Christianity - 2005/12/07 16:22Well my version of Christianity is Rationalistic, and I believe in the Immanence of God.
Every aspect of my beliefs can either be proven necessarily and or sufficiently through empirical science. Equally every aspect of my beliefs can either be proven to be explicitly and or implicitly taught in the Bible.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17) "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."
"It is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify." - Galileo Galilei
Reason must be used to understand anything. It is not enough to say "the bible says this and the bible says that" we must actually understand what it says. Those who disagree with this fundimental principle have no problem believing two contradictory ideas at the same time. In which case there is little point in proving the illogic of an idea they hold because it never took logic or reason for them to hold the belief in the first place.
"Rationalism may signify confidence in the intelligible, orderly character of the world and in the mind's ability to discern such order. ["For God is [a God], not of disorder..."(1 Corinthians 14:33)] It is opposed by irrationalism, a view that either denies meaning and coherence in reality or discredits the ability of reason to discern such coherence... In religion, rationalism is the view that recognizes as true only that content of faith that can be made to appeal to reason." - http://www.answers.com/rationalism Rationalism
"I have found no better expression than 'religious' for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism." - Einstein
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Einstein
"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe--a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." - Einstein
"This deep intuitive conviction of the existence of a higher power of thought which manifests itself in the inscrutable universe represents the content of my definition of God." - Einstein
(Hebrews 11:1)
"Now faith is the substantiating of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." - Darby
"Now faith is the grounds of things, which are hoped for, and the euidence of things which are not seene." - Geneva
Please notice that without substantiation and evidence there is no faith. The Greek word here translated "faith" is pistis, it means; persuasion, credence, conviction, or simply belief. Our beliefs must be based of things which are proven!
Paul argues this in another way;
'What may be known about God is manifest because God made it manifest. His invisible [qualities], even his eternal power and Godship, are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made.' (Romans 1:19-20)
(Acts 17:28) "For by him we have life and move and exist, even as certain ones of the poets among YOU have said, ‘For we are also his progeny.’"
Please note that the apostle Paul here quotes and espouses the doctrine of God's Immanence from the text of Stoic philosophers;
(Epimenides' Cretica 'Cretan') "Thou livest and abidest forever, for in thee we live and move and have our being." Paul himself calls Epimenides a "prophet" (Titus 1:12).
(Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus) "For we are Thy offspring, taking the image only of Thy voice, as many mortal things as live and move upon the earth."
(Aratus' Phænomena 'Natural Appearances') "For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus. Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity. Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus. For we are indeed his offspring."
Consider Jeremiah, for he shares similar expressions as Aratus;
(Jeremiah 23:24) “Or can any man be concealed in places of concealment and I myself not see him?” is the utterance of Jehovah. “Is it not the heavens and the earth that I myself actually fill?” is the utterance of Jehovah.
Is the apostle Paul correct in his belief of an Immanent, Eternal, All-power-ful, Omnipresent, Being who is "clearly seen" and "manifest" to us by the physical realities we perceive?
Consider the material universe. It is generally held that the material universe (as we know it; with galaxies, stars and planetary systems) at one time did not exist.
Yet, the substance of what comprises the material universe (specifically energy) has been shown in experiments to be uncreatedable and indestructable. We have come to call this phenomenon the first Law of Physics; the law of conservation of energy.
Besides this, it logically follows that all things are made of something (once again, energy), and that nothing can be made from nothing. "Nothing" does not involve existence, it does not exist in reality. So what does exist, the substance of existence must necessarily be omnipresent. These observations also require that the substance of existence be uncreatable and indestructable.
The transformation of energy is power. All power involves the transformation of energy. Therefore energy is integrally all power-ful.
These facts alone make energy ubiquitous, eternal, and formable.
Now for there to exist an eternal, all powerful, omnipresent being such as God, either God is energy or God is co-eternal, co-all powerful, co-omnipresent with energy, which is absurd. Therefore God is energy and necessarily exists.
Another proof, consider the second law of physics;
Transformation of Energy (Power, Thought); Whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a force (the gradient of a potential) exists which causes ordering of formations of energy that increase dissipation or minimize the force. Whenever an energy distribution is in equilibrium it causes all ordered formations of energy to transform toward a state of inert uniformity. http://www.entropylaw.com/
Max Planck said "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds... the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
From the second Law we see that every force is caused by a power, thought of God, continuous transformation of energy, which is able to maintain ordered formations of energy. Hence without the Mind of God holding matter together it would transform toward inert uniformity or in other words, dematerialize. Equally it could not have formed without the Intellect of God in the first place. And every ordered formation of matter is maintained, dissolved, or created by the same means from a higher ordered process.
Another proof, consider intelligent design;
The composition, geometry and arrangement of parts of objects intelligently designed do not form from insensate phenomena.
For example; a simple NOT complex; stop sign. The composition of a stop sign is usually some carbon steel with red and white paint. The geometry is a particularly thin sheet of uniform thickness in a perfect octagon.
Ask yourself this straightforward question; Can a stop sign form from insensate phenomena? For example; are there any volcanoes spewing out 2000 plus fereheight carbon steel in perfect geometries of thin sheet octagons? If so, is there any process that can place petro-chemical paints in unsmeared perfect shapes onto one of the objects sides?
The answer is no, it cannot form from any insensate phenomena we know of. Some nihilistic sophists would argue; it can form from insensate phenomena we have no knowledge of because we do not have absolute knowledge of all things. Pragmatically speaking, this level of criticism makes all beliefs unprovable assumptions because any belief can be countered from the ignorance of possibilities imagined. No matter how unrealistic. That sort of ignorance belongs to the idiocy hall of fame. Stop signs do not and never will form from insensate phenomena. It is as simple as that.
I have suffieciently proven that something can be intelligently designed. We did not arise from an acident of God's nature. For NO theory of life arising from insensate phenomena nor macro evolution assessed through mathematical or computational biology has been substantiated. The likelihood of the formation of living organisms from insensate phenomena has been demonstrated to be grossly negligible. (see calculations and quotes in my blog called "intelligent design")
Nobel laureate Francis Crick, evolutionist and co-discoverer of the DNA structure, stated, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle,"
Intelligent design holds the statistical complement of life arising from insensate phenomena; In other words, we can say with certainty there is a Creator.
(1) God is defined in the bible as an infinite (eternal, omnipresent,..etc), and all powerful being; (Does such an entity really exist?)
(2) All in existence is essentially energy which implies infinite (eternal, omnipresent,...etc) energy is existence.
Note: Some assume that space is "nothing"; How can "nothing" pertain to existence? Nothing does not exist in reality. Space is infact a fabric that can be warped... All forms of energy (intertial mass) are the result of forming from this fabric finite modes which produce an elastic warping of space we call gravity. Space does not have a definite finite form though it does have an infinite gradient curveture associated with the finite modes made from it. Space is the same substance as all forms of energy... including matter.
(3) Gradient energy involves all power which implies energy is integrally all powerful.
(4) Infinite energy thats integrally all powerful is existence and God is defined in the bible as infinite and all powerful being. These are true statements.
(5) In union with (4); Wherefore energy is not in God, nor is energy equivalent to God, which is absurd.
(6) From (4) we infer that energy is in God, or energy is equivalent to God which implies God is existence.
(7) Logos is a subset of the infinite being which implies gradient power (creation) was on purpose.
Here is the key;
One of the most methodical proofs of God's existence is found in the work of Spinoza's ethics; http://www.answers.com/spinoza
PROP. XVI. From the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways--that is, all things which can fall within the sphere of infinite intellect.
PROP. XXXV. God loves himself with an infinite intellectual love.
Your welcome to investigate the full proofs yourself. The only addition I would make to Spinoza's work is that regarding Jesus; For Spinoza was a Jew and therefore lacked certain understanding that is grasped only through Jesus.
For example in my propositional calculus on equation seven;
Logos is the only begotten of the infinite being. In other words Jesus is the only creation which follows exclusively from the necessity of God's nature. All subsequent creation was produced through this mode who is an intelligent being who acts on purpose; for he is not infinite nor all powerful hence, pursues things and lives on purpose. From the necessity of God's nature a finite intelligent being was created who himself creates on purpose. Therefore God is the cause of the purpose of creation from the necessity of his nature.
The reason this is relevent is because some who have contemplated the infinite being have suggested the characteristics of a personal God found in the bible cannot be attributed to this being. That is God cannot become finite, nor can he act in any way except through necessity. So it is through Jesus that the characteristics of a personal God are validated. Jesus was the one who walked with Adam in the garden of Eden. It is Jesus who can have finite form and act on purpose.
Jesus is the formost transformation of God (John 1),
Through Jesus the "master worker" all that we know of was created, first being the angels (grunt labor if you will), who subsequently took part in the creation of the material universe. "When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?" (Job 38:7) (Proverbs 8:30)
The "holy spirit" is the angels! (just as the "wicked spirit" is the demons)
To understand this, meditate on these scriptures;
(1 Corinthians 14:12) So also YOU yourselves, since YOU are zealously desirous of spirits, seek to abound in them for the upbuilding of the congregation.
(1 Corinthians 14:32) And spirits of prophets are subject to prophets
(Hebrews 1:14) Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?
(Revelation 22:6) And he said to me: “These words are faithful and true; yes, Jehovah the God of the spirits of the prophets sent his angel forth to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place.
(2 Peter 1:21) For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.
I can show you many scriptures that demonstrate the fact that angels do every single thing the "holy spirit" is said to do and that the quality or character term before or after the term spirit indicates the nature or purpose of the spirit(s) activity.
Let me say this again; The angels are the holy spirit. The holy spirit is nothing else except the angels!
Our life is both materially as well as spiritually, sybiotic; That is we are all ONE together with God, Jesus, the angels, and even other material organisms.
We cannot materially live without the sybiotic organisms in our body. We share a similar existence with all other existing beings;
That is we are the material expression of God. What we create is through God and by God.
Who really created the Universe? God? Jesus? the angels?... The answer is we are all one. We are all just different modes and expression of the ONE God.
Just as God begot lots of stuff and Jesus, Jesus begot lots of stuff and angels, angels begot lots of stuff and humans, humans begot lots of stuff and computers?, computers begot lots of stuff and ?????.
Yet this is all the creation by God.
My latest studies are on prayer; scientically speaking prayer is a form of self-hypnosis. But I am desirous of learning how to access exterior manifest reality. I have already learned how to control individual cells, or groups of cells in my body to a small degree. I am wondering if exterior manifest reality can only be accessed through the angels in some sort of symbiotic communication.
(Genesis 1:21) "And God proceeded to create the great reptiles..."
The dragons or dinos existed before the flood and possibly some even after it; I do not believe dino blood cells, blood vessels, and connective tissue could last 68 MILLION years. A few thousand, maybe.
The children of the angels are the neanderthal (Genesis 6); We existed before them, they have larger brain cavities, stronger muscles, they were canabolistic and very violent, the mtDNA demonstrates we did not or could not productively mate with them, nor did we 'evolve' from them. And pragmatically speaking we would have evolved to them because they were superior in every physical way. They all died off "some how" which is clearly explained by the flood;
God destroyed the children of the angels on October 31, or Novermber 1 by global flood. Hollows Eve, All saints day, and All souls day come from the original demonic commemoration of there childrens death. "many of these customs predate Christianity, going back to Celtic practices associated with Nov. 1... Witches and other evil spirits were believed to roam the earth on this evening, playing tricks on human... Bonfires were lit, offerings were made of dainty foods and sweets, and people would disguise themselves as one of the roaming spirits, to avoid demonic persecution." - http://www.answers.com/halloween
(Genesis 7:11) "...in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." “Second month.” Following the Exodus from Egypt, when Jehovah gave the Israelites the sacred calendar, this became the eighth month, known as Bul, corresponding to the latter half of October and first half of November.
I am sure there is more... but that should be sufficent for anyone to want further clarification or if they want to disprove my positions.
peace and love,
Mars
ps. I just joined a debate forum, and thought I would share my relevant post here too.
Re:Christianity - 2005/12/07 17:51Do you mind posting the link to the debate forum? Im interested in your use of science to prove there is a god so I can try and further convince my atheist buddy. Peace, Dodger
| | The topic has been locked.
polemotheos
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 530
Re:Christianity - 2005/12/07 19:56Dodger wrote: Do you mind posting the link to the debate forum? Im interested in your use of science to prove there is a god so I can try and further convince my atheist buddy. Peace, Dodger I will post all relevant comments in this forum but here is the link;
Re:Christianity - 2005/12/08 17:06Thanks, I will log in from time to time to check it out. Very interesting and faith strengthening so far. Peace brother Turner.
| | The topic has been locked.
polemotheos
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 530
Re:Christianity - 2005/12/13 23:40<blockquote>Does Mars allow for God's grace to play any part in man's salvation? A unbeliever can provide arguments for God, but there will always be room for the unbeliever to reject God. The theist can never persuade someone to believe in God, only God's grace can accomplish such deeds, for man in totally depraved.2 The dead do not need advice they need to be born again by God.</blockquote> (Acts 8:30-31) Philip ... said: “Do you actually know what you are reading?” He [the Ethiopian] said: “Really, how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?”
It is true, it is by God's grace we have the opportunity to learn the truth. However, God uses his servants to share the truth.
(Romans 10:14-15) However, how will they call on him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent forth? Just as it is written: “How comely are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!”
How can someone be born again without faith? How can someone have faith in something they have not heard? How will they hear without someone to teach them?
<blockquote>Faith can never be based on reason, it can only be supported by it.</blockquote> If our beliefs are not based on reason, they need not be supported by reason.
<blockquote>Furthermore, just because we are incapable of understanding these aspects of God it does not follow that they are unreasonable, they are simply beyond our understanding.</blockquote> What we do not understand we do not really know.
If you do not understand that God exists you do not know God exists. You are an atheist in disguise.
<blockquote>Nothing happens in contradiction to nature, only in contradiction to what we know of it.</blockquote> If any transformation of energy does not follow from an insensate phenomena it requires intelligence to produce such a transformation. This follows from my proof of intelligent design.
<blockquote>First off, Mars' worldview is metaphysically indistinguishable from atheism. Both are one eternal self-contained system, Mars just so happens to want to throw some religious significance into it.</blockquote> "In English, believers usually refer to the monotheistic god as "God". In many philosophical and/or esoteric interpretations of monotheism or henotheism, God is not thought of as a supernatural being — as a deity or god; rather, God becomes a reified philosophical category: the All, the One, the Ultimate, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, the Divine Ground, Being or Existence itself, etc. For example, such views are typical of pantheism, panentheism, and religious monism. Attributing anthropomorphic characteristics to God may be regarded as idolatry, blasphemy, or symbolism. Some theists may not believe in, or may even deny, the existence of deities as supernatural beings, while maintaining a belief in god as so conceived. For example, the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich described God as the 'ground of Being', the 'power of Being', or as 'Being itself', and caused controversy by making the statement "God does not exist", resulting in him occasionally being labelled an atheist. Nevertheless, for Tillich, God is not 'a' being that exists among other beings, but is Being itself. For him, God does not 'exist'; God is the basis of Being, the metaphysical power by which Being triumphs over non-Being. Some atheists who deny the existence of deities as supernatural beings would also deny this and similar conceptions of God, or consider them incomprehensible." - http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67
It is intresting to hear people say they worship God and at the same time claim to be atheists. At least many of us agree such a God as found in your irrational beliefs, does not exist.
<blockquote>science is based on observation, the statement that energy cannot cannot be created or destroyed is not based on observation. The First Law of Thermodynamics should say that, "As far as we can observe the amount of actual energy in the universe stays constant."</blockquote> "I have found no better expression than 'religious' for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism." - Einstein
You are arguing a nihilistic belief of reality. Essentially you are arguing that nothing can be proven.
<blockquote>Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. If this is so then the universe is running down and it must of, at one time, had a beginning.</blockquote> The second law does not state any such rubish.
The second law refers to the transformation of energy;
(2) Transformation of Energy (Power, Thought); Whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a force (the gradient of a potential) exists which causes ordering of formations of energy that increase dissipation or minimize the force. Whenever an energy distribution is in equilibrium it causes all ordered formations of energy to transform toward a state of inert uniformity. http://www.entropylaw.com/
You are only thinking of half of the law.
<blockquote>Finally, creation is out of nothing.4 Ex nihilo nihil, “From nothing, nothing comes.”
(1) This simply means that something cannot be caused by nothing. Not that something cannot come after nothing.
God is the sole source of creation, only God can create something from nothing. God is the universe's First Cause. How does Mars get around verses such as Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 11:3, and Genesis 1:1? Those verses clearly state that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(2) Furthermore, the Hebrew here denotes bringing about something that is totally new, something that never existed before.</blockquote> (1) You must demonstrate that something can be <b>made</b> from nothing.
Forms of energy are not made of nothing! They are made of the substance of existence which is energy.
(2) Would you claim that matter has always existed? Could then the formation of the material universe from energy be called the creation of the material universe?
Proof.--Besides God, no substance is granted or can be conceived (by Prop. xiv.), that is (by Def. iii.) nothing which is in itself and is conceived through itself. But modes (by Def. v.) can neither be, nor be conceived without substance; wherefore they can only be in the divine nature, and can only through it be conceived. But substances and modes form the sum total of existence (by Ax. i.), therefore, without God nothing can be, or be conceived. Q.E.D.
<blockquote>What does Mars mean when he states we are all one? And why does he keep going on about created beings? The two seem contradictory, if we are really all one then God is finite and infinite at the same time. Nonsense. Would Mars posit that there really are no finite beings?</blockquote> Substance is infinite, forms thereof are finite.
<blockquote>In the Bible David defines man as the purpose, the pinnacle, of God's creation (Psalm 8).</blockquote> It says no such thing.
<blockquote>John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Colossians 1:17; and Hebrews 13:8, for these all speak of Jesus as having eternal existence.</blockquote> (John 1:1) "In [the] beginning the Word was..." Beginning of creation? What about before the beginning? Only the Father was?
Yes Jesus is "...the beginning of the creation by God." (Revelation 3:14)
<blockquote>(1) The sons of God, or sons of angels,
show themselves to the Lord in Job 1:6 and 2:1. These same "sons" are addressed as seeing the foundations of the earth laid in Job 38:7. Quite odd for neanderthal to be around at that time. Furthermore, Genesis 6:4 clearly states that they did have sexual relations and even had offspring with women.
(2) Finally, these sons of God still receive mention after the flood. Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and 1 and 2 Samuel all speak of them although they all seem to be in the land of Canaan. After the conquests of Moses, Joshua, and finally David into the land they are never spoken of again. The claim that the sons of angels were neandrathal seems rather contradictory to the Bible.</blockquote> This is a total mental fart;
(1) "sons of God" and "sons of angels" are NOT synonomous. The "sons of God" are the angels! However the sons of the angels are humanoid mighty ones!
(2) I am having a hard time not calling you names.
Nephilim means feller, or those who cause others to fall down. Anyone that is mighty and violent can be called a feller. However the children of the angels were destroyed in the flood. The fellers spoken of latter in the bible are never called children of the sons of God.
<blockquote>The Hebrew used here is nephesh which refers to <b>creatures that have a soul (reptiles are not included)</b>. Or at least most of the time it does, for there are cases such as Leviticus 11:46 <b>where it refers to all living creatures</b> (below man). Such is not the case with Genesis 1:21. 5 <b>Dinosaurs receive no mention in the creation account</b>, which makes sense once one realizes the purpose of the Bible; to provide man with God's plan of salvation. Something which Mars wants to replace with a scientific journal.</blockquote> Your giberish about nephesh was completely irrelevant. Then you preceed to contradict yourself.
The relevant phrase is gaw-dole' tan-neen' which in a sublinear is "the-great-ones" "the-monsters"; Both in Strong's and Brown-Driver-Briggs there is the word dragon for the expression tan-neen'.
<blockquote>Mars and AiG are making huge leaps with these T Rex fossils.
(1) If this tissue was fresh it would not be that reddish color, fresh tissue and blood vessels are transparent.
In the comparison of the T Rex femur to the ostrich they had to dye the ostrich tissue to achieve that coloring. They had to use proteolytic enzymes on the ostrich tissue as well to release the blood vessels, while on the T Rex they did not. This would show that the T Rex collagen had already degraded. When treated the tissue did return to a state similar to it's original condition which suggests that it was desiccated.
(2) It's really nothing more than lucky happenstance that the tissue was preserved.7</blockquote> (1) Who is claiming it is fresh? That is called a stick man. Any creationist would claim it is atleast thousands of years old.
(2) Yes the blood cells, blood vessels, and connective tissue was amazingly preserved for 70 <b>MILLION</b> years. This is a perfect example of your kind of faith.
Re:Christianity - 2005/12/18 22:11<blockquote>that passage of Genesis strictly refers to soulish creatures. Reptiles are not soulish creatures, they are simply a physical bodies that contain the nervous, digestive, respiratory, circulatory, and reproductive systems. The passage in Leviticus 11:46 denotes no such context and it refers to its broader form. Furthermore, every version of the Bible I find translates gadowl tanniyn as whales. Whales fits the description of a mammal (nephesh) and it fits with the context. If you keep reading it states that these creatures were in the sea, not on land.</blockquote> What is the anatomical difference between a creature that is a soul and one that is not? You do not know, nor do you understand what soul means. Every creature is a soul. Notice I did not say it has a soul but rather it is one. Just as we are souls. I wonder if we are going to have to debate the doctrine of an immortal soul my Platonic friend. Besides where in the bible is there a description of the creation of the non-soul creatures, if your dogma is to fit reality?
Notice just a few of the other places in the bible were tan-neen' is used;
(<b>KJV-1611</b>
(Psalm 74:13,14) Thou didst diuide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the <b>dragons</b> in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of Leuiathan in pieces, and gauest him to bee meat to the people inhabiting the wildernesse.
(Nehemiah 2:13) And I went out by night, by the gate of the valley, euen before the <b>dragon</b> well, and to the doung-port, and viewed the walls of Ierusalem, which were broken downe, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.
(Isaiah 27:1) In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sworde shall punish Leuiathan the piercing serpent, euen Leuiathan that crooked serpent, and hee shall slay the <b>dragon</b> that is in the Sea.
(Isaiah 51:9) Awake, awake, put on strength, O arme of the Lord, awake as in the ancient dayes, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the <b>dragon</b>?
(Ezekiel 29:3) Speake and say, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great <b>dragon</b> that lieth in the middest of his riuers, which hath saide, My riuer is mine owne, and I haue made it for my selfe.
Was the Leviathan a whale? Since when do whales live in or around rivers?
The simple fact is; tan-neen' can clearly be translated dragon (reptile). And it follows preciesely from scriptural presedent to do so in the case of;
(Genesis 1:21) And God proceeded to create the great dragons and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.
Notice how the KJV (and many others) translates "and every living <b>soul</b> that moves about";
"and every living <b>creature</b> that moveth"
Notice soul and creature are synonamous. That is not a coincidence.
<blockquote>What was before the beginning [of creation]? This is a nonsense question. If there was something before the beginning [of creation] then that beginning [of creation] was not really so.</blockquote> Are you suggesting that God only came into existence when the universe came into being? Or am I more correct; That God existed before the creation of the universe? Jesus only existed in the beginning of the creation, not before it. For Jesus is begotten and hence the son not the Father.
<blockquote>As for Revelations 3:14, the Greek here is archer signifies the one who was source of all creation, or the architect of all creation. Note Revelations 21:4-6 , it uses the same exact term. Shall we also believe that the Father is a creation?</blockquote>
(Revelation 3:14) Jesus is "...the beginning <b>of the creation by God</b>..."
(Revelation 21:6) "...the beginning and the end..." of what?
When arche is in the nominative case it is always translated "beginning" as correctly found in every translation of Revelation 3:14 and everywhere else.
If the bible writer wanted to mean "archetect" he would have used the Greek word archetekton. Nice try though.
<blockquote>For we are called “to <b>give an answer</b> to everyone who asks you to give the <b>REASON</b> for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander” (1 Peter 3:15).... 2 Timothy 2:24-25: “And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, <b>able to teach</b>, not resentful. Those who oppose him <b>he must gently instruct</b>, in the hope that God will grant them repentance <b>leading them to a knowledge of the truth</b>.”</blockquote>
Amen
<blockquote>(1) Alright, I completely misread what you wrote and I conceed that yes, I did have a “total mental fart.” I quickly call mulligan and hope to go again. I know this is a “formal” debate so if you want to take the score here, then go ahead.
(2) The Nephilim go by many names, including Rephiam (or sons of Rapha), Anakites, and Anakim, they are also referred to as “the giants.” Goliath, a giant who stood over nine feet was a descendent of Rapha, indicating that we could reproduce with the Nephilim. Furthermore, Numbers 13 describe the descendents of Anak as powerful giants, 2 Samuel 21:16-22; Deuteronomy 2:10-11; 3:11 tell of them as well. They did exist after the flood. May I ask why you believe that God flooded the “earth” and punished the entire human race because of their sins? Genesis 6:5-13 stresses that the sons of God and the Nephilim were only part of the problem. For, “All the people on earth had corrupted their ways, ” and “every inclination of the thoughts” of every human heart “was only evil all the time.” As I showed before they existed even after the flood, so it's quite obvious that the sole purpose of the flood was for humanity, God used other means to dispatch of the Nephilim; the armies of Abraham's descendants.
(3) As far as I can find, there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that points to them being the neandrathal, or the date of the flood. This is a debate on if your position is Biblical. You might as well start arguing that Eve was a blonde or about the type of wood Christ was crucified on.</blockquote> (1) Point noted. 1 and 0 baby, yeah!
(2) Do I get a point if I have to repeat myself? <blockquote>Nephilim means feller, or those who cause others to fall down. Anyone that is mighty and violent can be called a feller. <b>However the children of the angels were destroyed in the flood. The fellers spoken of latter in the bible are never called children of the sons of the [true] God (angels).</b></blockquote>
(3) As far as you can distort my argument about the children of the angels.
But about the date of the flood; <blockquote>(Genesis 7:11) "...in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." “Second month.” Following the Exodus from Egypt, when Jehovah gave the Israelites the sacred calendar, this became the eighth month, known as Bul, corresponding to the latter half of October and first half of November.</blockquote> Do you disagree, if so why?
<blockquote>I would like everyone to note a continuing pattern in Mars' responses. He never really addresses the Scripture he just continues to rattle off verses and arguments that “support” his position. I am going to ask again for Mars to explain these verses that speak of Christ's eternal existence.</blockqoute> Citing a list of scriptures is not an argument. Don't get lazy on me. Heck you didnt even quote the scriptures. Why don't you explain them and demonstrate why they are relevent to your proof. Besides I did explain one of your verses and we are currently arguing about it.
<blockquote>You posit that God created us and we created computers. These are not the same types of creation. God brought us and the material out of nothing, out of something that never existed before. We created computers out of preexisting materials. We did not give them ... anything ... that has never existed before.</blockquote> Have digital processors always existed? If not, does that mean we created them out of nothing? Or did we use silicon wafers as the substance to form them from?
You said; <blockquote>In the Bible David defines man as <b>the purpose, the pinnacle, of God's creation</b> (Psalm 8).</blockquote>
I said; <blockquote>It says no such thing</blockquote>
You quote and say; <blockquote>Psalm 8:4-9 What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
Please explain this Psalm to me Mars.</blockquote> This scriptures does not say we are the purpose and pinnacle of God's creation.
<blockquote>I noticed that you used Acts 17:28 to state that Paul believed in a pantheistic worldview. Looking at Acts 17:24 we see that Paul is referring to a “God who made the world and everything in it.” You believe that God is the world and everything in it. This obviously destroys all attempts to argue that Paul was a pantheist. Paul is simply saying that we have our being “in Him, ” not that we are in fact God. God is the originating (Colossians 1:17) Cause, and “sustaining” (Hebrews 1:3) Cause of all thing. Moreover, Paul was an orthodox Jew, a strict monotheist. He believed that God from which “all things came and for whom we live” (Corinthians 8:4).</blockquote> Pantheists do not say "we are in fact God". Straw man number two.
"it is difficult, or impossible, to reconstruct a Second Temple Pharisaic theology, because Judaism itself is non-creedal; that is, there is no dogma or set of orthodox beliefs that Jews believed were required of Jews." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee
The Talmudic-Midrashic literature, as well as the works of Philo are clearly pantheistic. Paul quotes Stoic Pantheists and espouses there doctrine. Was he lying to them? Baruch Spinoza the Jew who gives us one of the most methodical proofs of pantheism himself said the ancient Jews did not separate God from the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
Monotheism and pantheism are not mutually exclusive. It is a simple fact of history that Jewish monotheistic pantheism has existed throughout the ages.
I said; <blockquote>I believe in monism of substance. Plurality of form is fine with me.</blockquote>
you say; <blockquote>I am still really confused here. You keep claiming that you are a monist but then
(1) you state that things differ by relative non-being (at least, that's what I am able to decipher).
That all differentiation is by negation, which is not monism. A sculptor would “differentiate” a statue from the stone by chiseling away or negating everything that is not the statue. Regardless, this ultimately leads you right back into monism, for if things only differed by non-being then things would not differ at all, hence everything would be one. Therefore, 'All I-thou and I-I relationships are reduced to I and then there can be no changing relation at all. If we are nothing more than different modes of God then we are not having an experience, God is. Thus, religious experience and relationships become impossible.'</blockquote> (1) I have never stated that, nor have I implied it.
My pantheism or my belief in God's immanence clearly supersueds explicit monism. That is why I said I believe in monism of substance. Atheists believe in that much. If your having a hard time understanding this please read the Stanford research paper I showed you; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
<blockquote>How can God make Himself not God, how can He rip off a chunk of His own “body” and cast it out from Him for all eternity. What? What's that? You hold that those lost to sin are annihilated? Really? I thought that energy (God) could not be created nor destroyed? Uh-ohs! Consequently, God cannot be energy by your own standards!</blockquote> If I make a castle out of sand. Assuming I wanted to then destroy the castle, all I would have to do is destroy it's form. The form of the castle no longer exists. However the sand that comprised the castle still exists.
<blockquote>In addition, even you stated that “all forms of energy... are limited by the speed of light.” Are you really stating that God is governed by other laws? For if there is a law give above God, natural or not, then He is no longer God, He is no longer the final authority. The Creator has lost control to His creation. How do you expect God to rid us of evil if He cant even break the natural laws that He created? Also, is God subject to entropy? Shall God wind away to “nothing” one of these days? Therefore, God cannot be energy.</blockquote> Sloppy mess after sloppy mess.
Every form of energy is a creation. God is energy and was not created. God can do nothing contrary to his nature.
<blockquote>Moreover, we are able to change energy into matter. Are you suggesting that we have power over God and that we can force Him to create? Your God is at its creatures beck and call, your God has lost the battle of the tower of Babel; man's scientific endeavors have risen above God. Not only did we succeed at fulfilling Satan's lie, that is, we can be our own god, but we have become God's god! Ergo, God cannot be energy.</blockquote> We can tranform one form of energy into another. However we cannot form energy. That is the total inertial mass of the universe cannot be increased by us. (All forms of energy have inertial mass). That particular aspect of God is most likely only accessable to Jesus and possibly the angels.
<blockquote>Another issue here if you are arguing that God is energy, you are saying that He is part of the universe. Do you hold that God is beyond the universe, that he is transcendent? It seems to me that when you say immanence of God you mean that God is the world, I would hold that God is within or present to the entire universe, but he is not a part of it. He is the Creator and we are the creation. The entire heavens cannot contain Him (1 Kings 8:27), for He is higher than the heavens (Job 11:7-8; Psalm 8:1, 57:5). God is “over all” (Ephesians 4:6) and “before all” Colissians (1:17). Thus, God cannot be energy.</blockquote> If God's immanence is the creation which is the forms of energy; then if I may interprete his transcendence explicitly, it would be unformed energy. Space has no form. So, I would like to add we would not exist without God's transendent quality.
<blockquote>Continuing on the theme of ex Deo, that is, matter was created out of God we have more problems. If ex Deo was true then it would not be a sin to worship the creation rather that the Creator as Romans 1:25 and Exodus 20:4 proclaim. The universe is different from God just as a potter is different to his clay (Romans 9:20-21). Picasso's creative mind is portrayed in his art, but that art is not part of Picasso. Furthermore, creation cannot be out of God's substance because God is eternal while his creation is not. Whatever is created goes through a change and God cannot change. Don t believe me? Let's ask God. Yo, God! Do you like, change and stuff?? “I the LORD do not change!” (Malachi 3:6) Well crap. I don't know about you Mars, but I wouldn't want to mess with God. What? What's that you say? God was confused. Hmm... maybe so. Let's check out Scripture. I'm just gonna open to a page and read the first thing I see. Ready? (Hebrews 1:10-12) “They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end." Hmmm, I cant argue with that. Can you Mars? Subsequently, God cannot be energy, nor could the creation have been ex Deo.</blockquote> Yawn....
Can you understand a difference between form and substance? Do not worship any form... that is clearly taught in the bible.
you said; <blockquote>Furthermore, the Hebrew here denotes bringing about something that is totally new, something that never existed before.</blockquote>
I said; <blockquote>Would you claim that matter has always existed? Could then the formation of the material universe from energy be called the creation of the material universe?</blockquote>
You never answered my question. Instead you act like you werent caught in your own logic. Repeating your conclusions after I have demonstrated that it is faulty is simply dishonest.
For example you repeat this conclusion even though your rear was handed to you. <blockquote><b>the Bible strongly posits that creation was ex nihilo, or out of nothing</b>. Like I stated before, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).</blockquote> It does no such thing; this is dishonest hackery.
<blockquote>How God created the physical universe is beyond me.</blockquote> If it is beyond you to understand how God creates, how can it be possible for you to suggest my understanding of God's natures is unbiblical? For I know how God creates. If you do not know, how can you say my knowing is wrong; As if you had a more accurate explaination so as to tell if my proof is wrong?
<blockquote>John 4:24 posits that, “God is spirit, ” and 1 Timothy 1:17 declares that God is invisible. Furthermore, according to John 1:18, “no one has ever seen God.” So then, God is both invisible and immaterial. The universe is capable of being handled and seen, it's tangible and physical (Hebrews 11:3). You are attempting to place God under a microscope, something which we cannot do. </blockquote> Only a small number of forms of energy can be seen such that they emite or reflect or communicate photons of the light spectrum onto our retena. Unformed energy obviously cannot be seen nor the majority of the forms of energy. You cannot see except by God. The reality is, you are not external to God. So, you cannot see God in the sense that we mean see something external to us. Can the eye see itself by itself? You can only percieve God. You can only see a reflection of God's glory through his creation.
<blockquote>Furthermore, if the universe was created out of energy then Hebrews 11:3 could not be true, unless you hold that God can change,</blockquote> (Hebrews 11:3) By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God’s word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear.
You must be thinking of another scripture.
<blockquote>I still posit that your 'worldview is metaphysically indistinguishable from atheism. Both are one eternal self-contained system, you just so happen to want to throw some religious significance into it.'</blockquote> Posit your empty claims all you want. Or you could just read up on the matter and stop with the ignorance; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
<blockquote>What doctrines of Reformed Theology do you hold as irrational? Can you explain why you hold them as such?</blockquote> Your beliefs; (1) Are not founded on reason, (2) An infinite being can be finite at the same time, (3) Finite sin requires infinite or eternal torment in fire, (4) A God of love can torture someone forever, (5) ...
<blockquote>Mars you seemed to have missed my point again, I don't know what this has anything to do with what I just asked. One of the first things that you proclaimed right out of the gate was that, 'Every aspect of [your] beliefs can either be proven necessarily and or sufficiently through empirical science.' I asked you to show empirically the miracles of the Bible. Can you do so?
More so, if you are a pantheist then how do you account for miracles? There can be no supernatural events in your world, because God is the universe. So Mars, here we have miracles as a natural mechanism in our universe, this mechanism is therefore objective and able to be known. What is it? How does it work? How does it think without a brain? How does it talk? And so forth.</blockquote> Is not every miracle the product of intelligence?
I said; <blockquote>If any transformation of energy does not follow from an insensate phenomena it requires intelligence to produce such a transformation. This follows from my proof of intelligent design.</blockquote> When the scientist's finally create life in the lab (I hear they are close), do you think they will have disproven intelligent design, or proven how intelligent design of life can be accomplished? Would they be producing a miracle? Would not the creation of life be a miracle? Intelligent design and miracles are one and the same.
Is it a miracle; To communicate with each other across the world? To fly? To walk on the moon? To split an atom?
The point is I do not have to demonstrate how to accomplish every invention of intelligent design (miracles) to prove that it does occure.
<blockquote>It seems clear to me that this verse is demonstrating that we should not accept the words of those who claim to be of God until we examine them against the Word of God. For the Bereans “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). The Word of God, or Scripture is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). This allows us to be on guard against all false teachings such as yours.</blockquote> There is a few different kinds of proof; theological, logical, and empirical. If what Paul was saying needed to be proven to the Boreans, yet what he says is infact what we call the bible; Do you not see that scriptural or theological proof is not enough? Paul quotes Stoic philosophers... Would the Boreans need to read Epeminides to make sure of what Paul was quoting?
<blockquote>Prove all things? Consider the following from Aquinas ... ”If it were necessary to use a strict demonstration as the only way to reach knowledge of the things we must know about God, very few could ever construct such a demonstration and even these could do it only after a long time.”</blockquote> Aquinas, we have had thousands of years. Not only do we stand on your shoulders we stand on many others as well. With access to the internet, research is far easier then in your day.
<blockquote>[T]he Bible teaches that our convictions are not to be based upon human wisdom! Human wisdom isn't always wrong; sometimes people used their intellect and their independent ability to research, and find facts and come to truths which are very valuable. The problem is not that human wisdom is always wrong. The problem is that human wisdom is (1) fallible, and (2) not a sufficient foundation for believing anything about God. Because only God is adequate to witness to Himself!</blockquote> How does one go about having beliefs in God by reading the bible without assuming God means something by the words he speaks. Does not disernment of meaning reside in reason? Therefore it is impossible to believe anything without reason as the fundiment. Many are not methotical in there use of reason, therefore they have many illogical beliefs.
<blockquote>I ask you again Mars. Do you leave any room for God's grace, or does all the credit go into your teachings and “proofs?” It is true that God uses us to evangelize but it's not our teachings that save our fellow man, it's God's efficacious grace. We are born again not by man's will, but God's (John 1:12-13).</blockquote> It is by God's grace, we are given room to share the teachings of Christ.
Forum 
