Originally posted by black beetle
Your theology is conveniently formulated to justify specific preferred views of the world the way your religion perceives them, and you appear to justify your ontology through verses from the Bible forcing us to accept them as if they were systematic theories of proof; however, you really have no honest way of knowing whether they in fact should lend cr ...[text shortened]... ters and they should be discarded once they are realised;
Vast Emptiness, Nothing Holy
Your theology is conveniently formulated to justify specific preferred views of the world the way your religion perceives them, and you appear to justify your ontology through verses from the Bible forcing us
Oh, I cannot "force" anything upon you.
to accept them as if they were systematic theories of proof; however, you really have no honest way of knowing whether they in fact should lend credence to your beliefs other than the fact that they derive (according to your religious beliefs) from the scribes of the Bible, insisting that they are “the word of G-d” (over here, your preaching is identical to vishva/Dasa's and RJHinds'. Well, they are not. They are written by human beings. The Christian teachings have history too, they too evolved over time. It's all about meta-concepts (as is the case with all the religions around the dial), based on previous archetypes that evolved in specific societies during a specific spacetime.
I simply wish that some would see how the different attributes of God work together in that one great act of Christ's redemptive death.
Who could imagine up such a story ? Jesus Christ is too wonderful to not be true.
Such a Person is believable.
What are you going to do with a the golden elephant under the rug in the living room of human history ?
This Man is God become man.
And it is absurd to attribute fundamental nature to anything, as you attempt to do with the human invention known as G-d, because all things are merely a form which arises from the contingent connection of contingent causes or causes of causes.
Sixteen hundred years - from Genesis to Revelation. And there is such a unity in the 66 books of the Bible. I don't know how the conspirators coordinated with each other over the centries to invent such a God.
Then again, you have a solitary life of a man whose impact on history of three and one half years was cataclymic. Jesus of Nazareth, I say, is so wonderful so as to be believable.
Every phenomenon is a phenomenon-in-flux. Otherwise, if the things and the phenomena were the way they appear to be (if they were, that is, indeed inherently existent separated entities), they would be changeless and stable. But no object, no entity, no osberver (the observer universe included) and no phenomenon that is changeless and stable is existent; eternity is an illusion.
When I bite into a juicy plum, I want to thank God. Of course I could lose myself in the endless mechanical details of the universe.
I am all for the study of science. But while we do that there is no harm in turning to God and just thanking Him for the plum or grapes, or air, water, sunlight, gravity, rain, wind, etc.
I remember the night I first went down to a pond at evening after receiving Jesus into my heart. I heard the frogs chirp. I heard the birds sing. And I said to myself "Now I understand. This is my Father's world. My Father made all these things."
How can I go back to the meaningless vanity of unthankfulness to the heavenly Father ? I would rather come forward to God than hide out in the endless mechanics of the universe.
I cannot drowned out my longing for the Father in quantum physics, vainly hoping that a Fatherless existence is in those details somewhere.
Thus I have heard: the universe does not have a beginning; it does not fail to have a beginning; it does not “have and not have” a beginning; nor does it neither “have nor not have” a beginning. Therefore, since no thesis is not asserted by me whilst the thesis asserted by you is not tenable, the flaw is not mine.
One matter is believing that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. But a much deeper peace is in receiving this God into my innermost being.
I don't think there is any reason for the universe to exist if God cannot enter into man to produce sons of God. For the Bible says that before the foundation of the world, that is before the creation of the universe, God had a good pleasure to have sons.
Based on this desire to have those into whom He could dispense His life and nature to produce sons, He then laid the foundation of the universe.
This means that He created all things for His eternal purpose to have sons. He possessed the plan first. Then to carry out the plan it was necessary to lay the foundation of the world.
Here is the passage from which I derive this revelation:
"Even as He
[the Father ] chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, Predestinating us onto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, accordnig to the good pleasure of His will." (Eph. 1:4,5)
See? God created the universe for His plan which He had before the foundation of the world. That plan was to have sons with His life and nature in love with Him as thier divine Father.
Zechariah 12:1 puts the matter this way:
"The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him."
The heavens are for the earth.
And earth is for man.
And man has a spirit within him to receive God the eternal Spirit.
The universe is stretched out for the existence of the earth.
The existence of the earth is for man to stand upon.
And man was a created with a organ, the spirit of man, to touch and receive God that God may have sons in love before Him, receiving His life and nature.
Modern man is lost in the drowning sense of insignificance.
Man is not insignificant. God became a man. This means man is very meaningful.
At least you have to admit that of all men that walk the earth, Jesus Christ acted the most like we would expect God to act if God did become man.
... I am not an evil doer; ...
You may not be a bad evil doer. You may be a good evil doer.
You may be a Nicodemus.
Saul, who persecuted the Christian church, was a Pharisee of the strictest moral code, very pious. He was a good evil doer too.