The Other Side Of God

[Investorater]

Under the heading of Off Topic-General it indicates-Politics+anything else not related to horses,sports,or computers.Therefore,this is not a church service though no one said you had to attend through reading.

As we go through life,we have the opportunity to meet a number of people.Of those people that we meet,some we choose to get to know and others we do not.A great deal of our life is determined by the choices we make regarding whom we get to know.I would like to share with you about an individual I was reading about the other day.He had some characteristics that most people would consider highly undesirable.He had given some people poisoned water to drink and it killed a number of them.He had a couple of guys working for him and he forced one of them to kill a bunch of his neighbors.He was evidently involved with evil spirits and had the power to order them about.There is evidence that he sent an evil spirit to a particular guy and caused him to go crazy.Some people say that the reason he did all these "terrible things" was because he was vengeful.If someone did something against him that offended him,he would punish that person severely in return.

Would you like to get to know such a person?What would you say if your children wanted to become friends with an individual like him?What would you say to them?You might pause here for a moment and think through what your answers to these questions would be.Many Christians would say that we should get to know God and certainly not an individual such as the one described.Yet what many Christians do not realize is that the individual just described,who did these things,was God.Jeremiah 9:13-15 Exodus 32:25-29 1 Samuel 16:14-16 1 Samuel 18:10,11 Romans 12:19 When we see the wrath of God and His vengeance described in graphic detail in the Old Testament,we have a hard time handling it.Deuteronomy 29:29.......

[HUSKER55]

Malicious intent and retribution.

[KMS]

I go back and forth on whether there actually is a God out there. Suffice to say if he/she/it really exists, I have a lot of issues with the way he/she/it runs things. But I'm not going to convince any believers that i'm right, and they're not going to convince me they're right. Arguing about it isn't worth the trouble and only leads to hard feelings. As long as they leave me alone, I don't have a problem with what anybody else believes.

[LottaKash]

A famous author, I believe to be Mark Twain, once said, " I don't believe in God, but I sure am afraid of him ".......As a believer myself, I would say "Good Answer Mark, you should be" .......:eek:

best,

[KMS]

From Seinfeld Episode #63, the pilot

George: God would never let me be successful; he'd kill me first. He'd never let me be happy.
Therapist: I thought you didn't believe in God?
George: I do for the bad things

[LottaKash]

From Seinfeld Episode #63, the pilot

George: God would never let me be successful; he'd kill me first. He'd never let me be happy.
Therapist: I thought you didn't believe in God?
George: I do for the bad things


Hey KMS, .......TOO FUNNY.......

best,

[Investorater]

In no way is this an attempt to take away from the loving,forgiving,merciful side of God.What we are trying to do is to bring out the neglected side of God's character that we do not particularly like to look at.God has many facets.He is tender,loving,and forgiving,and yet He is also a God of wrath,punishment,revenge and violence against those who disobey Him.Many times the Scriptures tell us that He is a jealous God(Exodus 34:14,for example-Exodus 15:3,Judges 3,Psalm 144).Looking further at this neglected side of God's nature,among other things,we find that God,(Genesis 22:1,2)(Deuteronomy 5:9)(Exodus 13:15)(Genesis 7:5-22)(Genesis 19:24,25)

Whether the Father is dealing with us gently or chastising us,in either case,He is showing us how much He loves us.In either role,He is Holy,righteous and abhors that which is evil.He would never lead anyone to do anything that is evil,according to HIS standards.But His ways are not our ways,and His thoughts are not our thoughts(Isaiah 55:8,9).Thus,some of the things that He may tell us to do can be confusing to us,as they possibly were to Abraham,Moses,Joshua,Elijah,Ehud and others whom God called to be instruments of His vengeance or to do things that were illogical according to human reasoning.(Hebrews 13:8) In no way does looking at this more realistic view of God give license to sin,to do wrong or evil.What we are seeking to do is to get to know God as He really is.

We tend to emphasize the loving,forgiving,merciful God and ignore all of the other aspects of His character.Remember,GOD is a loving,kind and forgiving God.However,He also has another side,and we have simply touched briefly on that side of God's character,with which some people either are not familiar or do not care to acknowledge.

It is enough to say here that God loves you and wants you to have eternal life.He was willing to send His Son,Christ Jesus,to take your punishment for you.However,He is still a God of judgement and wrath and will punish evil deeds,if not presently,then at some future time.(1 John 5:11-13)(Romans 3:23)(Romans 6:23)(Ezekiel 18:4) Referring to Christ,John 1:12 says this:But as many as recieved Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God,even to those who believe in His name......

[Investorater]

Drinking wine is commended and commanded,Ecclesiastes 9:7,1 Timothy 5:23,Amos 9:13-15


Winemaker,John 2:1-11,Luke 7:33,34,Matthew 11:19

Intoxication not recommended,Ephesians 5:18,Proverbs 20:1,Proverbs 23:29-35

[Valuist]

From Seinfeld Episode #63, the pilot

George: God would never let me be successful; he'd kill me first. He'd never let me be happy.
Therapist: I thought you didn't believe in God?
George: I do for the bad things

How about this one:

Family Guy episode w/Tom Brady, where Peter is a player on the Patriots.

Post-game interview with Peter:

Peter (in athlete-like monotone): "First off, I'd like to thank God........and I'd like to thank the devil as well.....without the devil, God's job would be awfully boring."

[Investorater]

Does God bring sickness,evil,and calamities on people?Deuteronomy 28,Isaiah 3:17,2 Kings 15:5,2 Chronicles 21:14,15,1 Corinthians 11:26-32,Exodus 4:10,11,Luke 1:20,22,Acts 9:3,4,8,9,17.Just as surely as God can bring on sickness,God can also heal.In fact,approximately one-third of Christs ministry,while He was here on earth,was healing of the sick and the afflicted.Matthew 15:29-31,Mark 6:56,John 5:2-9,Genesis 20:17.Isn't it wonderful that God can heal,if we have faith,if we pray,and if we come to Him through Jesus Christ.
God can also send evil spirits,whether they be deceiving spirits or lying spirits:1 Kings 22:19-23,2 Kings 19:7,1 Samuel 16:14,15,1 Samuel 18:10,11,Judges 9:23.It may seem strange to us that God would send evil spirits,but many people do not realize that God is the one who created the wicked and the evil.The Lord has made everything for its own purpose,Even the wicked for the day of evil.Proverbs 16:4,I form the light,and create darkness:I make peace,and create evil:I the Lord do all these things.Isaiah 45:7,King James Version...If God didn't create evil,where did it come from?Did it create itself?As is seen in these verses,the Bible clearly teaches that God is the one who created evil.That may be contrary to your picture of God,but it is in the Bible.Since God is the one who made wickedness and evil,He certainly can control it.God can also send drought,and the famine that goes with it.Amos 3:6,Amos 4:6-10,Jeremiah 16:3-5.What many people lose sight of is the fact that the Lord can restore everything,as He did for Job 42:10-12.
Sometimes the LORD CHRIST JESUS,sends sickness,evil spirits,plagues and calamities.However,it is wonderful to know that GOD also heals and He can restore and bless beyond what we can even ask or think(Ephesians 3:20,1 Corinthians 2:9).

[Investorater]

Of course,to those who are anti-Christian the following won't make any sense.From Genesis 1 it is evident that God created something from nothing.Only the Triune God can do this.Science has the ability to bring some things that are new to man,but there has always been something with which to start.Even the evolutionist must concede that there was matter and force in the beginning.1 Timothy 6:20,21.....In Genesis 1:21 we read that God created "every living creature that moves."God in one great act created all animal life,verse 24...In Genesis 1:27 it says God created them both male and female.God produced a living soul and placed it in the body 1 Thessalonians 5:23,24.God meant what He said when He ordered each species to produce "after their kind."There is one gap that has been bridged and that is the one between God and humankind.God produced the "missing link"-His Son,Christ Jesus,who reconciled sinful people to a loving,Holy God(2 Corinthians 5:18-20,2 Corinthians 4:3,4,1 Corinthians 1:18-21,1 Corinthians 15:22,1 John 3,Galatians 4:4,5-This entire book could be titled Be Free through Christ-Matthew 19:4,5,Ephesians 5:22-33,Romans 6:14,1 Timothy 2:14,15,Romans 8,Acts 16:31....

[Investorater]

The first commandment from God was Genesis 2:15-17 therefore He must have thought it was very important.It was the prohibition against gaining knowledge of good and evil so He tested their loyalty and obedience,after having eaten of the fruit they became free moral agents.(Genesis 3:15)The sentence against Satan after the fall of humankind was also a prophecy to all ages until the close of time.It constitutes the controversy between good and evil.Through woman sin entered the world and by her seed alone was salvation promised.(Isaiah 7:14,1 Corinthians 11:12,Isaiah 9:6,7)They were cast out of the garden so that they could not eat of the tree of life and live forever.They had gained something God never intended them to have-the knowledge of good and evil.Before they ate the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve could make decisions such as naming the animals,but for any moral decision,they had to ask God.Evidently He walked frequently in the garden of Eden,and any questions they had concerning what was right or wrong,good or bad,they simply asked God and He told them.He did not want them making their own moral judgements as to what was good or evil based on their own knowledge.

[Investorater]

In the worst way,Satan,wanted to break this relationship of dependence upon God.Adam and Eve had been naked from the beginning,and evidently neither they nor God had seen anything wrong with it.However once they ate-their nakedness was realized and they-by themselves-concluded that this was wrong.We often believe it is God's intention and will to hurt us.Adam blamed Eve,Eve blamed the serpent.Thats probably why to this day and age some people blame God for misfortunes,faults,or accidents.After eating of the fruit,they could use their own knowledge,reasoning,and feelings about what was right or wrong to make these decisions independent of God.You could state the principle in this way:Knowing God and knowing good and evil are mutually exclusive.Proverbs 3:5,6.It is not only our knowledge of good and evil that can keep us from obeying God,it is also our logical mind,(which perhaps is just another facet of this knowledge).Proverbs 2:5,6,1 John 4:1-3,Hebrews 11

[equicom]

They had gained something God never intended them to have-the knowledge of good and evil.Before they ate the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve could make decisions such as naming the animals,but for any moral decision,they had to ask God.

I'm not knocking what you've said here, but would they not, by asking, gain knowledge of good and evil anyway after a time?

Also, why did God not build immortality into the original design? Why would they need to eat a certain fruit to become immortal instead of just building that in as a default feature?

[Greyfox]

Before they ate the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve could make decisions such as naming the animals,but for any moral decision,they had to ask God.Evidently He walked frequently in the garden of Eden,and any questions they had concerning what was right or wrong,good or bad,they simply asked God and He told them.He did not want them making their own moral judgements as to what was good or evil based on their own knowledge.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in God.
But I haven't believed in Fairy Tales like the one above since I was a child.

If you believe the above, consider this:

God went down to Eden to see how Adam was getting on.

"What do you think of life Adam"said God.
"Well"said Adam"It's quite hard work and a little boring and,well,just a little lonely too".
"Don't worry"declared God"I've been working on a solution to all these problems.I'm going to create a Woman.She'll wash and cook for you and she'll have sex with you whenever you want.Infact she'll do everything you can imagine".

"That sounds great" said Adam"but how much will this Woman cost me?"

"I was thinking an arm and a leg" answered God

"That sounds a bit steep what can I get for a rib." :lol:

[canleakid]

WHAT EVER SINKS YOUR BOAT :confused:

"Adam was the luckiest man in the world. He had no mother-in-law." :cool:
"I don't pray because I don't want to bore God." ;)
"If absolute power corrupts absolutely, where does that leave God?" :eek:
"The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good ending, then having the two as close together as possible." :D
"Hearing nuns' confessions is like being stoned to death with popcorn." :blush:
"If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" :lol:
"Thank God I'm an atheist." AMEN :rolleyes:

[RobinFromIreland]

For my next miracle, I'm going to turn water ... into funk! (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/16253/)

[boxcar]

In the worst way,Satan,wanted to break this relationship of dependence upon God.Adam and Eve had been naked from the beginning,and evidently neither they nor God had seen anything wrong with it.However once they ate-their nakedness was realized and they-by themselves-concluded that this was wrong.We often believe it is God's intention and will to hurt us.Adam blamed Eve,Eve blamed the serpent.Thats probably why to this day and age some people blame God for misfortunes,faults,or accidents.After eating of the fruit,they could use their own knowledge,reasoning,and feelings about what was right or wrong to make these decisions independent of God.You could state the principle in this way:Knowing God and knowing good and evil are mutually exclusive.Proverbs 3:5,6.It is not only our knowledge of good and evil that can keep us from obeying God,it is also our logical mind,(which perhaps is just another facet of this knowledge).Proverbs 2:5,6,1 John 4:1-3,Hebrews 11

Actually, Adam blamed both God and the woman! Remember: "...the woman whom Thou gavest to be with me..." (Gen 3:12). The clear implication here is that God made a defective woman and dumped her on Adam. (In essence, Adam was victimized by God's poor workmanship.) To this day, the lost blame God for all that is wrong in the world and in their own personal lives.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Excuse me guys. Aren't both of you at this very moment engaged in the use of "the knowledge of good and evil" in debating here what went wrong way back when in the Garden of Eden?

I mean both of you gentlemen seem to be using judgment based on some criteria. Could that criteria be good vs evil???

Seems to me that knowing good and evil is central to most of your philosophy. Just asking.

[dav4463]

I hope there is a God. I hope there is a heaven. I hope I am allowed in!

I want to see my parents and grandparents again. I would like to be able to see my friends forever and ever with no worries.

Logically, it just boggles the mind to even think of such a place, but wouldn't it be wonderful?

Hopefully, we were given a pea-brain that cannot possibly grasp the concept. I want to have a place to go when I die that is peaceful.

What good is life if you just die and it's all over? Where is the incentive to try and be a good person?

I truly hope the soul and/or brain goes on forever. Whether I'm in heaven or I'm a ghost....I just don't want to disappear forever. One thing is for sure. We will all find out......sooner or later. That in itself is just too much for my brain to comprehend.

It makes daily life so unimportant when you really think about it. "Don't sweat the small stuff" seems like great advice.

[robert99]

Dav4463 your thoughts are very well expressed and perhaps shared by many.
The spirituality side of belief has lasted with man far longer than most other thinking, at least 5000 years and beyond, and we are still not one step closer to knowing the answer for sure.


See, if interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/paganism/history/spiritualhistory_1.shtml

[RaceBookJoe]

I hope there is a God. I hope there is a heaven. I hope I am allowed in!

I want to see my parents and grandparents again. I would like to be able to see my friends forever and ever with no worries.

Logically, it just boggles the mind to even think of such a place, but wouldn't it be wonderful?

Hopefully, we were given a pea-brain that cannot possibly grasp the concept. I want to have a place to go when I die that is peaceful.

What good is life if you just die and it's all over? Where is the incentive to try and be a good person?

I truly hope the soul and/or brain goes on forever. Whether I'm in heaven or I'm a ghost....I just don't want to disappear forever. One thing is for sure. We will all find out......sooner or later. That in itself is just too much for my brain to comprehend.

It makes daily life so unimportant when you really think about it. "Don't sweat the small stuff" seems like great advice.

Dave, I am with you 100%. A few things though...assuming there is a Heaven, and what the Bible has revealed is the truth. The only people you see there will be those who believe, not everyone gets to go there. Second, scripturally...he wont just be wisps of winds, strumming harps....we will live forever, in a body....maybe also spiritually...I am still in the reading/learning phase. If the Bible/Heaven are a reality, eternity will be exciting, if not, i honestly cant figure out the point of life, and like you say...why bother being good, might as well just step on everyone up the ladder of earthly success. Many things I cant/wont attempt to answer though, just a continual journey for me....but at the very least, it gives me an incredible hope. About heaven, there are a couple of good books, and a bunch of terrible ones. If interested I will guide you to the better ones that I have read. rbj

[Cangamble]

Dave, I am with you 100%. A few things though...assuming there is a Heaven, and what the Bible has revealed is the truth. The only people you see there will be those who believe, not everyone gets to go there. Second, scripturally...he wont just be wisps of winds, strumming harps....we will live forever, in a body....maybe also spiritually...I am still in the reading/learning phase. If the Bible/Heaven are a reality, eternity will be exciting, if not, i honestly cant figure out the point of life, and like you say...why bother being good, might as well just step on everyone up the ladder of earthly success. Many things I cant/wont attempt to answer though, just a continual journey for me....but at the very least, it gives me an incredible hope. About heaven, there are a couple of good books, and a bunch of terrible ones. If interested I will guide you to the better ones that I have read. rbj
You are talking about the idea of a Muslim or Christian heaven when you say admittance is restricted.

But if you think about it, what would be the point/purpose of living for eternity?

[Cangamble]

What good is life if you just die and it's all over? Where is the incentive to try and be a good person?


Again, what would the purpose/point be of living forever, except to satisfy our fear of not existing?

We evolved incentive to be good people though, unless you want to fight it.
As social animals, if we were hardwired to be bad, we wouldn't be here today.

When it comes down to it, we are hardwired to survive as long as we can, and we are also hardwired to try to ensure the survival of our own species. Much like every other animal on this planet is.

[equicom]

When it comes down to it, we are hardwired to survive as long as we can, and we are also hardwired to try to ensure the survival of our own species. Much like every other animal on this planet is.

Who did the wiring?

[RaceBookJoe]

You are talking about the idea of a Muslim or Christian heaven when you say admittance is restricted.

But if you think about it, what would be the point/purpose of living for eternity?

First, i was replying to Dave's post, but since you chimed in. Yes, since I mention that IF the Bible was true, then YES, i was talking about Christian Heaven...that was perceptive. I never mentioned Muslim or any other religion, but all would be assumed since Christianity states there is only one way to Heaven. Again, i dont have all the answers , i was just stating something to Dave. About living for eternity, not sure , but then again not sure why we would live in the first place if the end is death. Guess I will just have to wait and ask God...IF he is out there. I do have some thoughts, but thats all they are...just my thoughts. See thats the problem with all of that, IF there is a God, sometimes we can only guess at things, and IF the Bible has revealed the mind of God, there is still a good chance that we mess up the interpretation. Like the other thread going, I believe God created everything, but I cant put a date on when....and I cannot deny what science has shown. I think that we are just too finite, to comprehend everything. You have your thoughts, which I respect regardless if I agree with you or not. I am not trying to change your mind and nobody will probably ever change mine. rbj

[Cangamble]

Who did the wiring?
The wiring can be explained through successful evolving steps.
Even now, psychopaths and sociopaths don't get much of a shot to breed in most societies on earth today.
But for man and other social animals to have made it today, altruistic behavior and empathetic behaviour was usually rewarded with a longer life as social animals tend to be protected by others, and usually have others around to procreate with.

[boxcar]

The wiring can be explained through successful evolving steps.
Even now, psychopaths and sociopaths don't get much of a shot to breed in most societies on earth today.
But for man and other social animals to have made it today, altruistic behavior and empathetic behaviour was usually rewarded with a longer life as social animals tend to be protected by others, and usually have others around to procreate with.

But you know what: There's never a shortage of either is there!?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Excuse me guys. Aren't both of you at this very moment engaged in the use of "the knowledge of good and evil" in debating here what went wrong way back when in the Garden of Eden?

I mean both of you gentlemen seem to be using judgment based on some criteria. Could that criteria be good vs evil???

Seems to me that knowing good and evil is central to most of your philosophy. Just asking.

Having knowledge of Good and Evil was not a requirement for Adam and Eve to have obeyed God and, therefore, to have lived in complete harmony with him and his laws. To be sure, if they had obeyed they would have had a deeper knowledge of Good. But not of Evil. And if they had obeyed and passed the test, both would have been found righteous in the eyes of God. And the only moral/spiritual standard for seeing, knowing and communing with God is righteousness -- not merely innocence or goodness. In heaven, for example, there will be no more knowledge of Evil. In heaven, only the righteous will dwell with God.

Boxcar

[Investorater]

(1 Peter 1:20,21)(Luke 24:27)(Isaiah 51:2)(Genesis 11:1-9)(Romans 1)(John 3:14,15)(2 Samuel 23:1-4)(Matthew 1:1)(Psalm 33:6)(John 1:1-3)(Luke 1:26-35,37)

(Matthew 22:37-40)(Matthew 7:11,12)(John 13:34)(Matthew 16:26-28)(Acts 15:14-19)(Romans 11:25-27)(Matthew 24:10-14)(1 Corinthians 1:18-25)(Ephesians 6:12)

(Hebrews 2:14)(Revelation 13:11-14)(1 John 3:1-8)(Colossians 1:15-20)(Matthew 5:43-45)(1 Thessalonians 4:13-18)(1 Corinthians 15:35-57)(Zechariah 14)

(Revelation 19:11)(Revelation 5:13)(Romans 8:38,39)(Romans 3:19-29)(Romans 5:8,9)

[Investorater]

There are of course numerous other specific examples that we could take from the accounts of the children of Israel conquering the promised land.The Psalms tell us that it was God who was in charge of that entire anniliation program..Psalm 44..When the nation of Israel was separated into two parts,Israel in the north and Judah in the south we see God taking the side of the nation of Judah and killing 500,000 men..2 Chronicles 13:13-18..There are numerous instances in the bible in which God kills directly,by hail,plagues,swarms of insects or the earth swallowing people.


Psalm 18:34,35..In this passage in Psalms,we see that God trained David's hands for battle..Later in Psalms,David came back to this same thought..Psalm 144..In the days of the New Testament,most of the water was contaminated and many people only drank wine.Without refrigeration grape juice could not be kept without it turning into vinegar unless they converted it into wine.Apparently,it was common "knowledge" that Christ Jesus drank wine(oinos).Yet, we know that Christ was without sin(Hebrews 4:15)So evidently drinking wine(in moderation)is not a sin..The Blood of Christ Jesus has Power..La Sangre de Christo Jesus tiene Poder..(2 Thessalonians 2:1-10,2 Corinthians 4:4,Acts 17:26,Ephesians 2:13..Most of the above was copyrighted in the book by Dr.James McKeever in 1988,self published.A man in whose shoes I am not worthy to walk in and I believe he left us much too soon.We disagreed,for I have faith in a pre-tribulation rapture and he believed Christians would go through the tribulation or at least 3 and 1/2 years of it..(2 Timothy 3:12-17,Philippians 1:6,Hebrews 9:11-28

[Greyfox]

Will Heaven have horse racing?

[boxcar]

Will Heaven have horse racing?

I doubt any of its inhabitants will have any interest in mundane, worldly pastimes.

Boxcar

[riskman]

Will Heaven have horse racing?


Don't bet on it !

[Investorater]

(Genesis 4:10) (Hebrews 2) (Psalms 103) (Hebrews 10) (Philippians 2:1-11).

[46zilzal]

(Genesis 4:10) (Hebrews 2) (Psalms 103) (Hebrews 10) (Philippians 2:1-11).
With all the bleeding his/her hematocrit must be in trouble.

[equicom]

Will Heaven have horse racing?

I'd guess so. We can see from the book of Job that God likes to have a bet.

[hcap]

Having knowledge of Good and Evil was not a requirement for Adam and Eve to have obeyed God and, therefore, to have lived in complete harmony with him and his laws. To be sure, if they had obeyed they would have had a deeper knowledge of Good. But not of Evil. And if they had obeyed and passed the test, both would have been found righteous in the eyes of God. And the only moral/spiritual standard for seeing, knowing and communing with God is righteousness -- not merely innocence or goodness. In heaven, for example, there will be no more knowledge of Evil. In heaven, only the righteous will dwell with God.

BoxcarOk, but what of us mortals here and now? Is knowledge of both good and evil necessary to navigate through this world in a righteous way? Is knowledge of evil useful in discerning the good. It seems that you and Investorater are publishing a road map to avoid "sinning".
Isn't understanding both good and evil required to read the map?

[Indulto]

Will Heaven have horse racing?GF,
Horseplayers headed in the other direction might experience tough beats for eternity. :lol:

[boxcar]

Ok, but what of us mortals here and now? Is knowledge of both good and evil necessary to navigate through this world in a righteous way? Is knowledge of evil useful in discerning the good. It seems that you and Investorater are publishing a road map to avoid "sinning".
Isn't understanding both good and evil required to read the map?

First off, all of us have a conscience (however, not all consciences are as sensitive to or repulsed by Evil as others). Scripture tells us that the Law of God is written into every man's heart; for after all, Man is a moral being. (This is called Intuitive Revelation, as you may recall.) Therefore, after the Fall, mankind could not help but have knowledge of Evil. However, we do not have to expose ourselves to or practice Evil under the pretense of knowing what Good is. All we have to do to to really understand Good is obey God's Word.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Absolutely. I would agree. Conscience is built in. Call it "the Law of God" if you wish. Wouldn't the correct thing to do then is to simply follow ones Conscience? Why is your or Investorators' interpretation of the origins of good and evil as presented by the fable of the Garden of Eden relevant or necessary?

And for that matter you go on.....
we do not have to expose ourselves to or practice Evil under the pretense of knowing what Good is. All we have to do to to really understand Good is obey God's Word.

Seems redundant as well. If the Conscience already discerns good.

BTW, I don't believe anyone would suggest practicing evil under the pretense of knowing good.

[boxcar]

Absolutely. I would agree. Conscience is built in. Call it "the Law of God" if you wish. Wouldn't the correct thing to do then is to simply follow ones Conscience? Why is your or Investorators' interpretation of the origins of good and evil as presented by the fable of the Garden of Eden relevant or necessary?

And for that matter you go on.....

Seems redundant as well. If the Conscience already discerns good.

BTW, I don't believe anyone would suggest practicing evil under the pretense of knowing good.

The conscience by itself is not sufficient to empower a person to do good. The conscience can oftentimes help people to discern right and wrong, but discerning alone isn't going to empower them to make them to make the right choices. People very often do things they knew were wrong prior to carrying out their unethical or immoral behavior.

Further, even though the scripture says that the "law of God" is written into the hearts of all men, we must not forget that a man can have a heart that is cold and stony. In such cases, this kind of person would have what the bible calls a "seared" conscience. -- a conscience that's been substantially desensitized to Evil. The world, sadly, is filled with such people.

To overcome Evil and to live a righteous life, a man needs nothing less than the Holy Spirit's power working within him. When one is filled with God's spirit, his whole mind, body an soul is given over to God. In short, such a man must be a saved child of God.

And finally, even the strongest of God's children constantly needs to nurture himself on the Word of God. As it is written:

Ps 119:11
11 Thy word I have treasured in my heart,
That I may not sin against Thee.
NASB

Even yourself often in the past have said how this is "nuanced" and how that is "nuanced" and have accused people like myself of seeing everything only in black and white. But life's problems and the circumstances in which we can often find ourselves can indeed present themselves in various shades of gray. What does a devout Christian do when he's confronted with a potential ethical dilemma for which there is no direct biblical injunction? He must, then, rely on biblical principles found in the word of God in order to arrive at the right choices. But in order to do that his heart must be grounded in God's word.

Boxcar

[Investorater]

[Isaiah 66:8]-May 1948:Jews create state of Israel,recognized by U.S.and Russia.Britain quits governing Palestine.Israel fights armies of five Arab states.


[Ezekiel:38]-Russia,Persia(Iran),Libya,Ethiopia,East Germany,invade Israel-[Ezekiel 39:4,5] [Isaiah 34:8] [Psalm 130:7] [Isaiah 45:17] [Isaiah 13] [Joel 2 and 3] [Daniel 9:27] [Isaiah 28:18] [Revelation 13] [Isaiah 14:1-16] [Revelation 17:12,13] [Psalm 33] [Isaiah 55:11] [Luke 18:31] [Luke 21:24] [Isaiah 60] [Matthew 6:19,20] [1 Corinthians 13:9] [Matthew 24:32-34]

[JBmadera]

God is God and I am not.....the funniest thing in life is just knowing exactly how I think something should turn out and then, bam, it does turn out exactly the way I had wanted and what a MESS. guess it goes back to God having and infinite mind and old jb having a tiny finite brain.


my guess is that Heaven turns out to be completely differnt than I imagine - yahoo!

JB

[Tom]

If there is no God, there is no good or evil. Just events.

Or social definations. Is a lion evil for killing a wilderbeast for food?
He had a need, and killed. Are tigers evil when they push the runt of the litter out to have enough milk for the stronger cub?

As a human, with no God, I see people threatening what I believe is our social
structure, who is to say I am evil for killing him? No God's law, no evil.

You are using guilt to rationalize shaky ground.

[Cangamble]

If there is no God, there is no good or evil. Just events.

Or social definations. Is a lion evil for killing a wilderbeast for food?
He had a need, and killed. Are tigers evil when they push the runt of the litter out to have enough milk for the stronger cub?

As a human, with no God, I see people threatening what I believe is our social
structure, who is to say I am evil for killing him? No God's law, no evil.

You are using guilt to rationalize shaky ground.
Have you ever seen how social animals like bonobos and other chimps behave towards each other in their clans?
They don't kill off each other. They feel pain. They feel guilt. They also empathize.

I'll say you would be a psychopath to go against nature and kill someone for the sake of killing someone. It isn't in our genes to do it.

[boxcar]

Have you ever seen how social animals like bonobos and other chimps behave towards each other in their clans?
They don't kill off each other. They feel pain. They feel guilt. They also empathize.

I'll say you would be a psychopath to go against nature and kill someone for the sake of killing someone. It isn't in our genes to do it.

What planet on you living on? The earth is saturated with the blood of humans. The very first recorded "war" in history was when Cain slew Abel, and we're still at war to this day.

Gen 6:5
5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually
NASB

Gen 6:11
11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence .
NASB

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

What planet on you living on? The earth is saturated with the blood of humans. The very first recorded "war" in history was when Cain slew Abel, and we're still at war to this day.

Gen 6:5
5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually
NASB

Gen 6:11
11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence .
NASB

Boxcar
It is against our nature to kill for the sake of killing, unless you are a psychopath or socio path.
The first recorded military war was ancient Iran versus ancient Iraq around 2750 BC.
But there have always been conflicts ever since there have been social animals, but these conflicts aren't without a reason.
They are usually territorial conflicts.
Chimps will fight chimps from other tribes and even kill young chimps from the other tribe if a tribe is starting to come too close to their territory.
But within their own community you can see they behave very "human-like" towards each other.

And please, don't use the bible as a source of history. You might as well be quoting Dr. Seuss to me.

[boxcar]

And please, don't use the bible as a source of history. You might as well be quoting Dr. Seuss to me.

Well, I can fully understand why you'd find Seuss to be more intellectually challenging and stimulating. After the Ice Age when you thawed out, the rise in your IQ seriously failed to keep pace with your body temperature.

Boxcar

[equicom]

Boxcar, you're slipping. You just admitted that there was an Ice Age, and you're not supposed to believe in that.

[boxcar]

Boxcar, you're slipping. You just admitted that there was an Ice Age, and you're not supposed to believe in that.

No. What you're not supposed to do is stereotype groups of people with whom you disagree. You could easily be mistaken for a bigot due to the image you project.

Boxcar

[equicom]

Hang on a minute. You're the one who said that you believe the bible is word-for-word truth. I haven't seen one word in there about ice. I don't think they even knew such a thing existed.

[boxcar]

Hang on a minute. You're the one who said that you believe the bible is word-for-word truth. I haven't seen one word in there about ice. I don't think they even knew such a thing existed.

Yeah...well...maybe all that Ice was more localized as the skeptics like to believe the Flood was. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[equicom]

Yeah...well...maybe all that Ice was more localized as the skeptics like to believe the Flood was. :rolleyes:

There's room there for both parties to be right (about the flood). Because to the people of those times, their whole world was confined to that small region of the Middle East, so therefore to say that the "whole world" was flooded could easily have meant just their part of it, since that was all they were concerned with.

It's just like when somebody in a trailer park is interviewed after the tornado has passed and they say their whole world has been turned upside down. Obviously the world hasn't been turned upside down, but from that person's perspective it has because for them the world just got a whole lot smaller.

[boxcar]

This is what I love about Skepticism. Skeptics' minds are so open, they forgot how to filter out the raw sewage, which puts this stench-filled material on equal footing with the truth in their polluted minds. Because skeptics love to equivocate, they believe virtually anything -- which means they believe nothing.

Boxcar

[equicom]

Perhaps... but if you're referring to me, I'm not a skeptic. I just believe something different to what you do.

[Cangamble]

Boxcar: "What you're not supposed to do is stereotype groups of people with whom you disagree. You could easily be mistaken for a bigot due to the image you project."

Boxcar minutes later: "Skeptics' minds are so open, they forgot how to filter out the raw sewage, which puts this stench-filled material on equal footing with the truth in their polluted minds. Because skeptics love to equivocate, they believe virtually anything -- which means they believe nothing."

[Cangamble]

There's room there for both parties to be right (about the flood). Because to the people of those times, their whole world was confined to that small region of the Middle East, so therefore to say that the "whole world" was flooded could easily have meant just their part of it, since that was all they were concerned with.

It's just like when somebody in a trailer park is interviewed after the tornado has passed and they say their whole world has been turned upside down. Obviously the world hasn't been turned upside down, but from that person's perspective it has because for them the world just got a whole lot smaller.
That is exactly what happened:
fyXwFK603J4

Equicom, do yourself a favour and don't take Boxcar seriously. He thinks the Flintstones is a documentary:lol:

[equicom]

He thinks the Flintstones is a documentary

This alone was worth the click. :)

[boxcar]

Boxcar: "What you're not supposed to do is stereotype groups of people with whom you disagree. You could easily be mistaken for a bigot due to the image you project."

Boxcar minutes later: "Skeptics' minds are so open, they forgot how to filter out the raw sewage, which puts this stench-filled material on equal footing with the truth in their polluted minds. Because skeptics love to equivocate, they believe virtually anything -- which means they believe nothing."

Most skeptics are proverbial fence straddlers. Always equivocating. Rarely committing to any position -- other than their own skepticism, of course.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

This alone was worth the click. :)

Compared to Michael Moore's work, it certainly is. (See: Everything is relative!)

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Most skeptics are proverbial fence straddlers. Always equivocating. Rarely committing to any position -- other than their own skepticism, of course.

Boxcar
??????
The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. This is a fact.
The universe is over 13 billion years old. Again, this is a fact.
Evolution is a fact.

There is no evidence that God has ever existed, so why consider God, Leprechauns, or an invisible man who might live under my bed?

I don't see any fence straddling from me.

[equicom]

Wha???? No leprechauns? Next you'll be trying to get us to believe there's no Easter Bunny. Damn it, who lays the eggs then?

[boxcar]

Wha???? No leprechauns? Next you'll be trying to get us to believe there's no Easter Bunny. Damn it, who lays the eggs then?

I guess you're "it"!

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

What is this mania with the evangelicals and the like to TURN back the clocks of the world.....Much akin, in principle, to fundamentalists elsewhere.

[Tom]

We are turning our clocks back in a couple of months.

[BenDiesel26]

??????
The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. This is a fact.
The universe is over 13 billion years old. Again, this is a fact.
Evolution is a fact.

There is no evidence that God has ever existed, so why consider God, Leprechauns, or an invisible man who might live under my bed?

I don't see any fence straddling from me.

Do you not see that your blind faith in evolution is just as bad as what you are accusing creationists of? It has all but been proven that the the world we live in derived from chance is impossible. I've seen that you believe in hypothetical science, so you must believe in absolute math? Mathematically, the probability that the world we live in was derived from chance is of the order of 1 in 10^(10^30). This number is unfathomable. Without doing calculations, I would guess this is something along the lines of somebody hitting the lottery everyday for 70 years. That might be bold as it is just a guess, but I could do the calculations if you would like. I would think it is even much much much much much worse, as that number (10^(10^30)) is beyond human comprehension (mine, yours, or anybody's). Primordial soup has never been proven, and spontaneous generation will NEVER be proven. It simply can't happen. Use your brain. Mathematically it can be shown that even in a one billion year period, the probability of even a single protein molecule being formed from a collection of amino acids is of the order of ten to the negative power of several thousand, let alone the infinitely more complex DNA of even a single celled organism. What this says is that your theory most likely did not happen, and it is most likely wrong. And while we can calculate these numbers that are infinitesimally small and you can try to argue that the next to impossible occurred, it is no different than a scientific field analogous to fracture mechanics, where a number sometimes means nothing. That is, in fracture mechanics, we can calculate how much a crack will grow due to an infitesimal force. But in reality, a crack must grow a minimum of what we can physically comprehend, which is the size of the atom spacing in an lattice structure. In other words, your take on evolution as the origin of life is realistically (as we understand reality) not possible if you want to continue to say science is your backbone. In fact, mathematically if it could somehow be quantified I would say creationist theory or intelligent design theory (which developed for the reasons discussed above in the first place by people much smarter than you or I) is actually several thousand times more probable than the original theory of natural selection, which will never be able to prove the origin of life based on spontaneous generation. The arguments for all of these theories are based on presuppositions that will NEVER be proven. In other words, the day that you actually accept that the origin of life cannot be explained through rational thought you will be a much more enlightened individual. Notice I don't necessarily support any theory nor have I included any of my personal thoughts on religion, as I have accepted that I will never understand why I am here or how I came to be here. But note also that even the smartest men that have EVER lived (the smartest after Darwin by the way and much much smarter than Darwin), generally tend to side with that fact that some sort of creator had to have existed (maybe not a PERSONAL creator). That's great that organisms adapt to their environment etc, but you will never have science that supports your theory of the origin of life. That's so easy to see. So saying that your opinions are fact in essence is a pipe dream. There's stuff we just will never understand as we are only human, we can only comprehend what is going on in the space-time continuum. We don't even know how our brains work. What if there is someone that lives outside of the space-time that we live in, that can see everything? Does the past still exist and has the future already happened? We will never know, because we can't understand. At least 99.9999999999% of us can't. Is it a science we can't understand, or a creator that we are absolutely inferior to?

[boxcar]

??????
The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. This is a fact.
The universe is over 13 billion years old. Again, this is a fact.
Evolution is a fact.

There is no evidence that God has ever existed, so why consider God, Leprechauns, or an invisible man who might live under my bed?

I don't see any fence straddling from me.

Geesh, CG, you're a might touchy these days, not to mention insecure. No need to get those cute, pink gorilla print panties of yours in a wad, since I never called you a skeptic -- especially since I know what you are.

Boxcar

[dav4463]

??????
The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. This is a fact.
The universe is over 13 billion years old. Again, this is a fact.
Evolution is a fact.

There is no evidence that God has ever existed, so why consider God, Leprechauns, or an invisible man who might live under my bed?

I don't see any fence straddling from me.


Many scientists disagree. They say carbon dating is flawed and some things used to move faster than they do today. Bottom line is we don't know everything. Every generation thinks they know it all. People used to believe the world was flat. There will be some revelation some day that totally blows away everything we accept as fact today. It may be the age of the earth, it may have to do with evolution, or existence of ghosts or spirits, who knows?

[boxcar]

Many scientists disagree. They say carbon dating is flawed and some things used to move faster than they do today. Bottom line is we don't know everything. Every generation thinks they know it all. People used to believe the world was flat. There will be some revelation some day that totally blows away everything we accept as fact today. It may be the age of the earth, it may have to do with evolution, or existence of ghosts or spirits, who knows?

Excellent point, Dave. In fact, the more humble among us would be amazed at how little we do know about "little things" we simply take for granted. A few examples:

Light slows down when it enters water or glass, causing it to bend; but how does it return to its original speed upon exit? In today's science, no clear explanation exists for this surprising acceleration.

Or how does a fridge magnet cling endlessly against gravity? What is the source of this energy from within? What is it's power drain as it defies gravity? One is hard-pressed to find any clear answers to these kinds of questions in any physics textbook.

Or what is gravity -- really? For some scientists, its an endless attracting force emanating from matter. For others, it's a warping of 4-dimensional "space-time". But for others the mysteries of gravity might be solved in "quantum gravity" theory or graviton particles, etc. In fact, very little is actually known about how or why gravity works. (A great book on this subject, incidentally is the "The Final Theory" by Mark McCutcheon.)

Yet, the proud, arrogant and haughty among us will swear up and down that they can explain everything we need to know about the origins of life, and that it all simply boils down to a Materialistic solution -- very easily understood by 5-year olds to boot! :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[canleakid]

THE TOP TEN LIST OF THINGS WE WILL STOP BELIVING IN!!!!!!!!!!!!! :jump:
10. THE GREAT PUMPKIN :blush:
9. THE EASTER BUNNY :confused:
8. MOM AND DAD WERE RAZZLEING IN THEIR BED :rolleyes:
7. SANTA CLAUS :(
6. BABIES COME FROM THE CABBAGE PATCH :faint:
5. YOU ARE THE SMARTEST KID IS SCHOOL :lol:
4. YOU ARE GOING TO GO STEADY WITH THE HOMECOMING QUEEN :D
3. YOUR RELIGION :bang:
2. RED SOX WIN THE WORLD SERIES :cool:
1. RED SOX PLAY THE CHICAGO CUBS IN THE WORLD SERIES :liar:

[Cangamble]

Many scientists disagree. They say carbon dating is flawed and some things used to move faster than they do today. Bottom line is we don't know everything. Every generation thinks they know it all. People used to believe the world was flat. There will be some revelation some day that totally blows away everything we accept as fact today. It may be the age of the earth, it may have to do with evolution, or existence of ghosts or spirits, who knows?
Many scientists do not disagree. Evolution is fact. As for dating procedures, carbon dating is just one of many, and every sort of dating technique concur with an ancient earth and a fossil record that falls in line with evolution.

[Cangamble]

Do you not see that your blind faith in evolution is just as bad as what you are accusing creationists of? It has all but been proven that the the world we live in derived from chance is impossible. I've seen that you believe in hypothetical science, so you must believe in absolute math? Mathematically, the probability that the world we live in was derived from chance is of the order of 1 in 10^(10^30). This number is unfathomable. Without doing calculations, I would guess this is something along the lines of somebody hitting the lottery everyday for 70 years. That might be bold as it is just a guess, but I could do the calculations if you would like. I would think it is even much much much much much worse, as that number (10^(10^30)) is beyond human comprehension (mine, yours, or anybody's). Primordial soup has never been proven, and spontaneous generation will NEVER be proven. It simply can't happen. Use your brain. Mathematically it can be shown that even in a one billion year period, the probability of even a single protein molecule being formed from a collection of amino acids is of the order of ten to the negative power of several thousand, let alone the infinitely more complex DNA of even a single celled organism. What this says is that your theory most likely did not happen, and it is most likely wrong. And while we can calculate these numbers that are infinitesimally small and you can try to argue that the next to impossible occurred, it is no different than a scientific field analogous to fracture mechanics, where a number sometimes means nothing. That is, in fracture mechanics, we can calculate how much a crack will grow due to an infitesimal force. But in reality, a crack must grow a minimum of what we can physically comprehend, which is the size of the atom spacing in an lattice structure. In other words, your take on evolution as the origin of life is realistically (as we understand reality) not possible if you want to continue to say science is your backbone. In fact, mathematically if it could somehow be quantified I would say creationist theory or intelligent design theory (which developed for the reasons discussed above in the first place by people much smarter than you or I) is actually several thousand times more probable than the original theory of natural selection, which will never be able to prove the origin of life based on spontaneous generation. The arguments for all of these theories are based on presuppositions that will NEVER be proven. In other words, the day that you actually accept that the origin of life cannot be explained through rational thought you will be a much more enlightened individual. Notice I don't necessarily support any theory nor have I included any of my personal thoughts on religion, as I have accepted that I will never understand why I am here or how I came to be here. But note also that even the smartest men that have EVER lived (the smartest after Darwin by the way and much much smarter than Darwin), generally tend to side with that fact that some sort of creator had to have existed (maybe not a PERSONAL creator). That's great that organisms adapt to their environment etc, but you will never have science that supports your theory of the origin of life. That's so easy to see. So saying that your opinions are fact in essence is a pipe dream. There's stuff we just will never understand as we are only human, we can only comprehend what is going on in the space-time continuum. We don't even know how our brains work. What if there is someone that lives outside of the space-time that we live in, that can see everything? Does the past still exist and has the future already happened? We will never know, because we can't understand. At least 99.9999999999% of us can't. Is it a science we can't understand, or a creator that we are absolutely inferior to?

Evolution is fact. I've already dealt with the idea of probability in another post.

As for abiogenesis, there are many theories out there that are plausible. They don't include the need for a creator.

Again, evolution does not take blind faith, but not accepting evolution takes willful ignorance.

[Cangamble]

Excellent point, Dave. In fact, the more humble among us would be amazed at how little we do know about "little things" we simply take for granted. A few examples:

Light slows down when it enters water or glass, causing it to bend; but how does it return to its original speed upon exit? In today's science, no clear explanation exists for this surprising acceleration.

Or how does a fridge magnet cling endlessly against gravity? What is the source of this energy from within? What is it's power drain as it defies gravity? One is hard-pressed to find any clear answers to these kinds of questions in any physics textbook.

Or what is gravity -- really? For some scientists, its an endless attracting force emanating from matter. For others, it's a warping of 4-dimensional "space-time". But for others the mysteries of gravity might be solved in "quantum gravity" theory or graviton particles, etc. In fact, very little is actually known about how or why gravity works. (A great book on this subject, incidentally is the "The Final Theory" by Mark McCutcheon.)

Yet, the proud, arrogant and haughty among us will swear up and down that they can explain everything we need to know about the origins of life, and that it all simply boils down to a Materialistic solution -- very easily understood by 5-year olds to boot! :rolleyes:

Boxcar
Science doesn't understand fridge magnets:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-37245.html

[boxcar]

Science doesn't understand fridge magnets:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-37245.html

Hey, Einstein, try hanging off a cliff for an hour and tell me that isn't work. Or tell me that a weightlifter who just pressed 500 lbs. and holds the weight stationary for several seconds isn't working. Magnets can hold their weight and much more and, therefore, are performing work -- despite what the "brainiacs" on that forum stated. Work doesn't necessarily require motion (force. The old Work Function formula W = F d (Work = Force x distance) becomes flawed once we take this formula beyond its design intent -- once we misapply it. I could give plenty of other examples, but this would go beyond the scope of my original point -- which again is that there are many things in science today that are still mysteries -- that we don't really understand.

Boxcar

[Suppositionist]

Hi Cangamble,

Interesting stuff. However I must take exception to a few of the things you wrote in separate posts above and I will explain why, but first let me just say that I agree with this first quote of yours:

“”The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. This is a fact.
The universe is over 13 billion years old. Again, this is a fact.
Evolution is a fact.””

>>>>The earth is likely at least that old and the star dust that makes up the earth dates back to the beginning of the universe as does all the material that makes up each and every one of us. The universe is at least 13 billion years and some think 15 or as many as 18 billion years old. Course time flew by much faster in a smaller universe so the first million years or so may have only taken a few hours by today’s reckoning. You’ll get no argument from me regarding evolution either. There can be only one truth and if a God created this reality then evolution is one of the mechanisms he used to do so. Evolution involves change and change requires movement or motion, a key element in all experience.


>>>>These next quotes are where I take exception:


“”There is no evidence that God has ever existed, so why consider God, Leprechauns, or an invisible man who might live under my bed?””

“”As for abiogenesis, there are many theories out there that are plausible. They don't include the need for a creator.””

I would agree that there is no physical evidence that a Supreme Being exists, how could their be? If a Supreme Being created the universe “ex-nilo” (from nothing) this Being would be beyond physical and hence beyond our abilities to investigate physically or scientifically. This however does not preclude us from investigating a Supreme Being's existence intellectually or rationally. This is often a stumbling block for empiricists but sound rational arguments do exist for the existence of a Supreme Being or Creator.

Science concerns it self with the “how” of phenomenon. Philosophy concerns itself with the why, with causation. And religion, a branch of philosophy, concerns itself with ultimate causation. A lot of skeptics have no use for these two disciplines. They argue if they can’t physically see, feel or touch it, if they can't measure or physically evaluate it then they are not interested in it. The funny thing is, they have just use the discipline they have no use for to discredit it. They have philosophized that philosophy is useless. It is also curious that while many skeptics pride themselves on their penchant for intellectual inquiry, they stop short of asking some of the more difficult questions. An example of that would be what caused the big bang, the universe in general? Does cause and effect break down at the point of universe creation? The law of causation says that causation always flows from superior cause to inferior effect. If the big bang was an effect, what could cause such a phenomenon, and cause it, ex-nilo, apparently? If our universe has a cause then it is "contingent", and the laws of causation say that anything that is contingent needs a cause for its existence at each and every moment of its existence. What kind of being (cause) could possibly create (cause) ex-nilo and then hold something like the universe in existence? To ignore these questions calls the skeptics inquiring nature into question and to claim the universe “just is” requires a faith that they often rail against. I realize it goes against their empiricist nature but when empiricism fails don't they have to use whatever they have left?

There is no doubt that the greatest being that can possibly exist, does, in fact, exist. The question then becomes; what is that being? Is it humans? Some giant star? The universe as a whole? The big bang suggests a cause and something that could cause a big bang from nothing. That suggest a Supreme Being. Of course this leads to the inevitable question of what caused this Supreme Being? Ultimately, something would have to be uncaused, something would have to have as its very nature, existence, being. We know the universe had a beginning so that couldn’t be it. What ever It is though, It would have to have all the power we can imagine. and it would have to have all the knowledge that we can imagine. These certainly are what many consider to be god like qualities. And only something with these qualities could account for the question of why there is something instead of nothing. Of course leprechauns and the invisible guy under your bed aren’t as far as I know, known for these qualities. I would only add that while I believe this to be a sound and rational argument for “a God”, it is not necessarily an argument for any particular God followed by any particular religion.

S

[hcap]

Box,
Do you actually think magnetism is better explained by God than physics 101?

If you glue a block of wood to the ceiling, is the glue performing work?
How 'bout nailing shingles? Even better all the rivets in a skyscraper?
Do you know anything about potential energy?

You are wrong. Stick to faith based arguments Box.
Fridge magnets were never mentioned in the Bible or any other scripture of any religion. Just like gravity, or the earth rotating around the sun. Back fitting the Bible, or faith based literal understandings of the world have an extremely poor record "going forward". I think your drilling down using minutia, much of which is inconsequential, into scripture is pretty much back fitting. If not tell me when the rapture will occur. Or any miracle for that matter.

Using the Bible literally is what would Linguistics would call "confusing the map for the territory."

See Language in Thought and Action
S. I. Hayakawa
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski

Or in Zen Buddhism when the Roshi (teacher ) uses his walking stick to point vigorously to the moon, and the student fixates on only the stick, that same stick will come down hard on the students head.

The emotional sense-non quantifiable or testable-that we experience in pondering the phenomena all around us is not the realm of science. Stick to that and we will have fewer disagreements. The sense of wonder or awe we "feel" in looking around into the mysterious universe is not refuted in modern science. Reducing gravity or electromagnetic forces to ONLY faith based views is eliminating another way of understanding the mysterious, and another approach to what we may call God.

[Cangamble]

Suppositionist, I'm not sure that your explanation for time going faster in a smaller universe has been refuted or not. I know time is relative, but when we say the earth is 4.5 billion years old, I think they are talking from the perspective of someone on earth.

That really doesn't matter when it comes to the core of your post though.

And like I said before, I have no problem with anyone who adds to reality instead of denying reality as do the people who believe the earth is young or that evolution is crapola.

You are just adding God to the equation. But you are just really just giving a window for a God, not a proof of one. There are many theories out there that don't include a creator.

I'll add that we don't know for sure what happened the second before the Big Bang, so technically, a creator is possible, but it begs the question "who created the creator," especially if you are using the argument that causation flows from superior to inferior (an argument I think has been refuted as well; evolution has proved that new information happens in many cases as I've shown in a few videos I've linked).

You do agree that God hasn't shown up for the last 13 billion plus years, which is all that I am saying: "there is no evidence God has ever existed."

But many people will disagree with you that he has shown up:) and that he left physical evidence. Some will argue that he intervenes when people pray: ie curing cancer, but of course, he hasn't allowed an amputee to grow back a limb as of yet (that would be too much physical evidence)

Here is an argument against God being the first cause:
gqarf1QFxfs

[Investorater]

The Rapture Pictured-Revelation 4:1-3,John R. Rice>Chapter 4 begins a new and important division of the book.Remember that Revelation 1:19 divides the things of the book of Revelation into things past,"the things which thou hast seen,"the things present,"and things which shall be hereafter."Of that division,chapter 4 begins the "things which shall be hereafter,"literally,"after these,"that is,after the church age.Compare verses 1-3 with 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51,52.The similarity could not be accidental.Notice the door opened in Heaven,the trumpet,the call "come up hither."Everything in the book of Revelation after the end of the third chapter is future and has not yet taken place and will not take place till after the rapture.This is important so remember it..John 14:1-3..Ephesians 2:6..Romans 11:25..Colossians 1:26:27.

[2 Timothy 1:8,9] [Romans 13:11] [1 Corinthians 1:18]-Robert Mounce>We may conclude without hesitancy that Scripture in its totality knows of no Past salvation which will someday issue in a Future salvation which does not pass through a continuing Present Tense Salvation.A comprehensive understanding of the doctrine includes what has happened,what is happening,and what will happen.A deliverance as all-embracing as this cannot be lost until it is fully realized.Since final Salvation is yet future the question of losing it is for the present premature..Revelation 1:8,"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God,"who is and who was and who is to come,the Almighty.......

[Investorater]

Booklet by Martin R. De Haan II,1986,Why did Christ have to die?-The result is that the person who trusts in Jesus Christ is changed in their relationship to God,changed in their relationship to their own sin.And their future is changed,both for this life and in the life to come.If we could merit our own salvation,Christ would never have died to provide it.Here is what is ours once we have accepted the sacrificial,substitutionary death of Christ..1-Reconciliation:We are at peace with God.When Jesus Christ died on the cross,He made it possible for us to be reconciled to God and restored to fellowship with Him by faith in His Blood.Enmity is turned to friendship,alienation to sonship,hostility to faith,and hatred to love because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross (Romans 5:1,10) (2 Corinthians 5:18-20) (Ephesians 2:16) (Colossians 1:20-22)..2-Justification:We are declared right before God.When Jesus died,He absorbed our punishment.Therefore,when we believe in Him,our sins are no longer held against us (Romans 3:24,4:5,5:1,9,8:30,31,Titus 3:4-7)..3-Redemption:We are ransomed from our sin and condemnation.The death of Christ also means we have been bought out of bondage to sin and Satan.The ransom price for our sin has been paid in full.4-Propitiation:We are free from God's wrath.This is possible because an acceptable offering has been made on our behalf.(1 John 2:2,Romans 3:25,Hebrews 2:17,1 John 4:10)

[Investorater]

John Rice,It is important to notice the effect of verses 1-3 in setting the order of events concerning the second coming of Christ. These verses evidently picture the rapture. If they do not,then there is not a single reference in the entire book of Revelation to the rapture of the saints,and that would be almost unthinkable in a book the theme of which is The Revelation of Jesus Christ at His second coming. This passage,then, clearly indicates that Christ will come into the air and receive His saints out of this world before the Great Tribulation. That fits with 2 Thessalonians 2:7,8,which indicates that Holy Spirit,as long as He abides in this world in the bodies of the host of Christians,will prevent the appearance of the Man of Sin,or Antichrist. Christians now in the world will be taken out at the time represented by Revelation 4:1-3,and the terrible plagues mentioned in Revelation after this passage will not be endured by present-day Christians. The servants of God who will be persecuted by the antichrist during the Great Tribulation will be other Christians,people converted after the Rapture

[Suppositionist]

Hi again Cangamble,

Sorry I couldn’t reply sooner.

I don’t know that I have added God to the equation. I have argued for the universe being caused by something else and that something else certainly would have to have God like qualities (have all the power and knowledge we are aware of, create from nothing, etc.)

I mentioned that the question of what causes God is answered by the fact that God, in order to qualify for being considered God, the greatest being that can possibly exist, would have to be a necessary being, and not a contingent being, not a being that is dependent on another for its existence. Necessary beings have as their very nature, existence, and or, being. We know the universe is contingent and not a necessary being because it is finite and it had a beginning.

I’d be interested in hearing the argument that refutes the notion that causation always flows from superior cause to inferior effect. That would lead to logical impossibilities along the lines of 2 plus 2 equaling five. Evolution may prove that new information is possible but that can only be because its cause endowed it with that potential.

Actually, I don’t agree that God hasn’t shown up for the last 13 billion years. Ever hear of a belief system called panentheism? (not pantheism) Panentheism would probably be the closest system to what I believe and it posits that God pervades everything as well as transcends it. So on the contrary, I think God has rather conspicuously made his presence known. Remember: why is there something instead of nothing? I suppose one could say that God has not shown himself apart from his creation, but God, being apparently immaterial apart from this cosmos, as we understand that term, would not be perceptible to human exterior senses. No contrast, no perceptible substance, so it seems an impossibility. Even if you wouldn’t allow for that, you’d have to agree that something sustains this universe since its beginning implies it is contingent. What do you believe holds the universe in existence? A kind of inertia? What holds the laws of inertia constant?

Finally we get to the clip you posted and the amputee argument (I have seen his clip about that also). For me, the problem with the amputee argument is two foal. First this guy assumes that every amputee has, or is, praying for their limb to be restored. I doubt that that is the case and would be surprised if the number of amputees who actually prayed for limb restoration was greater than 1 or 2 percent and that among mostly superstitious and not truly religious (spiritual) persons. Heck most folks over the years who have had a limb amputated have had it done so they could live, rid themselves of disease that would surely have kill them. Granted since the industrial age, plenty of people have lost limbs in accidents but I’d expect most were just grateful to be alive, and or, that it wasn’t worse. Second and probably more importantly, this guy acts like its some big revelation, or should be, that God doesn’t answer all prayers. HELLO! Ultimately God doesn’t answer a lot of prayers and we all ultimately die but that hardly is reason to believe God can't heal an amputee if God so desired or that because God doesn’t, it proves God doesn’t exist. To me that is only an indication that God limits his involvement for the sake of free will and that he intends for us to have this experience, come what may. That may seem very cruel in many instances and you may feel as this amputee writer does, that you know better than that, but I believe that if we were to know Gods reasoning, we would marvel at its perfection. On top of that I’ll bet every amputee that has attempted to do so, has reached greater levels of understanding and achieved certain satisfaction that never would be possible for a non-amputee so while the limb per se was not replaced, for those who were actually seeking, it was replace with something else if they were paying attention. My personal belief is that God mostly answers prayers on the spiritual level mainly. That is, God mainly confines his intervention in human affairs to inspiration and enlightenment.

Regarding the clip about first cause, I don’t know where to begin, lots of conjecture, lots of opinions stated as fact and lots of conclusions jumped to, especially about religion and its writers.

The few points I made in my first post, stem from the Cosmological Argument, specifically, The Cosmological Argument as propounded by Mortimer Adler in his book “How to Think About God”, not The First Cause argument. My thoughts were not THE cosmological argument, just some of the ideas from it. They are similar I suppose to the first cause argument and perhaps one led to the other, but Adler’s version avoids begging the question of assuming that, that it is trying to prove, and, the infinite regress of causes.

My biggest problem with this author and his clip, however, is all the things he mentions that are, by his own declaration, his area of expertise, yet he glosses over them not even attempting to explain why these things lead to the conclusions he arrives at. He freely admits we have plenty still to learn yet he’s certain from what he knows that the universe always existed. Even more curious is that he apparently is comfortable with the laws of cause and effect breaking down on the quantum level but yet has so much trouble, apparently, with folks who would profess a belief in God. Seems quite disingenuous to not mention the “faith” he places in the theories he holds near and dear. Basically what he’s saying is that we don’t know everything, we may not even know much at all, but what we do know supports his view of the cosmos and after all he knows more than you because A. He told you so and B. He made this video which proves he does.

Weak.

S

[Cangamble]

Suppositionist, as for your argument of superior to inferior, the FACT that evolution does add new information much of the time can't easily be spun that "maybe" the information was always out there.
You asked for an argument against it, and I gave you solid evidence against your argument.
That seems to be your only "evidence" for God. And in your words, "that is weak."

As for your claim that God is this and that as well as eternal, again, that is an easy way out, and it doesn't explain what caused or created God because if you say that the universe had to be created, in the same way, I'm saying that God had to be created.

The video was an excellent example of why God is not needed at the "beginning of time." You may call it weak, but it wasn't weak.

As for amputees, why not come clean? Do you honestly think if 1000 amputees on this planet today sincerely prayed every day for a year that their lost limb would grow back...that even one amputee's limb would grow back?????

The honest answer is no. The honest answer is that God only seems to answer prayers that need no supernatural explanation for some reason.

You see, that growing back a limb would be a supernatural event...and I've yet to see one. Especially with all the cameras everyone has these days...if supernatural miracles were to occur, we would be able to witness at least one by now.

We'll have a lot more answers very soon thanks to the experiment being conducted in Europe.....and I'd bet my house that they won't conclude or even consider the "God did it" angle.

[Cangamble]

Objections and counterarguments



[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument&action=edit&section=7)] Existence of a First Cause

One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that it is not.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-reichenbach-11) The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it begs the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begs_the_question) of why the First Cause is indeed exempt.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-cline-12)

Secondly, the premise of causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) has been arrived at via a posteriori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_posteriori) (inductive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning)) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume) highlighted this problem of induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction) and showed that causal relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) were not true a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29) (deductively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning)). Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the Universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-reichenbach-11)

Additionally, it is argued that Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) can be used against the argument, showing how the argument fails using both the efficient and conserving types of causality.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-13)



[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument&action=edit&section=8)] Identity of a First Cause

Another objection is that even if one accepts the argument as a proof of a First Cause, it does not identify that First Cause with God. The argument does not ascribe to the First Cause some of the basic attributes commonly associated with, for instance, a theistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic) God, such as immanence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence) or omnibenevolence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-cline-12) Rather, it simply argues that a First Cause must exist. Despite this, there exist theistic arguments that attempt to extract such attributes.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-14)

Furthermore, if one chooses to accept God as the First Cause, God's continued interaction with the Universe is not required. This is the foundation for beliefs such as deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) that accept that a God created the Universe, but then ceased to have any further interaction with it.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-15)



[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument&action=edit&section=9)] Scientific positions

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Gas_particle_movement.svg/180px-Gas_particle_movement.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gas_particle_movement.svg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gas_particle_movement.svg)
"Gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas) molecules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecules) may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving."


The argument for a Prime Mover is based on the scientific foundation of Newtonian physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_physics) and its earlier predecessors — the idea that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. However, while Newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton)'s ideas survive in physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) today, since they conveniently and easily describe the movement of objects at the human (that is, not cosmic or atomic) level, they no longer represent the most accurate and truthful representations of the physical Universe. Some scientists feel that the development of the laws of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics) in the 19th century and quantum physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics) in the 20th century have weakened a purely scientific expression of the cosmological argument.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-16)

Modern physics has many examples of bodies being moved without any known moving body, apparently undermining the first premise of the Prime Mover argument: every object in motion must be moved by another object in motion. Physicist Michio Kaku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku) directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_%28book%29), saying that it is easily dismissed by the law of conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_conservation_of_energy) and the laws governing molecular physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_physics). He quotes one of many examples — "gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas) molecules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecules) may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving." According to Kaku, these particles could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-17) It does not provide an explanation for the reason those molecules exist in the first place, though.

Moreover, it is argued that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time. The Big Bang theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_theory) states that it is the point in which all dimensions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensions) came into existence, the start of both space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space) and time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time). Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time, and thus the concepts of cause and effect so necessary to the cosmological argument no longer apply. This has been put forward by Stephen Hawking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking), who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole).[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-18) However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of branes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane) to give a cause for the Big Bang.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-19)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

[fast4522]

Early on differing people would war because religion, SSDD now. I think evolution has a place with god, that sometimes some evil dies with the man. That for some folks god is the love in man that lives on, and is part of plan, and maybe the evil is strictly a learned thing.

[botster]

There are of course numerous other specific examples that we could take from the accounts of the children of Israel conquering the promised land.The Psalms tell us that it was God who was in charge of that entire anniliation program..Psalm 44..When the nation of Israel was separated into two parts,Israel in the north and Judah in the south we see God taking the side of the nation of Judah and killing 500,000 men..2 Chronicles 13:13-18..There are numerous instances in the bible in which God kills directly,by hail,plagues,swarms of insects or the earth swallowing people.


Psalm 18:34,35..In this passage in Psalms,we see that God trained David's hands for battle..Later in Psalms,David came back to this same thought..Psalm 144..In the days of the New Testament,most of the water was contaminated and many people only drank wine.Without refrigeration grape juice could not be kept without it turning into vinegar unless they converted it into wine.Apparently,it was common "knowledge" that Christ Jesus drank wine(oinos).Yet, we know that Christ was without sin(Hebrews 4:15)So evidently drinking wine(in moderation)is not a sin..The Blood of Christ Jesus has Power..La Sangre de Christo Jesus tiene Poder..(2 Thessalonians 2:1-10,2 Corinthians 4:4,Acts 17:26,Ephesians 2:13..Most of the above was copyrighted in the book by Dr.James McKeever in 1988,self published.A man in whose shoes I am not worthy to walk in and I believe he left us much too soon.We disagreed,for I have faith in a pre-tribulation rapture and he believed Christians would go through the tribulation or at least 3 and 1/2 years of it..(2 Timothy 3:12-17,Philippians 1:6,Hebrews 9:11-28

Getting back to the original post.

All these accounts of gods wrath you describe here, are historic events that took place to show us god is a righteous judge in destroying the unbeliever.God takes the side of the predestined, and seperates himself from the remainder in his judgement.

According to the word, God is not the author of evil, but man holds that burden.God showes us his righteous indignation in these matters, not unlike when jesus entered the synagogue and turned over the money tables.Here the greedy tax collectors were making a mockery of the holy meeting place of god.

[MONEY]

Or any miracle for that matter.
Miracles happen all around us every day.
Science is an example of many miracles. Think about it. People have taken stuff that they dug out of the ground, or scraped out of rocks and even hacked out of plants and used that stuff to build space ships, computers, submarines and to make medicine.
Had technology been left up to me, 5000 years ago. Today we would still be beating our food to death with a piece of a tree limb and then dragging it to a cave and eating it raw. And the same applies to 5000 years from now.

money

[Suppositionist]

“Suppositionist, as for your argument of superior to inferior, the FACT that evolution does add new information much of the time can't easily be spun that "maybe" the information was always out there.
You asked for an argument against it, and I gave you solid evidence against your argument.”



>>>>Of course the question is; is your evidence actually “solid”? I would be of the opinion that it is not or at least no more solid that the opposing view. That is actually the same problem I have with the clip author.



“As for your claim that God is this and that as well as eternal, again, that is an easy way out, and it doesn't explain what caused or created God because if you say that the universe had to be created, in the same way, I'm saying that God had to be created.”



>>>>I was pointing out one possible way where an infinite regress of causes was unnecessary. Something would have to be a necessary being to avoid such a regress. You are free to name that necessary being whatever you like, I just pointed out that that being would have what many consider God like qualities.



“The video was an excellent example of why God is not needed at the "beginning of time." You may call it weak, but it wasn't weak.”



>>>>It is a “possible way” where a God is unnecessary but by his own admission we don’t know everything and that obviously implies we don’t know enough to state indisputedly that a God does not exist or is unnecessary. It is “weak” because it is philosophically unsound and he tries to imply what he has no business implying, that there is no God. I know, you can argue that that is not the case because I can’t prove that that is what he is trying to do but that would make you just as disingenuous as him if you were to claim that.



“The honest answer is no. The honest answer is that God only seems to answer prayers that need no supernatural explanation for some reason.”



>>>>Or the true answer could be as I alluded, that God does not do anything that interferes with freewill, the freedom to believe, to act in a manner consistent with being free. Prayers obviously being answered would be pretty strong evidence that God existed and would pretty much compel most folks to believe and act in a way that impinged on that freedom.



“You see, that growing back a limb would be a supernatural event...and I've yet to see one. Especially with all the cameras everyone has these days...if supernatural miracles were to occur, we would be able to witness at least one by now.”



>>>>Like I said, the point is moot with me as I don’t believe God works that way, not that he couldn’t if he so desired, but that he doesn’t for whatever reason, freewill being the most likely reason, in my opinion. My point still stands though, just because God doesn’t grow back limbs doesn’t in any way speak to whether God exists. Kind of silly to even argue this point because even if someone came along whose limb had grown back, you would never believe that it was the result of prayer or God anyway, would you? So what’s the point?



“We'll have a lot more answers very soon thanks to the experiment being conducted in Europe.....and I'd bet my house that they won't conclude or even consider the "God did it" angle.”



>>>>I’d think twice about making that wager if I were you, after all, they do intend on investigating the God particle, don’t they?



>>>>Regarding your post, which, supposedly, refutes the Cosmological argument, I specifically noted that when I referred to the Cosmological Argument, I was referring to Adler’s version of the argument in the book I mentioned. In it he addresses all those objections and his version is square with all of them. I don’t have time to go into all of the details here but you can obviously read the book for yourself if you are really interested. Of course Adler himself never thought of the argument was proof but only that through this argument God’s existence can be established “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Adler’s Wikipedia entry states, in referring to the argument: “in a recent re-review of the argument, John Cramer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Cramer) concluded that recent developments in cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology) appear to converge with and support Adler's argument, and that in light of such theories as the multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse), the argument is no worse for the wear and may, indeed, now be judged somewhat more probable than it was originally[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Adler#cite_note-9#cite_note-9).” For whatever that may be worth to you.



>>>>Perhaps you would be interested in what Adler has to say about Hawking.



From an essay by Adler called “Natural Theology, Chance and God”



“”… A few Christian apologists in the twentieth-century, such as Polkinghorne, are knowledgeable in the field of twentieth-century theoretical physics. But, with the possible exception of Heisenberg, few if any twentieth-century theoretical physicists manifest any competence in philosophy and appear to be totally ignorant of philosophical theology.

One would not expect them to be persons of Christian faith or apologists for Christianity, but one would expect them to be silent about matters beyond their ken. They should at least be aware of the limitations of theoretical physics and not make unfounded remarks on the basis of their knowledge of that limited subject. Einstein was a great theoretical physicist and great human being, but not a wise man. The possession of wisdom depends to some extent on clear philosophical thought. Einstein once said that what was not measurable by physicists was of no interest to them, or had no meaning for them; he also said (in his attack on quantum indeterminacy) that God, a being not measurable by physicists, does not throw dice. He said that he did not believe in a "personal" God, using the word personal as if it meant the same thing as anthropomorphic. Man is a person because he is in the image of God, not the reverse. In theology, the word person signifies a being with intellect and free will.

Hawking is a great theoretical physicist, both in quantum mechanics and in cosmology. But his philos-ophical naiveté and his ignorance of philosophical theology fills his A Brief History of Time with unfounded assertions, verging on impudence. Where Einstein had said that what is not measurable by physicists is of no interest to them, Hawking flatly asserts that what is not measurable by physicists does not exist -- has no reality whatsoever.

With respect to time, that amounts to the denial of psychological time which is not measurable by physicists, and also to everlasting time -- time before the Big Bang -- which physics cannot measure. Hawking does not know that both Aquinas and Kant had shown that we cannot rationally establish that time is either finite or infinite. When he treats the Big Bang as if it were the beginning of time, not just the beginning of measurable time, he shows his ignorance of God as cause of being and of creation as an act of exnihilation, which the Big Bang is not.

Furthermore, Hawking's book is filled with references to God and to the mind of God, both not measurable by physicists, and so nonexistent by Hawking's own assertion about what has and what lacks reality. To discourse seriously about a nonexistent being without explicitly confessing that one is being fanciful or poetical is, in my judgment, impudence on the author's part.

Most theoretical physicists are guilty of the same fault when, in quantum theory, they fail to distinguish between a measurable indeterminacy and the epistemic indeterminability of what is in reality determinate. The indeterminacy discovered by physical measurements of subatomic phenomena simply tells us that we cannot know the definite position and velocity of an electron at one instant of time. It does not tell us that the electron, at any instant of time, does not have a definite position and velocity. They, too, convert what is not measurable by them into, the unreal and the nonexistent. The definite position and velocity of the electron at any moment of time is not measurable because of the intrusive effect of the measurements themselves, though this effect may not itself be discernible.

In view of the ever-increasing specialization in all fields of learning and therefore in higher education, we probably cannot look forward to a future in which theoretical physicists will also be persons who have sufficient grounding in philosophy and in philosophical theology, in order to avoid their making unfounded assertions about matters beyond their field of specialization. But they should at least be aware of their limited knowledge and be silent about matters beyond it. On the other hand, we should also expect Christian apologists in the twentieth century to be aware of what has been discovered in this century about the physical cosmos and about biological evolution. Only thus will they avoid the errors of their predecessors in modern times who lived in a universe that was described by Newtonian classical mechanics, which we now realize is insufficient to describe the universe we have since been able to discern.””

While I’m sure none of this has changed your mind, even a little bit, I hope that I have at least established for other readers that there are other differing reasonable opinions regarding the existence of God.



S

[Cangamble]

Suppositionist, of course there is an argument for God. Dr. Ken Miller doesn't deny any of the known scientific facts and theories out there, but still has faith in God.

And even Stephen Hawking left room for God, though he says the gap shrunk a lot over the last 150 years.

He admits that science doesn't know exactly what the universe was like prior to the Big Bang. All we have is speculation, though many of the scientific hypothesises do make sense, we don't know for sure which one is the truth. Therefore there is a "chance" that a superior being was involved.

But to me, that opens up way more problems....like where has he been for over 13 billion years.

[Suppositionist]

Like I said in the other post, perhaps if we knew God’s rational for handling things the way God apparently does in this world, we could appreciate the perfection of it. I take it on faith that that rational exists. I guess I’m just lucky that it strikes me that way.



S

[boxcar]

Like I said in the other post, perhaps if we knew God’s rational for handling things the way God apparently does in this world, we could appreciate the perfection of it. I take it on faith that that rational exists. I guess I’m just lucky that it strikes me that way.

Things like what, for example?

Boxcar

[Suppositionist]

Things like what, for example?

Boxcar

Things like not making it crystal clear that He exists, allowing bad things to happen to good people, not answering all prayers, especially the prayers of amputees. Why He created this reality such as it is, what’s the point etc.

S

[Greyfox]

God is everywhere. That makes the race track no different than church. But when I pray at the race track I really mean it.

[boxcar]

Things like not making it crystal clear that He exists, allowing bad things to happen to good people, not answering all prayers, especially the prayers of amputees. Why He created this reality such as it is, what’s the point etc.

S

These kinds of things, and other profound issues, can only be rightly understood when the bible is interpreted through the framework of its soteriological teachings.

Boxcar

[Investorater]

Revelation Chapter V,Jesus Christ,Worthy to Open the Book of Plagues>Do not confuse the book of verse 1 with the book of life. It is not that,but a book of the plagues of God which will be poured out on this earth after the rapture of the saints.The following passages of Revelation tell what those plagues are. As each seal is opened,a part of the book,or scroll,is unrolled,and John sees the terrible plagues which are written therein. The Lion of the tribe of Judah (vs.5) is Jesus Christ. Since He suffered to save people,He is worthy to judge people and punish them for their sins. Verse 6 pictures Jesus as the Lamb of God. The horns are for authority,or kingship,and the eyes for the knowledge or wisdom. Jesus is fit to judge

The worship in verses 8-10 is worship because of redemption. Notice the close connection between Christ as the Redeemer and Christ as the Judge,the Punisher. Two things the Father has committed to the Son,salvation (John 14:6) (John 3:18,36) (1 John 5:11,12),and judgement (John 5:22,27) (Jude 15).Those who reject Christ must deal with Jesus,then,just as certainly as those who accept Him (Philippians 2:9-11).Notice how sweet the prayers of saints must be to God and to Jesus,like bottled perfume (vs.8).Verses 11 and 12 show that all the angels likewise love and praise Jesus Christ. Incidentally,notice the minimum number of angels would be 104 million from verse 11,probably many more.Even animal life joins in the praise of Jesus with saints and angels (vs.13). Compare this chapter with Psalm 148 and Psalm 150:6

[canleakid]

Yeap, that time again:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said authorities had done everything they could to evacuate more than 1.2 million people from the coast and “now it’s time for prayers.”

Officials in Galveston said as many as 40 percent of the city’s 58,000 residents ignored evacuation orders, disregarding the National Weather Service’s warning that “coastal residents refusing to evacuate face imminent and certain death.”

Several residents in low-lying areas close to the gulf told NBC News that they had initially planned to ride out the storm but that they were spooked by the warning of “imminent and certain death.”

Belivers or non-belivers, "IKE" is for real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cangamble]

Does anyone here actually think that the results of the storm were affected by prayer at all?

[RaceBookJoe]

Does anyone here actually think that the results of the storm were affected by prayer at all?

Not sure, but maybe someone who lives in new orleans can answer that one for you. rbj

[Investorater]

John Rice,Revelation made simple and easy,Study the book of Revelation,then,expecting to understand it.Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you.Believe what God has said,that in this book He is showing us the things which must shortly come to pass.(Rev.1:1).Take God's word at face value.Do not make everything symbolical or figurative.When God says blood,take it to mean blood,even if it is a river of blood,flowing to the bridles of the horses.(Rev 14:20)and for a course of 1,600 furlongs or 200 miles.Rev.14:20.If God's word says forty-two months,or 1,260 days,or three and one half times(or years),then take it as it was meant to be taken,that is,a revelation to be plainly understood.The days mean days,not years.The time element in Revelation is literal.And where symbolical language is used,the key is always given in the Scripture itself.It is the very last inspired word that God Almighty ever gave,it is a prophecy of the future.God Himself put more emphasis on Revelation than on most other books of the Bible.Take it seriously,then,and study it long and prayerfully.Everything in this book looks forward to,and clusters around,that marvelous time when Christ shall come with clouds,revealed visibly to every human being on earth.Practically every book in the Bible refers to the second coming of Christ,but the book of Revelation centers altogether around that marvelous event.The Lord Christ Jesus had already established one great scriptural doctrine about the Savior's return,that is,the time is kept secret.Christ might have come at any time after Pentecost.There were no prophesied events that needed to happen before Jesus could return.Every Christian was to look for His Son from heaven.New Testament Christians were taught to(Matt.25;13).Notice the references to Jesus in Rev.1:8,11,and 12-18.The Jesus here is a glorified Jesus.The seven stars of verse 16 are the angels(that is messengers)of the seven churches(vs.20)The seven candlesticks are the seven churches.Seven is the divine number,the complete number.(Joshua 6:3-20)(Exodus 25:37)(Genesis 2:1-3)(2 Kings 5:10,14). (Rev.1),pictures Jesus,not as the lowly Nazarene,but as King and Judge,the Alpha and Omega (first and last letters of the Greek alphabet,Verses 8,11),and the One who has the keys of Hell and Death (vs.18).

[boxcar]

Now that I have a little free time, I would like soundly refute one of the most stupid or naive statements I have ever read. But before getting into what CG would have us believe, a quick review of the three kinds of revelation God has left us with would be in order.

On other occasions in the past I have stated that there are three types of revelation and that each harmonizes and is consistent with the other. God left us with Special Revelation in its two aspects: The Living Word (the first advent of Christ who was God in the flesh and the Written Word, i.e. the Word of God. Next, we have Natural Revelation which reveals to us all the wonders of God's Creation and Reality as we know it to be. And finally, Intuitive Revelation reveals God and his law in the hearts of all men.

To refute CG's following inane assertion which has no ground in Reality as we know it, I will compare the first two types of revelation with each other in order to properly diagnose the root cause of our spiritually sick human condition. Here is what CG wrote back in post #24:

We evolved incentive to be good people though, unless you want to fight it.

I would submit to you that if we evolved anything at all, we've done a superb job at fighting the "incentive" to be good! In fact, it would be more accurate to say that Man has a strong proclivity for being anything but good! How do we know this? What in Reality, as we all know it, would prove my bold assertion? While the extent of God's Law is universal in scope because all men know right from wrong intuitively, nonetheless is there one particular law that undergirds all the others? Is there one law that, if broken, will most often produce a domino effect causing us (or giving us "incentive", if you will), to break other laws? What I'm really asking: Is there's one law that is necessarily foundational to the keeping of all the others? I believe there is and I will set out to make my case. For those of you who have neither the patience or time or the interest in this subject matter, I would suggest that this would be a great place to make your exit from what will be a lengthy post.

What do all societies or governments throughout the entire world, most especially in the civilized world, have in common? They have Militaries to protect them from other nations and even from their own citizens in some cases. They have Law Enforcement Agencies to preserve Law and Order and to protect the law abiding citizens from the criminal elements. They have Judicial Systems within which to try those accused of crimes. They have Penal Systems with which to punish those who were found guilty in a Judicial System. This Reality betrays the untrustworthiness of nations and peoples.

Furthermore, we find in this big picture -- within this grand global reality -- another thing that all governments have in common in their dealings with each other: Whenever one government enters into an agreement with another, whether this international agreement be a trade, military, extradition or any other type, it is put into writing. These agreements or conventions are normally referred to as treaties. One government leader does not simply take another government leader's word at face value. These international treaties exist not only for the purpose of having a detail record, but even more importantly to also hold each participating political entity accountable in the event a treaty is broken by one or more of the signatories. These treaties, in other words, serve to historically verify the promises made therein by the signatories.


But the above realities are merely symptomatic of a much deeper, underlying moral/spiritual malady which is more easily discernible on an individual or personal level. Let's focus now on us -- as individuals -- on the kinds of things that we find necessary to do day in, day out in order for us to function with some semblance of order within our own society. For example, in order to try to protect ourselves and our possessions we, put locks on our doors. Locks on our windows. Locks on our automobiles. Locks on expensive equipment. Locks on any and all enclosures that contain things of value to us. I'm sure most of us do these things without even thinking about it. We strive toward self-preservation and for the preservation of the things we've worked hard to possess. We don't have to think about it. It's a way of life. It's a reality. Sadly, it's the way things are in the real world.

Another thing we find necessary to do in order to reasonably function more or less is that when individual, business or government entities enter into business agreements with one another, contracts are drawn up for the very same reason treaties are on the international level. A contract is nothing less than a promise which is put into writing for the primary purpose of verifying the promises made by the signatories at some later date. While some business agreements are made with just a handshake, this is the rare exception to this universal rule -- and, therefore, not the rule itself.

But even these kinds of things mentioned above don't begin to cover the full extent of the diseased human condition.
For example, whenever any of us wants to participate in and apply for some benefit or privilege offered in our society we must provide proof that our claims are truthful. We must provide adequate verification for our claims. Ponder this fact for few seconds: People can do virtually nothing in their society without proving that their claims are truthful. People throughout the world must verify their claims whenever they wish to participate in some offered benefit or privilege.

Try getting a driver's license without proof of your identity. Or try opening a bank account. Or try getting treatment at a hospital or doctor's office without proof of insurance, and in the absence of such proof much more detailed information will be required to prove that someone is capable of assuming responsibility for your bill. Try getting a decent job without proof of former employment, references, etc. Many different kinds of insurances will require proof of one kind or another before a policy will be issued. Try getting your kid enrolled in a school without presenting proof of his vaccinations. Try obtaining a credit card without proof of who you are, your income, etc. This list is endless. We truly will run headlong into one brick wall after another if we try to participate in either a private or government-sponsored benefit or privilege apart from producing the required documents that will verify our claims. Despite the fact that our word alone is insufficient and that political and business entities do not take each other words or promises at face value, Mr. CG thinks we've "evolved incentive to be good people". He must be thinking about people living in some alternate reality -- certainly not this one! (If the foregoing realities are the reflection of good people, I'd hate to see what this world would be like with bad apples!)

But the more astute among us -- the good critical thinkers on this forum -- have probably figured out by now what the underlying cause is behind all the aforementioned symptoms to all the ailing nations and societies in this world. It can be summed up very simply in one word:DISTRUST. Man essentially and substantially distrusts his fellow-man. We basically don't trust our neighbors -- our "neighbor" generally being anyone with whom we come into contact. And the problem is compounded because on the vertical level most of us don't trust God either! How can there possibly be long lasting, meaningful peace and goodwill in this world in the absence of trust both on the horizontal and vertical levels?

So much for Natural Revelation and what it tells us about Reality as we all know it. Let's look now at God's Special Revelation to learn what the bible teaches us about this Reality and its underlying Spiritual Reality.

We find that in the very beginning that the cause of Satan's Fall and the fall of his minions was self-deception. Satan deceived himself into believing that he could make himself like God -- that as a created being, he could become as the Creator (Isa 14:12ff, Ezk 28:11ff). Satan allowed his own magnificent beauty and indescribable splendor to deceive him into believing that he could become as God.

In Genesis 3, we have the Fall of Man recorded for us. Why did Eve disobey God? Ultimately, because she chose to distrust him and to place her trust instead in the Serpent. The false promise of the Serpent was that the woman would become like God if she just bit into the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:5). In the end, Eve confessed to God that she allowed herself to be deceived by the Serpent (Gen 3:13).

Even Adam betrayed his lack of trust in his Creator when he audaciously blamed God for his predicament, since he implied that God furnished him with an imperfect woman -- ..."the woman whom Thou gavest to be with me..." was his excuse.

Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees that their spiritual father was Satan and that the devil was a murderer and a liar from the very beginning and no truth resided in him whatsoever, and that he was the father of lies (Jn 8:42-44).

The apostle Paul in arguing that both Gentiles (who had not the written Law) and Jews (who had the written Law) are lawbreakers and both will be justly condemned, and that the Jews' disobedience to the Law would not nullify the faithfulness of God, for God will always be found true, though every man will be found a liar (Rom 3:4).

The scope of all this deception -- all these lies -- is nothing less than universal. It's the universal human experience and the root cause for all the misery, suffering and sorrow in this dark, forlorn world. The only class of people God considers not to be liars are the true believers in Christ. John told the church that any man who claims that he knows Jesus but doesn't keep his commandments is a liar (1Jn 2:4). And anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is a liar (1Jn 2:22).

God's elect, however, are immune to the Evil One's lies -- to the lies of the false Christs and false prophets (Mat 24:24).

But the prognosis for mankind in general isn't good with respect to this spiritual sickness. Jesus tells us that in the last days, most people's hearts will wax cold (Mat 24:12). This certainly isn't the kind of fertile spiritual ground in which to cultivate trust,is it?

Paul later confirms this logical deduction by reinforcing and expanding on Christ's words by telling us that in these last days difficult times will come (2Tim 3:1), and that evil men will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived (2Tim 3:13). Hardly the moral environment for cultivating trust, is it?

In conclusion, then, we have seen once again (as I've demonstrated in past years) that Natural Revelation and Special Revelation are in total harmony with one another. We have seen that the fundamental cause to all mankind's miseries, sorrows and sufferings is our misplaced trust. When men don't place their trust in the one true, living God who cannot lie (Tit 1:2), then it follows logically that we cannot trust each other either. In fact, we cannot even trust ourselves! We are most prone to self-deception. The underlying, universal assumption for all our dealings with one another on every conceivable human level (government, institutional, business and personal) is that we humans are essentially and substantially an untrustworthy lot. We cannot and should not be trusted. And each of us knows this in our heart of hearts. We have experienced self-deceit. We have deceived and we have been deceived. Therefore, we dare not implicitly trust our neighbor in the vast majority of cases. If this weren't so, there would be no need for the kinds of human conventions we use everyday in order to verify our own truth claims. Without bona fide, adequate proof to back up our claims, we are in fact presumed to be deceivers.

Because of this fundamental mistrust we have toward one other, there can never be long lasting worldwide peace or goodwill among men. Never! It's just not possible.

Then Mr. CG drew this faulty conclusion:

As social animals, if we were hardwired to be bad, we wouldn't be here today.

I would counter this nonsense with the biblical teaching that God is long suffering toward sinners, and that if it weren't for him restraining evil (such as he did in Job's case), we would have ceased existing a long time ago. God's common grace accounts for all the good that is done in this world. And these good acts, all virtuous conduct, etc. do not contradict the existence of all the distrust we naturally have one toward the other. Good and Evil coexist for now, and things will continue this way until the end of the age -- until the fullness of time when God will have effectually called all his elect into his kingdom.


And one more time for CG:

When it comes down to it, we are hardwired to survive as long as we can, and we are also hardwired to try to ensure the survival of our own species. Much like every other animal on this planet is.

More Secular Humanism drivel. The fact is that our sin nature makes us prone to self-destruction despite our dismal efforts for self-preservation. It will be Christ, who will save mankind from total self-annihilation, in the last days according to his prophecy in Mat 24:15-22; Mk 13:19ff.

Boxcar

[Cangamble]

Boxcar, I didn't read all your drivel. Only parts. When I see you using Jesus to try to disprove me, I can only laugh as there is zero contemporary evidence that Jesus ever walked the earth.
As for my assertions about human beings having evolved empathy and guilt, I'm pretty sure that it has to be the case. It is true of all social animals with higher intellect.
Chimp studies back me up completely.

Meanwhile, you keep trying to prove me wrong using a book of fairy tales:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Suppositionist]

Hi Boxcar,

I didn’t take the time to read back through all the posts so I don’t know the context from which that statement by Cangamble (about men and their incentive to be good people) came. It might be interesting to hear how he feels this tendency has “evolved” but we’ll leave that for another discussion. On face value though, I must say I feel the gist of his statement is correct. We are all endowed with a tendency, a drive, towards the good. We are all always seeking what we perceive as the good. Everything we do, we do, to bring some positive into our life. Even the people who commit some of the most dastardly deeds known to man were striving for what they perceived as a positive in their mind(s), even if it was a warped and twisted idea of a positive to the rest of us. It may have been the result of a defective mind or a mind that took a wrong turn a long time ago and the wrong turns kept multiplying themselves, but at core of the matter they were seeking some good for themselves even if they were grossly mistaken about how to achieve that certain goodness for themselves. And there in lies the real problem, it is not that men don’t strive for goodness all the time, it is that men are often ignorant on how to best go about achieving truly good things. They are either ignorant about what is truly good or they know what is good but are ignorant about how to bring those good things into their life. Even what religions call sin is defined as the falling short of the mark or error, and what is that but an acknowledgement of being ignorant of what it takes to hit the mark or to not be in error? And what is all of that but an admission that we do not know the truth regarding whatever it is we are in error about? So it is ignorance that is the primary problem and everything else is secondary. That’s probably why we are taught to know the truth, the truth will make us free, free of laboring under the burden of our errors, our sins. He (Jesus) said he came so that we would have life and have it more abundantly and what is having life more abundantly but having more goodness in our life? He also said he was the way, THE TRUTH and the life. Not too hard to connect those dots.


S

[Cangamble]

Suppositionist, good is a gray area. There is no absolute good. Even Christians disagree on the interpretation of the NT. Though all of them think their interpretation is correct. That is why there are so many sub cult Christianity religions: Catholicism, Baptist (and all the variations of it), etc.

There is also good and greater good. Take the bombing of Hiroshima. Innocent people died and many that survived had to live terrible lives and have horrible deaths afterward.

But the bombing was for the greater good. It stopped the war. It also prevented the use of the bomb during the Cold War, which could have resulted in the deaths of a lot more innocents, and maybe the end of life on this planet.

Bible believers and non believers alike are torn when it comes to issues like the death penalty.
In fact, we are torn over the concept of white lies to protect someones feelings.

[boxcar]

Hi Boxcar,

I didn’t take the time to read back through all the posts so I don’t know the context from which that statement by Cangamble (about men and their incentive to be good people) came. It might be interesting to hear how he feels this tendency has “evolved” but we’ll leave that for another discussion. On face value though, I must say I feel the gist of his statement is correct. We are all endowed with a tendency, a drive, towards the good. We are all always seeking what we perceive as the good. Everything we do, we do, to bring some positive into our life.

Unfortunately, Supp, your hypothesis leaves much to be desired because too many of those dots cannot logically be connected.

Let's begin with my premise, taken from the bible and Reality as we know it that the universal experience of all men is that we are untrustworthy moral beings -- that all of us are Natural Born Deceivers. This is truly an indisputable fact. We all presume that our "neighbors" are deceivers until they prove otherwise -- until they can provide verification for their claims. Your premise above militates violently against this universal experience and the bible's teaching. If your premise was on the mark, then why isn't this "tendency" or "drive towards the good" universally recognized in practical ways by all? If it were, all men would not presume that our neighbors are untrustworthy! Instead, all men would presume that our neighbors are always striving, always working toward that which is good and, therefore, would not presume each other's untrustworthiness. Our tendency would be to give our neighbor the benefit of the doubt. The only way you can try to reconcile these two opposing premises is by saying that untrustworthiness is morally good quality.

Another very weak point to your argument is that it implies Moral Relativism, i.e. "what we perceive as the good". Perception and Reality are often two very different things. Perceiving leaves the door wide ajar for regarding or considering a thing to be something that it really isn't. Let's take one example, which I'm giving not for the purpose of debating this moral issue -- but use it because it's a good one. Consider the issue of abortions, most especially abortions-on-demand. Abortions for unwanted, inconvenient, unaffordable pregnancies. One side says that this kind of abortion is morally wrong, and can make a very strong case for it. But the other side says that even this kind of abortion is okay (i.e. good) because a woman has a right to decide whether or not she should use her body to give birth to a child. Abortions are morally good things because it protects a woman's ultimate right over her own body -- it protects her "right" to choose. Who is right? Who is wrong? Are both right? Both wrong?

As you yourself have pointed out, Jesus said that he is THE Way, THE Light and THE truth -- all definite articles. He didn't say he was merely a way, or a light or a truth among many in this world. He was making absolute statements about himself. In the absence of absolute truth, we are inevitably left with this situation which God condemns:

Isa 5:20-23
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;,
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;,
Who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And clever in their own sight!
22 Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine,
And valiant men in mixing strong drink;
23 Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!
NASB

Another very weak link in your argument for this supposed universal "tendency for good" is your admission that (and now I quote):

...it is that men are often ignorant on how to best go about achieving truly good things. They are either ignorant about what is truly good or they know what is good but are ignorant about how to bring those good things into their life.

It appears you're trying to rationalize sin -- that you're trying to launch a defense, as it were, for why sinners sin. That the primary reason sinners "miss the mark" is due to our ignorance. But to coin Mr. CG's phrase, this overlooks the fact that our sin nature makes us willfully ignorant, sir. To be sure, we are now or were at one time all spiritually ignorant because we were all brought forth in iniquity and in sin our mothers conceived us (Ps 51:5).

Paul told the Ephesians that the Gentiles (unbelievers, unregenerate) have their understanding darkened because of the ignorance in them (Eph 4:18). For this reason, then, the unregenerate (those who have not been born again) cannot understand the things of God. They cannot understand spiritual truth because these things are spiritually appraised (1Cor 2:14). How can the spiritually dead understand anything spiritual!?

You mention how Christ came to set us "free" -- free from what, I would ask? Free from our bondage to sin (Rom 7:14)! The unregenerate are slaves to sin (Rom 6:6ff). All true Christians were formerly under the yoke of slavery before Christ set us free from our bondage (Gal 5:1).

Our sin nature makes it impossible for us to have any inclinations, desires or tendencies to do good; for as the prophet wrote:

Jer 13:23
23 "Can the Ethiopian change his skin
Or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good
Who are accustomed to doing evil.
NASB

Obviously, this is a rhetorical question to which the prophet provides his own sarcastic answer in order to forcefully drive home the point. The sad fact is that no one under the sun does good (Ps 14:1,3; 51:1,3; Ecl 7:20; Rom 3:12).

Did not Christ himself teach that a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit (Mat 7:17,18; Lk 6:43)?

If the thoughts and intents of man's heart are evil continually, how can he have any inclination to do good (Gen 6:5)?

I will leave you with this final text, which hopefully you will ponder carefully:

Jer 17:9
9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
NASB

Another rhetorical question by the prophet. I would caution you, Supp, that you are deceiving yourself into believing a lie. God will not wink at ignorance. Ignorance isn't a legitimate excuse for not doing what is good -- for living an unrighteous life -- for making poor, misguided spiritual/moral choices. Ignorance isn't a pardonable offense. Ignorance will not be a crutch upon which any us will be able to lean on when standing before the righteous judge of the earth on the last day.

Given what the above passage says, is it any wonder at all that there's a total absence of trust in this world on the horizontal level? How can anything good come out of such a heart? Remember this: Sin, first is most, is an internal spiritual sickness. Sin's roots are in man's heart. Christ teaches us that what proceeds from the heart is what defiles us (Mk 7:20-23). Our conduct is only an outward expression of the iniquity and darkness and evil that lies within.

Boxcar

[Suppositionist]

Suppositionist, good is a gray area. There is no absolute good.

>>>>Of course believers would disagree and claim that God is ultimately the absolute good and that we all tend towards that good even if we do so erroneously at times.

Even Christians disagree on the interpretation of the NT. Though all of them think their interpretation is correct. That is why there are so many sub cult Christianity religions: Catholicism, Baptist (and all the variations of it), etc.

>>>>Are you trying to argue that Christians, or people in general, disagree about what is good? I wouldn’t argue with that, I only claim that whatever folks believe to be good are the only things they tend towards, they never tend intentionally toward what they deem bad.

There is also good and greater good. Take the bombing of Hiroshima. Innocent people died and many that survived had to live terrible lives and have horrible deaths afterward.

But the bombing was for the greater good. It stopped the war. It also prevented the use of the bomb during the Cold War, which could have resulted in the deaths of a lot more innocents, and maybe the end of life on this planet.

>>>>See, another example of people tending toward what they believe is good.

Bible believers and non believers alike are torn when it comes to issues like the death penalty.
In fact, we are torn over the concept of white lies to protect someones feelings.

>>>>Again folks may disagree about what they believe is good but that only will explain or be predictive of what behavior we can expect from them regarding the issue. If they deem something good they will tend towards it, be in favor of it. If they deem what is at issue bad they will tend away from it and be against it.

S

[Suppositionist]

Unfortunately, Supp, your hypothesis leaves much to be desired because too many of those dots cannot logically be connected.

Let's begin with my premise, taken from the bible and Reality as we know it that the universal experience of all men is that we are untrustworthy moral beings -- that all of us are Natural Born Deceivers. This is truly an indisputable fact.

>>>>OK, lets examine that. Why is it that men lie? What are they trying to accomplish through lying? Are they trying to accomplish something good, or bad, for themselves? Notice I didn’t ask what do they ultimately accomplish, only what they intended to accomplish. Everyone who lies is trying to accomplish something good for themselves. They may ultimately accomplish something bad for themselves through their ignorance but that was not their intention. Humans always consciously tend towards what they perceive as good for themselves. They never intentionally tend towards what will be bad for themselves. That is all my post really says and it is an accurate statement of the way thing are. You can disagree but you would be in error. You can claim that this does or does not lead to other conclusions but those would each have to be examined on their own merits.

We all presume that our "neighbors" are deceivers until they prove otherwise -- until they can provide verification for their claims. Your premise above militates violently against this universal experience and the bible's teaching. If your premise was on the mark, then why isn't this "tendency" or "drive towards the good" universally recognized in practical ways by all?

>>>>You misunderstand or over extrapolate about what I was saying. I never said people tend towards what is universally accepted as good, only that they tend towards what they believe will be good for themselves.

If it were, all men would not presume that our neighbors are untrustworthy! Instead, all men would presume that our neighbors are always striving, always working toward that which is good and, therefore, would not presume each other's untrustworthiness. Our tendency would be to give our neighbor the benefit of the doubt. The only way you can try to reconcile these two opposing premises is by saying that untrustworthiness is morally good quality.

>>>>All this is really moot since you apparently misunderstood my point but I must say that this is an extremely negative view of your fellow man and God’s creation and on the contrary, I generally trust my fellow man until such time as they have proved themselves untrustworthy.

Another very weak point to your argument is that it implies Moral Relativism, i.e. "what we perceive as the good". Perception and Reality are often two very different things. Perceiving leaves the door wide ajar for regarding or considering a thing to be something that it really isn't.

>>>>The natural conclusion you could come to from my explanation of they way thing are is that many people treat morals as though they are relative. And that is true, they often do, but I made no claim one way or the other regarding moral relativism I only pointed out how people behave and why, not whether that behavior was right or wrong, good or bad. So the rest of your post merely knocks down your imagined straw man.



Let's take one example, which I'm giving not for the purpose of debating this moral issue -- but use it because it's a good one. Consider the issue of abortions, most especially abortions-on-demand. Abortions for unwanted, inconvenient, unaffordable pregnancies. One side says that this kind of abortion is morally wrong, and can make a very strong case for it. But the other side says that even this kind of abortion is okay (i.e. good) because a woman has a right to decide whether or not she should use her body to give birth to a child. Abortions are morally good things because it protects a woman's ultimate right over her own body -- it protects her "right" to choose. Who is right? Who is wrong? Are both right? Both wrong?

As you yourself have pointed out, Jesus said that he is THE Way, THE Light and THE truth -- all definite articles.

>>>>Actually it is the Life, The Way, The Truth and The Life, not light. (John14 :6)



He didn't say he was merely a way, or a light or a truth among many in this world. He was making absolute statements about himself. In the absence of absolute truth, we are inevitably left with this situation which God condemns:

Isa 5:20-23
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;,
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;,
Who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And clever in their own sight!
22 Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine,
And valiant men in mixing strong drink;
23 Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!
NASB

Another very weak link in your argument for this supposed universal "tendency for good" is your admission that (and now I quote):


Quote:

...it is that men are often ignorant on how to best go about achieving truly good things. They are either ignorant about what is truly good or they know what is good but are ignorant about how to bring those good things into their life.



It appears you're trying to rationalize sin -- that you're trying to launch a defense, as it were, for why sinners sin. That the primary reason sinners "miss the mark" is due to our ignorance. But to coin Mr. CG's phrase, this overlooks the fact that our sin nature makes us willfully ignorant, sir. To be sure, we are now or were at one time all spiritually ignorant because we were all brought forth in iniquity and in sin our mothers conceived us (Ps 51:5).

>>>>No, not a defense, only an understanding of how the human mind often works regarding these things. We need that understanding if we are to address and correct what is wrong. Willful ignorance is a separate issue but there are plenty of people falling short of the mark because they don’t know how to not fall short of the mark. This is no rationalization and they are not being willfully ignorant some are never exposed to some of the things that many others are exposed to. For example some folks never are exposed to a solid moral foundation. What is that but ignorance of morals? So, what of a woman who never had a moral foundation and the question of abortion is put before her. All she knows is it is legal so it is OK. Is she as culpable for the sin as someone with a moral foundation? See what I mean?

Paul told the Ephesians that the Gentiles (unbelievers, unregenerate) have their understanding darkened because of the ignorance in them (Eph 4:18). For this reason, then, the unregenerate (those who have not been born again) cannot understand the things of God. They cannot understand spiritual truth because these things are spiritually appraised (1Cor 2:14). How can the spiritually dead understand anything spiritual!?

You mention how Christ came to set us "free" -- free from what, I would ask? Free from our bondage to sin (Rom 7:14)! The unregenerate are slaves to sin (Rom 6:6ff). All true Christians were formerly under the yoke of slavery before Christ set us free from our bondage (Gal 5:1).

>>>>Is not all that the same as what I said, that we are to be made free of laboring under the burden of our errors, our sins?



Our sin nature makes it impossible for us to have any inclinations, desires or tendencies to do good; for as the prophet wrote:

Jer 13:23
23 "Can the Ethiopian change his skin
Or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good
Who are accustomed to doing evil.
NASB

Obviously, this is a rhetorical question to which the prophet provides his own sarcastic answer in order to forcefully drive home the point. The sad fact is that no one under the sun does good (Ps 14:1,3; 51:1,3; Ecl 7:20; Rom 3:12).

Did not Christ himself teach that a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit (Mat 7:17,18; Lk 6:43)?

If the thoughts and intents of man's heart are evil continually, how can he have any inclination to do good (Gen 6:5)?

I will leave you with this final text, which hopefully you will ponder carefully:

Jer 17:9
9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
NASB
>>>>Dang dude, again this is an extremely negative view of mankind. Get off the negativity. Didn’t Christ say “I have said YOU ARE GODS and all of you sons of the most high” And further did he not also say “Be Ye perfect even as your father in heaven is also perfect”? Now he wouldn’t have said these things if they weren’t true would he? Obviously both potentials are there within man. It is what you dwell on, however, that will most likely be manifested.


Another rhetorical question by the prophet. I would caution you, Supp, that you are deceiving yourself into believing a lie. God will not wink at ignorance. Ignorance isn't a legitimate excuse for not doing what is good -- for living an unrighteous life -- for making poor, misguided spiritual/moral choices. Ignorance isn't a pardonable offense. Ignorance will not be a crutch upon which any us will be able to lean on when standing before the righteous judge of the earth on the last day.

>>>>How do you fix things if you don’t understand what’s broken about them? I would suggest to you that you have a superficial understanding of how and why folks act as they do and what scripture advises we do about it.

Given what the above passage says, is it any wonder at all that there's a total absence of trust in this world on the horizontal level? How can anything good come out of such a heart? Remember this: Sin, first is most, is an internal spiritual sickness. Sin's roots are in man's heart. Christ teaches us that what proceeds from the heart is what defiles us (Mk 7:20-23). Our conduct is only an outward expression of the iniquity and darkness and evil that lies within.

>>>>Actually, what it tells me is that it is pretty apparent why you have such a negative view of your fellow man.

S

[boxcar]

Unfortunately, Supp, your hypothesis leaves much to be desired because too many of those dots cannot logically be connected.

Let's begin with my premise, taken from the bible and Reality as we know it that the universal experience of all men is that we are untrustworthy moral beings -- that all of us are Natural Born Deceivers. This is truly an indisputable fact.

OK, lets examine that. Why is it that men lie? What are they trying to accomplish through lying? Are they trying to accomplish something good, or bad, for themselves? Notice I didn’t ask what do they ultimately accomplish, only what they intended to accomplish. Everyone who lies is trying to accomplish something good for themselves. They may ultimately accomplish something bad for themselves through their ignorance but that was not their intention. Humans always consciously tend towards what they perceive as good for themselves. They never intentionally tend towards what will be bad for themselves. That is all my post really says and it is an accurate statement of the way thing are. You can disagree but you would be in error. You can claim that this does or does not lead to other conclusions but those would each have to be examined on their own merits.

Well, golly gee whiz, Supp, where do the victims of these lies fit into your one-sided equation!? Do not the objects of deceit suffer consequences? You focus on the liar and tell us that he lies because he thinks he's doing something positive -- something good for himself. But a liar must lie to someone. A thief steals from someone. A dishonest act of any kind involves victims. If a liar really believes that his lies will bring good and positive results in his life, I would suggest, sir, that he's quite self-deceived!

A liar and thief have very much in common. A liar is a thief who also steals. People lie most often for the sole purpose of realizing an unjust gain of some sought. Even when they lie to cover up some wrong they did in the past, they're still attempting to gain something for themselves -- whether this be someone's undeserved trust, their own undeserved credibility, undeserved freedom from legal prosecution, freedom from jail time -- they're trying to gain something that is undeserved or unearned. A liar, sir, is no better than a thief!

One of the young members in my church runs the "front office" (or service desk) for a large retail chain. She sometimes tells me some really remarkable stories about her experiences on the job, with some of these relating to cash handling because she processes a lot of large cash transactions. She tells me that almost on a daily basis, people (most especially the older ones) will walk away without collecting their change. If this young lady were a dishonest person, she could have a nice little source of side income for herself. And she could easily rationalize her dishonesty and the inevitable lies that would have to ensue to cover up her actions, since she has a young child and both her and her hubby are barely making ends meet. But she's not a thief, nor is she is a liar.

She also tells me that instead of settling for unjust rewards or gains, which in the end will not yield positive results or blessings or any good thing, she is blessed instead by the gratitude that is often expressed by her absent-minded customers. But even more importantly, she's blessed by God; for he has always provided for her family's needs. He has never let her down. He's always faithful. She finds the greater good not in trying to fulfill her selfish desires, but rather in serving her Lord and Savior. And that, Supp, is the ultimate good.

So, you tell me, sir, who you think has the healthier outlook on life and is happier: The self-deceived, selfish liar who believes his lies will serve him well -- in some positive fashion -- or this young lady who has not a selfish bone in her body, is honest as the day is long and instead has chosen to serve her Lord in all that she does.

As it is written about "unjust gains":

Isa 33:15-17
15 He who walks righteously, and speaks with sincerity,
He who rejects unjust gain ,
And shakes his hands so that they hold no bribe;
He who stops his ears from hearing about bloodshed,
And shuts his eyes from looking upon evil;
16 He will dwell on the heights;
His refuge will be the impregnable rock;
His bread will be given him;
His water will be sure.

17 Your eyes will see the King in His beauty;
NASB

All this is really moot since you apparently misunderstood my point but I must say that this is an extremely negative view of your fellow man and God’s creation...

Perhaps, but one that is well justified in scripture. Point me to one passage that teaches that unsaved, unregenerate sinners are good people. This should be easy for you since you have such a high view of Man.

How do you fix things if you don’t understand what’s broken about them? I would suggest to you that you have a superficial understanding of how and why folks act as they do and what scripture advises we do about it.

I have a very good handle on the human condition and why the human race behaves as it does. But since you think that you have such deep insights into these matters, why don't you share with us what you believe are the remedies?

You misunderstand or over extrapolate about what I was saying. I never said people tend towards what is universally accepted as good, only that they tend towards what they believe will be good for themselves.

Good. Now, we're getting somewhere because this opens the door to the very real possibility of self-deception, most especially since such people would tend to think only about themselves and not the harm their lies would bring to others.


No, not a defense, only an understanding of how the human mind often works regarding these things. We need that understanding if we are to address and correct what is wrong. Willful ignorance is a separate issue but there are plenty of people falling short of the mark because they don’t know how to not fall short of the mark.

They don't know because they are lost and blind and dead in their sins. This is why they're ignorant! If you really want to know why men do what they do, just study the bible.

This is no rationalization and they are not being willfully ignorant some are never exposed to some of the things that many others are exposed to. For example some folks never are exposed to a solid moral foundation. What is that but ignorance of morals? So, what of a woman who never had a moral foundation and the question of abortion is put before her. All she knows is it is legal so it is OK. Is she as culpable for the sin as someone with a moral foundation? See what I mean?

Of course, she's still culpable and will be judged according to the knowledge she does have (Rom 2:1ff)

Dang dude, again this is an extremely negative view of mankind. Get off the negativity.

Don't shoot the messenger, Supp. I didn't write the bible's message. It's a negative view, alright -- but one that is justified by scripture, so I make no apologies.


Didn’t Christ say “I have said YOU ARE GODS and all of you sons of the most high”

Really? So, you think that Jesus is teaching that we mere mortals are gods or God-like? Try understand that verse in its context, and I'd recommend that in order to get a good grasp on the context that you start in John 9 and work your way all the way down through chapter 10.

I'll help you even more, since you probably don't even know to what Jesus meant by the phrase "in your Law". The term "Law" can refer to the entire O.T., as was the case here. Jesus surely was alluding to Psalm 82 in John 10. Read that short Psalm as well, as it will help you to understand how and why the phrase "ye are gods" is used in the context of both passages.

And further did he not also say “Be Ye perfect even as your father in heaven is also perfect”? Now he wouldn’t have said these things if they weren’t true would he? Obviously both potentials are there within man. It is what you dwell on, however, that will most likely be manifested.

Of course the things he said were true. The fault isn't with Jesus; it's with your faulty interpretations!

Jesus isn't talking about potential in either of these passages. In Mat 5:47, he made the concluding remark to that part of his discourse, saying:

Matt 5:48
48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
NASB

He concludes that part of his sermon by telling primarily his disciples that the standard God expects is perfection because it's their moral duty. They are morally obligated. But this duty does not imply that they have any power in and of themselves to fulfill that duty. Even the apostle Paul, as much as he loved Christ, lamented on how often he fell short of the mark. Having said this, however, it must also be said that true Christians -- Christians who truly love Christ -- will consistently strive toward that perfection out of that love for him. They will substantially and essentially obey God's holy law but only because they are empowered (constrained) by the Holy Spirit who indwells them.


I wrote
Another rhetorical question by the prophet. I would caution you, Supp, that you are deceiving yourself into believing a lie. God will not wink at ignorance. Ignorance isn't a legitimate excuse for not doing what is good -- for living an unrighteous life -- for making poor, misguided spiritual/moral choices. Ignorance isn't a pardonable offense. Ignorance will not be a crutch upon which any us will be able to lean on when standing before the righteous judge of the earth on the last day.

Actually, what it tells me is that it is pretty apparent why you have such a negative view of your fellow man.

Again, justifiably so. For as it is written:

Isa 1:2-6
2 Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth;
For the LORD speaks,
"Sons I have reared and brought up,
But they have revolted against Me.
3 "An ox knows its owner,
And a donkey its master's manger,
But Israel does not know,
My people do not understand."

4 Alas, sinful nation, People weighed down with iniquity,
Offspring of evildoers,
Sons who act corruptly!
They have abandoned the LORD,
They have despised the Holy One of Israel,
They have turned away from Him.

5 Where will you be stricken again,
As you continue in your rebellion?
The whole head is sick,
And the whole heart is faint.
6 From the sole of the foot even to the head
There is nothing sound in it,
Only bruises, welts, and raw wounds,
Not pressed out or bandaged,
Nor softened with oil.
NASB

And this passage, sir, is just as easily applied to the spiritual condition of all the lost in this world.

Boxcar

[Suppositionist]

Hi again Boxcar,

You’re a funny guy. Do you carry on conversations this way in real life? Do you notice folks getting exasperated with you a lot? Do you realize you seem to have a tendency to bring up subjects during a conversations that are only vaguely related to the topic at hand? Just wondering.

The first nine paragraphs of your post can be summed up by saying a person on a spiritual basis will be better off than someone who is not and I would agree with that but that was never a subject that I ever addressed in my earlier posts. So while it’s a wonderfully valid point, HELLO, we weren’t talking about that. Granted in those (your) paragraphs there are arguments and conclusions that could be made if the analysis went in those directions you took it, but that in no way speaks to any of the points I made nor refutes them and to imply it does is ridiculous. You do realize that one of the rules of conversation is that the two parties engaging in it need to be talking about the same thing, right?

“Perhaps, but one that is well justified in scripture. Point me to one passage that teaches that unsaved, unregenerate sinners are good people. This should be easy for you since you have such a high view of Man.”

>>>>It is easy: Gen. 1: [31] And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

I have a very good handle on the human condition and why the human race behaves as it does. But since you think that you have such deep insights into these matters, why don't you share with us what you believe are the remedies?
>>>>I already did, remember? Know the truth, the truth will make you free, free from the burden of your sins, your mistakes, your ignorance. Effectively, eliminate ignorance. That and that alone will do more to eliminate the so called evil in this world than anything, and that was effectively my whole point. Its guaranteed to improve your handicapping also.

“Good. Now, we're getting somewhere because this opens the door to the very real possibility of self-deception, most especially since such people would tend to think only about themselves and not the harm their lies would bring to others.”

>>>>Yes, they have self deception, self deception that they are often times ignorant of.

“They don't know because they are lost and blind and dead in their sins. This is why they're ignorant! If you really want to know why men do what they do, just study the bible.”

>>>>That amounts to saying they are ignorant because they are ignorant.

“Of course, she's still culpable and will be judged according to the knowledge she does have (Rom 2:1ff)”

>>>>Then we agree, she is less culpable because she has less knowledge.

“Don't shoot the messenger, Supp. I didn't write the bible's message. It's a negative view, alright -- but one that is justified by scripture, so I make no apologies.”

>>>>Treasures in heaven, Bubb. Where your treasure is, is where your heart will be. Seems at least part of your treasure (what you value) is all the negativity of this world.

“Really? So, you think that Jesus is teaching that we mere mortals are gods or God-like? Try understand that verse in its context, and I'd recommend that in order to get a good grasp on the context that you start in John 9 and work your way all the way down through chapter 10.”

>>>>Does not like beget like? Are we not sons of God? …and the scripture cannot be broken.

“I'll help you even more, since you probably don't even know to what Jesus meant by the phrase "in your Law". The term "Law" can refer to the entire O.T., as was the case here. Jesus surely was alluding to Psalm 82 in John 10. Read that short Psalm as well, as it will help you to understand how and why the phrase "ye are gods" is used in the context of both passages.”

>>>>I’d say YOU need to read Psalm 82 …Arise O God.!

Of course the things he said were true. The fault isn't with Jesus; it's with your faulty interpretations!

>>>>LOL

Jesus isn't talking about potential in either of these passages. In Mat 5:47, he made the concluding remark to that part of his discourse, saying:

>>>>The whole Sermon is about potential….and realizing it.

Matt 5:48
48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
NASB

He concludes that part of his sermon by telling primarily his disciples that the standard God expects is perfection because it's their moral duty. They are morally obligated. But this duty does not imply that they have any power in and of themselves to fulfill that duty. Even the apostle Paul, as much as he loved Christ, lamented on how often he fell short of the mark. Having said this, however, it must also be said that true Christians -- Christians who truly love Christ -- will consistently strive toward that perfection out of that love for him. They will substantially and essentially obey God's holy law but only because they are empowered (constrained) by the Holy Spirit who indwells them.
>>>>So The Sermon on the Mount was for the disciples and He was basically telling them to do something that was impossible just so they would keep striving for that impossible to achieve carrot? RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT! And you think my interpretations are faulty?

“Again, justifiably so. For as it is written:

Isa 1:2-6
2 Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth;
For the LORD speaks,
"Sons I have reared and brought up,
But they have revolted against Me.
3 "An ox knows its owner,
And a donkey its master's manger,
But Israel does not know,
My people do not understand."

4 Alas, sinful nation, People weighed down with iniquity,
Offspring of evildoers,
Sons who act corruptly!
They have abandoned the LORD,
They have despised the Holy One of Israel,
They have turned away from Him.

5 Where will you be stricken again,
As you continue in your rebellion?
The whole head is sick,
And the whole heart is faint.
6 From the sole of the foot even to the head
There is nothing sound in it,
Only bruises, welts, and raw wounds,
Not pressed out or bandaged,
Nor softened with oil.
NASB

And this passage, sir, is just as easily applied to the spiritual condition of all the lost in this world.”

>>>>"You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men.

>>>>You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Its your choice which passages you want to dwell on. There was a reason for the rewrite (the NT).

S

[Investorater]

John Rice-The worship in Revelation chapter IV (4) verses 9-11 is because of creation (vs.11).Rev. Chapter 6 (VI),verses 1,2. Here we come to the revelation of the plagues that will be on the earth after the saints are to be taken out.The Great Tribulation is pictured in Exodus.A careful study of this subject has shown how the plagues in Egypt were typical of the coming plagues,with Pharaoh a type of the Antichrist and Moses a type of Jesus.Bible scholars generally agree that the seven seals will cover the first 3 1/2 years of the Tribulation and that the seven trumpets come somewhere in the midst of this period and that the vial judgements will come near the end of the last 3 1/2 years of tribulation.The first judgement is that Christ allows a man to appear on earth who will pose as a "savior of the world."He will be the Antichrist.He is mentioned in this Scripture as the rider of the White Horse.Notice that he is described as carrying a bow but no arrow.This may indicate that he will be a man supposedly coming on a mission of peace.Certainly the color of this mount,white,portrays his supposedly holy pure,and peaceful pretensions.How will he become so popular?This is how it will happen.There will be a great peace movement throughout the world.People will be tired of war and will be seeking peace.

[Investorater]

Actually the Tribulation Period will begin with a public appearance by Antichrist.This individual will eventually become the head of the Federated States of Europe.To those living at that time he will not be revealed to them as the Antichrist nor will the name of the cooperating countries necessarily be known exactly as the "Federated States of Europe."In fact,the Antichrist will be looked on with great admiration.This is described quite fully in 2 Thessalonians,chapter 2.Antichrist will assert his great authority and power by attempting to settle the Arab-Israeli dispute.He will side with Israel in backing her claim to the land of Palestine against Russia which in Scriptures is mentioned as the Northern Confederacy.It will be the Northern Confederacy that backs the Arab's claim to Palestine.This is described in Ezekiel 38:1 to 39:16.Though God has not chosen to reveal all of the details on how exactly these things will come to pass,it SEEMS that when the Federated States of Europe announce their support for Israel in the coming Arab-Israeli dispute(in order to prevent the Russian invasion)you will then know that we are near the Rapture(if it hasn't already occurred)when the saints will rise from the earth to be with Christ.And therefore,if we are near the Rapture then the events of the Tribulation Period will soon be unfolding..The world is now preparing for the final great dictator,the man of sin who will arise and reign until smitten by the Lord Jesus at His return with saints and angels to fight the battle of Armageddon and reign on earth.Other dictators all point toward and foreshadow this dictator.Evidently the man on the horse in Rev.6:2 is the antichrist arising.He is the little horn of Daniel 7:8,20,21,24,25,the prince of Dan.9:26,27,the man of sin of 2 Thess.2:3.Notice from 2 Thess.2:6-8 that this man on the white horse cannot be revealed to the world in his true light until after the Holy Spirit is taken out at the rapture of the saints.So in Revelation it comes after Rev.4:1,2.The white horse is a symbol of kingship,but make sure that the horseman in verse 2 is not the same as the one in Revelation 19:11-16. The Antichrist must reign first,and then the Lord Jesus Christ will reign.

[Investorater]

Charts On Revelation by Salem Kirban 1981

[hcap]

Investorater,

Does recognizing the "Antichrist" require testing ones' ability to read through extremely long one paragraph, poorly punctuated posts?

Even Boxcar, who I disagree with 95% of the time, makes some effort to make his posts readable. I would like to be able to read your posts without eye or brain strain. Paragraphs were created to "frame" a thought. And increase clarity.

Thank you, hcap

[boxcar]

Hi again Boxcar,

You’re a funny guy. Do you carry on conversations this way in real life? Do you notice folks getting exasperated with you a lot? Do you realize you seem to have a tendency to bring up subjects during a conversations that are only vaguely related to the topic at hand? Just wondering.

You're getting exasperated because you're incapable of refuting my basic premise in post #100 -- that men are Natural Born Deceivers. Even with you lame attempt at rationalizing away this universal truth, you can't help but prove my premise! When you say, for example, that men, in their "ignorance" will often take a course of action that they "think" is good -- that they "think" will bring them positive results -- that their "intentions" are good, then you only give affirmation to the fact that Man is utterly self-deceived. Such people deceive themselves into believing that a course of action is good or will result in good when it will not. Man deceives, is being deceived and is self-deceived. And no ultimate good can come from Deceit -- either to Deceiver or to the Deceived.

Furthermore, you totally ignored my later argument that when such people go busily about seeking what they "think" is good for only themselves, such are people are selfish, self-absorbed and self-centered, having no concern for the detrimental effects their lies will have on others. Lies have objects, and these objects will often suffer harm. Wherein is the good in this?

Moreover, your premise that people are basically good or at the very least have this great potential for good flies in the face of the universal human experience, which presumes that all people are deceivers until proven otherwise. This supposed potential for good or some innate goodness within Man is not universally recognized and acted upon in practical ways. Rather, Distrust for our fellow man is; therefore we act accordingly by requiring at every human level of our relationships positive verification of our claims, by utilizing the conventions of treaties, contracts, etc. These kinds of requirements do not speak to the trustworthiness of Man, but rather to our basic distrust for our fellow man.

You also ignored my argument that liars are no better than thieves because liars, like thieves, are seeking unjust gains -- gains that are unearned or undeserved in some respect.

I wrote:
Perhaps, but one that is well justified in scripture. Point me to one passage that teaches that unsaved, unregenerate sinners are good people. This should be easy for you since you have such a high view of Man.

It is easy: Gen. 1: [31] And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

I see clearly now that you have a strong proclivity for interpreting texts out of their context. Sir, texts interpreted apart from their contexts are merely pretexts.

God saw that everything he made was very good prior to the Fall -- before sin entered the world!. If everything was still good afterward, then why did God banish Adam and Eve from the Garden -- from his presence? Why did God pronounce his three curses -- upon the Serpent, upon Adam and upon Eve? Why would God curse that which is "very good"!? Why would God punish Adam and Eve with miseries, sorrows, sufferings, hardships and ultimately death, if they were still "very good" after the Fall?

Since I perceive that you have deceived yourself into believing many lies, I don't see very much point in continuing this discussion, especially since you made no attempt to offer an explanation for the "you are gods" phrase in the contexts of the passages in which this phrase is found. Any simpleton can pull passages out of their contexts to prove their points or premises. But I will not participate in these kinds of foolish, mindless games.

Ciao,
Boxcar