*******************************************************************************************************************
TRUTH:
"Have No Fellowship With the Unfruitful Works of Darkness, But Rather EXPOSE Them!" ~ GOD, Ephesians 5:11

Got PROOF? The police in Colorado know about serial child killers! Go to www.PoliceRecordingsKekoas.com for the TRUTH!

July 27, 2006

Is There Proof of God?

If so, how can we know for certain God exists?

Let's start by making a casual observation: The Universe is real and it exists. Every logical and rational thinking person on the planet must first admit this fact. If the Universe did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises:

“How did the Universe get here?”

There are only three possibilities to this question:

1. The Universe has always been here.

2. The Universe came into existence on it's own.

3. A Supernatural Being created the Universe.

------------------------------------------

Now let's examine these three possibilities:

# 1. FALSE - Scientifically speaking, we know for a fact that the Universe could not have always been here because it would violate the laws of physics. Natural laws of the Universe have no exceptions. The Universe cannot be a perpetual motion machine because it would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. If the Universe had always been here, the sun and stars would have burnt out by now and everything would be cold and dark.

# 2. FALSE - We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create itself out of nothing. Consider the law of cause and effect. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. The effect cannot be greater than the cause - Not only is it illogical and irrational, it is scientifically impossible!

# 3. TRUE - Since 1 & 2 are false, we must examine a third option which is the only rational, logical, and scientific possibility: An infinite, supernatural Creator who exists outside the natural laws of the Universe created everything. There is no other possibility! God is the first cause - He is the author and Creator of life.

-----------------------------------------

What are God's Attributes? Where is the Proof?

1. Eternal Nature - God has always existed. God is the Alpha and the Omega. He is the beginning and the end. He created us in His image and likeness as eternal beings: body, soul & spirit. For without God - Nothing (including us) would exist!

2. Omnipotent (All-Powerful)- God exists in three persons: Father, Son & Holy Spirit. He is the Creator of life, time and the Universe. The mere fact that the is sun burning tells us that a Creator must exist. God's power is not limited by the natural laws of the Universe.

3. Personal & Relational - The fact that we have personalities and a desire to have relationships with others, we can know that God is personal and desires to have a relationship with us. This is why He created us to begin with.

4. Righteous & Holy - The fact that our hearts yearn for justice tells us that God is Righteous. Because we possess a conscience which condemns our moral failures or the evil deeds of others, we know that a personal Creator must have instilled in us a standard of Righteousness.

5. Love & Goodness - The fact that we long to be loved and to love one another proves that God is Love. Since we have the ability to love, we also have the ability to hate. And since we have the ability to do good, we also have the ability to do evil. God's goodness is everlasting and His love never fails, but He cannot make anyone love or chose what is right. Love has to be freely given, it cannot be forced or created in a test tube.

Without God - Love & Goodness could never exist!

-----------------------------------------

How do we know this for absolutely certain?

Even while the Atheists are in utter denial - the TRUTH about God is still revealed!

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the Truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became FOOLS!" - Romans 1:19-22

-------------------------------------------

Conclusion:

1. There is a God and you are NOT Him!

2. God created you and He sets the standards!

3. GET USED TO IT!!!

47 comments:

  1. An infinite, supernatural Creator who exists outside the natural laws of the Universe created everything.

    Why couldn't something else which exists outside the natural laws of the universe create everything?

    Why does it have to be a god?

    As we can't know what exists outside the universe, it could be anything. Your 3rd option is a massive assumption based on what you want, rather than what you know.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Simon - What would you suggest it is then, if not God?

    I am certainly open to another 3rd option if you have one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can accept that at least one supernatural being created the universe, but this raises two questions:

    1. How did said supernatural beings(s) get there?

    2. Where is/are said supernatural being(s) now.

    You see, while it is possible, even logical to come to the conclusion that there is a "creator", having just said the universe couldn't have always existed, is it not logical to extend this to God.

    Actually, maybe not. You see, it is absolutely futile to try and apply human logic to supernatural entities. Why? Because we cannot think outside "the box" of what we know. Everythign we know is finite, which is why we can't imagine eternity or infinity. Go on, try it. Hard, no? Don't do it too long, you may go mad.

    Now, having established that there is a high possibility of there being a God, let's examine what we actually know about it.

    Is the creator still around? What is there to say that he created the universe and then left it well alone?

    How do we know he is omnipotent etc. This is why I find religions bizarre. They give charateristics to God which are, in some cases different, in others contradictory. C.f. Dani's Omnipotent point with " He cannot make anyone love or chose what is right." Why not, isn't that the veruy nature of omnipotence, that one can do anything?

    Indeed, what is to say that there is one creator and one only, why not two, or three, or many? Actually, two creators better explains why there is hate and evil and injustice and those without morals. One created good, and one created evil (this is Dualism, by the way).

    Finally, assuming that God sets the standards (not unreasonable), how do we know which standards they are. Is it the Christian standards, the Jewish standards, the Muslim standards (all are based on the same book, the Old Testament, with bits added on). Perhaps they are the Hindu standards? Or maybe one of the less well known religions. Or maybe we just haven't got it yet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. " #2. FALSE - We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create itself out of nothing. Consider the law of cause and effect. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. The effect cannot be greater than the cause - Not only is it illogical and irrational, it is scientifically impossible!"

    Actually they have found that matter does, in fact, come from what appears to be nothing. In lab settings scientists have found that in a vacuum particles will appear in matter anti-matter pairs at seemingly random intervals. As far as creation goes they have the expanded big bang theory, which includes the concept of inflation theory.

    Here is a link on the topic http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm

    "The great unanswered question in standard Big Bang cosmology is what came "before" the singularity. It is often said that the question is meaningless, since time itself began at the singularity. But chaotic inflation suggests that our Universe grew out of a quantum fluctuation in some pre-existing region of spacetime, and that exactly equivalent processes can create regions of inflation within our own Universe. In effect, new universes bud off from our Universe, and our Universe may itself have budded off from another universe, in a process which had no beginning and will have no end. A variation on this theme suggests that the "budding" process takes place through black holes, and that every time a black hole collapses into a singularity it "bounces" out into another set of spacetime dimensions, creating a new inflationary universe -- this is called the baby universe scenario."

    I am not claiming that the above is correct, I am simply stating that using basic Newtonian physics to argue quantum mechanics does not help your point to anyone who has an interest in the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance... logic can be happily tossed out the window." Stephen King

    ReplyDelete
  6. Merely stating that because we exist there must be a god doesn't prove anything. I can say "I exist, therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and created us all" with the same amount of validity. I cannot understand why you cannot accpet that your faith and scientific proof are two different things. You can't scientifically prove God exists, and science can't prove God doesn't exist. Accept your faith and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The issue is, as I see it, that while both cold science and faith want to understand the creation, neither is able to use the tools of the other to sway the argument. So if one has already decided where they stand on the issue, it is near impossible to shake their opinion. All one can do is to make sure that the argument is being presented properly by not allowing the skewing of science of the mis-representation of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Beepbeep - Thanks for stopping by, but Steven King is hardly a credible source to be taken seriously.

    Limpy - The comments you made only further demonstrate your utter foolishness and debased mindset. Please explain to us how you think the Universe came into existence?

    Parallax - How am I skewing science or not presenting my argument properly?
    ------------------------

    CJM - Thank you for being willing and open to the TRUTH. Clearly you are not a FOOL like some of the other folks here and you obviously are a rational and logical thinking person. It truly is refreshing to have you aboard. You are asking all the right questions - and there are answers to everything you want to know. I do not profess to be some great fountain of information, but I have studied the Bible for many years and if I don't have the answer for you, I know where to find it.

    God says - "If you seek, you shall find." (Matthew 7:7-8)

    1. How did said supernatural beings(s) get there?

    God has always been here. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, He is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so He has no beginning. There can only be ONE creator, not two or three or many. Only ONE can be the first cause.

    1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
    2. The universe has a beginning.
    3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

    The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, He has always existed so He doesn’t need a cause.

    2. Where is/are said supernatural being(s) now. What is there to say that he created the universe and then left it well alone?

    God is a living God and He exist here with us in time. He loves us and desires to have a relationship with us which is why we know He hasn't abandoned everything. For those who know God - His spirit dwells within us.

    3. You see, it is absolutely futile to try and apply human logic to supernatural entities.

    You're right. It is hard for our minds to grasp the concept of a supernatural Creator, I guess this is where faith comes in. But God does not want us to have blind faith in Him. The evidence for our faith is all around us. This is what the Bible says about faith:

    Hebrews 11:1-3 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible."

    4. "He cannot make anyone love or chose what is right." Why not, isn't that the very nature of omnipotence, that one can do anything?

    There are limits to God's power, believe it or not. For example, God cannot make evil = good. He cannot travel back in time or into the future because they don't exist.

    In the same way, God cannot make anyone love Him because love has to be freely given for it to mean anything. Just imagine if you forced some woman to marry you, then each day you smacked her in the face and demanded that she tell you she loves you - what is the point of that? Would that really make you feel loved? Of course not! God is not some cruel barbaric ruler that is going to force people to bow down to Him and love Him - For anyone to reap the benefits of true love, it must be received freely.

    We are all sinful by nature, but God gave each one of us a free-will to choose to do good or evil. He is not some great puppeteer sitting on up in heaven controlling the strings of our lives and forcing us to love Him and do what is good. God loves us and He has given us a free-will - We have a choice to make, we can choose to love Him or choose to reject Him. When we choose what is evil, we go against God.

    5. Finally, assuming that God sets the standards (not unreasonable), how do we know which standards they are.

    Simple - Because God has written them on our hearts and He has laid them out for us in His Holy Word. In your heart CJ, you know what is right or wrong, don't you?

    Let's look at The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) - Do Not Worship Other Gods. Honor Your Mother & Father. Do Not Lie (Bear False Witness). Do Not Steal. Do Not Murder. Do Not Commit Adultery (or have sexual relations outside of marriage). And so on...

    All the instructions we need for life can be found in the BIBLE = BASIC INSTRUCTION BEFORE LEAVING EARTH.

    Looking forward to hearing from you again.

    P.S. Our email dialog has been fun as well.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am not claiming that you are, in my above statement all I was saying was that you were presenting an incomplete position as to the state of quantum mechanics.

    I am more than willing to accept divine creation, but I also do not see why the two are mutualy exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I do know what is right and wrong, but there are several differences between that and the Bible's law. And his holy words take many forms. I'm sure if I was to go down to Speakers' Corner on Sunday and ask one of the Muslims there how he knew the Koran was true, he'd put a pretty convincing argument forward.

    The forcing love thing is interesting as well. When I read Huxley's Brave New World, I asked myself, owudl I rather be controlled in this manner, but happy, or free but unhappy. You see, the "meaning of life" has been a question that has consumed many lives. If God put us here to love him, then I'm not sure how I feel about the purpose of my life.

    ReplyDelete
  11. On one hand, Dani says, "God's power is not limited by the natural laws of the Universe."

    And moments later she says,
    "There are limits to God's power, believe it or not."

    That must suck to be 'omnipotent', but still have limits.
    I guess that's makes her god only 'semipotent'.

    This Christian stuff is sure confusing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, tai...she also sez "...Love has to be freely given..."

    If thats's the case...Whyindafuck are there "10 (count'em TEN) COMMANDMENTS!!!"

    Wtf's FREE 'bout bein COMMANDED ta do ANYfuckinTHING?

    (But..I DO hope each and everyone of you Worship in the church of yer choice this Sunday)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Prallax said:
    "Actually they have found that matter does, in fact, come from what appears to be nothing. In lab settings scientists have found that in a vacuum particles will appear in matter anti-matter pairs at seemingly random intervals. As far as creation goes they have the expanded big bang theory, which includes the concept of inflation theory."

    The particles you are referring to don't pop into existance from nothing as you are suggesting (many big bang guys are leaning on this to support the seemingly ridiculous theory of POP! here's the universe) there is a quantum fluctuation from which these things spring. Thus the source is the fluctuation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tai-
    I think you make a good point revealing an inconsistancy in Dani's theology. There are different branches of theological thought within Christianity and most today bank a grat deal on human free will and how God does not govern it (to do so would be wrong on God's part [this is not biblical]). Frankly I think this is not biblical, but one can still be a genuine Christian and have errors in their theology (in fact we all err in our finite sinfulness).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bob: True enough, but the creationists also use the "POP here's the universe theory"

    I still hold that the two camps have no real reason to fight.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Despite being simple-minded and debased, (and we just had the basement re-done), Dani asked how I think the Universe came into existence. My answer is I subsrcribe to the Big Bang Theory. But as I've already stated on this site, I freely admit that there had to be a trigger to set off that Big Bang, and I haven't got the slightest idea what that trigger is. You would call it Creator God, and I have no reason to try to disprove that. Nor could I.

    My disagreement with you on this issue is relatively mild Dani. I'm sure there are many other issues on which we can disagree with much more venom, but this isn't one of them. My argument is simply that you are making a case for God existing by saying "because I said so", and that isn't enough for you to then walk away and smugly say "I have proved my case and everyone who doesn't believe is a FOOL" You beleive there is a God, and that's great. But faith is very different from fact, and actually has to be or else it wouldn't be faith, but reality. Your passage from Hebrews actually is consistent with this; "faith is the subtance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". I interpet this as faith is something you cannot prove, but have to believe, hopefully with good intentions.

    I'm not saying there is or isn't a god Dani, I'm not smart enough to know that. But I do know that the proof you offer doesn't show there is one either.

    ReplyDelete
  17. As a side note, it is impossible for one to prove God exists, because it is a matter of faith. If there is proof then there is no longer faith.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Parallax-
    you said: "As a side note, it is impossible for one to prove God exists, because it is a matter of faith. If there is proof then there is no longer faith."

    This argument you lay out is valid based upon the presupposition of "faith" (meaning basically an illogical blind leap). As a Christian this is not the biblical definition of faith (although many Christians adhear to it, it is not biblical). Faith is a reasonable trust in the promises of God, an assurance of things not yet in hand. This is not irrational but the most rational thing in the world.

    Christ walked around and said things like "Your sins are forgiven" anybody can say that (you can see sins leaving somebody it a metaphysical) yet Jesus validates His claim to be able to forgive sins by saying rise up take your bed and walk" and healing. Thus Christ performed physically a parallel of what He claimed to do metaphysically, heal. Thus, it is reasonable to trust Christ's claim to forgive sins. This is faith, although I may not literally see sins (in a materialistic way) leave a person, I have reason to believe that those who hope in Christ do have their sins removed. More proof can be added to Christ's claims such as His resurrection, making it reasonable to trust Him to save. Francis Schaeffer has a good article on "faith" versus faith, where he lays this out better than me, I got it on my blog: http://puritanbob.blogspot.com/2006/05/faith-versus-faith.html

    Parallax also said:
    (in response to my response on the supposed particles poping into existance from nothing.)
    "Bob: True enough, but the creationists also use the "POP here's the universe theory"

    Well there is a major chasm I think between the two views, they are not bot POP here is the universe. Materialistic atheism says out of ex-nilo (non-existance) came something (the univers). Theists, say that out of something eternally existant (God) came the universe.

    Phronk,
    I think the burden falls into your court to describe something in the universe that does not have a first cause. You think it is absurd you need to explain why. Plato and Aristotle didn't think it was absurd, but Phronk does...why?

    ReplyDelete
  19. you can't see sins leaving some ones body...can't. typo

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh and as for the first cause stuff, Phronk you atheists think the same thing, I as a theist place God in the area of uncaused agent or first mover. Atheists place the impersonal universe in the area of uncaused agent or first mover.

    I just don't get the argument against theism that demands that God Himself needs a first mover for His existance, eventually the dominoes have to end with something. Theist's make God the initial causing agent, atheists make the universe the initial causining agent.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Phronk said:
    "Does this eliminate the need for something to have set off the big bang? I dunno. I'll leave that argument to philosophers and astronomers unless I can research it myself. All I know is that it is certainly not "proof of God" as Dani has framed it."

    I think I agree. The argument for the existance of God due to the unmoved mover argument is decent, although I think it merely makes the existance of God as probable, not certain (As Dani herself has conceded that there could be other options of which we don't know of). I personally would go for arguments that make the existance of God certain, such as transcendentals.

    Oh and to clarify I was responding to your statement which reads:

    "Yeah. The thing I find strange about this line of reasoning is that it relies on the premise "everything needs a first cause", then posits that God is the first cause, but God does not itself need a first cause. "

    It seemed that you were objecting to the notion that all things need a causal agent. Thus I asked for you to describe something that did not have a causal agent. Maybe not.

    But yeah as for your objection that I see everything you write as an apologetic for atheism you are actually right. The bible states that men outside of Christ love the darkness and hate the light, and have become futile in their thinking. So actually everything you write is a reflection of your rebellion against your rightful owner God. Thus everything you write is a defense of your atheism which is willful hatred against God your master.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bob-

    I'm sorry if it seemed like I was attacking those with faith. I was simply attempting to show that if one gets rid of the enigma, faith becomes less powerful and feels more cold. Science is a form of faith, it is just a cold one because numbers, no matter how repeatable, are not very cuddly.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Good discussion going on here.

    Tai said...
    On one hand, Dani says, "God's power is not limited by the natural laws of the Universe."
    And moments later she says,
    "There are limits to God's power, believe it or not."
    That must suck to be 'omnipotent', but still have limits.
    I guess that's makes her god only 'semipotent'. This Christian stuff is sure confusing.


    By saying there are limits to God's power, it does not reduce His power, but rather it reveals His true character. God cannot make evil = good because it is against His very nature. If God had the power to make murder, rape and child molestation good, praise worthy deeds - What kind of God would that be? If God forced you to love Him - what would be the point?

    --------------------------------

    CJM said...The forcing love thing is interesting as well. When I read Huxley's Brave New World, I asked myself, would I rather be controlled in this manner, but happy, or free but unhappy. You see, the "meaning of life" has been a question that has consumed many lives. If God put us here to love him, then I'm not sure how I feel about the purpose of my life.

    What if your purpose was to be happy and live your life abundantly in complete freedom?

    This is what Jesus Christ says:

    "Then you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free." - John 8:32

    "I have come that you may have life, and that you may have it more abundantly." - John 10:10

    CJ - What do you think your purpose is for living? What would you like it to be?

    ----------------------------

    Bob said...I think you make a good point revealing an inconsistency in Dani's theology. There are different branches of theological thought within Christianity and most today bank a great deal on human free will and how God does not govern it (to do so would be wrong on God's part [this is not biblical]). Frankly I think this is not biblical, but one can still be a genuine Christian and have errors in their theology (in fact we all err in our finite sinfulness).

    Let me guess Bob - you are a hard core Calvinist? Well - I suppose you can still be a genuine believer even with errors in your theology. J/K LOL.

    Hey BTW - I appreciate your comments and I think both our views pretty much line up with what God says. Maybe you can come on my husband's show and debate Calvinism vs. Open Theism or where you think our theology is wrong - if you are still interested in being a guest, that is? Let me know or email Curtis at blunttruth@duhmag.com to let him know you're interested. We have Billy from 'The Real Deal' first in line, then you can be next.

    ReplyDelete
  24. is bob pastor bob by chance?
    curious

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dani, if that was my purpose, then that would be fine. But I'd also like to think that it's to make the world a better place, you know, be the best person I can.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This is just . . . sad.

    No one posting here is going to be able to convince the opposing side the folly of his or her beliefs.

    Dani clearly believes in a god while most of the commenters do not. If you think you'll be able to miraculously convince her that her beliefs are wrong, then you're just wasting your time -- the same way Dani is wasting her time by posting and responding to your comments.

    Bottom line, guys: If you revile Dani or her blog that much, the best thing you can do is to stop reading it and/or commenting.

    JAB

    ReplyDelete
  27. Phronk you said:
    "Well then that's yet another thing the Bible got wrong. I do not hate the light and love the darkness."

    Really? You are defining light and darkness by your own autonomous notions, rather than leaning upon God's. Your definition of light and darkness is arbitrary. You say x=darkness I say x=light, who is right? Without an objective standard we really can't tell, but the bible provides such a standard.

    You ask: "Are all babies born with "willful hatred against God"? How about the majority of humans throughout human history who just never heard your story about God? Do they love the darkness?"

    Actually yes, we are born with a sinful rebellious nature. We want to exalt our autonomous will and desires over that of God. A reflection of this is in how children disobey their parents. No one has to teach children to follow our post-modern maxim of "Question authority" they do it without any guidance.

    As for those who have never heard the gospel, some Christians make loop holes to get around this. However it seems that based upon natural revelation all have in some degree of revelation about God. Thus, men are guilty of not worshiping God as God even if Christian missionaries have yet to present the gospel message to them. Each person has a "law written on their hearts" and no one follows the law. So yes to the degree of revelation that has been given to them (unreached peoples) and their will-full rebellion against this yes they are lovers of darkness. God condemning unbelievers isn't going to be a tough court case in the heavenly tribunal as many seem to think.

    You also state: "Sheesh. This arrogance is ridiculous. Do you see me making up stories about how you "willfully hate biology"? "

    Well if what I am saying is true it is not arrogance, (on the contrary your cavils agains it is what is arrogant) but if what I am saying is false then sure it is arrogant. However, what I am saying is based on the word of God, these aren't just my opinions to win an argument.

    To continue you state: "Perhaps conversations would flow more smoothly if you took writings at face value, rather than adding fictional additional layers to the psychology of the writers. Examine the message, rather than the messenger."

    Well, what I am getting at is that you have presupositions that undergird what you write, this is seen in areas of morals, epistemology, and even the scientific endeavor. My point is that your presupositions are founded on your rebellion against God. All that I am saying is what the bible says about you Phronk, I am not psycho-analysing you I am just saying that you are at war with God, and your thought process reflects this. You have become "Futile in your thinking" (Eph 4) and "Professing to be wise have become a fool." Now this of course smacks of arrogance as you said earlier, but I think that fact that you think it is arrogant shows that you don't think that God has the right to be your Lord, because this is what He has said about man not me.

    And hey Phronk, you know what I too was once disobediant, but God by grace opened my eyes that I might cherish that which alone satisfies. In short you need to be born again. Only when we are reconciled to the only wise God does our thinking really get straightened out, only in Him can we truly be wise: "in whom [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Col 2:3)

    The mere definition of wisdom apart from God is arbitrary, as is good and bad, right and wrong. Apart from morals being founded upon objective standards outside of man, morals can only be relatvistic or enforced by a totalitarian elite. I have an answer for what right and wrong is, I have an answer for Hume's "Riddle of Induction" (The uniformity of nature problem) atheists might not like it but I have an answer, because I am no longer in rebellion and lean not on my own autonomous understanding.

    To end Phronk, I am not trying to pick on you or psychoanalyze you, I am just trying to get at the presupostions that undergird the things you write, namely that you are a fallen autonomous man in rebellion against God.

    Anonymous-
    Not a pastor yet...in training I suppose. I paln to go to Westminster Seminary in a couple years, so about 5-6 years away.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oh, Parallax-
    Yeah I didn't think you were so much attacking those who have faith. You pointed out an inconsistancy but I think the definition of "faith" people often work with is faulty (faith=an irrational blind leap).

    Oh and Dani,
    Yeah I would tottaly like to be on your guys show, I can discuss whatever you want (except maybe the depth of Eminem's lyrics j/k). I am a 5 point calvinist, so if you want to talk about that that's cool.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Is a five-point Calvinist like an 8 point buck?

    OK, I'm kidding about that, but I do have a question for Bob. As I recall my schooling, the Calvinists were strong believers in pre-destination. In other words, your fate as to heaven or hell had already been decided at birth, and nothing you did could change that. The Calvinists were known as hard workers becuase it was thought that those who were succesful in life were those who had been pre-destined for heaven, while all the slackers were off to hell.

    Now, I learned all this in Catholic schools, so there's a chance I could have been misguided, but I always found that a pretty grim belief set.

    I guess actually have two questions. 1) Is pre-destination a fundamental tenet of the Calvinist faith? and 2), if it's not, was it ever?

    And I'd like to know Bob's opinion of pre-destination as well.

    Might as well learn something while we're all here anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  30. MQM- Forget that Fred Phelps guy he is not a calvinist in the orthodox sense his group is what is known as hyper-calvinist. They wont pray for the lost because they don't want to interfere with God saving the elect at all. This flies right in the face of multiple biblical commands to pray for the lost. To be brief hyper-calvinism is a heresy.

    Now to answer Limpy, orthodox Calvinism is not a system of works salvation as your Catholic teachers made it seem. Rather, the oposite is true. The calvinistic view of justification and the cross of Christ says that not only has Jesus died for His people's sin but also has purchased their righteousness in full. Faith (or complete trust in Christ is what connects us to Him thus we now have Christ's righteousness and Jesus our sin) there isn't much debate among Christians here. The debate comes as to this area: Why do some have faith and others do not?

    There have been really two schools of thought on this issue throughout church history a Monergistic view (calvin, augustine and Paul if they are right) and a synergistic view (Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism). Basically Calvinism says that the believer's very faith was purchased by Christ, so the reason we believe is because of Christ, he makes us willing to recieve Him as Savior. Whereas an Arminian or Semi-Pelagian view (now the norm in evangelicalism) says that we out of our free will must choose to believe, Christ does not make us willing, we do that. So the issue is not that people make choices but why.

    Calvinism is summed up often by the anacronym TULIP which stands for:
    T=Total depravaity, Now this meanse that all of man has been corrupted by the fall, his intellect, his deciscion making process, affections, are all effected by the fall and tainted with sin. This is NOT to be confused with utter depravity, nobody is as bad as they possibly could be, even Hitler didnt kill his mother.

    Rather, Total depravity says that because the fall of Adam, he and all his progeny now are in a ruined state, and desire to be autonomous and make rules and gods for themselves. Man now naturally likes sin (darkness) and dislikes righteousness (light), apart from Christ. Of course people won't admit that they like sin they will redefine what sin is (like that Deb lesbian "Christian") and what righteousness is. (Gen 6:5)

    U=unconditional election, this is where the predestination issue lay. UE states that from eternity past God chose who would recieve the benefits of Christ's redemption. God actively chose who He would redeem from the fallen race of men this is not a mere foreknowing, and it is not based on anything we can or have done, thus it is unconditional. (Rom 9:16, John 17:6)

    The Arminian says that we are elect because we have faith, the Calvinist says no we have faith because you are elect. (John 10:26)

    L= Limited Atonement, this does not mean that Jesus' atonement was in any way deficiant rather particular redemption is a better title for this. What is said here is that Christ died in particular for the elect, paid for ALL their sins and they definitely will be saved. (Isa 53:11)

    I=Irresistable Grace, this is what gives me hope that guys like Phronk can be saved. Not that Phronk will one day wise up and make a deciscion but that God by the Spirit will open his eyes that he might see Christ as more to be desired than sin. This grace is what brings people to repentance that sin becomes ugly and to be lamented and righteousness doesn't look like a bunch of rules but a path to live an glorify God. This is regeneration (born again) and it preceeds faith, we are not born again by our choosing Jesus, rather we choose Jesus because He chooses to regenerate us. It is comparable to getting new tastebuds, Christ which once looked (or tasted) ucky or stupid (because of sin) now seems to be the sweetest most precious thing in all the world. Thus, God is the author of repentance and faith. (2 Tim 2:24-26, John 6:44)

    P= Perseverence of the saints. This basically states that those who have been saved will persevere to the end, Christ will like a good shepherd guard His sheep and keep them from falling away from faith in Him.

    This is a BRIEF synopsis of Calvinist theology there are a lot more ins and outs but these are the bones so to speak. I am sure anyone familiar with evangelical theology finds TULIP to be a wee bit alien sounding with all the massive emphasis on free will these days. I didn't think I would get into this on Dani's page, I just come here to mess with atheists and liberals, but hey such is providence...

    Oh and Phronk, I'll deal with your quibbles tommorow perhaps it's getting late for blogging.

    ReplyDelete
  31. haha - good one --- this must be a joke!

    serving god? being a husband helper? training your kids?

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bob - I am curious to know a little more about that Calvinist view on predestination. Limpy brought up some good questions. Does God predestine every single person to either go to heaven or hell? If so, does it matter how I raise my children? Does God predestine every event to happen or are some things a result of poor human decisions? Is there anything we can do as human beings to ensure our eternal salvation or is it already planned out since the beginning of time?

    Also - If we can't get a hold of Billy, maybe we can have you on the show this Friday?

    Cassandra – Yes this is all a joke. Isn’t it a terrible thing that I would want to serve God by honoring my husband and helping him succeed? Can you believe it?
    It’s even worse that I would want to be a mother and dedicate my life to training my children to be loving and obedient. Shame on me!

    I know, I know. Maybe I should be a hindrance to my husband instead and nag him to death until his bones dry up? Even better, I should neglect my kids and drop them off at a daycare center in hopes that a pedophile will molest them, or perhaps I should leave them to themselves so they can grow up to be rebellious and bring our family nothing but shame.

    This is just hilarious - Keep on laughing!

    ReplyDelete
  33. A simple yes or no would have sufficed Bob. yeesh.

    Seriously though, as I recall my schooling we weren't being taught that Calvinists beleived in salvation through work, but that attaining success here on earth was a sign that you were "elect" and had already been determined to be saved. Accordingly, areas with strong Calvinist populations were a driving force behind the emergence of commerce and the developments of cities, foreign trade, etc. Somewhat off the topic I guess.

    I find the split you describe between the Arminians and the Calvinists fascinating. It seems Dani and I may have the same questions about this, and believe me that makes me shudder. I doubt it gives Dani the warm fuzzies either.

    It's certainly possible, in fact likely, that I'm missing something here, but I find the Calvinist idea that "we have faith because we are elect" to be unfair. It seems like that person has won a lottery, they get faith and redemption by the mere fact of being born. The Arminian philosophy, that "we are elect because we have faith" seems the better path, as it requires a person to make a choice and adhere to a course of conduct that earns their salvation.

    Again, I am perhaps missing something from the large amount of information you provided, but it seems to me that people should be judged on what they do rather than on what was already decided before they started to do anything.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hi Bob,

    I was intrigued by your comment that the Phelps cult is "hyper-Calvinist" which is considered a heresy.

    In my blogpost Many Will Be Deceived I mentioned the appearance of one of the Phelps family members on Hannity and Colmes. This was my summary:

    A few nights ago, I witnessed a verbal exchange between Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, and a member of the Westboro "Baptist" church (Fred Phelps fame). What a riveting segment. That group is a cult that has, unfortunately, been used to discredit true Christian ministries that seek to help people who are unhappy and struggling with same-sex attraction find freedom in Jesus Christ.

    This group goes even further down to the pit of Satan. They were picketing at funerals, demonstrating against, and demeaning our brave military heroes who had given their lives in the effort to defeat terrorism and keep our country safe from any additional attacks since the tragedy of 9/11.

    This is profoundly ugly. It's totally disgraceful and utterly unChristian to do such a thing. Yet, these people think that they are the "genuine" Christians and all the rest of us are "abominations."

    The Bible does not call people abominations. It calls certain acts of sin abominations.

    I would like to state one important observation about the Phelps cult member that appeared on Hannity and Colmes. She never once mentioned the power and saving grace that any sinner can be given through repentance and belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior!

    That one fact is what unites Christ's true, universal church (believers, not a denomination or building) despite differing "human traditions" added to individual denominations! This is the crux of the matter. If a church does not teach, "Jesus Christ and him crucified" as the way of salvation, then it is not following what God requires for reconciliation between God and man.
    See:
    1 Corinthians 2:1-5 (NKJV)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Limpy said… I find the split you describe between the Armenians and the Calvinists fascinating. It seems Dani and I may have the same questions about this, and believe me that makes me shudder. I doubt it gives Dani the warm fuzzies either.

    It's certainly possible, in fact likely, that I'm missing something here, but I find the Calvinist idea that "we have faith because we are elect" to be unfair. It seems like that person has won a lottery, they get faith and redemption by the mere fact of being born. The Armenian philosophy, that "we are elect because we have faith" seems the better path, as it requires a person to make a choice and adhere to a course of conduct that earns their salvation.


    Surprisingly Limpy, I think it is rather cool that we have the same questions about this. This demonstrates that you are open to learning something and not just here to debate. I agree with you that the Calvinist view is a grim set of beliefs. Not only is it unfair, but it is completely contrary to what True Christianity represents: Grace, Freedom and Hope in eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

    The Bible says that it is God’s predestined plan that ALL men be saved, but He has given us a free-will and we can make the choice to accept Him or reject Him. When I pose these questions to Bob, my purpose is that we will see the fallacies in his argument. Five- point Calvinism does not represent God or Biblical Christianity (sorry Bob, but it doesn't). The future is not locked in place and our personal choices can determine our eternal salvation.

    Bob - I certainly would be interested in hearing your answers to those specific questions about predestination, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

    But, let’s say for instance that Limpy is predestined to go to hell – Why should we bother telling him the Truth in hopes that he might be saved? Further, if he can’t do anything to change the outcome, why should he bother seeking out the right answers? If everything was all predestine from the beginning why are we even here debating the issues together?


    Since Bob, Christine and I are already considered to be the “elect”, why do we spend so much time trying to prove God to people like Limpy, Phronk and Ubersehen? Who gives a rip about them since they are a bunch of godless heathens – we’ve already made it to heaven - So just let them all go to hell, right?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Good stuff nothing unexpected,
    Limpy said:
    "It's certainly possible, in fact likely, that I'm missing something here, but I find the Calvinist idea that "we have faith because we are elect" to be unfair. It seems like that person has won a lottery, they get faith and redemption by the mere fact of being born. The Armenian philosophy, that "we are elect because we have faith" seems the better path, as it requires a person to make a choice and adhere to a course of conduct that earns their salvation."

    Well, the issue isn't so much whether or not we think God acting in a soveriegn electing manner is fair or not but God's right to do what He wants. What moral standard are we going to hold up to God and say "You cant do that!" It seems Paul met the same objection as he presented election and he writes: "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom 9:20-21)

    The "unfair" issue when we center our thinking on the bible alone, is not how can God be just and pass over rebelious sinners when He can turn their hearts and save (this is still a problem for Arminian for they EXTRA-biblically alledge that God abbrogated His soveriegnty to rescpect human will thus though He can turn hearts He won't this would make "robot love" supposedly) rather the biblically centered unfair issue is how in the world can God be just and allow sinners to get off from the punishment they deserve? All deserve punishment for rebellion against God so how can God be perfect (part of perfection is justice) and allow rebels into His kingdom? Soveriegn grace.

    The Calvinistic view of salvation is that of the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd knows His sheep (Jn 10:14) Christ has died for His sheep (Jn 10:11) and He will not suffer a single one of His sheep to perish or fall away (Jn 10:28). The Good Shepherd loves His own and has secured all of their salvation and will see them through to the end, this is the love of Christ for His own. If anything is unfair it is that any could be called His at all.

    Anyway, on to more of the standard objections, Dani asked:

    Oh wait before I get into this stuff I want to emphasise to the Christians who disagree with me that that is ok, I don't see myself as some sort of an elitest and just want to say that I respect and recieve you all as brethren in the Lord although we disagree about how we came to be such. Anyway, Dani said:

    "I agree with you that the Calvinist view is a grim set of beliefs. Not only is it unfair, but it is completely contrary to what True Christianity represents: Grace, Freedom and Hope in eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ."

    Well "grim" and "unfair" might describe how you feel about it but whether it is biblical is another issue. Again with the "fair" issue. We seem to get this unbiblical notion that unless God acts in an egalitarian way that it is unfair. God can do what He wants He is God, He is a law unto Himself. We seem to forget that God chose one people on the face of the earth to deal with, the Jews. The chosen people of God, God says of Israel: "You only have I known of all the families of the earth;..." (Amos 3:2)

    Well if it is unfair of God to elect who Christ will marry (the bride, I mean doesn't Christ have a right to choose who will be His bride?) then it is also unfair of God to choose the Jewish people and reaveal Himself exclusively to them in Redemptive History. Oh and it is not contrary as you say to what true christianity represents, rather I say Arminians don't understand grace, they want to make salvation dependant on something man does not Gods grace alone.

    Moving on, Dani states my point giving the standard synergist talk:

    "The future is not locked in place and our personal choices can determine our eternal salvation."

    Well I don't completely disagree, like I said earlier the issue is not that we choose Jesus, but why. So I ask you this Dani: Why did you choose Jesus to be your savior and say Phronk has not? Are you smarter than Phronk? More tender than Phronk? Why?

    I'll deal with one more bone usually thrown at Calvinism as Dani writes: "why do we spend so much time trying to prove God to people like Limpy, Phronk and Ubersehen? Who gives a rip about them since they are a bunch of godless heathens – we’ve already made it to heaven - So just let them all go to hell, right?"

    Well there are a few things to say here. First, no one knows who is elect merely by looking at them, Phronk very well may one day come to repentance, just because he hasn't yet does not give us grounds to write Him off. Secondly, Christ gave us a specific command to evangelize and make desciples of every nation, this is a command.
    Thirdly, election really gives motive to the great commision rather than hinders it. Because "...for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation," (Rev 5:9)
    Christ has ransomed elect from all over the world "every" tribe, this gives us reason for success for missions. Whereas if Arminianism is true then missions potentially will end in utter failure because that is all Jesus accomplished on the cross, a potential salvation not an actual.

    The Modern Missions movement was almost unanimously Calvinistic in its roots. William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Hudson Taylor etc were all Calvinist missionaries. So they at least did not see their Calvinism as a hinderance to witness, nor do I. May the Lamb of God recieve the reward of His sufferings.

    So I have plenty of reason to talk to unsaved people about Christ, ultimatly and this reason supercedes the others my reason for witnessing is to glorify God. Even if through the preaching of the gospel no one turns to Christ and repents God is glorified by having His name heralded.

    Again I want to emphasize to you Dani and other Christians who disagree that I think you are my brothers and though we don't see the same on this we see the same on Christ, that He is glorious and worthy to recieve all praise.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Oh if you still want me on the show Dani I'm game. We don't have to hash out Calvinism and predestination if you would rather deal with something else (like evangelicalism and how churches are selling out the gospel, letting gays in etc) Friday might be cool I work 3-11 central, and will be back from my interview on Desiring God radio. Or if you are down Saturday is cool, I don't do much on the weekend except read books and play with the kid. So yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bob - Let me say that I also consider you a brother in Christ, and issues like these do not warrant any kind of division. Sometimes it's just fun to debate with each other - But all in all, this is not a bone I wish to pick with you. I know by your comments that you are a sincere believer and you have strong convictions in the Truth. Hey, if you can understand simple morals absolutes like the abomination of homosexuality - then you're good in my book.

    Thanks for your detailed response about Calvinism. I don't want to carry on with this, I am mainly just interested in your answers about predestination:

    1. Has God appointed the eternal destiny or damnation for every single soul before the foundation of the world? Yes or No

    2. Does God predestine all the events in our lives (good & bad) to happen? Yes or No

    3. Can God ever change or be affected by love? Yes or No

    4. If God has already appointed His elect to eternal life, and condemned the rest to everlasting punishment - Is there is anything anyone can do to know God or fall away from Him?

    My guess is that our beliefs about God are not all that different from each other, I think we (at least me) may have radical views and preconceived ideas about the opposing side. My understanding of the Calvinist view is pretty grim, but that doesn't represent your view or take away from the reality of who God is.

    I've never been fond of labels or denominations, particularly with Christianity. I don't like to attach myself to a specific set of doctrine such as Calvinism or Armenians because both views equally misrepresent the true character of God and serve as a distraction to followers of Christ. Personally, I believe in the living God of the Bible, and in the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ because He alone saved me from total depravity once I humbled myself and put my faith in Him.

    You said that you don't completely disagree, with this statement: "The future is not locked in place and our personal choices can determine our eternal salvation." but the issue is not that we choose Jesus, but why?

    So I ask you this Dani: Why did you choose Jesus to be your savior and say Phronk has not? Are you smarter than Phronk? More tender than Phronk? Why?

    No - I did not choose Jesus to be my savior because I am smarter or more tender than Phronk. I chose Christ because I realized my fallen condition, and my own understanding of life was leading me down a path of total destruction. I was hard and rebellious, but at the same time my spirit was broken. I knew I needed God to save me from myself and my sins - So humbly, I went before God, confessed my sins and asked Him for forgiveness. It was at that point in time that Christ became my Savior.

    Phronk is too swelled up in his own pride, and puffed up in earthly knowledge to even have the humility to admit he is a sinner and recognize that he needs a savior. Phronk's heart is too hard to even acknowledge that God exists, let alone a righteous standard for living - How can he possibly choose to have faith Jesus Christ?

    ------------

    Bob - As for the show on Friday - let's plan on it. Just email me or my husband so we can work out the details and time to call you.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dani asked:
    "1. Has God appointed the eternal destiny or damnation for every single soul before the foundation of the world? Yes or No"

    Well, in short yes. This is still a problem irregardless of if man has a libertarian free-will in salvation. God still would forknow from eternity past that creatures He was going to make would refuse to choose Him and thus be damned forever. I'll let scripture speak for itself:
    " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
    he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will" (Eph 1:3-5)


    Unless you do some serious tricks it definatly appears that Paul is saying God chose people to be in Christ before the world began (election). Likewise of reprobation (passing over):

    "For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Thess 5:9)

    "2. Does God predestine all the events in our lives (good & bad) to happen? Yes or No"

    Yes, He does. But for those who are His He works even the bad for good. The story of Joseph is a case and point example of God ordaining evil (Joseph being betrayed and sold as a slave) to bring about good (the Israelites are saved through the famine). The cross of Jesus is an example of God ordaining evil:

    "this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men."

    It was the plan of God that Jesus go through a bogus trial, be sold and betrayed by Judas, beaten unjustly, and ultimatly killed....this was God's plan.

    "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?" (Lam 3:38)

    "all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?" (Dan 4:35)

    "3. Can God ever change or be affected by love? Yes or No"

    No, God is immutable. The only thing that changes God's attitude towards sinners is them being clothed in what He delights...righteousness, Christ's righteousness.

    "4. If God has already appointed His elect to eternal life, and condemned the rest to everlasting punishment - Is there is anything anyone can do to know God or fall away from Him?"

    The issue is not so much whether we can do something to know God or be accepted by Him, but rather do we as fallen sinners even want to know God and be accepted by Him? This is why the bible says "unless you are born again you can not enter the kingdom of God." A hallmark of reformed theology is that regeneration preceeds faith. So to be short sure sinners can repent and turn from their sins, but unless God changes their hearts no one will because fallen man is content to not retain God in his thoughts (at least the true God).

    Now as for your response to my question of why you chose Jesus and Phronk hasn't you basically said because you were more humble than Phronk. Phronk is a proud jerk (probably true) and you at some point decided not to be you "realized" that you needed Jesus whereas Phronk has not. This is still something you did, you "realized" you "humbled" yourself. Sounds like you saved yourself...

    As for me I have plenty of hope for Phronk, because I don't view conversion as being dependant upon Phronk humbling himself and realizing something. Rather I see conversion as being dependant upon the grace of God opening Phronk's eye's so that he might see the wretchedness of sin and the beauty of Christ. The humbling and realizing come as a part of the rebirth package.

    On a lighter note, I emailed your husband about the show. I was hoping for a pretty phat intro with maybe an Onyx beat. Or just boo me that's always fun too.

    Oh and sorry if talking about all this predestination stuff might be tough to deal with, I know it was for me before I accepted it. I fought the idea that God was the soveriegn Lord of all of life until I asked what am I fighting against? I was fighting God's right to be God, while defending man's autonomy.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hey Dani, It finally cooled off enuff for me to start blogging again. I could go on and on about my own personal proof, but for what it would take up in space and the swine only seem to want to circle the wagons anyway. Lets just say I have had messages, prayers, proof, and answers........I know in my heart they were GOD Inspired....Maybe one day i will sit down and compose of my relationship with GOD.... As for now... it is 10;45 and time for mah air conditioned bedroom..... KC.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Unknown Soldier - Thanks for stopping by my blog.

    As for Steven Hawking's theory of circular time - it's only a theory.

    The Universe cannot be a perpetual motion machine because it would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. If the Universe had always been here, the sun and stars would have burnt out by now and everything would be cold and dark.

    Second - We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create itself out of nothing. Consider the law of cause and effect. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. Material effects without adequate causes do not exist.

    Why does there need to be a beginning and an end?

    First of all: The effect cannot be greater than the cause - Not only is it illogical and irrational, it is scientifically impossible!

    Second - this implies that we are more than a cosmic accident and we are created beings not random chance events.

    ReplyDelete
  42. As for Steven Hawking's theory of circular time - it's only a theory.

    Welcome to Western empirical science. A theory is the highest 'truth' in science. You cannot go any higher than that. IOW, there is no such thing as PROOF in science; proof is for maths alone.

    So why casually dismiss something as "just a theory"? You are truly ignorant of science. That's like saying "it's just an oil tanker" or the classic "it's just a flesh wound".

    (Stephen Hawking is also an infidel.)

    The Universe cannot be a perpetual motion machine because it would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. If the Universe had always been here, the sun and stars would have burnt out by now and everything would be cold and dark.

    Quantum physics effects transcend thermodynamics even now. It is entirely possible that these present laws did not exist before the Universe came into being, or changed into its present form.

    Second - We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create itself out of nothing. Consider the law of cause and effect. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. Material effects without adequate causes do not exist.

    I know of no such SCIENTIFIC law. What book did you find it in?

    First of all: The effect cannot be greater than the cause - Not only is it illogical and irrational, it is scientifically impossible!

    Again, how is it scientifically impossible? Furthermore, if effects may not be greater than causes as you claim, then who or what created God? An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Big Guy in the Sky is a hell of an effect...what caused this effect?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dani Said: "Since 1 & 2 are false, we must examine a third option which is the only rational, logical, and scientific possibility: An infinite, supernatural Creator who exists outside the natural laws of the Universe created everything."

    Dani, with respect, if you are suggesting your arguments are based on science, logic and rationality, you ruin it when you say god exists outside the natural laws. If something can exist outside the natural laws, what good are natural laws?

    I respect you for your faith, but you know, it's irrational, and it may be best to simply confess to yourself that it is, rather than attempting to espouse this childlike circular reasoning. It's OK to say "I beleive in God, but I can't prove to you he exists." And you don't need to . He exists for you.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I agree that God is the creator of all things as is spoken of in Genesis and John but I disagree with God being in 3 persons. In order for there to be a God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, we are actually saying that there are subsequently 3 Gods. No where in the bible does it say that God exists in 3 persons and although God was referred to in the bible as God the Father he was never referred to as God the Son and God the Holy Ghost nor does it mention the word 'trinity' or 'trine being' anywhere in the bible; that doctrine came from the Roman empire and catholicism (check out this link:

    http://www.thunderministries.com/history/triad/triintro.html.

    It does say in the bible that there is only 1 God, there is no other God besides him. There was only one true and living God in the old testament and he was constantly referred to as the 'Lord' thy God and we know from the bible that Jesus Christ is Lord. Jesus Christ is God the Father, he also came as the Son of God here on earth and he also sends his Holy Spirit which is Jesus Christ again coming to live permanently within us in Spirit form therefore, he is 1 not three, the same God manifested in different ways. God or also manifested in other forms in the old testament; he appeared to Moses as a burning bush, he appeared in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, the bible also states that the Rock that Moses struck was Christ, this obviously happened way before Christ walked on earth as the Son of God. After all, with God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26 Therefore the God who created all things is Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Greetings Deep Truth - thanks for stopping by. I agree with you that there is only one God - God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit are ALL God the Creator as One. God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons.

    Question - If Jesus was a manifestation of God in the flesh living here on earth as a man, wouldn't that mean He existed separate from God the Father during that time?

    If not - who was Jesus praying to or speaking of when He referred to "Father"?

    While this does not mean there are more than one God since we know that Jesus says, "I and the Father are One" - would you agree that it is possible for God to be a Father up in heaven while also offering Himself as a blood sacrifice on the cross? After all, with God all things are possible.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Deep Truth,

    You need to understand something about the nature of God. He exists as three persons- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three persons are known collectively as God. They are constantly in love with one another and with creation. They are constantly giving and recieving love and honor to one another and to creation. They are so tight in intimacy that they are a single being.

    This symbol of intimacy is the very reason He created us. God was so overflowing with love that He wanted to share it with the rest of us. This is also a symbol of marriage. This is where we can go beyond this thing called "self" and love someone with great and deep intimacy. Intimacy goes beyond the physical, and it is where we can "know" someone deeply on "all levels".

    ReplyDelete

NO TROLLS ALLOWED - Comments will be moderated - Remember, it's always a good idea to tell the TRUTH....