which ruins the earth all 7 continents (imo)
As a scientist if you don't toe the line as far as evolution, you won't get any of your papers published.. ("peer" pressure!) may even find yourself unemployed. And as a public school teacher.. well..
I'm going to reread those answers in genesis dot org pages from time to time so I can use the right words! I was in an atheist / intelligent design debate forum lately, and tho I didn't do too bad, i could surely do better.. However, I think i did do a tad better than some others who kept threatening the atheists with 'hell'! :mshock: :faint: Thank Yahweh for a sense of humor! ("The Divine Comedy"!) I do surely like to tell folks about 1 tim 4:10! or another and so far I've not been kicked off or blocked..
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/can-natural-processes-explain-the-origin-of-life/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/are-mutations-part-of-the-engine-of-evolution/ I posted this earlier in this thread while I was reading it.. it turned out to be very good!
:Peace2: :gsmile:
p.s. - there's tons of Kent Hovind debates on youtube..!
I found answers in genesis dot org on youtube..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvEDnlH3G1c
I liked listening to this guy.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anyCaRSGJAg - Why Science Needs Faith and Faith Needs Science | Alister McGrath, PhD
by Theology, Philosophy and Science (on youtube)
GodIsLove.. that's pretty creative! It seems kind of romantic in some way.. It feels like your story takes place in Eden.. Very interesting theory! :thumbsup: :smile:
Really, I thought that's what it was called and what everyone called it. Mind you it does sound racist in certain context on reflection.
I can help thinking you or someone you've got some of your information from is using the term 'Law of Science' rather arbitrarily. There are lots of laws of science I don't think you can really call any the first, second, third etc. although the one you are talking about the Law for the Conservation of Mass/Energy is pretty fundamental (Mass = Matter by the way) And yes, it also suggests that energy can be turned into matter and vice versa and there's a finite amount of both which can never increase nor decrease.
If he's saying energy is coming into the system in an absolute sense he's simply wrong energy cannot enter this system of the universe, that's the law.
The word you're missing is photosynthesize but the sun won't burn the leaf very quickly or at at unless the right conditions are met. More likely the leaf will be broken down by bacteria who use it for food.
Oh, I'm with you now. He's using 'burn' as a scientific shorthand. The bacteria breaking down the leaf will eat it get its nutrients and stuff and use in for energy which hey will 'burn' in order to live on. Got it! (I think)
You don't want the compost pile to be in the Sun though you want the compost to be evenly distributed on your flowerbeds ultimately.
Things don't burn just because there's oxygen present though or else we'd all be dead now. There needs to be sufficient heat and fuel to to burn.
But it's true life often does need protect from UV rays. We certainly do but perhaps not all life whichmay be able to find some form of shelter I'm not sure.
I do think Alistair McGrath is pretty good though. I've got two of his book and read others I think.
I don't believe in evolution. I do believe in adaptation. I believe God created every creature and as conditions have changed those that could not adapt perished and those that could adapt survived to the degree they were able to adjust to their surroundings.
The one evolution scenario I have entertained at times is one that(in brief) goes like this. When man reached a certain point of development, up from the clay and from the sea, God breathed the spirit that separates man from beasts into Him(collective Adam), and so we begin.
My problem with that, is that God could have just as easily done exactly what Paul says He did.
He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist Acts 17
For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. Romans 5
For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
Adam is one man.....Jesus Christ is the second Adam, one man.
At what point, as we decide we see so much more clearly through science than by the scriptures, do we just throw out the scriptures entirely as myths, fables, proverbs and platitudes?
I don't know what that point is :o)
But I see the creation of the world in 7 periods of time to be just as likely as that He did created it all through Jesus Christ, and then caused Jesus to be born into the world He had created through a virgin, and then died and was raised on the third day, and then was raised from the dead, and then ascended to the Father's right hand from which place He is drawing all mankind to Himself for ultimate universal reconciliation and the restoration of all things.
If God can do all that, and reconcile us, and use us to reconcile and restore the rest of the world in the ages to come- He can speak the whole world into existence in 5 minutes if He wants to. I will have no problem believing it.
Adam's spirit comes from God remember, you know that breath of life it animates Adam and every other human being that's ever lived. So what you say, if I've understood correctly, is true. But not a revelation because the spirit of Adam is spirit from God.
No Adam fell in the flesh, remember? The Bible persistently analogizes sin as being of the flesh not of the spirit.
There are sins of the flesh and the spirit.
"A haughty spirit comes before a fall."
Arrogance, witchcraft, jealousy, envy- all sins of the spirit.
Adams sin was described by Paul as "disobedience to a diret command"
Eve's was defined as being taken in transgression though being deceived.
These seem to me to be spiritual sins.
Amen.. the gnostics (collected esoteric thoughts of the nations) thought the 'blame' for life's imperfection (in life as we presently know it) was because 'spirit had fallen into matter' - rather than the claim of Yahweh that sin/rebellion was the cause and downfall. Not recognizing one's own flawed nature being the guilty party and what we need to overcome, repent and be saved from. It was instead hidden knowledge/wisdom which would save.. simply the carrying on of the original "I will"! Which likely was also the spirit of Cain's offering and all false religion since (imo. And which still holds large sway in the world.) :gsmile:
Quote from: eaglesway on May 15, 2016, 12:24:43 AM
If God can do all that, and reconcile us, and use us to reconcile and restore the rest of the world in the ages to come- He can speak the whole world into existence in 5 minutes if He wants to. I will have no problem believing it.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
The world stumbles over that.. yet has no trouble believing in the 'miracle' of the universe (and life) simply coming about all on its own.. (Now
there's an immaculate conception!) And still believe it when natural law would seem to oppose it, and there is no evidence to support it.. And what (some of) the Lord's people stumble over is reliance upon what men as 'authorities' think and claim. Not realizing that if instead of Adam's creation as told in Genesis, if mankind evolved from lesser life forms.. through death, and series of deaths, then it would not be true what Yahweh says, that "death came about through sin".
Implied in man's current theory, is the idea that ultimate reality is non-life, making life the anomaly, rather than death. Whereas "In the beginning, God." (In the beginning, Life..)
Quote from: marie glen on May 23, 2016, 05:09:17 PM
Amen.. the gnostics (collected esoteric thoughts of the nations) thought the 'blame' for life's imperfection (in life as we presently know it) was because 'spirit had fallen into matter' - rather than the claim of Yahweh that sin/rebellion was the cause and downfall. Not recognizing one's own flawed nature being the guilty party and what we need to overcome, repent and be saved from. It was instead hidden knowledge/wisdom which would save.. simply the carrying on of the original "I will"! Which likely was also the spirit of Cain's offering and all false religion since (imo. And which still holds large sway in the world.) :gsmile:
Quote from: eaglesway on May 15, 2016, 12:24:43 AM
If God can do all that, and reconcile us, and use us to reconcile and restore the rest of the world in the ages to come- He can speak the whole world into existence in 5 minutes if He wants to. I will have no problem believing it.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
The world stumbles over that.. yet has no trouble believing in the 'miracle' of the universe (and life) simply coming about all on its own.. (Now there's an immaculate conception!) And still believe it when natural law would seem to oppose it, and there is no evidence to support it.. And what (some of) the Lord's people stumble over is reliance upon what men as 'authorities' think and claim. Not realizing that if instead of Adam's creation as told in Genesis, if mankind evolved from lesser life forms.. through death, and series of deaths, then it would not be true what Yahweh says, that "death came about through sin".
Implied in man's current theory, is the idea that ultimate reality is non-life, making life the anomaly, rather than death. Whereas "In the beginning, God." (In the beginning, Life..)
Hmm, makes sense except why does the Bible band on about sin being of the flesh so much. Being dead in the flesh but alive in the spirit seems a bit meaningless if the spirit can still be sinful. The phrase seems to imply it can't and as far as I know though I may have forgotten Jesus' spirit didn't did so I'm not sure that fleshy death would atone for sins of the spirit.
I'm pretty sure you may have misunderstood the application of 'death' in the Eden narrative. The story as presented is that of the man and women sinning by disobedience and then finding themselves continuing in disobedience even when they don't want to. It wasn't simply about dropping dead like they'd been poisoned which happens a lot. It's a story used for teaching about the consequences of sin and it works and there are signs it's a story. Why do people feel the need to take it as a historical treatise?
Hmm, maybe because it's a rather good story.
IMO, if one can be alive in the spirit they can be dead in the spirit.
The flesh is the carnal(natural, unrenewed/regenerated/illuminated) mind.
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
As for you, you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you used to walk when you conformed to the ways of this world and of the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of disobedience. 3We all lived among them at one time in the cravings of our flesh, indulging its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature children of wrath....
Sin is spiritual, and it is tied to the flesh and the mind.
The lusts of the flesh and the pleasures of the mind....
For everything in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--comes not from the Father but from the world.
What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.
The understanding of the difference between the spirit of the world and the spirit that comes from God reveals the secret of righteousness and sin.
Quote from: DeeDee on November 13, 2008, 10:33:04 AM
2. Incorruptable Bodies of The Saints - I am not Catholic and I am not familiar with many Catholic beliefs and ways. But you have to admit that there is something very mystical about the fact that the bodies of saints don't decay. Look up St. Bernadette of Lourdes.
Is this "saint" word from the Bible?
It might be, it depends which translation you're using and how broad or narrow your definition of the word 'Saint' is.
Well, I know I cant make anyone believe anything on my own. But, I have no doubt and no doubt of who He is. He gives me love and life and shows me truth by life experiences that reflect the truth of scripture. So, many scriptures make sense to me now that I couldn't understand before. Especially the one that says Faith without works is dead and works without faith is dead. I used to really wonder about that when I was an ET believer. I believe it means that true faith in the Gospel that our salvation is 100% Christ's doing 0% ours, belief that He unconditionally loves us, it produces good works as we long to please Him out of thankfulness and love. Works without faith are dead because they are done out of trying to save ourselves or to impress mankind. Makes sense to me. He is my Teacher. :HeartThrob:
He has TWO wittnesses in this world[Sodom and Egypt] the two sons of oil..even Jesus Christ the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.
and though the Beast over come and kill their testimony in the earth...and rejoice and give 'gifts' in men to one-another.........
and refuse them burial[cause the word of God and Holy spirit to stink with their corruption[beast mind] of it.
a breath of ife[consume with breath of His coming] will enter them and they will stand on their feet....and a voice from Heaven
will say ..'COME UP HERE" God will Prove His word and testimony...many who have already died and rose and come with Him
on the clouds of Heaven have also wittnessed this. and He proves and re-proves His faithful and true wittness unto ALL.
now the 'serpent' is the most subtil beast of the field....and as Paul spoke of his fear that just as he seduced Eve in the garden
so too, he would seduce those betrothed to Christ. and he did just that..through doctrines of error to such an extent that the testimony
of the church become so divided it could not stand/through sects/denominations/false prophets etc. the kingdom of darkness
give 'gifts' of men in these various religions..and push darkness for light. Because of this when His feet touch down on the Mount
Olive..it is cleaved in two...the narrow valley that those escape the offering of this 'strange' fire that satan caused to come down
is between the right and left hands of God..even the testimony of Jesus Christ/the 'word of God" and the Holy spirit..His mountain
valley goes all the way to AZEL...the place of seperation and Azazels goat.
Mount Oliv sits between two other peaks...the Mount of corruption and the Mt Scopus..watchers...[scope]
the scope/eyes from on High and Mt of corruption finds the garden between them.on the Mt Olive
now the garden of Paradise is between corruption and incorrupton...and God watches him that he does not practice sin.and the
Mount of corruption has his watchers..even the fallen angels.
Now Paul was caught up to paradise and heard unspeakable things for his time...and he found that the splitting of the Mount Olives
was for the passage of ALL men into eternal life between the right Hand[Christ//Word of God and the left hand the Holy spirit]
but men perverted it to their own destruction[into condemning man to et and eternal death instead of the free gift of eternal life]
Paul also found that the will to do good was present with him..but evil also[Mt Scopus/Mt Corruption] and praised God for the deliverance
of this body undergoing this death.......Paul was seeking the first resurrection/fullness of the revelation of Christ while in this life
but it was not time[born pre-mature] for the full revelation in his time...and they are not perfected apart from those who are His at His
coming. Paul was seeing as a glass darkly NOT because of any failing on his part..but that it just wasn't time for all things to be revealed
and what was revealed to him in Paradise it was even unlawful to reveal much of it then[the people couldn't bear it]
ThusJesus told His disciples that He had much more to declare to them..but they could not bear it..in His day[love does not put
more on someone then they can bear]..offspring of vipers do..heap up loads impossible to bear..even Jesus had to have a simon to
help Him bear His cross.we all need a little 'help" sometime...and the Helper of Israel[all mankind] is willing.It is time now.
Now El-I-Jah must come again and carry us HOME..the whirlwind of the Lord seperates wheat from chaff/His Holy spiritual seed
from the flesh.This is the 'seizing' and catching away of the bride[church] the 'rapture" etc. For deliverers will arise on Mt Zion/
God's Mountain in the clouds..on this Mountain He removes the shroud covering all men..and serves a spiritual feast/wedding
supper..of well oiled dishes..rich with marrow. the only man thrown out of this wedding feast/has no garment..is the son of
perdition/adversary...even his spirit that possesed man's body. him that wrecks the temple of God[mankind made for His spirit to dwell]
God will destroy.When God gave Grace to man..satan was Not to touch him..what you do unto one of these least that
believe in me..you do to me. His attack was NOT at God's command..and he will even fall on account of you....God will cause them to
bow at your feet..and cause them to know that He has LOVED ALL MEN..HIS WHOLE CREATION.
Quote from: JeffA on January 06, 2009, 11:53:32 AM
Hi all,
I have to be honest and say this thread could do with people taking some 101 classes in science and in particular evolution. You have to offer more than 'Gee look at all this neat stuff in the universe - I have no idea how it all works so God must have done it'.
As a non-believer I have spent many years studying faiths (with emphasis on Christianity) and have at least read and studied all the books in the Bible many times over - I would at least expect the same kind of familiarity by the Christian community with the intricacies of opposing views to their own.
Here is a link to a Christian web site that explains why many scientific concepts that Christians generally disagree with (and don't understand too well) are in fact correct (but that doesn't stop him being a Christian). Mostly it deals with evolution and why flood geology is just plain wrong http://home.entouch.net/dmd/
All the best,
Jeff - The Agnostic Universalist.
You are undecided to the question of God's existence. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/origin-of-life-5-questions/#?insight[search_id]=a87e8420-1ada-495a-b1b1-e533c3413756&insight[search_result_index]=2 would be a good start on just some basic facts about the complexity of life... that said, I'm not a young earth creationist (I'm a UR proponent) or anything like that, it's just a decent book that may perhaps convince you that life was designed...
Another point that could easily be made is the law of entropy pretty much guarantees that life would never start of its own accord, if you look at a computer you know it's designed, and it breaks down over time, so does every single thing that man has ever made, as well as your body (which was literally built in your mother's womb, you can't deny that fact), and then it would seem extremely odd if all life comes from life and is literally built by life itself, why would it be any different at the beginning?
So evolution isn't even part of the picture here (sure, micro-evolution is a fact, macro-evolution is a stupendous leap of faith, quite similar to believing in God - you may as well believe in God if you believe in evolution), the question is rather, "Did God create the first humans or not?" - to which the law of entropy says, "Absolutely. If not, then the amount of miracles that had to occur (without God) for life to occur may as well just concede that God exists." - to which you could say, "Oh, it's just a huge chain of tiny little accidents that all just happened to occur at exactly the right time, BEFORE the law of entropy could destroy the products thereof. Even though naturally matter tends to become more disorganized and chaotic over time (it breaks down), the opposite accidently kept happening in this case. DON'T FORGET that it "evolved" over millions or billions of years (thus violating the law of entropy the entire time). Even though a person, for example, lives and dies in about 70 years (and reproduces after its own kind), the first "cells" accidentally came together, learned how to reproduce themselves, decided that they would become all the myriad forms of life, then mass-produced themselves, and FINALLY all these "cells" each decided what they would be, one group decided that they would turn themselves into elephants, another group decided that they would become salmon" - OH, OOPS, the "cells" didn't decide... IT WAS ALL ONE BIG ACCIDENT!!!" - IN FACT, some of those "cells" are accidentally TYPING THIS MESSAGE RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL - forgive me (I mean... forgive THE CELLS - that's all that's typing here, an accident) - according to evolutionists :LH: - Sorry, I'm really not trying to make fun of you, but even just the amount of physical evidence you have to ignore is just... unfathomable - like God's love.
Amen Jason! I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post! :goodpost: :2thumbs: It's very true.. for Life to spring forth out of nonlife (or for the universe to spring forth from nothing) is an immense immaculate conception!
Jeff - The Agnostic Universalist's link no longer works, nor its original w/o the specific page.. But I like the handle "agnostic universalist" :gsmile:
Quote from: Jason on February 28, 2018, 07:25:38 AM
Quote from: JeffA on January 06, 2009, 11:53:32 AM
Hi all,
I have to be honest and say this thread could do with people taking some 101 classes in science and in particular evolution. You have to offer more than 'Gee look at all this neat stuff in the universe - I have no idea how it all works so God must have done it'.
As a non-believer I have spent many years studying faiths (with emphasis on Christianity) and have at least read and studied all the books in the Bible many times over - I would at least expect the same kind of familiarity by the Christian community with the intricacies of opposing views to their own.
Here is a link to a Christian web site that explains why many scientific concepts that Christians generally disagree with (and don't understand too well) are in fact correct (but that doesn't stop him being a Christian). Mostly it deals with evolution and why flood geology is just plain wrong http://home.entouch.net/dmd/
All the best,
Jeff - The Agnostic Universalist.
You are undecided to the question of God's existence. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/origin-of-life-5-questions/#?insight[search_id]=a87e8420-1ada-495a-b1b1-e533c3413756&insight[search_result_index]=2 would be a good start on just some basic facts about the complexity of life... that said, I'm not a young earth creationist (I'm a UR proponent) or anything like that, it's just a decent book that may perhaps convince you that life was designed...
Another point that could easily be made is the law of entropy pretty much guarantees that life would never start of its own accord, if you look at a computer you know it's designed, and it breaks down over time, so does every single thing that man has ever made, as well as your body (which was literally built in your mother's womb, you can't deny that fact), and then it would seem extremely odd if all life comes from life and is literally built by life itself, why would it be any different at the beginning?
So evolution isn't even part of the picture here (sure, micro-evolution is a fact, macro-evolution is a stupendous leap of faith, quite similar to believing in God - you may as well believe in God if you believe in evolution), the question is rather, "Did God create the first humans or not?" - to which the law of entropy says, "Absolutely. If not, then the amount of miracles that had to occur (without God) for life to occur may as well just concede that God exists." - to which you could say, "Oh, it's just a huge chain of tiny little accidents that all just happened to occur at exactly the right time, BEFORE the law of entropy could destroy the products thereof. Even though naturally matter tends to become more disorganized and chaotic over time (it breaks down), the opposite accidently kept happening in this case. DON'T FORGET that it "evolved" over millions or billions of years (thus violating the law of entropy the entire time). Even though a person, for example, lives and dies in about 70 years (and reproduces after its own kind), the first "cells" accidentally came together, learned how to reproduce themselves, decided that they would become all the myriad forms of life, then mass-produced themselves, and FINALLY all these "cells" each decided what they would be, one group decided that they would turn themselves into elephants, another group decided that they would become salmon" - OH, OOPS, the "cells" didn't decide... IT WAS ALL ONE BIG ACCIDENT!!!" - IN FACT, some of those "cells" are accidentally TYPING THIS MESSAGE RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL - forgive me (I mean... forgive THE CELLS - that's all that's typing here, an accident) - according to evolutionists :LH: - Sorry, I'm really not trying to make fun of you, but even just the amount of physical evidence you have to ignore is just... unfathomable - like God's love.
Hmm, I feel that there may a flaw in that argument at least from the perspective of traditional Christian reasoning, this argument might work well for for the existence of a god but not necessarily our God. That's because entropy is basically the scientific expression the the consequence of sin, i.e. the observation that nature tends towards decay, destruction and death.
Unfortunately, according the Christian tradition that is not native to nature (God's creation) but was introduced by Adam's reckless decision to eat from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The thing about entropy is that it contradicts that thinking, entropy predates humanity and is a fundamental part of nature. If your going to accept that that nature is either flooded with death and evil even prior to our sin and was created that way by God or else the consequences of Adam's sin work multi-dimensionally through time.
Acceptation of either position makes entropy hard to use as an argument for God in the traditional sense, in the first case God doesn't traditionally behave like that if you're going to believe the second than you don't have to take anything about the current universe as historically derived at all.
Quote from: CST on February 28, 2018, 07:43:07 PM
Hmm, I feel that there may a flaw in that argument at least from the perspective of traditional Christian reasoning, this argument might work well for for the existence of a god but not necessarily our God. That's because entropy is basically the scientific expression the the consequence of sin, i.e. the observation that nature tends towards decay, destruction and death.
QuoteUnfortunately, according the Christian tradition that is not native to nature (God's creation) but was introduced by Adam's reckless decision to eat from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil.
I think that finds no support in Scripture.
For starters God created what's called dark and light on day one. The words are used of used for sinful and holy nature in Scripture. Light is another word in Hebrew.
But it's even easier to explain. It is
not the eating of the fruit that caused sinful nature, because without sinful nature they never would have eaten it.
It's like sin did not enter the world because God gave a Law. No the Law exposed sin.
Likewise the command not to eat from the tree exposed sin already present.
So entropy already existed.
The fact that Adam and Eve ate stuff is more proof of entropy.
You could put Jesus on a barren planet with just that tree for food. He would simply have starved instead of even considering eating from that tree.
The sun is another bit of proof of entropy.
QuoteThe thing about entropy is that it contradicts that thinking, entropy predates humanity and is a fundamental part of nature.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: CST on February 28, 2018, 07:43:07 PM
Hmm, I feel that there may a flaw in that argument at least from the perspective of traditional Christian reasoning, this argument might work well for for the existence of a god but not necessarily our God. That's because entropy is basically the scientific expression the the consequence of sin, i.e. the observation that nature tends towards decay, destruction and death.
That's true! But evolution as origins insists matter improved to the point of becoming life, but the natural law of science called entropy strongly (imo) refutes that.. Since all matter instead tends toward disintegration.
The debate over origins, with science observed since the theory of evolution first posed, like dna, and now able to see the vast intracacy of the cell, which was at the time thought to be a mere blob.. (I read that somewhere, "blob") ..the debate should move along to what sort of "intelligence designed"?
Quote
Unfortunately, according the Christian tradition that is not native to nature (God's creation) but was introduced by Adam's reckless decision to eat from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Amen, no millions (er excuse me, billions) of years of death before Adam's disobedience..
Quote
The thing about entropy is that it contradicts that thinking, entropy predates humanity and is a fundamental part of nature. If your going to accept that that nature is either flooded with death and evil even prior to our sin and was created that way by God or else the consequences of Adam's sin work multi-dimensionally through time.
:Chinscratch: I've not heard that before, that entropy predates humanity.. I'm inclined to think that a claim of scientists, but, I'm highly skeptical as no one was there previous.. how to substantiate that? :dontknow: And I can't forget how the people lived so very long.. and over time the life span decreased, especially after the flood.
.And I don't understand
"or else the consequences of Adam's sin work multi-dimensionally through time." . God gave dominion of the Earth to man? :dontknow:
Quote
Acceptation of either position makes entropy hard to use as an argument for God in the traditional sense, in the first case God doesn't traditionally behave like that if you're going to believe the second than you don't have to take anything about the current universe as historically derived at all.
I do not believe in multidimensional universes.. Even though, even if every option at every crossroad became a universe, they all would prove the same thing.. Life cannot be successfully lived w/o God who is life, ruler and sustainer.. But it always would fail.. crash.. etc.. (A different sort of
natural law?)
:Peace2: God bless..
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 28, 2018, 07:58:50 PM
Quote from: CST on February 28, 2018, 07:43:07 PM
Hmm, I feel that there may a flaw in that argument at least from the perspective of traditional Christian reasoning, this argument might work well for for the existence of a god but not necessarily our God. That's because entropy is basically the scientific expression the the consequence of sin, i.e. the observation that nature tends towards decay, destruction and death.
QuoteUnfortunately, according the Christian tradition that is not native to nature (God's creation) but was introduced by Adam's reckless decision to eat from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil.
I think that finds no support in Scripture.
For starters God created what's called dark and light on day one. The words are used of used for sinful and holy nature in Scripture. Light is another word in Hebrew.
But it's even easier to explain. It is not the eating of the fruit that caused sinful nature, because without sinful nature they never would have eaten it.
It's like sin did not enter the world because God gave a Law. No the Law exposed sin.
Likewise the command not to eat from the tree exposed sin already present.
So entropy already existed.
The fact that Adam and Eve ate stuff is more proof of entropy.
You could put Jesus on a barren planet with just that tree for food. He would simply have starved instead of even considering eating from that tree.
The sun is another bit of proof of entropy.
QuoteThe thing about entropy is that it contradicts that thinking, entropy predates humanity and is a fundamental part of nature.
:thumbsup:
I'd be inclined to agree but the part of the Bible that is usually used to support this claim is found in the same section we often use to defend UR:
Roamns 5:12 - 'Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--'
It rather seems to suggest that death is entirely the consequence of the sin committed by that 'one man' who we know to be Adam.
Generally, as I may have mentioned before, I'm more inclined to believe the consequence of Adams sin was the awareness of the natural tendency to destruction and therefore the perception of that as 'death' and the responsibility it bore. But try persuading a fundamentalist of that who believes Romans 5:12 means exactly what it seems to mean.
I agree. It's kinda tricky.
What if Eve never ate from that tree? Would sin be in the world?
A computer can't do stuff that it isn't programmed to do.
God programmed mankind...
:Chinscratch:
"because all men sinned" - it's the sin which all inherited -
genius actually! (imo)so all would take this (unavoidable?) journey and lesson all at once.. instead of say, every one in their own time, wandering out of and away from perfection - by disagreeing with God in any tiny thought, word or deed, when He is (surely?) both life
and perfection - making imperfection to be the opposite of life.
Quote from: CST on March 01, 2018, 04:07:58 PM
Roamns 5:12 - 'Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--'
It rather seems to suggest that death is entirely the consequence of the sin committed by that 'one man' who we know to be Adam.
Generally, as I may have mentioned before, I'm more inclined to believe the consequence of Adams sin was the awareness of the natural tendency to destruction and therefore the perception of that as 'death' and the responsibility it bore. But try persuading a fundamentalist of that who believes Romans 5:12 means exactly what it seems to mean.
I believe there is metaphor, etc in God's Word, but I tend to also believe the straightforward reading. As at heart I am a practical, down to earth sorta gal.. If I couldn't accept the obvious reading of it, I don't think I'd even read it
! To say so much of it isn't straightforward, even literal, is a
waay slippery slope to me..
These days the world thinks it's
ALL metaphor. Not just "creation, parting the Red Sea, virgin birth and resurrection" but also God Himself. (Oy.)
[Yet they believe the immaculate conception of life from nonlife and everything from nothing! :laughing7:
man as 'god'/sitting in the seat of/as God, thinks he's SO wise (imo,whatajoke!)]Quote
means exactly what it seems to mean.
I hope I'm not being contrary or rude or anything, please forgive me if it seems that way, but reading God's word as to what it exactly says is my top priority.. "
Too much metaphor (forgive me for saying it - imo) is to take away from or add to His Word.. Case in point, if He says, via His word(s), he parted the Red Sea, I totally believe Him. If Jesus said he would draw all to Him, I totally and literally believe it.
Granted, sometimes by metaphor we think we are making things clearer great motive.. but idts (i don't think so. "The wages/consequence of sin is death, but God is the savior of all") I
sometimes think straight forward glorifies God, lifts Him up, He is lofty.. ..whereas a-lot-of metaphor - and I'm not thinking of word studies, parables, and obvious metaphor(s) - but a lot of metaphor sometimes I think is yet another way to make man appear to be lofty.. and wise..
I guess I'm pretty much a fundy and a literalist.. Except for (pretty much) the translations of 'hell' etc, and 'for ever'. And a lot of times, I think simple is best.
I hope i expressed this opinion nicely and not rudely :gsad: We're all, I know, very zealous for Truth.. so others - who are not U.R. or not even Christian - can read and understand
Quote from: WhiteWings on March 01, 2018, 05:11:33 PM
I agree. It's kinda tricky.
What if Eve never ate from that tree? Would sin be in the world?
A computer can't do stuff that it isn't programmed to do.
God programmed mankind...
:Chinscratch:
:Chinscratch: ...to wait, and only create the universe and man and woman (apparently,imo) after - what? What was ready? Then put that tree smack dab in the middle of the garden.. (serpent being metaphor - Rev 12 - an insert/total history, but not read like that, which results in much confusing of the vision - verse 9 -
and the great dragon was cast forth -- the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world -- he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him. Note: this occurred, imo,
after Jesus ascended to the Father...
please read this w/o pre-perception? (Even should it have, as prophecy, more than one fulfillment.)
A great sign (A virgin will conceive!) a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars..
..the dragon (via Herod the Great) stood before the woman, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a man Child (imo, Son of man) who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6 Then the woman (the faith / mantle now worn by "Christians") fled into the wilderness (imo, 70 a.d. - a 1st, in large part migration of the faith)
..And war broke out in heaven.. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Half the war manifest as finished, dragon&co no longer allowed access to the heavens (rejoice heavens!)
...Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted (inquisitioned??) the woman who gave birth to the man Child.
.. But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly (sail?!) into the wilderness to her (new?)place (imo, a 2nd migration of the faith, in large part)
So the serpent(/tempter guise of the dragon) spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood (from off the earth!). 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood.. And the dragon was enraged with the woman/the faith (um, yes?) and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and (by then? Mt 23:39) have the testimony of Jesus Christ. - i.e. The gathering to armageddon (imo, of course, but I know I'm right :laughing7: oops,sorry.)
A 3rd way of reading this chapter? -> A lot of prophecy buffs, I realize, believe this chapter in such a way that verse 17 is the whole chapter... Others as verse 5 being Christians, and verse 6 being Israel, and the rest of the chapter as?) and few seem to read it as an insert and total history all on its own, but try to place it in order in Rev. and Revelation doesn't
exactly work like that..
:Peace2:
this whole temporal realm of the TOKOGAE is a'mere'growth of the night[the darkness/night comes when no man can work] as the gourd sprang up over Jonah's head.....
as the tares sprang up in the wheat field over-nite.
entropy-change.......eternity seed[spirit] planted in the heart of the earth[midst of corruption]this earth is the place of the breaking forth of children..and wedonot
stay long init..the quicker the corruption/handed over to satan fordestructionof the flesh..[sin abound] the quicker the mercy/grace calls home.......
the adversary brings forth lemons...and God makes lemonade from it.Nothing can stop His hand. though the adversary's motive be evil God allows for the good.
and when God has finished all Hiswork onZion/ eternal perfection brought forth[His likeness in all His offspring/immortal/incorruptible] He shall spoil the adversary that
spoiled you..and appoint a worm unto the shelter of anger/wrath...a mere growth of the night :2c: the vine,the worm the sun and the wind....unto elder son preachers
of God's coming wrath and destruction..when every knee bows and confesses and they failed to love their enemies.
Quote from: marie glen on March 01, 2018, 05:48:57 PM
A great sign (A virgin will conceive!) a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars..
..the dragon (via Herod the Great) stood before the woman, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a man Child (imo, Son of man) who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6 Then the woman (the faith / mantle now worn by "Christians") fled into the wilderness (imo, 70 a.d. - a 1st, in large part migration of the faith)
I once held a similar view. The problem is this: where are the 12 stars?
The woman was crowned with 12 stars, 23 September, 2017.
Still got to work that out a little more because that was 2 days after the Feast of Trumpets.
For a long time it's the Jewish secular new year buit before that it was Feast of Shouting. The Feast of creation.
(angels shouting with joy)
Quote from: WhiteWings on March 01, 2018, 05:11:33 PM
I agree. It's kinda tricky.
What if Eve never ate from that tree? Would sin be in the world?
A computer can't do stuff that it isn't programmed to do.
God programmed mankind...
:Chinscratch:
Yeah, at the point it becomes easier just to remove literal interpretations from Genesis 2-3, although given what Paul says I think the answer to that question is 'no'. I don't think this is the place to discuss exactly how I think the Hebrews may have understood this but I think we understand that it is the fact that Adam is the head of creation so creation falls when he falls, I think when Eve eats only she falls and I'm not even sure of that.
Quote from: marie glen on March 01, 2018, 02:38:55 AM
Quote from: CST on February 28, 2018, 07:43:07 PM
Hmm, I feel that there may a flaw in that argument at least from the perspective of traditional Christian reasoning, this argument might work well for for the existence of a god but not necessarily our God. That's because entropy is basically the scientific expression the the consequence of sin, i.e. the observation that nature tends towards decay, destruction and death.
That's true! But evolution as origins insists matter improved to the point of becoming life, but the natural law of science called entropy strongly (imo) refutes that.. Since all matter instead tends toward disintegration.
The debate over origins, with science observed since the theory of evolution first posed, like dna, and now able to see the vast intracacy of the cell, which was at the time thought to be a mere blob.. (I read that somewhere, "blob") ..the debate should move along to what sort of "intelligence designed"?
Quote
Unfortunately, according the Christian tradition that is not native to nature (God's creation) but was introduced by Adam's reckless decision to eat from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Amen, no millions (er excuse me, billions) of years of death before Adam's disobedience..
Quote
The thing about entropy is that it contradicts that thinking, entropy predates humanity and is a fundamental part of nature. If your going to accept that that nature is either flooded with death and evil even prior to our sin and was created that way by God or else the consequences of Adam's sin work multi-dimensionally through time.
:Chinscratch: I've not heard that before, that entropy predates humanity.. I'm inclined to think that a claim of scientists, but, I'm highly skeptical as no one was there previous.. how to substantiate that? :dontknow: And I can't forget how the people lived so very long.. and over time the life span decreased, especially after the flood.
.And I don't understand "or else the consequences of Adam's sin work multi-dimensionally through time." . God gave dominion of the Earth to man? :dontknow:
Quote
Acceptation of either position makes entropy hard to use as an argument for God in the traditional sense, in the first case God doesn't traditionally behave like that if you're going to believe the second than you don't have to take anything about the current universe as historically derived at all.
I do not believe in multidimensional universes.. Even though, even if every option at every crossroad became a universe, they all would prove the same thing.. Life cannot be successfully lived w/o God who is life, ruler and sustainer.. But it always would fail.. crash.. etc.. (A different sort of natural law?)
:Peace2: God bless..
Hmm, I think you may be misunderstanding what entropy is. Science doesn't teach that matter tends towards disintegration in the way you say it does. Science doesn't see entropy as an overarching agency that affects the whole universe. To science not only does the universes right hand not know what it's left hand is doing, it doesn't even know it have a left hand.
The point of entropy is that a certain number of processes in the universe unfold in a way that tend towards disorder and exhaustion, energy is used up irreversibly, etc. Entropy properly refers to scientific processes that tend irreversible in the direction towards disorder and overtime these add up leading to the general deterioration of the universe. It does not mean everything deteriorates universally, it just means there's more destruction in the universe than you might expect from a benevolent God.
You can't just dismiss entropy predating man by saying that's a claim of scientists, everything about entropy is a claim of scientists, it's a scientific concept.
Sorry, I don't believe in the multiverse either I just thought the term 'bi-directionally' sounds a bit weak (being a made up term) and may not cover all avenues. The point was the idea that Adam's sin could somehow effect events that preceded it. I must make clear I don't believe that but given that God is supposed to be involved I can't entirely exclude it.
Quote from: marie glen on March 01, 2018, 05:12:46 PM
"because all men sinned" - it's the sin which all inherited - genius actually! (imo)so all would take this (unavoidable?) journey and lesson all at once.. instead of say, every one in their own time, wandering out of and away from perfection - by disagreeing with God in any tiny thought, word or deed, when He is (surely?) both life and perfection - making imperfection to be the opposite of life.
Quote from: CST on March 01, 2018, 04:07:58 PM
Roamns 5:12 - 'Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--'
It rather seems to suggest that death is entirely the consequence of the sin committed by that 'one man' who we know to be Adam.
Generally, as I may have mentioned before, I'm more inclined to believe the consequence of Adams sin was the awareness of the natural tendency to destruction and therefore the perception of that as 'death' and the responsibility it bore. But try persuading a fundamentalist of that who believes Romans 5:12 means exactly what it seems to mean.
I believe there is metaphor, etc in God's Word, but I tend to also believe the straightforward reading. As at heart I am a practical, down to earth sorta gal.. If I couldn't accept the obvious reading of it, I don't think I'd even read it! To say so much of it isn't straightforward, even literal, is a waay slippery slope to me..
These days the world thinks it's ALL metaphor. Not just "creation, parting the Red Sea, virgin birth and resurrection" but also God Himself. (Oy.) [Yet they believe the immaculate conception of life from nonlife and everything from nothing! :laughing7:
man as 'god'/sitting in the seat of/as God, thinks he's SO wise (imo,whatajoke!)]
Quote
means exactly what it seems to mean.
I hope I'm not being contrary or rude or anything, please forgive me if it seems that way, but reading God's word as to what it exactly says is my top priority.. "Too much metaphor (forgive me for saying it - imo) is to take away from or add to His Word.. Case in point, if He says, via His word(s), he parted the Red Sea, I totally believe Him. If Jesus said he would draw all to Him, I totally and literally believe it.
Granted, sometimes by metaphor we think we are making things clearer great motive.. but idts (i don't think so. "The wages/consequence of sin is death, but God is the savior of all") I sometimes think straight forward glorifies God, lifts Him up, He is lofty.. ..whereas a-lot-of metaphor - and I'm not thinking of word studies, parables, and obvious metaphor(s) - but a lot of metaphor sometimes I think is yet another way to make man appear to be lofty.. and wise..
I guess I'm pretty much a fundy and a literalist.. Except for (pretty much) the translations of 'hell' etc, and 'for ever'. And a lot of times, I think simple is best.
I hope i expressed this opinion nicely and not rudely :gsad: We're all, I know, very zealous for Truth.. so others - who are not U.R. or not even Christian - can read and understand
You may be missing the point, and I also hope that doesn't come across as rude, but everyone thinks of their 'straightforward' reading is the correct one even if it conflicts with someone else's reading which may seem equally 'straightforward'. I'll use one of your own examples to explain this.
You quoted John 12:32 when Jesus said, "and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." Now 'lifted up' means being crucified, of course, but it doesn't say that, and so 'draw' might lead the reader to imagine that when Jesus is put on the cross He'll suddenly turn into a human magnet and everyone will start hurling towards Him and stick to Him. This is especially significant when we remember that the word for 'draw' literally translates as 'drag'. In this rendering we might also see Him dragging people in in a fishing net using another common Biblical symbol He uses.
But we reject these interpretations because they are nonsense to us, instead we imagine it means that Jesus will draw human hearts to Himself and thus save us and we except that and ignore the fact that it is not the most literal way of understanding what Jesus said because it makes more sense to do so.
We all read the Bible and tend to assume we're reading it the most literal way even when we're not because we automatically reject the more literal ones because we know that doesn't make sense. But we do that so much it makes the concept of taking the Bible that literally quite hard to maintain.
Entropy is the search for rest... :winkgrin:
:mrflo:
Quote from: WhiteWings on March 01, 2018, 07:59:03 PM
Entropy is the search for rest... :winkgrin:
...that could be true.. :thumbsup: :Peace2:
QuoteSorry, I don't believe in the multiverse either
Is it just me, or would it be even more fascinating if God made multiple universes; maybe even billions, and reconciled all to Himself? So, in the end, there won't be multiple heavens or whatever it will be, but one. Even communicating with that amount of God's creation, as love keeps spreading and expanding. Where God's love and power is not just limited to a universe, but potentially/actually infinite as well. Maybe even throw dimensions and String theory into the mix!
Probably just wishful thinking though...
Quote from: MusicLover123 on March 22, 2018, 12:15:09 AM
QuoteSorry, I don't believe in the multiverse either
Is it just me, or would it be even more fascinating if God made multiple universes; maybe even billions, and reconciled all to Himself? So, in the end, there won't be multiple heavens or whatever it will be, but one. Even communicating with that amount of God's creation, as love keeps spreading and expanding. Where God's love and power is not just limited to a universe, but potentially/actually infinite as well. Maybe even throw dimensions and String theory into the mix!
Probably just wishful thinking though...
I am open to all sorts of theories like that. Who knows, right?
Quote from: GodIsLove on March 22, 2018, 12:28:11 AM
Quote from: MusicLover123 on March 22, 2018, 12:15:09 AM
QuoteSorry, I don't believe in the multiverse either
Is it just me, or would it be even more fascinating if God made multiple universes; maybe even billions, and reconciled all to Himself? So, in the end, there won't be multiple heavens or whatever it will be, but one. Even communicating with that amount of God's creation, as love keeps spreading and expanding. Where God's love and power is not just limited to a universe, but potentially/actually infinite as well. Maybe even throw dimensions and String theory into the mix!
Probably just wishful thinking though...
I am open to all sorts of theories like that. Who knows, right?
I often think, too (after the issue of good and evil is thoroughly proven and learned) who knows?
I've been watching some videos about how some believe the universe is more 'electric' than previously thought.. And is why there are tails behind a comet and those colorful gaseous looking clouds.. It's interesting to think about.. Electric to me, implies a lot more possibilities.. ..but :dunno:
Quote from: MusicLover123 on March 22, 2018, 12:15:09 AM
QuoteSorry, I don't believe in the multiverse either
Is it just me, or would it be even more fascinating if God made multiple universes; maybe even billions, and reconciled all to Himself? So, in the end, there won't be multiple heavens or whatever it will be, but one. Even communicating with that amount of God's creation, as love keeps spreading and expanding. Where God's love and power is not just limited to a universe, but potentially/actually infinite as well. Maybe even throw dimensions and String theory into the mix!
Probably just wishful thinking though...
:lol: This is the second topic I've been in recently where the multiple universe hypothesis has reared it's clown-like head. And no I don't find it any more plausible or fascinating. In this universe there are countless billions (probably more) people God already needs to save. That's more than enough for the first 0.1% of eternity.
Remember many worlds multiverse require infinite alternate versions of us some of which will be better at righteousness than we are, many versions of us occupying the same end Heaven would drive us all nuts. So what's to stop God just saving the best version of us (which probably won't be you or me) and binning off the rest? No, I wholeheartedly reject that idea.
Quote from: CST on March 22, 2018, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: MusicLover123 on March 22, 2018, 12:15:09 AM
QuoteSorry, I don't believe in the multiverse either
Is it just me, or would it be even more fascinating if God made multiple universes; maybe even billions, and reconciled all to Himself? So, in the end, there won't be multiple heavens or whatever it will be, but one. Even communicating with that amount of God's creation, as love keeps spreading and expanding. Where God's love and power is not just limited to a universe, but potentially/actually infinite as well. Maybe even throw dimensions and String theory into the mix!
Probably just wishful thinking though...
:lol: This is the second topic I've been in recently where the multiple universe hypothesis has reared it's clown-like head. And no I don't find it any more plausible or fascinating. In this universe there are countless billions (probably more) people God already needs to save. That's more than enough for the first 0.1% of eternity.
Remember many worlds multiverse require infinite alternate versions of us some of which will be better at righteousness than we are, many versions of us occupying the same end Heaven would drive us all nuts. So what's to stop God just saving the best version of us (which probably won't be you or me) and binning off the rest? No, I wholeheartedly reject that idea.
Who said anything about God struggling to muster enough power to save us? If God is all powerful, then there is no limits to how much He can create, and how much He can save. You really think God is going to say "Oh, well I saved all the people from this universe, but I'm too tired now so they will just have to wait." I don't think that would happen.
In my opinion, having more universes would just show the power of God, where creativity and love know no limits. Who said anything about "saving the best version of ourselves and binning off the rest?" (Wait, you did lol.) Are we not perfected in Christ and will be perfect because of Him? Where no bad traits of ourselves will be left in us? So what if other versions of ourselves are better at righteousness than we are. Other people are better at this than others; are we just gonna be binned because of that?
I wasn't saying God didn't have the power to save them or create many other universes. But I don't think it would be good for us to be spending eternity with versions of ourselves that did better than us. It would just remind us of the shortcomings in our lives which I don't believe Heaven is for.
I think there are logical contradictions involved in the concept of 'many worlds' but if they exist I think it best they have their own Heaven to go to even if we might be able to become of aware them from outside. I think us meeting infinite almost, but not quite identical versions of ourselves and our loved ones (and even those we're just fans of) would just be confusing for all concerned. (are you the one that died in a car crash age 18 or the one that became a marine biologist?) One of each of us is enough for us to deal with and I don't think I see 'perfection' in the way you do (but I may be mistaken).
Well, I think I understand your point. But, what if these are entirely different people? And, if we get to travel to these different universes if they exist? I just hope it isn't boring, like playing Patty Cake in a circle for all eternity.
Also another thing. If we truly are meant to stay in "Heaven" for that long, then what is the point of all this creation (explored/unexplored) at the moment? If there are actually around ~100 billion galaxies, what is the point of these existing?
I've heard the multiverse theory talking about different versions of the same reality but that's just one theory. I was just saying that since God is an infinite and loving creator, it wouldn't surprise me that He has made many creations, not just limited to our small Earth.
Here's a little observation.
One palace. One King. One kingdom.
Rev 21;1,2 " Then I saw a NEW heaven and a NEW earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passes away and there was
no more sea.
And I saw the holy city, the New Jerusalem, come down out of the heaven from God, made ready like a bride
adorned for her husband."
Revelations makes the point about "nations" will walk by the light of the New Jerusalem, and the kings of earth will bring their splendour into the kingdom. {Rev 21;24}.
Paul makes the point about there no longer being Jew or Greek, barbarian or Scythian... all will be one in Christ.
Also mentions families in heaven named by our Father like we are here.
Myriads of angels.
These are pretty major changes to our current state of being when we will be like Christ in all regards.
The world we live in will be changed when the heavens are rolled up like a banner.
This seems to state that there is more creation being worked on, so there will be much to do in the next ages. Difference being working together for the common good with totally new objectives and values.
How is that boring?
Question: When it talks about a Heaven, is it referring to "God's headquarters" so to speak, or is it referring to created things? Or both? Neither?
I hope boredom is one of those things that passes away with our old nature. Something I struggle with a lot.
Imagine if you are a maid, and your sole purpose is to clean. What happens when there is nothing to clean? Remember, the things we will be doing will never end. Hopefully it will never get boring and is truly satisfying...
Isaiah 40;12-25 " Who has measured the waters with the hollow of his hand?
Or has meted out the heavens with a span, or comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure,
or weighed the mountains in a balance.
Who has proved the Spirit of Yahweh? Or being His counsellor has been giving Him knowledge?
With whom has He taken counsel and has given God intelligence, and instructed God in the path of justice
and taught God knowledge, and has been giving God understanding in the way of intelligence?
Behold! Nations are as a drop in a bucket, and are accounted as fine dust on a balance.
Lo! He can hoist lands like an atom!
And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for an ascending sacrifice.
All nations are as nothing before God- they are accounted a thing of nought or waste to Him.
Unto whom then can you liken God?
Or what likeness can you compare to Him?
Have you never taken note? Have you never head? Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not been led to discern from the foundations of the earth?
It is He Who sits upon the circle of the earth, while the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers, Who stretches
forth the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in;
Who delivers dignitaries to nothingness. He has made judges of earth like a desolation; scarcely have they been
planted, scarcely have they been sown, scarcely has their stock begun to take root in the earth when He has just
blown upon them and they have withered, and a whirlwind carries them away as though they had been chaff.
Unto who then, can you liken Me, or can be My equal? says the Holy One."
Quote from: MusicLover123 on March 22, 2018, 07:36:54 PM
Well, I think I understand your point. But, what if these are entirely different people? And, if we get to travel to these different universes if they exist? I just hope it isn't boring, like playing Patty Cake in a circle for all eternity.
Also another thing. If we truly are meant to stay in "Heaven" for that long, then what is the point of all this creation (explored/unexplored) at the moment? If there are actually around ~100 billion galaxies, what is the point of these existing?
When I think on this point I am immediately drawn to questions like 'will Jimi Hendrix ever finish First Rays Of The New Rising Sun?' I know his record company have tried but we don't have all the things he intended to do because he never had chance to do them.
When people think of Heaven, or at least when religious authorities have done so historically, they have always thought of it in regard to how much 'better' it is than the world we've left. The world we've left is utterly fallen and ruined with nothing going for it and those who are saved are best off out of it. Of course to them the answer is 'No' because they see nothing good in the works of Jimi Hendrix who they quite expect to go to Hell anyway.
Jimi Hendrix is, of course, just one example; many of our most creative minds have died leaving work unfinished, it's generally been held that they won't be finished and that's that, but for me given that our God is a creator God I think there's reason to value creativity above most things even the ones that paradoxically focus on our more destructive tenancies.
I like to think celebrating and continuing to nurture and develop our creativity with God should be more than enough to keep us going throughout eternity without needing to bring in whatever may be happening in other universes too much.
Amen.. Life can be very interesting now.. look at all the things we can learn.. astronomy, science, history.. books to read.. crafts to do.. things to build..Which reminds me, one of the first things the prophecies talk about is rebuilding ruins..
When I watch old westerns I always look at the towns and think how amazing it would have been to build your own little town.. (But then of course my family and I are into camping, where we make tiny camper towns for a long weekend or something, lol.) ..But just imagine..
Then there's this #1 - no more bombardment of advertising. life without ads.. :cloud9: And #2 - no more mountains of regulations from big bro human.. a fee and a permit or license for this, that and everything.. And if you build a house, all things up to code and regulated ad nauseum.. (but all will trustworthy so the skies the limit?)
But one thing I really look forward to? Getting acquainted with and getting to know the animals! Friends with lions and tigers and bears... oh my! I think our dog and long haired cat is impressive, just wait til I can hug a lion! Get to know an elephant.. giraffe..
Life is so limited and hindered by the simple fact of sin and all kind of imperfection.. And, I hear we only use about 1/10th of our brain we have now.. This is why I can never get my teeth into the idea of being a mere ghost, and forever no less, like so many nonbelievers and believers alike, seem to believe.. (I agree, how boring!) But I think He created because He wanted to.. And I think it's glorious already, we really cannot appreciate how awesome it will be when all things are ruled by perfection, life and love - By Him! (As a matter of fact, the physical-ness is what makes sin so prone.. it's like we have to be inoculated - all resistance totally in us.)
And people! Perhaps I should think of them first! What a huge family! So many folks and families and tribes, to get acquainted with! Some folks in the world think it would be better if all the ethnicities blended and became one with no differences.. What! God's human family is made up of beautiful branches! If any one were to somehow disappear! WhAt a loss!! :faint:
I'm not a bad singer or dancer, or writer.. of songs, poems, stories.. but just imagine how much more so when in a perfect state..
I was in Newport, Rhode Island, taking the ride down the famous street of mansions.. but it wasn't the mansions, I was interested in. It was the trees! Trees brought in from Europe or elsewhere.. some awesome types I had never seen before.. some huge... There's so much to this planet that we never, ever see.. Amaazing things..
Then I do lean toward thinking eventually other planets may be brought to life.. Why not? We will all be like Jesus and He was able to ascend to the Father and then came back..
Gardening with no noxious or invading weeds :cloud9: How many varieties of flowers are there? ...Plucking twelve manner of fruit from trees in the twelve seasons.. We could learn all musical instruments.. And much easier than we can now..
:Peace2:
QuoteI was in Newport, Rhode Island, taking the ride down the famous street of mansions.. but it wasn't the mansions, I was interested in. It was the trees!
Well, I would have thought the most important thing to pay attention to was the grass! :laughing7:
Have you ever observed different houses, tried looking into them, and wondered what
their lives are like? Just me?
QuoteI'm not a bad singer or dancer, or writer.. of songs, poems, stories.. but just imagine how much more so when in a perfect state..
In our perfect state, do you think we will be perfect in everything, or will we have specific talents and do some things better than others? What will we be doing for all eternity? The same things now but expanded? I know someone mentioned a whole bunch of new things, but what does this entail? Building houses? Creating life? Making cake?
QuoteWe could learn all musical instruments.. And much easier than we can now..
So, in regards to this, how will the physical part of reality look? Say if we were using musical instruments, and I pick up a flute. If I pick it up, will it fall through my hands? Or will it only do that if I choose to? If there is an ant on the ground, as death is swallowed up by immortality, if I step on one, will it die?
:Peace2:
Quote from: marie glen on March 26, 2018, 02:29:04 AM
Amen.. Life can be very interesting now.. look at all the things we can learn.. astronomy, science, history.. books to read.. crafts to do.. things to build..Which reminds me, one of the first things the prophecies talk about is rebuilding ruins..
When I watch old westerns I always look at the towns and think how amazing it would have been to build your own little town.. (But then of course my family and I are into camping, where we make tiny camper towns for a long weekend or something, lol.) ..But just imagine..
Then there's this #1 - no more bombardment of advertising. life without ads.. :cloud9: And #2 - no more mountains of regulations from big bro human.. a fee and a permit or license for this, that and everything.. And if you build a house, all things up to code and regulated ad nauseum.. (but all will trustworthy so the skies the limit?)
But one thing I really look forward to? Getting acquainted with and getting to know the animals! Friends with lions and tigers and bears... oh my! I think our dog and long haired cat is impressive, just wait til I can hug a lion! Get to know an elephant.. giraffe..
Life is so limited and hindered by the simple fact of sin and all kind of imperfection.. And, I hear we only use about 1/10th of our brain we have now.. This is why I can never get my teeth into the idea of being a mere ghost, and forever no less, like so many nonbelievers and believers alike, seem to believe.. (I agree, how boring!) But I think He created because He wanted to.. And I think it's glorious already, we really cannot appreciate how awesome it will be when all things are ruled by perfection, life and love - By Him! (As a matter of fact, the physical-ness is what makes sin so prone.. it's like we have to be inoculated - all resistance totally in us.)
And people! Perhaps I should think of them first! What a huge family! So many folks and families and tribes, to get acquainted with! Some folks in the world think it would be better if all the ethnicities blended and became one with no differences.. What! God's human family is made up of beautiful branches! If any one were to somehow disappear! WhAt a loss!! :faint:
I'm not a bad singer or dancer, or writer.. of songs, poems, stories.. but just imagine how much more so when in a perfect state..
I was in Newport, Rhode Island, taking the ride down the famous street of mansions.. but it wasn't the mansions, I was interested in. It was the trees! Trees brought in from Europe or elsewhere.. some awesome types I had never seen before.. some huge... There's so much to this planet that we never, ever see.. Amaazing things..
Then I do lean toward thinking eventually other planets may be brought to life.. Why not? We will all be like Jesus and He was able to ascend to the Father and then came back..
Gardening with no noxious or invading weeds :cloud9: How many varieties of flowers are there? ...Plucking twelve manner of fruit from trees in the twelve seasons.. We could learn all musical instruments.. And much easier than we can now..
:Peace2:
Hmm, question: when is a weed not a weed? When it's appreciated.
I'm not absolutely sure I know what you're saying about the weeds really but if you're saying there's no weeds in Heaven I'll have to stop you there. I don't believe got actually created weeds just to be weeds because that idea would seem to support sentiments that in turn support ET or ED proponents (remember the wheat and the tares).
You're attitude to adverts seems to be in a similar vein yet it's hard not to be more sympathetic to that ads are generally annoying and designed to manipulate and yet they are still expressions of creativity, perhaps slightly less so on your side of the Atlantic.
I believe you've probably heard that we only use 1/10th of our brain, I've heard it too but I've also learned that, while it's good for sci-fi, it's not true we lose all of brain pretty much.
I doubt anyone will get huge leaps in talent in Heaven, although it may be possible to learn more easily but I don't think perfection is measured like that and it certainly isn't ho God distributes talent. I can't imagine everyone suddenly being equally good at everything it seems utterly pointless.
And I'm not sure we need to wait until we reach Heaven to be friends with the animals, some people are pretty good at it already, it is an interesting thought though do you include parasitic animals in that?
Quote from: MusicLover123 on March 26, 2018, 04:50:25 AM
QuoteI was in Newport, Rhode Island, taking the ride down the famous street of mansions.. but it wasn't the mansions, I was interested in. It was the trees!
Well, I would have thought the most important thing to pay attention to was the grass! :laughing7:
Have you ever observed different houses, tried looking into them, and wondered what their lives are like? Just me?
QuoteI'm not a bad singer or dancer, or writer.. of songs, poems, stories.. but just imagine how much more so when in a perfect state..
In our perfect state, do you think we will be perfect in everything, or will we have specific talents and do some things better than others? What will we be doing for all eternity? The same things now but expanded? I know someone mentioned a whole bunch of new things, but what does this entail? Building houses? Creating life? Making cake?
QuoteWe could learn all musical instruments.. And much easier than we can now..
So, in regards to this, how will the physical part of reality look? Say if we were using musical instruments, and I pick up a flute. If I pick it up, will it fall through my hands? Or will it only do that if I choose to? If there is an ant on the ground, as death is swallowed up by immortality, if I step on one, will it die?
:Peace2:
I'm fairly sure the imperishable bodies are solid at least as much as they need to be to interact with things.
When you step on the ant I imagine one of the following things will happen, either it will be crushed and immediately reconstituted (if that's the right word) elsewhere or it just won't happen you'll simply know not to put your foot there and it'll know to get out of the way if you do.
Quote from: CST on March 26, 2018, 07:13:09 PM
Hmm, question: when is a weed not a weed? When it's appreciated.
Absolutely! What I meant was noxious weeds, thorns and thistles veritably choking the garden.. Like Genesis 3 when the Father said "cursed is the ground. in toil shall you eat of it and it shall bring forth thorns and thistles.. Though I haven't looked up the interlinear for the words originally used..
Quote from: CST on March 26, 2018, 07:13:09 PM
I'm not absolutely sure I know what you're saying about the weeds really but if you're saying there's no weeds in Heaven I'll have to stop you there. I don't believe got actually created weeds just to be weeds because that idea would seem to support sentiments that in turn support ET or ED proponents (remember the wheat and the tares).
You're attitude to adverts seems to be in a similar vein yet it's hard not to be more sympathetic to that ads are generally annoying and designed to manipulate and yet they are still expressions of creativity, perhaps slightly less so on your side of the Atlantic.
The state of Vermont has no billboards :cloud9: the rest of our cities and some landscapes, flooded (and I'm married to a man who watches television whenever he is home, which now that he's retired is a lot.. and lots of commercials.. when it's up to me, I find it relaxing to watch a show or movie sans commercials..
Quote from: CST on March 26, 2018, 07:13:09 PM
I doubt anyone will get huge leaps in talent in Heaven, although it may be possible to learn more easily but I don't think perfection is measured like that and it certainly isn't ho God distributes talent. I can't imagine everyone suddenly being equally good at everything it seems utterly pointless.
Actually, that's not exactly what I meant that we would all of a sudden be able to do all things.. what fun would that be? But we will have plenty of time (as long as there is space and matter/universe, even if of 'higher'/finer substance, there will, imo, be time) And we will not be working so much of our life and time in order to pay bills..
Quote from: CST on March 26, 2018, 07:13:09 PM
And I'm not sure we need to wait until we reach Heaven to be friends with the animals, some people are pretty good at it already, it is an interesting thought though do you include parasitic animals in that?
I consider myself somewhat good at that too.. but the lions, tigers, and bears, etc will bite or eat me if I get too friendly.. but prophecy says
the lion will eat straw like the ox, the bear will graze with the cow and (so subdued shall all things be)
the young child will be able to play at the entrance to the viper's nest?/den? So I believe there will be utter perfection.. We do not of course know all the details :laughing7: not by a long shot! But people will "abide under their own vine and fruit tree and no one will bother them.. He will judge between strong nations and they will beat their weapons into plows(hares) and gardening tools" - if we take such literally.. Glory! God created Paradise. Or that is - is creating paradise. Did He create the vast universe for nothing.. There are so many creatures and plants, we know nothing of.. Such a multitude of creativity and diversity.. I think man lives in cities he himself has built, shutting ourselves and our minds indoors in boxes and we have become blind to God's Glorious works.. So when He says the lion will straw like the ox, we think "what could that really mean?" :doh:
Quote from: MusicLover123 on March 26, 2018, 04:50:25 AM
QuoteI was in Newport, Rhode Island, taking the ride down the famous street of mansions.. but it wasn't the mansions, I was interested in. It was the trees!
Well, I would have thought the most important thing to pay attention to was the grass! :laughing7:
Have you ever observed different houses, tried looking into them, and wondered what their lives are like? Just me?
I like to look inside houses to see the houses.. I'm a real homebody.. love homes.. though I do sometimes wonder about, sometimes pray for the people within.. :gsmile:
QuoteI'm not a bad singer or dancer, or writer.. of songs, poems, stories.. but just imagine how much more so when in a perfect state..
Quote from: MusicLover123 on March 26, 2018, 04:50:25 AM
In our perfect state, do you think we will be perfect in everything, or will we have specific talents and do some things better than others? What will we be doing for all eternity? The same things now but expanded? I know someone mentioned a whole bunch of new things, but what does this entail? Building houses? Creating life? Making cake?
"There will be a highway for those left.." one of the prophets.. - so that will be one thing going on..
I know bible prophecy talks about rebuilding ruins.. bringing Hebrew folks back to Israel.. and I guess much of it may depend on what we're doing now during this life.. Will we mostly be learning? or will we also be teaching? I think we should be learning now.. in training?
What we don't learn now, then teaching survivors after apocalyse and ET/ECT folks, I would think.. After all Jesus said we should provide meat for members of the household even now.. And how "He broke
bread, handed it to the disciples and the disciples handed out to the people.."
Then after the 1000 years all those millions of folks not yet saved, some never having heard anything about Jesus, Yhvh or the bible.. Rising still in their sins, some victims of horrors we can only imagine.. many rising in trauma... And many just regular folks.. (And what about the millions of babies aborted? Surely they will rise too and need some care!?)
Some of all this from verses, but also logic.. We can think, what would it be like to rise not yet saved? I don't believe they wake up and God tosses them to a lof.. (Sounds a bit cold and impersonal to me.) I think lof comes (logically, it seems to me) after judgment day and it is the
last verse of the chapter :) It just seems so much logical and orderly to me, if judgment day is a great day of review, really hammering home this unavoidable lesson we are all learning.. I'm a BIG fan of Logic (logos?) If
God chooses who comes to the faith during this life, and not because we deserve it!! So... why would those others have to be cleansed by literal fire? Or why would their repentance and reconciliation be so much more stringent than any who come to the faith during this life, since God alone chose? Makes no sense to me... Sure it's easier to say the unsaved will rise and go to the lof for cleansing, which rings of purgatory.. And it's certainly worlds better than the ET message! But still, I can't believe it. I actually believe all will repent and be reconciled
before then -- I mean during judgment 'day'. Perhaps there will be a totally hard case hold out, that not believing by end of that 'day' will go to the lof for purification, but I think the lof was made for the devil and his angels..
I think of all the stories.. of each and every person who has lived.. Quite a bit, to keep us interested right there.. There's the individual stories, and there's also the national and collective stories of nations, lands, tribes, and ages, or that is throughout all earth's ages.. (I believe Judgment 'Day' - reviewing all these things will last about 500 years - after all,
why let all these lessons go to waste? When they can so easily be used to
really hammer home the lesson He is teaching.)
QuoteWe could learn all musical instruments.. And much easier than we can now..
Quote from: MusicLover123 on March 26, 2018, 04:50:25 AM
So, in regards to this, how will the physical part of reality look? Say if we were using musical instruments, and I pick up a flute. If I pick it up, will it fall through my hands? Or will it only do that if I choose to? If there is an ant on the ground, as death is swallowed up by immortality, if I step on one, will it die?
:Peace2:
Quote from: CST on March 26, 2018, 07:13:09 PM
I'm fairly sure the imperishable bodies are solid at least as much as they need to be to interact with things.
:iagree:
I surely hope so. Wouldn't it be terrible to be a mere ghost? I know there will be the love, the awe and the ambrosia that is God's Presence - and no minimizing of that awesome wonder we can only glimpse now, but I can't think that is the totality of what He is creating.. The very important thing.. the people.. But I think He created a beautiful and wondrous creation, we actually only get a glimpse of so far.. Being so cut off.. and busy..
Quote from: marie glen on March 27, 2018, 04:15:01 AM
Quote from: CST on March 26, 2018, 07:13:09 PM
Hmm, question: when is a weed not a weed? When it's appreciated.
Absolutely! What I meant was noxious weeds, thorns and thistles veritably choking the garden.. Like Genesis 3 when the Father said "cursed is the ground. in toil shall you eat of it and it shall bring forth thorns and thistles.. Though I haven't looked up the interlinear for the words originally used..
Quote from: CST on March 26, 2018, 07:13:09 PM
I'm not absolutely sure I know what you're saying about the weeds really but if you're saying there's no weeds in Heaven I'll have to stop you there. I don't believe got actually created weeds just to be weeds because that idea would seem to support sentiments that in turn support ET or ED proponents (remember the wheat and the tares).
You're attitude to adverts seems to be in a similar vein yet it's hard not to be more sympathetic to that ads are generally annoying and designed to manipulate and yet they are still expressions of creativity, perhaps slightly less so on your side of the Atlantic.
The state of Vermont has no billboards :cloud9: the rest of our cities and some landscapes, flooded (and I'm married to a man who watches television whenever he is home, which now that he's retired is a lot.. and lots of commercials.. when it's up to me, I find it relaxing to watch a show or movie sans commercials..
Quote from: CST on March 26, 2018, 07:13:09 PM
I doubt anyone will get huge leaps in talent in Heaven, although it may be possible to learn more easily but I don't think perfection is measured like that and it certainly isn't ho God distributes talent. I can't imagine everyone suddenly being equally good at everything it seems utterly pointless.
Actually, that's not exactly what I meant that we would all of a sudden be able to do all things.. what fun would that be? But we will have plenty of time (as long as there is space and matter/universe, even if of 'higher'/finer substance, there will, imo, be time) And we will not be working so much of our life and time in order to pay bills..
Quote from: CST on March 26, 2018, 07:13:09 PM
And I'm not sure we need to wait until we reach Heaven to be friends with the animals, some people are pretty good at it already, it is an interesting thought though do you include parasitic animals in that?
I consider myself somewhat good at that too.. but the lions, tigers, and bears, etc will bite or eat me if I get too friendly.. but prophecy says the lion will eat straw like the ox, the bear will graze with the cow and (so subdued shall all things be) the young child will be able to play at the entrance to the viper's nest?/den? So I believe there will be utter perfection.. We do not of course know all the details :laughing7: not by a long shot! But people will "abide under their own vine and fruit tree and no one will bother them.. He will judge between strong nations and they will beat their weapons into plows(hares) and gardening tools" - if we take such literally.. Glory! God created Paradise. Or that is - is creating paradise. Did He create the vast universe for nothing.. There are so many creatures and plants, we know nothing of.. Such a multitude of creativity and diversity.. I think man lives in cities he himself has built, shutting ourselves and our minds indoors in boxes and we have become blind to God's Glorious works.. So when He says the lion will straw like the ox, we think "what could that really mean?" :doh:
Quote from: MusicLover123 on March 26, 2018, 04:50:25 AM
QuoteI was in Newport, Rhode Island, taking the ride down the famous street of mansions.. but it wasn't the mansions, I was interested in. It was the trees!
Well, I would have thought the most important thing to pay attention to was the grass! :laughing7:
Have you ever observed different houses, tried looking into them, and wondered what their lives are like? Just me?
I like to look inside houses to see the houses.. I'm a real homebody.. love homes.. though I do sometimes wonder about, sometimes pray for the people within.. :gsmile:
QuoteI'm not a bad singer or dancer, or writer.. of songs, poems, stories.. but just imagine how much more so when in a perfect state..
Quote from: MusicLover123 on March 26, 2018, 04:50:25 AM
In our perfect state, do you think we will be perfect in everything, or will we have specific talents and do some things better than others? What will we be doing for all eternity? The same things now but expanded? I know someone mentioned a whole bunch of new things, but what does this entail? Building houses? Creating life? Making cake?
"There will be a highway for those left.." one of the prophets.. - so that will be one thing going on..
I know bible prophecy talks about rebuilding ruins.. bringing Hebrew folks back to Israel.. and I guess much of it may depend on what we're doing now during this life.. Will we mostly be learning? or will we also be teaching? I think we should be learning now.. in training?
What we don't learn now, then teaching survivors after apocalyse and ET/ECT folks, I would think.. After all Jesus said we should provide meat for members of the household even now.. And how "He broke bread, handed it to the disciples and the disciples handed out to the people.."
Then after the 1000 years all those millions of folks not yet saved, some never having heard anything about Jesus, Yhvh or the bible.. Rising still in their sins, some victims of horrors we can only imagine.. many rising in trauma... And many just regular folks.. (And what about the millions of babies aborted? Surely they will rise too and need some care!?) Some of all this from verses, but also logic.. We can think, what would it be like to rise not yet saved? I don't believe they wake up and God tosses them to a lof.. (Sounds a bit cold and impersonal to me.) I think lof comes (logically, it seems to me) after judgment day and it is the last verse of the chapter :) It just seems so much logical and orderly to me, if judgment day is a great day of review, really hammering home this unavoidable lesson we are all learning.. I'm a BIG fan of Logic (logos?) If God chooses who comes to the faith during this life, and not because we deserve it!! So... why would those others have to be cleansed by literal fire? Or why would their repentance and reconciliation be so much more stringent than any who come to the faith during this life, since God alone chose? Makes no sense to me... Sure it's easier to say the unsaved will rise and go to the lof for cleansing, which rings of purgatory.. And it's certainly worlds better than the ET message! But still, I can't believe it. I actually believe all will repent and be reconciled before then -- I mean during judgment 'day'. Perhaps there will be a totally hard case hold out, that not believing by end of that 'day' will go to the lof for purification, but I think the lof was made for the devil and his angels..
I think of all the stories.. of each and every person who has lived.. Quite a bit, to keep us interested right there.. There's the individual stories, and there's also the national and collective stories of nations, lands, tribes, and ages, or that is throughout all earth's ages.. (I believe Judgment 'Day' - reviewing all these things will last about 500 years - after all, why let all these lessons go to waste? When they can so easily be used to really hammer home the lesson He is teaching.)
QuoteWe could learn all musical instruments.. And much easier than we can now..
Quote from: MusicLover123 on March 26, 2018, 04:50:25 AM
So, in regards to this, how will the physical part of reality look? Say if we were using musical instruments, and I pick up a flute. If I pick it up, will it fall through my hands? Or will it only do that if I choose to? If there is an ant on the ground, as death is swallowed up by immortality, if I step on one, will it die?
:Peace2:
Quote from: CST on March 26, 2018, 07:13:09 PM
I'm fairly sure the imperishable bodies are solid at least as much as they need to be to interact with things.
:iagree:
I surely hope so. Wouldn't it be terrible to be a mere ghost? I know there will be the love, the awe and the ambrosia that is God's Presence - and no minimizing of that awesome wonder we can only glimpse now, but I can't think that is the totality of what He is creating.. The very important thing.. the people.. But I think He created a beautiful and wondrous creation, we actually only get a glimpse of so far.. Being so cut off.. and busy..
Yeah, sometimes we should probably take interlinears with a pinch of salt I know they can be useful even I know and do so, but I also suspect that they often give the impression they are less ignorant than they actually are especially with regards to Hebrew and Aramaic which is very tricky. Greek is less of a problem it seems.
Well I'm British so I can watch several channels virtually commercial free but wicked business people are trying to kill that off. That said my experience of both tells me the product that you get is different depending on whether it has ads in it or not so they do have their uses.
Some of us will be working if we're making more creative stuff that's still a form of work I just imagine the chore-like bits will disappear. That said work has such a rewarding quality if you can get if right (and aren't a wretched good-for-nothing like me) I doubt all the chores will vanish or the rewarding aspect may go too.
Yeah, but some people have managed to be friends with even things like bears and lions. At least until they did something provocatively foolish and were killed. "what could that really mean?" Well, that's rather the question isn't is? I'm fairly sure there's rather a lot of possible answers.
The fate of aborted babies is a major theological problem. A good deal of them were fetuses when they died and we would expect them to have the same level of metal development. They'd also need a womb or the equivalent to develop in. I'm not even sure if God ever bothered to give aborted babies a soul knowing full well they wouldn't come to term.
Your view of Judgement Day is another reason to discount the idea of having all the other possible universes meet in the same place, with an infinite number of people it would never be finished.
And finally... agrees!
Quote from: CST on March 27, 2018, 06:09:49 PM
The fate of aborted babies is a major theological problem. A good deal of them were fetuses when they died and we would expect them to have the same level of metal development. They'd also need a womb or the equivalent to develop in. I'm not even sure if God ever bothered to give aborted babies a soul knowing full well they wouldn't come to term.
Your view of Judgement Day is another reason to discount the idea of having all the other possible universes meet in the same place, with an infinite number of people it would never be finished.
:faint: I never thought of that! ...that's why I think God engineered things so all "in heaven and earth" would learn this lesson (of good and evil / life and death?) all together.. I mean if each one became imperfect (aka, sinners) in their own time.. that would take quite a while too!
Souls in fetuses.. I actually don't believe in an immortal or otherwise 'soul'.. but soul as psyche and individual.. "God breathed the breath of life into Adam and he became a living soul" and I believe there's a verse that calls animals living souls(?) "dust thou art and to dust shall you return" and it's "with what sort of body shall they rise" not "what sort of body shall they be reunited with" (imo, that is) ...So fetuses.. certainly not very developed.. So very tiny. ...Or just a fetus, I never thought about that! ..yet a life taken.. if I'd been done away with when a fetus..
And that's another reason I wouldn't believe in multiple universes/dimensions.. nor believe in a humanity before Genesis 1 - if you've ever heard that theory? that the "chaos" wasn't just the elements, but the result of great war..
I have a friend who believes that.. and next time I see him, I want to mention how it actually makes excellent sense that such actually occurred as, what a witness
!! It would be like "see.. if you wander away from God - life and source of - this is the only way it can ever end.. in apocalypse (in its modern usage of crash and destruction) and nothingness.. But! If that were the scenario I do not believe He who is Love could let all those people simply perish.. And it says humans die once.. so it wouldn't be a case of each one of us going through this twice, with the second time, being with God's intervention to "save the world" and "draw all to Jesus".
:Peace2:
You don't believe in a soul? Yes, you do. The soul is the bit of you that when your perishable body, well, perishes God will take out and put in your imperishable body. That's your soul. You may believe it ceases to be when your perishable body goes the only way it can but, while that may mean you lose awareness for a time it will, at the very least continue, to exist in the knowledge of God.
That said if you say you don't believe in the soul then presumably to can hold that the term 'living soul' may not, in fact, be an accurate translation of the terms involved. As I mentioned above Hebrew is a difficult language it pretty much impossible to know how much baggage that we have supplied to our translations by using words that contain baggage that the original language probably didn't even recognize. Whether or not this is really one of those words I'm not so sure.
On the same matter therefore the fetus's 'breath of life' may be being supplied entirely by the mother for much of the time it's in the womb. There's good reason to believe this because, obviously, if you even ruptured the umbilical cord prematurely it would die. Another reason to ask the question of when the fetus becomes a conscious thinking being and then, therefore a person (or even animal) God could save. This is what I meant when I questioned if the fetus has a soul. If it hasn't reached a stage of development where it has some form of conscious awareness of its environment I'm not sure how God can save it. But there's a lot of stuff about God's capabilities I'm not sure of so that may not say very much.
Hmm, I don't believe in the great war. When people invoke that they tend to invoke the pagan religions of Israel's neighboring nations which the Genesis account is slightly similar to and therefore, they claim, borrows from those stories. The big difference being Israel's claim to monotheism and the greatness of their God, Yahweh. The only reasons for Israel to keep any reference to those stories would be as revised versions allegorizing how God 'conquered' all their gods. Not that their gods every actually existed for God to conquer but I think you can get the point.
Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment (although given the nature of what I'm about to say that seems like a strange expression). In theory that 'do-over' you suggest is just possible if we imagine that the verb 'die' to include all the negative associations associated with the death Adam introduced into the world rather than just the physical act of dying. Heck, it could ever if it does I don't know what a 'do-over' would look like. The idea is emotional attractive to me given that I feel like I'm dying that 'once' every second at the moment but it's not rationally appealing because it seems to be kind of a cop out that would utterly invalidate the 'dress rehearsal' that this life would be in those circumstances.
I should rather say I don't believe we have an "immortal soul" or what I would call inherent immortality.. I do surely believe in the psyche, the mind, the individual personality.. I don't think of it as leaving this body, and going to another, but I believe the whole person rises with the body no longer perishable, but perfect and we will have "put on immortality".. and the body we rise with may be of a 'higher' or of a more 'finer' substance.. Until then I believe the dead sleep in the grave.. a slumber "in Jesus" but I think of it as like a bed with a gravestone.. like seeds planted in the earth.. die a husk, rise a flower (lol, so to speak :laughing7: )
h----| haha, I tried to draw a grave with headboard (combo bed/grave) = :grave: = waiting for Jesus' voice to wake one up..
God bless! :Peace2:
That makes more sense except can you do one where the placard reads: "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?" (Rev. 6:10).
Because given your attraction to Revelation and your general belief in the literal reading of the Bible I'm not sure how you explain that given your views on the soul. Rev. 6:9-11 being the whole passage at issue here.
Quote from: DeeDee on November 13, 2008, 10:33:04 AM
4. Miracles - There are countless miracles that have happened throughout the ages. So many things that medical science can't explain. In fact there are tons of things that plain science can't explain on its own either.
The body image on the Shroud of Turin is one example of a miracle.
If Jesus was raised from the dead, when did He become immortal? To be immortal is to be beyond the reach of death, but death could not hold Him because He had no sin, therefore the sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law. So immortality can only exist where there is no sin and then of course- there is no law. Fear has torment so wherever sin and death and the law are there is torment but perfect peace and joy unspeakable are where perfect love abides. Perfect love casts out all fear. God is love and God will be all in all so there will be no sin, no law, no death- just a new creature in Christ,
"Behold I am making all things new!" Rev 20:5
If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. Old things have passed away, Behold(understand, comprehend) all things become new. 2Cor 5:17
God's perfect plan is "the gathering together into one of all in Christ * Eph 1:9-11 and that plan was conceived before the foundation of the world.
Was Adam immortal before he ate of the tree? I think so, because immortality is nothing more than being in the all in all- in perfect union with God. When did Adam die? When He ate. When He lost that communion.
Jesus destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light( 2 Tim 1:10) and when will death be swallowed up? "When this mortal "puts on" immortality. (1 Cor 15:53)
So maybe, immortality was "taken off" by sin in Adam and "put on" by righteousness in Christ.
"As in Adam all die(mortality), so also in Christ shall all be made alive(immortality)". 1Cor 15
" For if by the transgression of the one the many died((mortality), much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many(immortality)." Rom 5
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one(mortality), much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life(immortality) through the One, Jesus Christ. Rom 5
Each of us was created a soul, then died as children of Adam. That which was will be created anew by the Father, the great Potter, in the image of Christ, filled with the divine nature in union with Him, breathed a living spirit in newness of life, raised immortal. Transformed in the fire. No one knows what the "glories" will be.
God always knew and planned, according to His kind intention He purposed in Him(Jesus) that all would be restored, united to life eternal in the "all in all"- immortal. That every single one who died through separation(sin) would be made alive through righteousness(love).
I think it is possible to limit discussions to 2 polarizing parameters of religious orthodoxy to the extent that an assumption evolves that the "truth" is one or the other. I think that is eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. "The truth", as it is in the wisdom and knowledge of God and the revelation of the Spirit transcends and exists beyond the potential viewpoints of religious orthodoxy so that what we fight to defend as truth is virtually our "blinders", keeping the bit in our mouths and preventing us from looking to the right or left. It is never so clear from the mortal view but seen through a glass darkly.
He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.' Acts 17
SO God appointed our time and habitation so that we would "grope" for Him. Nothing so clear as religionists often define the journey. God is proving Himself to man, and needs no one to prove Him. We announce, herald, and portray His nature. He gathers all and subjects the adversaries, as He gathered and subjected us- by grace through faith(a gift) the children of Abraham are born.
Were we "created" immortal? Or were we created with the potential for immortality? In Adam we experienced death, termination, futility, limitation. In Christ we will experience divine exponentially multiplying grace, being filled up to all the fulness of God- and that is the source of our immortality- that connection, that union, like a branch in a vine or a member in a body.
The question is moot because in all wisdom and insight He made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.
We are a kind of first fruits of His creation.
The whole creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the children of God
All will be gathered into one in Christ
It is that oneness that will be the source of immortality by the breath of life that is in Him by nature and in us because of grace and will be in all because...
He must reign until every adversary is made a footstool for His feet.
How will they be subjected? By the revelation of the cross of Christ (Col 1:15-20) through which every principality and power is "disarmed".
Into what are they subjected? Into the love of God because God is love and God will be all in all and we are the first manifestation of that union which will gather all into restoration, setting the whole creation free from futility.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
SO God, as it says in Romans 8, subjected the whole creation to futility, by subjecting it to man, and then expelling man from immortality, to learn through chaos and corruption and futility, that God is love, through the image of Christ crucified, and then gather all mankind back into immortality by subjection to Christ which is the "glorious liberty of the children of God" because it is union with perfect love, which casts out fear, and removes all torment, because when you are "filled up to all the fulness of God" there is only love, joy, peace, righteousness, kindness, compassion.... no room for death or sin, hence no need for law anymore.
:laughing7: Just rambling through fields of glory. God always knew what He was doing and has been doing it ever since.
Quote from: eaglesway on August 28, 2018, 01:22:04 AM
:laughing7: Just rambling through fields of glory. God always knew what He was doing and has been doing it ever since.
That was some might fine "rambling"!
Oh the scriptures are so wonderful and His plan so great- we are all so small, just wanderers, strangers, pilgrims- the sheep of His pasture.
Thank God for the Spirit that makes us one.
Amen, EW. :dsunny:
D.
Quote from: eaglesway on August 30, 2018, 06:00:05 AM
Oh the scriptures are so wonderful and His plan so great- we are all so small, just wanderers, strangers, pilgrims- the sheep of His pasture.
Thank God for the Spirit that makes us one.
Amen! ...and just this morning I was reflecting on a verse that concludes with "and you are my children" (in psalm 83? Contemporary English Version) - that just seemed to fit well with this comment :gsmile: and "the sheep of His pasture.."
..be like little children.. His Spirit makes all one..
:cloud9: :cloud9:
EW (quote)
Quote
:laughing7: Just rambling through fields of glory. God always knew what He was doing and has been doing it ever since.
Amen to this post too! Some veRy good things brought out! :thumbsup:
Quote from: eaglesway on August 28, 2018, 01:22:04 AM
If Jesus was raised from the dead, when did He become immortal? To be immortal is to be beyond the reach of death, but death could not hold Him because He had no sin, therefore the sting of death is sin and the power of sin is the law. So immortality can only exist where there is no sin and then of course- there is no law. Fear has torment so wherever sin and death and the law are there is torment but perfect peace and joy unspeakable are where perfect love abides. Perfect love casts out all fear. God is love and God will be all in all so there will be no sin, no law, no death- just a new creature in Christ,
"Behold I am making all things new!" Rev 20:5
If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. Old things have passed away, Behold(understand, comprehend) all things become new. 2Cor 5:17
God's perfect plan is "the gathering together into one of all in Christ * Eph 1:9-11 and that plan was conceived before the foundation of the world.
Was Adam immortal before he ate of the tree? I think so, because immortality is nothing more than being in the all in all- in perfect union with God. When did Adam die? When He ate. When He lost that communion.
Jesus destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light( 2 Tim 1:10) and when will death be swallowed up? "When this mortal "puts on" immortality. (1 Cor 15:53)
So maybe, immortality was "taken off" by sin in Adam and "put on" by righteousness in Christ.
"As in Adam all die(mortality), so also in Christ shall all be made alive(immortality)". 1Cor 15
" For if by the transgression of the one the many died((mortality), much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many(immortality)." Rom 5
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one(mortality), much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life(immortality) through the One, Jesus Christ. Rom 5
Each of us was created a soul, then died as children of Adam. That which was will be created anew by the Father, the great Potter, in the image of Christ, filled with the divine nature in union with Him, breathed a living spirit in newness of life, raised immortal. Transformed in the fire. No one knows what the "glories" will be.
God always knew and planned, according to His kind intention He purposed in Him(Jesus) that all would be restored, united to life eternal in the "all in all"- immortal. That every single one who died through separation(sin) would be made alive through righteousness(love).
I think it is possible to limit discussions to 2 polarizing parameters of religious orthodoxy to the extent that an assumption evolves that the "truth" is one or the other. I think that is eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. "The truth", as it is in the wisdom and knowledge of God and the revelation of the Spirit transcends and exists beyond the potential viewpoints of religious orthodoxy so that what we fight to defend as truth is virtually our "blinders", keeping the bit in our mouths and preventing us from looking to the right or left. It is never so clear from the mortal view but seen through a glass darkly.
He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.' Acts 17
SO God appointed our time and habitation so that we would "grope" for Him. Nothing so clear as religionists often define the journey. God is proving Himself to man, and needs no one to prove Him. We announce, herald, and portray His nature. He gathers all and subjects the adversaries, as He gathered and subjected us- by grace through faith(a gift) the children of Abraham are born.
Were we "created" immortal? Or were we created with the potential for immortality? In Adam we experienced death, termination, futility, limitation. In Christ we will experience divine exponentially multiplying grace, being filled up to all the fulness of God- and that is the source of our immortality- that connection, that union, like a branch in a vine or a member in a body.
The question is moot because in all wisdom and insight He made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.
We are a kind of first fruits of His creation.
The whole creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the children of God
All will be gathered into one in Christ
It is that oneness that will be the source of immortality by the breath of life that is in Him by nature and in us because of grace and will be in all because...
He must reign until every adversary is made a footstool for His feet.
How will they be subjected? By the revelation of the cross of Christ (Col 1:15-20) through which every principality and power is "disarmed".
Into what are they subjected? Into the love of God because God is love and God will be all in all and we are the first manifestation of that union which will gather all into restoration, setting the whole creation free from futility.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
SO God, as it says in Romans 8, subjected the whole creation to futility, by subjecting it to man, and then expelling man from immortality, to learn through chaos and corruption and futility, that God is love, through the image of Christ crucified, and then gather all mankind back into immortality by subjection to Christ which is the "glorious liberty of the children of God" because it is union with perfect love, which casts out fear, and removes all torment, because when you are "filled up to all the fulness of God" there is only love, joy, peace, righteousness, kindness, compassion.... no room for death or sin, hence no need for law anymore.
:laughing7: Just rambling through fields of glory. God always knew what He was doing and has been doing it ever since.
What is immortal? A big word with a lot of baggage is what it is. Obviously in the technical sense it simply means 'not mortal' but the meaning of mortal has become quite broad. I'm not sure it's appropriate to describe God as immortal, because God is so beyond anything paramortal or hypermortal or supramortal or something might be better.
The pure in heart see God.
God is love, and things have as much meaning and value as an individual gives to them.
We don't 'own' our loved ones or even our pets... God does. - He is the 'Owner'. - He made them, and loving them IS loving God and loving them shows that God (love) is in us... The Creator is not separate from His Creation.
Loving a sibling or a pet for example is seeing God in them and thus; seeing 'value' (worth) in them... They 'mean something' to us. - We are seeing through eyes of love and that has meaning.
If eyes are dark though... How great is the darkness inside that one. - How pointless. - How lifeless/loveless/Godless.
Some people have 'the whole world' but because they don't see God in any of it (appreciate it); they are miserable.
And some very poor people are very poor, yet rich...
"...As poor, and making many rich; as having nothing, and possessing all things". - 2 Corinthians 6:10
Love is creative energy and energy/power is 'spirit', which is God. Hate has no creative power. - It destroys.
...So we know that (spiritually) love is Creator and again; 'God is love'.
So one CAN see God (Creator) if they have purity of heart and understand that God isn't an idol or carved image and 'doesn't dwell in temples built by human hands'...