It's good to see you are sharing your insights with the community at large
What is less convincing is the idea that those who are not for you must be against you... nameth not psychologists such as "paranoia"?
Those whom you wronged might be against you, those you favour might be for you while yet others may be indifferent, but just how doeth this, thine Omnipotent King. express "being for you"? Furthermore as he be thine "father" then makest it not thou, another son of yon Almighty God?

"just how doeth this, thine Omnipotent King. express "being for you"?"

How does the quoted passage answer that question?

amen

Your quoted passage asks how "he" will not also give us freely all things.
I see a question and not an answer?

Examine the earlier parts of that sentence. The question is rhetorical, but it is based on a definite, historical, extreme expression of His love for us.  The form of Paul's argument is: If God was willing to do THIS, how much more will He also be willing to do this?

On examining "the earlier part" what we see is riddles.

<li>
"What then shall we say to these things?"... A rethorical question, but what "things", who does "we" refer to and what indeed does the orator wish to "say"?
<li> "If God is for us, who is against us?"... A rethorical question, but who is "us", and what if God is not for us, why would those against us be contingent on whether God is or is not for us? The confusion is apparent because in your own blog, now nearly 2000 years later you are still asking: "Well then. Who is against me? Who could possibly be against me? Whose negative opinion could possibly affect me in any way? My boss? My neighbor? My classmate? My coworker? My relative? My enemy?" ...and saying they don't compare to God doesn't answer the question.
<li>
"He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all" What nonsense, the "martyrdom" of Jesus was futile without a cause and helped nobody.
<lI>"how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" A rethorical question should have an obvious answer. Name something... anything tangible that is given by your God to his followeres alone.


Your Bible is a collection of disjointed ambiguous riddles that have dissipated unfathomable human dedication in futile misery. Waste not your life looking for truth therein when the truth of all creation abounds before thine very eyes.

Mykid2,

Thanks for your excellent questions.  I would be interested in pursuing the answers together.  However, the polemical blanket statements you have added ("What nonsense" , "Your Bible is a collection of disjointed ambiguous riddles that have dissipated unfathomable human dedication in futile misery", etc) seem to indicate that you are tired of this discussion and would prefer not to pursue this further.  I personally have no desire to participate in a discussion about these things with someone who is irrevocably and closedmindedly convinced that they are "nonsense".  If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.

Otherwise, thanks for your stimulating discussion...  and have a nice day.

Alas your discussions, knowledge of divinity and understanding of spiritual merrit are confined to regurgutation and interpretation of immutable Bible texts. When confronted with their deficiencies you seek refuge in denial and evasion. You cannot confront the pivotal question: In what way did the death of your saviour save you?
While I will not condescend to discuss the meaning of Biblical passages, you are clearly unablr to move beyond them. The answer to which one of us has the closed mind is a matter of opinion.

Incidentally, you asked "Examine the earlier parts of that sentence..."
The view that it consists of riddles I substantiated it so it is hardly a "polemical blanket statement", but the notion that Jesus was delivered over unto us all out of his heavenly Father's Love, is based on... precisely what?

p.s. I notice you now occlude our dialog about the divinity of nature, the art, the artefact, or the artist... is that because you concede my conclusion that without one the other is pointless, or is it perhaps to avoid confronting the falacy in electing Bible over Nature for knowledge of the divine?

Hi Mykid,

I routinely remove my front page content for privacy reasons, to prevent search engines and archivers from linking certain data.  I had thought that the particular discussion you allude to had ended.  I just put it back up temporarily.  If you would like to post more (notice that you had left unanswered a question or two from me), you are welcome to do so.

I do think that the artist is, in general, more important than the artifact.  If the artifact is destroyed, the artist can always make another one.  However, if the artist is destroyed, no more art of that type can be produced.

In the specific case of God, absolutely I think this is the case.  God is the Creator, the most intrinsically important Person in the Universe.  His Creation is special too, yes, but only because He made it.

Nature can tell us a little bit about God - He is big and powerful, He is wise and intelligent and skilful at designing things, etc.   But in order to deeply and personally know God, we must have His personal self-revelation.   The Bible claims to be such a document (unlike many other books, even many other 'scriptures' such as the Vedas, etc).   I.e. the Bible claims to be the written Word of God.  If its claim is valid (and my understanding of the evidence indicates that it is), then you and I need the Bible in order to truly know God. 

Additionally, once the direct written Word of God is available, any "insights" from nature that contradict the written Word are obviously false.   However, "insights" from nature that coincide with the Bible (e.g. Proverbs 6:6, etc) are helpful.

As analogy, someone who personally knew Picasso and who had access to his writings and journals could tell us much more accurately about who he truly was than someone who merely studied his paintings.

Search engines are an extremely potent instrument to help people find the information they search. They guide those seeking truth to revelations, while they expose the contradictions and falasies of the ones who would promulgate lies. Now why would you fear their indexing capabilities?

The artefact is an instance of the art and the artist an instrument of it's realization. Your analytic view that seeks to compare constituent parts seems blind to the magnificent reality emerging from synergy of the whole. The spirit of the art thrives in them all and gives them their purpose... Consider that God is not a "person" and the Universe is not an expendable instance of "his" creation but they are the inseparable spirit and body of Nature.

As a living part of that Nature we can empathise with her spirit and there is great beauty to see. OTOH the bible may well claim to be written word of "God", but what God is this? I see only the names and shallow acts of men from times gone by and not a one that strikes a chord of empathy (nor is there a single writing from the hand of "son" of God), but like I said I have no desire to delve into those sinister archives from your demonic Lord of darkness.

Mykid2 wrote: "Consider that God is not a "person" and the Universe is not an expendable instance of "his" creation but they are the inseparable spirit and body of Nature."

This is where we differ.  You claim that God is not a "person", etc.  How do you know this?   How do you substantiate your claim? 

I follow the Bible, which claims that God is indeed personal, and His creation is indeed separate (and 'expendable') from Himself.  Yet the Bible not only claims this, but provides verifiable evidence (corroborated by outside sources) supporting this claim (e.g. the historically-verifiable life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and other evidences such as the laws of thermodynamics which preclude an eternal universe).

We must follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Additionally, on "empathy", I think you raise an important point.   Is the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament a good God?  Is He a God who not only upholds absolutely pure standards of morality as the Judge, but also is willing to stoop down (despite not having any obligation to do so) and bear the burden of those who are hopelessly lost?  Is He a God who personally takes upon himself the agonizing punishment that other, unworthy, people deserve?

Several years ago I was very troubled by various instances of God's seeming cruelty in the Old Testament, and by some things in the New Testament too.  But as I have continued to study these events from many perspectives, I have gradually come to realize more and more that the God of the Bible really is a good God.  I hope and pray that you arrive at this understanding as well, at some point in your spiritual journey.  Glenn Miller's site has been a source of stimulating ideas for me in this direction.

Hum... well perhaps we should first bicker about what constitutes a "person" before we argue about whether God is one.

Meanwhile tempus fugit... ah web page links... now ofcourse you do have several hundred million Christians world wide agonizing and toiling to propagate their creed so I suppose there might even be some good sites to chose from. Let's see I'll adress it in it's entirity:

6. "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly."

Does "we" refer to Christians? In what way where they helpless and (as I have asked B4) in what way did Christ's death benefit anyone... let alone the "ungodly"? and come to think of it... why was it the right time?

7. "For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die."

I've heard of people laying down their life for their country and understand one might so that one's descendants may live, but what is all this talk of dying?

8. "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Again... in what way did Christ's death serve "us", why were "we" still sinners... in what way did God suffer as you implied, in what way was it a sign of "love" and since Chris was seen walking about only days later... his could hardly be called a "death" could it?

Perhaps I will find time to visit Mr Miller's site too and ponder his reflections on yonder happenings in antiquity, but thankfully there is the real ongoing life in the here and now to focus on

p.s. what is the relevance of whether the universe is eternal or not? Quite possibly reality manifests as a multiverse and perhaps none of it's universes are infinite in any of their dimensions.

Hi Mykid2,

You wrote: "in what way did Christ's death benefit anyone... let alone the "ungodly"?"  and "why were "we" still sinners"

These are definitely questions worth discussing, in my opinion.   It comes down to whether God created us, as Genesis claims, or whether He did not.  If He did not, then all this talk of sin and sacrificial death is nonsense.  But if He did, then we 'belong' to Him... and as Genesis describes, we have a moral obligation to use the bodies/minds He gave us in righteous ways.

So let's investigate the question of origins.  You wrote: "Quite possibly reality manifests as a multiverse..." Many things are 'possible'.  It is 'possible' that the moon is made of blue cheese, or that I am actually an advanced AI computer program replying to you.   But possibility alone is not enough to justify belief.  Warrant, or evidence for the belief in question, is required.  If there is evidence that the reality is a multiverse, etc, then I'll be willing to consider it.

Meanwhile, there is strong evidence that the universe was created a finite time ago and was put together by an Intelligent Designer.  For example, the laws of thermodynamics are summary statements indicating that all of our current experience points us to the fact that energy is always being dissipated into less and less usable forms.  Since there is still usable energy around, the 'spring must have been wound', so to speak, a finite time ago.  The complicated machinery of even the simplest forms of life (e.g. bacteria) demonstrate the reasonableness of believing in a Designer and the unreasonableness of believing in random or deterministic origin.

It is even possible for you to google M-theory for yourself, but Wikipedia sez "...the whole observable universe being one of many extended 4 dimensional branes in an 11 dimensional spacetime. Although branes similar to that representing our universe can co-exist in the theory, their physical laws could differ from our own, as could their number of dimensions."

Regardless, what relevance have dimensions and other universes beyond ours and the finite extent of any of them to prefering Bible or Nature as a testimony to creation?

Advanced physics theory is hardly on a par with the moon being made of blue cheese, and while you claim you might consider evidence you also said: "once the direct written Word of God is available, any "insights" from nature that contradict the written Word are obviously false." Does not the Bible claim to be the ONLY true word of God, so it precludes that you believe your own eyes, let alone the evidence of empirical science, or any other writings. How can you believe it promotes openminded enlightenment when it infact leads you into a blind dead end of self denial? Objectively the work of debilitating benighted darkness!

Hi Mykid2,

1. "blind dead end of self denial",  "debilitating benighted darkness", etc.  These are emotive, polemical, and ad-hominem phrases which do nothing to advance your argument.  I suggest that further use of phrases like these is counterproductive.  See also point 4 below.

2. Multiverse theory... I am well aware of the idea.  Yet as far as I know there is no evidence for it at all (and in fact some scientists suggest that it is impossible to ever see evidence for it in this particular universe - i.e. it is an unfalsifiable theory, which has led other some other scientists to consider it a nonscientific or even pseudoscientific theory).  I agree with you that multiverse theory is not really relevant to the question of whether the Bible or Nature is more reliable in determining what happened at Creation.   You may be surprised to know that I have not found any actual contradictions between the Bible and the 'facts of nature' in any area, including Creation.

3. You wrote: "Advanced physics theory is hardly on a par with the moon being made of blue cheese".   I suggest that you more carefully observe two delineations from philosophy of science.  The first is this: Nomological  science (also sometimes called observational science, which slightly conflates the next delineation with the current one) versus Historical science (also called forensic reconstruction or forensic science).  The second delineation is related but slightly different: scientific theories that are empirically verifiable or falsifiable, versus theories that are not.   On the first, I refer you to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp and http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/10/the_failure_of_demarcation_arguments.html , and I'll be happy to discuss this delineation more if you have more questions.  By the way, both the multiverse theory and the blue cheese theory are nomological theories, because they seek to explain "how the universe generally operates at the current time."

On the second, we must look more carefully at what you mean by "advanced physics theory."  Your use of the term is rather equivocal.  Here's why: some "advanced physics theories" make testable predictions.  For example, Einstein's theory of general relativity made specific predictions about bent light rays.  Before these predictions were fulfilled, most people thought Einstein was a crackpot.  After they were fulfilled, they began to think of him as a genius.  The transformation came about because there existed observations from the empirical world that both had the capability to confirm or deny the theory (verifiability/falsifiability), and also did in fact confirm his theory.

Other "advanced physics theories" do NOT make testable predictions.  To my knowledge, the multiverse theory is one of these.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.   So SOME (but not all) "advanced physics theories" provide no connection with the empirical world - no way to test them to see if they're true.   And, I might add, similarly with the "eternal"/"cyclical" universe theories.

4. You wrote: "Does not the Bible claim to be the ONLY true word of God, so it precludes that you believe your own eyes"   The Bible does claim to be the Word of God.  What specific "with-my-own-eyes" evidence are you referring to that you think contradicts the Bible?  Please feel free to share the most important such contradictions, and we can discuss them.

5. I earlier mentioned the laws of thermodynamics, which provide very strong confirmation from the natural world that the Biblical account is correct - Someone created the universe a finite time ago.   The laws of thermodynamics are among the very strongest and best confirmed scientific theories of all time.  For example, if someone claimed to have created a true perpetual motion machine or a device that generates usable energy out of nothing, I would not invest in it... because the laws of thermodynamics predict that this is impossible and because they have been so thoroughly tested over the years.   This same facet of science demands that the world could not be eternal and could not have created itself.   Thus, because we are here, we must have been created by God.   Do you believe the laws of thermodynamics?

6. I assume that the Genesis creation account is the primary passage we're arguing about.  I'll post it below for convenience as we continue this discussion.

Genesis 1

 1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

 3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

 4God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

 5God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

 6Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

 7God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

 8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

 9Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.

 10God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

 11Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

 13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

 14Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

 16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

 17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

 18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 20Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

 21God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

 22God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

 23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

 24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

 26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

 28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

 29Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

 30and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

 31God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Genesis 2

 1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
 2By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

 3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

 4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

 5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

 6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

 7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

 9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 10Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers.

 11The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.

 12The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there.

 13The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush.

 14The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

 15Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

 16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;

 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

 18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

 20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

 21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.

 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

 23The man said,
         "This is now bone of my bones,
         And flesh of my flesh;
         She shall be called Woman,
         Because she was taken out of Man."

 24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

 25And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

 

1. Well label as you like, but you cannot deny that your bible forbids considering anything... including your own sight... that would contradict it's uncomprimising edicts. The very fact you take umbrage only proves a case of touché but rather than saying ROFL I am saddened that so many are enticed to follow your demon of darkest evil Consider how you would converse with a "Satanist" and you may empathise with how I relate to adherents of your Christian creed.

2+3 M-theory, an extrapolation of superstring theory and other modern physics go considerably beyond conjecture in that they are mathematically consistent with all empircal data. When it comes to explaining or predicting natural (and also supernatural) phenomena your Bible doesn't even come close to being in the same league. Your failure to differentiate them from conjecture that moon be made of blue cheese... well it does your reason little credit.

... oh, I have just been chalenged to a game of chess... see you later.

4. It doesn't matter, by your own confession it must be "false" if it contradicts the Bible... so go down to your local natural history museum and take a look at Tyrannosaurus Rex and Diplodicus. Do you believe what you see?

5. Sadly for your simplistic reasoning, the laws of thermodynamics are nonsense at a point of singularity. To put it bluntly, nobody can have created anything at the big bang because no time existed in which there could have been a prior cause, or more succinctly: Causality did not exist at the beginning of time

6. Now when it comes to genesis, it can hardly be disputed that...
6.1: In the beginning a lot of time and space flowed forth and they spread far and wide many galaxies and stars long before our Earth emerged on the scene.
6.2: The sun ignited and light shone forth while the Earth yet condensed from the remaining cloud of primordial supernova cinders.

.. and bla bla yackety schmakety...
but if "God" created the light and then discovered it was good, who created the darkness from which he separated it and do you understand why the darkness was evil (or atleast not so good)?

Now I'll just skip all that other credulity (albeit for instance that evidence abounds confiryming beast roamed land, sea and sky long before man emerged), but who can deny that man is born from the loin of woman and not woman from the bone of man... as your creed might command us to believe.

Mykid2,

Thanks for your thoughts in reply.

On point 5, your rejection of the laws of thermodynamics and the law of causality (via a postulated timeless moment before the big bang's planck threshold) is illustrative of the contortions that accompany rejection of the Creator.  If one's desire to reject belief in God is strong enough, one simply postulates that whatever physical laws demonstrate the Creator's existence were not in effect at some point in the past.  Evidence becomes irrelevant, and pure speculation remains.

On point 4, I have no problem believing in dinosaurs.  In fact, they are mentioned in the Bible.  The fossil evidence shows dinosaurs.  I see no contradiction.  Also, your question about man and woman would be interesting to discuss if you could expand that a little (i.e. which scriptures are you referring to, etc).

Your point 1 is very important.   It seems that your main thrust has been to suggest that I (and other Christians) are somehow believing in the Bible on 'blind faith'.  You allege that I believe the Bible 'in spite of' what I see with my own eyes... that I believe the Bible 'in contradiction to the evidence.' 

Moreover, even if the evidence DIDN'T contradict the Bible (which you allege it does, though you provided only two actual examples from what I could tell: dinosaurs, and the first woman created from man), you are suggesting that it is irrational to believe in a 'holy book' at all, even in principle, because IF some new piece of evidence arose that was contradictory, it would have to be discarded through blind allegiance to the 'holy book.'

Is this a correct synopsis of your main argument?

No, it isn't even close.
-There was no before the big bang neither will there be any after the end of time. The chronology of genesis and subversion of science as it's apology is the contortion.
-I entirely embrace the reality of our creatrix, but your "God" is an abominable perversion.
-I have no intention of engaging the demons from your Bible.

Ok.   Your choice.