Your God does not merit praise!

[d taylor]

_
Again did your god have a beginning.

 

[JAL]

With you prescribing that Your god has developed over time. Does your god have a beginning, i have read where you, use the term from the get go in connection with your god.

I provided a link to my cosmogony in the OP. Matter is eternal.
(1) The Bible indicates a material God.
(2) The Bible ascribes merit to His perfections and achievements. This means He must have accomplished these things by labor/suffering over time.

My cosmogony is a summary of points 1 and 2. Hence it is the ONLY biblical view.

Does your god have a beginning...

Does your theology have any coherence? Erickson admitted that the orthodox trinity is logically "absurd from the human standpoint" - which is true for several reasons. Shall we consider just one of those reasons? Let's do.

Suppose a son says to his father, "I want to fellowship with you but you haven't been spending any time with me." Did you catch that? Fellowship is real-time communication between two parties. It involves TIME. Let's apply this to the Trinity. Did the Three have any fellowship with one another prior to creation? Yes! In terms of coherence, this can ONLY be conceived as communication in TIME. What was the first conversation between them? And when did it happen? Incoherently, orthodoxy wants to predicate an atemporal eternality of the Three. What does that even mean? An infinite past - an infinite number of past conversations where there was never any first conversation? This is pure gibberish - total nonsense!

Again, if you love nonsense - hollow and deceptive philosophy - that's your choice. Nothing I can do about it.

 

[JAL]

_
Again did your god have a beginning.

See my last post (282).

 

[JAL]

Speculate on Psalms 33:9

For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

Where are your x number of years in this verse.

That verse doesn't clearly indicate it. But when I have a moment, I'll show you one that is clear enough.

 

[JAL]

Speculate on Psalms 33:9

For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

Where are your x number of years in this verse.

That verse doesn't clearly indicate it. Shall we discuss some verses more clear? Let's do.

For the most part, I absolutely HATE politicians. I mean, I hate their behavior. Most of them are liars and hypocrites. Imagine a father who says to his son, "Work hard. Follow my EXAMPLE of labor." If he himself never actually worked hard, he is behaving like a politician - a liar and total hypocrite! In terms of setting the EXAMPLE of labor, what should we expect? A great leader sets a great example. When HE says, "Follow my example of labor," what should we expect? That he only labored one day out of his life? Maybe six or seven? The greater the leader, the greater the example he sets. Therefore if God says, "Follow MY example of labor," how many days of labor should we expect this to mean, in terms of setting the example?

Let's start with Genesis 2 (bearing in mind what I said that a leader who CLAIMS to have worked, but never really did so, is a total liar and a total hypocrite):

"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work" (Gen 2).

What work exactly? YECs take this to mean six or seven lazy speeches that cost God NOTHING in terms of actual hard work! Across 7 24-hour periods! Heck, I myself had already worked harder than that before I was even six years old! Worse yet, God says He RESTED from all His work! Rested from what exactly? Lazy sloth?

And it STILL gets worse (if it is even possible to plunge deeper than rock-bottom). He goes on to say, hypocritically, "Follow my example of labor" !!!!! He does this in Exodus:

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work...For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

An exponentially great leader sets an exponentially great example. Therefore the seven days of Genesis MUST refer to a period of time exponentially greater than 7 calendar days. After all, where did the daylight come from? There was no sun in place as yet, not until Day Four. 2Cor 4 suggests it was the Light of Christ's face.

Across the 4 billion years of earth's history (if science dating is correct), God shined His Light into the galaxy at least six times, and quenched it six times, to create seven Galactic Days and nights. He did this to lay down HIS (exponential) example of working six days as a basic model/example of labor for us all to follow.

It took Him 4 billion years to shape the earth because He was engaged in a learning process. If it had been quick and easy for Him, it would not merit any praise.

Speculate on Psalms 33:9

For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

Where are your x number of years in this verse.

Speculate on Psalm 33:9? Speculate on verses such as Isaiah 55:11 and Psalm 33:6:

"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth" (Ps 33)

By speaking, the Son breathes forth the Holy Breath/Wind (the Third Person) to perform His work (in this case to shape the earth). Hence Genesis says, "The [Breath/Wind] of God hovered over the waters." Have you ever been on the ocean? Did you notice that wind/breath hovers over the waters? But in this case it was the divine Breath/Wind.

To summarize. God expects us to labor/work for 50 years. To drive the point home, He tells us that He set the EXAMPLE of labor/work. Since His example is by default exponentially great, we must multiply 50 years exponentially to comprehend it. That means millions or billions of years, or something in that ballpark.

 

[JAL]

And let me add that an intangible, immaterial Spirit could not have shaped the earth. Molding a lump of clay requires tangible, material hands.

 

[d taylor]

That verse doesn't clearly indicate it. Shall we discuss some verses more clear? Let's do.

For the most part, I absolutely HATE politicians. I mean, I hate their behavior. Most of them are liars and hypocrites. Imagine a father who says to his son, "Work hard. Follow my EXAMPLE of labor." If he himself never actually worked hard, he is behaving like a politician - a liar and total hypocrite! In terms of setting the EXAMPLE of labor, what should we expect? A great leader sets a great example. When HE says, "Follow my example of labor," what should we expect? That he only labored one day out of his life? Maybe six or seven? The greater the leader, the greater the example he sets. Therefore if God says, "Follow MY example of labor," how many days of labor should we expect this to mean, in terms of setting the example?

Let's start with Genesis 2 (bearing in mind what I said that a leader who CLAIMS to have worked, but never really did so, is a total liar and a total hypocrite):

"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work" (Gen 2).

What work exactly? YECs take this to mean six or seven lazy speeches that cost God NOTHING in terms of actual hard work! Across 7 24-hour periods! Heck, I myself had already worked harder than that before I was even six years old! Worse yet, God says He RESTED from all His work! Rested from what exactly? Lazy sloth?

And it STILL gets worse (if it is even possible to plunge deeper than rock-bottom). He goes on to say, hypocritically, "Follow my example of labor" !!!!! He does this in Exodus:

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work...For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

An exponentially great leader sets an exponentially great example. Therefore the seven days of Genesis MUST refer to a period of time exponentially greater than 7 calendar days. After all, where did the daylight come from? There was no sun in place as yet, not until Day Four. 2Cor 4 suggests it was the Light of Christ's face.

Across the 4 billion years of earth's history (if science dating is correct), God shined His Light into the galaxy at least six times, and quenched it six times, to create seven Galactic Days and nights. He did this to lay down HIS (exponential) example of working six days as a basic model/example of labor for us all to follow.

It took Him 4 billion years to shape the earth because He was engaged in a learning process. If it had been quick and easy for Him, it would not merit any praise.



Speculate on Psalm 33:9? Speculate on verses such as Isaiah 55:11 and Psalm 33:6:

"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth" (Ps 33)

By speaking, the Son breathes forth the Holy Breath/Wind (the Third Person) to perform His work (in this case to shape the earth). Hence Genesis says, "The [Breath/Wind] of God hovered over the waters." Have you ever been on the ocean? Did you notice that wind/breath hovers over the waters? But in this case it was the divine Breath/Wind.

To summarize. God expects us to labor/work for 50 years. To drive the point home, He tells us that He set the EXAMPLE of labor/work. Since His example is by default exponentially great, we must multiply 50 years exponentially to comprehend it. That means millions or billions of years, or something in that ballpark.

Rested form His work means, that he ceased His work. God was not physically tired and had to rest. He simply stopped His creation was finished.

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[d taylor]

-​

Looks like you are more understanding of psychology than scripture.

 

[Carl Emerson]

And let me add that an intangible, immaterial Spirit could not have shaped the earth. Molding a lump of clay requires tangible, material hands.

Really ???

He changed water into wine without treading the grapes...

 

[Andrewn]

And? You haven't proven that Tertullian's view was polytheism (Tritheism ).

I don't want to go in circles. I already quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia saying that Tertullian's view was semi-Arian. I realize that a lot of people are participating in this thread and you may be forgetting what I already wrote, so this will be my last response.

No that translation of ruach/pneuma originates in a homosexual pagan philosopher named Plato who invented immaterialism. One of the main points on my thread on the biblical evidence for materialism is that ruach/pneuma clearly means physical wind/breath.

Both ruach and pneuma mean air/wind/breath. But they clearly refers to a supernatural kind of air/wind/breath. Try blowing air into a corpse and it will not become alive. The spirit is a type of matter or energy or something else that is invisible like air but it is not air because it gives life.

Um...er..uh...I'm discussing metaphysics. Matter is anything tangible, it need not be arranged/structured into atoms, much less human protoplasm (flesh). Yes, Tertullian probably realized that the soul should not be classified as flesh, even though it is material. Again, thanks for the quote that confirms what I said.

You are talking about ordinary matter and I'm talking about extraordinary matter-energy. Dark Matter and Dark Energy that fill up the universe are they solid figures seated on a sold throne as you described God?!!

I only read the first few paragraphs. Let me know if I missed something. The article referred to three solid figures, if I recall correctly, in a polytheistic sense - meaning the Three are not really One. I agree that such a view is unbiblical.

This thread has been quite active and hasn't given you a chance to read and comprehend responses. No, the article doesn't refer to 3 solid figures. Like your view, it refers to 2 solid figures and a person of spirit.

 

[SongOnTheWind]

Please don't lie.

Please don't lie. I never said any such thing, nor would I imagine it even for a moment.

Wow, Just wow. Still waiting on the scripture. Check through your threads. If you gave them before then you must have them easily ready to give again. And while you are at it, you'll see the many times you have passionately stated that the person happening to disagree with you at any given time would either end up in hell or have to face judgement on Judgement day, which would pretty much condemn them to the same thing.

You really need to stop accusing people. If you don't have any scripture references, just say so. If your only way out is to threaten people with judgement then this has really stopped being a discussion. If you're just going to accuse people of lying because you yourself have been caught out then you really need to take a good look at why you are discussing what you are discussing. Is it to be right, no matter what the cost?

I think you are taking this way too far, and way too personally. People disagree with you. I disagree with you, and you haven't shown me any reason to consider what you have to say, whatsoever. If you had scriptural support, then I would take a closer look. As it is, if you can't allow for others to have their say or to state their point of view without constantly accusing them, I don't see how you could possibly hope to have a fruitful discussion.

 

[JAL]

Really ???

He changed water into wine without treading the grapes...

How can intangible hands mold clay? And why bother mold it? If God magically creates things ex nihilo, why didn't He simply pop the earth into existence fully molded already?

My reading makes a lot more sense.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

I am wondering, do you just abhor the account of the feeding of the 5000. I guess you would have had Jesus, to get in a boat and go out with a net and catch the fish to feed the people.

 

[JAL]

Rested form His work means, that he ceased His work. God was not physically tired and had to rest. He simply stopped His creation was finished.

Not tired? Then it wasn't real labor/work.

I've labored less than 50 years and I already feel EXHAUSTED. I'm burned out. I'm ready to retire right now, and my aching bones remind me of that fact every single day.

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Exactly. His ways are exponentially higher than our ways - exponentially more virtuous. That means He labors/suffers exponentially longer than what He asks of us, instead of hypocritically lying about having done real labor/work, as a politician would do.

If God never did real labor/work, He didn't have to mention it. And yet Scripture clearly mentions His example. The implications are clear.

 

[JAL]

-
​

I am wondering, do you just abhor the account of the feeding of the 5000. I guess you would have had Jesus, to get in a boat and go out with a net and catch the fish to feed the people.

Um...er..uh...Have you ever seen a magician? He manipulates matter before your very eyes, and yet too quickly for you to figure out how he does it! Today's computers easily process millions of instructions per second. If man-made machines can move that fast, how fast do you think Yahweh can move? Fast enough to fill baskets of food faster than the eye can detect, somewhat like a magician? I'd say so!

 

[JAL]

I don't want to go in circles. I already quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia saying that Tertullian's view was semi-Arian.

And? Relevance? See post 282 for an example of incoherence in the traditional version of the Trinity. ANY version of Trinitarianism is likely an improvement on the traditional version. I haven't studied Tertullian's version, but I suspect it's probably similar to mine. Wouldn't surprise me. Scripture says that the Son was begotten of the Father. Does orthodoxy have any coherent explanation of what that means? Of course not. One possibility is that the Son was shaped out of the divine Word, at some point in time, as to sit on the throne alongside the Father. This does NOT mean created, it's just a change of shape. Until then, arguably, the Father was not really "Father" (since He had not designated a Son as yet). That's probably where Tertullian stood, and at least it's logically coherent, not some piece of unintelligible gibberish that orthodoxy expects us to swallow hook, line, and sinker, at penalty of excommunication or conflagration on a stake.

Both ruach and pneuma mean air/wind/breath. But they clearly refers to a supernatural kind of air/wind/breath. Try blowing air into a corpse and it will not become alive.

Living? Yes. Supernatural? No. There is nothing supernatural/magical about resurrecting the dead. It's just physical dexterity. At death, the hand of God removes the material soul from the body. Whenever His hand places that soul back into the body, and surgically heals the body if needed, it's called resurrection.

You are talking about ordinary matter and I'm talking about extraordinary matter-energy. Dark Matter and Dark Energy that fill up the universe are they solid figures seated on a sold throne as you described God?!!

Dark matter? You seem to be confusing physics with metaphysics.

 

[renniks]

Um...er..uh...Have you ever seen a magician? He manipulates matter before your very eyes, and yet too quickly for you to figure out how he does it! Today's computers easily process millions of instructions per second. If man-made machines can move that fast, how fast do you think Yahweh can move? Fast enough to fill baskets of food faster than the eye can detect, somewhat like a magician? I'd say so!

So you just add a lot of nonsense to scripture like every other cult.
Not very original.

 

[d taylor]

Um...er..uh...Have you ever seen a magician? He manipulates matter before your very eyes, and yet too quickly for you to figure out how he does it! Today's computers easily process millions of instructions per second. If man-made machines can move that fast, how fast do you think Yahweh can move? Fast enough to fill baskets of food faster than the eye can detect, somewhat like a magician? I'd say so!

So you see Jesus as a skilled person like a magician, who had the fish stored and hidden away and very quickly would taken them out for whoever need a fish.

 

[d taylor]

-​

No doubt in this day and age you will find an audience for your teachings. But one person that it will not be, is me.

 

[JAL]

So you just add a lot of nonsense to scripture like every other cult.
Not very original.

Right. Claiming that Yahweh has the ability to manipulate matter, for purposes of feeding the hungry, is nonsensical and cultic. Gotcha.