Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

[JAL]

It seems that Staff deleted my earlier thread for being too hostile. Hopefully everyone will find this new thread less offensive.

"You foolish Galatians!" (Gal 3:1). As human beings of very limited knowledge, all of us are potentially susceptible to doctrinal error. In fact, I will argue that a few mainstream doctrines seem needy of reform. Indeed the motto of the Reformation was, "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda," (Reformed, AND ALWAYS REFORMING).

The mainstream teachings in question here are problematical for various reasons. Seemingly, at least:
- They do not appear to always cast Yahweh in the best possible light, potentially leaving an uninformed reader with doubts about the supreme excellency of His character and His unqualified desert of praise.
- They seem unaware of Yahweh's most costly, unselfish, altruistic sacrifice, mistaking it for the cross. Sadly, Yahweh doesn't seem to be getting any credit/praise for His most self-sacrificial work.
- They seem unaware of why Yahweh created us.
- They seem unaware of the Third Person's true name and nature. Surprisingly, after 2,000 years the church still refers to Him as "The Holy Spirit" or "The Holy Ghost". As a result of such apparent mistakes, mainstream theologians are still mystified even by a verse as lucid as John 3:5.
- They seem unaware of what an intimate relationship with the Father entails and thereby potentially steer our prayer lives in inappropriate directions.
- They seem to favor the same erroneous approaches to sanctification, evangelism, and missions that triggered the writing of the Galatian epistle.

The most important point of all, however, is that church leaders should abstain from any pretense of infallibility in their teachings. When a pastor preaches a sermon with the aura or disposition of, "I've studied my Bible and therefore KNOW exactly what I'm talking about", he's actually hindering revival by building on a platform of intellectual dishonesty. The truth is that he merely has OPINIONS (see my signature), just like the rest of us.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I don't quite understand the question. The Bible's teachings don't alter. The language in which they are expressed from country to country might alter over the centuries, somewhat, but the actually doctrine reflecting what the Scriptures say, does not.

 

[JAL]

Above all that, I am interested in the name of the Third Person of the Trinity, do you have a name that could be said to be accurate to call Him?

Suppose I bring three people to your home for you to meet them. I introduce the three like this: "This is the father, this is son, and this is The Human Being." If all three are human beings, that third title seems inappropriate, right? Because:
(1) It doesn't shed any light on who that third person is. Is it the mother? A sibling? Uncle? Cousin? Friend of the family? Caretaker? Who is it? While the first two titles (father and son) are legitimate in virtue of making an ENLIGHTENING DISTINCTION between two of the members, serving to identify/distinguish them, the third title fails of that goal.
(2) It's self-defeating, because it raises doubts as to whether the FIRST TWO members are human beings.

As a result, no one would ever propose such a title for the third person of a trio. Again, the problem here is that if all three are OF THE SAME TYPE (human beings), it doesn't make sense to 'distinguish' the third one BY TYPE.


Let's apply this reasoning to the Trinity. Are all the Three of the same type, that is to say, Is the Father a spirit? Is the Son a spirit? Is the third person a spirit? Orthodoxy asserts, 'Yes!' On this assumption, the third title 'The Holy Spirit' doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

 

[JAL]

I don't quite understand the question. The Bible's teachings don't alter. The language in which they are expressed from country to country might alter over the centuries, somewhat, but the actually doctrine reflecting what the Scriptures say, does not.

Sorry this post is just as confusing to me as my post apparently was to you. I thought I was clear on the intent and purpose of this thread.

 

[JAL]

Above all that, I am interested in the name of the Third Person of the Trinity, do you have a name that could be said to be accurate to call Him?

Ok so what is the real name of the Holy Spirit? What it boils down to is that God is NOT a Spirit. The English word 'spirit' doesn't actually exist in the real Bible because it is a mistranslation of the Greek word pneuma and the Hebrew word ruach.

One thing's for sure. The TITLES of the three do not change in meaning. For example if one passage alludes to Father and Son, and then another passage, using the same two Greek words, likewise refers to God, we should be consistent in the translation. That is to say, we shouldn't do something like this:
(1st passage) - Read it as Father and Son
(2nd passage) - Read it as Mother-in-Law and Uncle.
That would be stupid, right? Certainly. So we need to be CONSISTENT on how we translate the titles of each member. This means that if we can find even ONE VERSE where the title of the third person IS CLEAR, then we must read that same title into ALL the parallel passages (if they use the same Greek words as a title of God) - no exceptions, no inconsistencies.

Fortunately we can form a pretty reliable hypothesis because, historically, there are really only two contending translations of the Greek word pneuma:
1. (Immaterial) Spirit.
2. (Physical!) Wind or Breath.

Since we've already seen that option 1 is a PROBLEM, option 2 is the most reasonable choice.

After all, the distinction between physical and non-physical is crucial if we want to avoid cognitive idolatry. In my mind, am I suppose to worship a physical being with actual dimensions? Or am I suppose to worship a non-physical, dimension-less being devoid of size and shape? Orthodoxy has always insisted on the latter position, despite the testimony of Scripture (viz. Moses speaking to God face to face).

Is God a foolish teacher? Does He write in a way to FOSTER confusion and cognitive idolatry? The point is this. If 'Spirit' were the correct translation, God would be foolish to create a Bible that mentions physical wind/breath in the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of third-person activity, because such might mislead us to favor the translation (physical) Wind/Breath over (immaterial) Spirit.

Conclusion: If we can find even ONE PASSAGE where physical wind/breath is mentioned in the context of third-person activity, we can JUSTIFIABLY CONCLUDE that His title is "The Holy Wind/Breath".


Fortunately there is MORE than one such passage. The most clear is John 20:22, "Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy [Breath]". Jesus was expelling PHYSICAL wind/breath from His nostrils. Therefore the traditionally accepted translation, "Receive the Holy Spirit", is incredibly weak. In fact, classical scholarship held in consensus that "Receive the Holy Breath" was a legitimate translation.

Let's look at another example. The waters of the Red Sea did not divide instantaneously but rather were parted slowly by a PHYSICAL WIND over the course of an entire evening. According to Moses, this wind a blast of breath from God's nostrils (Ex 15). The Hebrew word used there for 'breath' is ruach, it is the SAME word mistranslated 'The Spirit of God' by mainstream theologians.


Third example. On the day of Pentecost, the 120 saints all heard the sound of a mighty rushing wind. 'And they were all filled with the Holy [Spirit ?]'. They were filled with the Holy SPIRIT? Hardly. Look at the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT. They heard the sound of blowing WIND. Therefore, "They were all filled with the Holy WIND." Even a 10-year old child raised in an ancient Greek city could have easily figured out the correct reading based on the context.

Fourth. "By the word of the Lord were the heavens formed, the starry hosts by the breath of His mouth." Here the word 'breath' is the SAME Hebrew word often mistranslated 'Spirit of God'. When we speak WORDS, we exhale physical breath/wind. This passage reveals that the third Person, in the form of physical Breath/Wind, goes forth from God's mouth to perform any needed miracles. Thus He performs miracles by speaking. Which is precisely the teaching of Isaiah 55:11, "So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: It shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please." Notice that it RETURNS to God. As even the Protestant Keil-Delitzsch commentary commented on Isa 55:11, the verse clearly denotes a SUBSTANCE exuding from the mouth of God into the region of need, performing the miracle in that vicinity, and then RETURNING to God. And here's what you need to understand. These dynamics MAKE NO SENSE UNLESS GOD IS A PHYSICAL BEING. After all, if you were a magical spirit (a kind of wizard or witch), you could perform a miracle by simply shouting an incantation FROM AFAR. There would be no NEED to travel into the physical vicinity to perform the miracle WITH YOUR OWN HANDS (viz. God's Breath/Wind pushing the waters apart).

Fifth. Take a look at Psalm 18. Has a couple of allusions to the fiery Breath/Wind of God's nostrils (the same Fire/Breath seen on Pentecost). This psalm uses that same Hebrew word mistranslated 'Spirit of God'.

Sixth. "He will baptize you in the Holy [Spirit?], and fire" (Math 3:11). Hardly. Look at the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT. John refers to the farmer's fan that used breath/wind/air to separate the wheat from the chaff cast into the fire. The better translation is, "He will baptize you in the Holy Wind, and with Fire" (almost certainly an unmistakable reference to Pentecost).

 

[Radagast]

They seem unaware of the Third Person's true name and nature. Surprisingly, after 2,000 years the church still refers to Him as "The Holy Spirit"

Because that's what the Bible says (John 14:26 etc.).

You seem to be making a blanket attack on Christianity that has no Biblical basis whatsoever. Indeed, your theological opinions seem distinctly unorthodox, and quite probably in breach of our Statement of Faith.

 

[SkyWriting]

It seems that Staff deleted my earlier thread for being too hostile. Hopefully everyone will find this new thread less offensive.

"You foolish Galatians!" (Gal 3:1). As human beings of very limited knowledge, all of us are potentially susceptible to doctrinal error. In fact, I will argue that a few mainstream doctrines seem needy of reform. Indeed the motto of the Reformation was, "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda," (Reformed, AND ALWAYS REFORMING).

The mainstream teachings in question here are problematical for various reasons. Seemingly, at least:
- They do not appear to always cast Yahweh in the best possible light, potentially leaving an uninformed reader with doubts about the supreme excellency of His character and His unqualified desert of praise.
- They seem unaware of Yahweh's most costly, unselfish, altruistic sacrifice, mistaking it for the cross. Sadly, Yahweh doesn't seem to be getting any credit/praise for His most self-sacrificial work.
- They seem unaware of why Yahweh created us.
- They seem unaware of the Third Person's true name and nature. Surprisingly, after 2,000 years the church still refers to Him as "The Holy Spirit" or "The Holy Ghost". As a result of such apparent mistakes, mainstream theologians are still mystified even by a verse as lucid as John 3:5.
- They seem unaware of what an intimate relationship with the Father entails and thereby potentially steer our prayer lives in inappropriate directions.
- They seem to favor the same erroneous approaches to sanctification, evangelism, and missions that triggered the writing of the Galatian epistle.

The most important point of all, however, is that church leaders should abstain from any pretense of infallibility in their teachings. When a pastor preaches a sermon with the aura or disposition of, "I've studied my Bible and therefore KNOW exactly what I'm talking about", he's actually hindering revival by building on a platform of intellectual dishonesty. The truth is that he merely has OPINIONS (see my signature), just like the rest of us.

I like the term "Insights".
Insight for Living - Chuck Swindoll's Bible-teaching via articles, books

 

[SkyWriting]

As a result, no one would ever propose such a title for the third person of a trio. Again, the problem here is that if all three are OF THE SAME TYPE (human beings), it doesn't make sense to 'distinguish' the third one BY TYPE. Let's apply this reasoning to the Trinity. Are all the Three of the same type, that is to say, Is the Father a spirit? Is the Son a spirit? Is the third person a spirit? Orthodoxy asserts, 'Yes!' On this assumption, the third title 'The Holy Spirit' doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Makes perfect sense to me. The "Holy Spirit" is not the head, did not die, does not have a body, did not appear in the desert, does not eat fish, does not require sacrifice....and has other unique characteristics.

 

[JAL]

Because that's what the Bible says (John 14:26 etc.).

You seem to be making a blanket attack on Christianity that has no Biblical basis whatsoever. Indeed, your theological opinions seem distinctly unorthodox, and quite probably in breach of our Statement of Faith.

I'm a Christian - making a blanket attack on Christianity? That's a rather odd claim.

I'm a Trinitarian, and I'm not wholly opposed to a statement such as the "spirit of a man" as long as it's UNDERSTOOD to be a physical soul. The problem is that the term "Holy Spirit" has acquired, in the English language, a kind of immutable association with immateriality.

So I'm okay with the Nicene creed as a GENERAL STATEMENT OF FAITH, including its usage of the phrase Holy Spirit, but the point of systematic theology is to be as precise as possible in our doctrine. This is where the Reformed motto is germane, 'Reformed, and always reforming."

So if we're going to be as precise as possible, then we should admit that the Holy Spirit is somewhat problematical - due to its traditional English nuances of immaterialism, since all the biblical evidence favors materialism. As a matter of fact, the church father Tertullian (200 A.D.) - the man who invented the word Trinity - insisted that God is a fully material being, and argued that the misrepresentation of the Greek word pneuma as 'spirit' was largely responsible for the false doctrine of immaterialism.

The famous church historian Phillip Schaff described Tertullian as one of Christianity’s “ablest and most fearless advocates against infidels and heretics...He was one of the strongest
champions of catholic orthodoxy against the Gnostic heresies, and would allow no
change in matters of fundamental doctrine” (Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of
Christendom with a History and Critical Notes).

 

[JAL]

Makes perfect sense to me. The "Holy Spirit" is not the head, did not die, does not have a body, did not appear in the desert, does not eat fish, does not require sacrifice....and has other unique characteristics.

So then you would commonly introduce a trio as "The father, the son, and The Human Being"? That's an appropriate way to distinguish a third person?

You seem to be rambling without any cogency and then reiterating a preconceived conclusion that supposedly follows from the aimless rambling.

 

[Radagast]

then we should admit that the Holy Spirit is somewhat problematical - due to its traditional English nuances of immaterialism

The Holy Spirit is God, and is not a material entity. You are outside the Statement of Faith.

 

[JAL]

If you don't mind, what are your opinion on these things I've quoted? How do people cast the Father in a bad light?

(Abaxvahl, I paraphrased your words slightly because you regurgitated some of my earlier language deemed offensive).

In a few cases, mainstream theologians don't seem to cast God in the best possible light. They ascribe to Yahweh an omnipotence infinite in power, competence, and self-sufficiency. He has no need for man. He created man merely because He WANTED to, not because He NEEDED to.

Let's bear in mind that God is capable of producing a perfectly satisfying world that is incorruptible. Isn't that what we look forward to in heaven, after all? Certainly we'll have free will in heaven, but not enough freedom to sin, because our desires will always be pure/holy. That's a GOOD thing.

Given that heaven is a GOOD thing, why didn't God just START OFF with an incorruptible world to begin with? Or just as well, why didn't He simply abstain from creating us at all? Why create a world potentially ridden with suffering? For which His own Son ended up footing the bill at Calvary, picking up the pieces of this infernal mess?

I only see two possibilities here - feel free to chime in if you think I'm missing something.
(1) God made this (potentially) dark world out of a perceived NEED for it. He felt that His back was against the wall. Caught between a rock and a hard place, He saw no choice in the matter. In this case, His act of creation is a perfectly understandable move on His part.
(2) He created this world just for the FUN OF IT. He WANTED a world where it's possible for man to fall to the extent that even infants and adolescents suffer rape, murder, starvation, and disease. He WANTED a world where men have enough freedom to condemn themselves to punishment and hellfire. This is His form of ENTERTAINMENT.

Surely option 1 casts God in a better light, doesn't it? And yet the mainstream view seems to be more on the side of option 2. Am I mistaken here? Does anyone regard the mainstream view as more in favor of option 1? If so, why?

And doesn't option 2 contradict the notion of an unqualifiedly loving, merciful, benevolent, kind God - at least by comparison with option 1? What am I missing here?

Suppose your own kids were about to murder each other and you had infinite power to put a stop to it. Yet you abstain JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT. That would make you a COLOSSAL JERK - right? Certainly. Surely no mainstream theologian regards God as a jerk, right? Of course not - but does their theology unintentionally insinuate as much? You'll have to evaluate mainstream theology and decide for yourself. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding it, after all.

Here's what happened to me 30 years ago. The very next day after accepting Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, I was asked, "Are you excited about your new relationship with Christ?", I responded, "Honestly? I hate Him. I converted to save myself from hell, but I don't understand why He created a potentially dark world like this one. I'm pretty sure that I will NEVER be capable of loving Him."

I felt this way because, at that time, I had only heard mainstream views of God. So you can perhaps understand that, even today, I'm not convinced that mainstream theology always casts Him in the best possible light.

Someone will argue, 'God's gift of heaven is so wonderful that He did us a favor by creating us with the opportunity to go there.' Allegedly, then, creating us was an act of generosity. However, how much generosity does an infinite God possess? An infinite amount, of course. Therefore it must be His will, on that assumption, to CONTINUE making more dark worlds just like this one, after this one is finished. (Yet no one believes that).

 

[JAL]

The Holy Spirit is God, and is not a material entity. You are outside the Statement of Faith.

Non sequitur. You're assuming that God is intangible. See earlier post on the church father Tertullian.

 

[JAL]

How do people cast the Father in a bad light?

Mainstream teaching typically construes God as visiting either the actual guilt, or at least the consequences, of Adam's sin upon his innocent descendants.

This position seems to flatly contradict Ezekiel 18 (a child shall not be punished for the sins of his father), and seems contrary to every verse attesting to the goodness, mercy, love, and justice of God.

Furthermore an incredibly simple solution to the problem of Adam is readily available. The point of departure is to define the human soul as a physical substance (as common sense would dictate in the first place). Arguably God created only ONE soul named Adam (even Eve's soul was a subsection pulled from his ribs).

When Adam sinned, God extracted most of his sin-tainted soul (removed most of it from his body) to a place of suspended animation. At every human conception, God removes a speck of the sin-tainted soul from suspended animation and merges into the human zygote. What I am saying is that YOU are Adam. None of us are innocent. YOU are the guilty one who freely chose to consume the forbidden fruit, even though you presently don't remember it. Back then we all functioned as one big physical mind named Adam cooperating together, but subsequently God split us into separate individuals acting independently. This capacity to be subdivided lies in the very nature of a physical mind.

Any alternative that merely places us in Adam's loins is unsatisfactory. God is warranted in condemning you only if you yourself FREELY CHOSE to eat the forbidden fruit.

All alternative doctrines have utterly failed to provide a satisfactory explanation as to WHY we all suffer on account of Adam's sin and HOW it is that the taint spread to us all. (Biology cannot explain the spread because a biological imperfection is NOT a sinful taint).

 

[JAL]

How do people cast the Father in a bad light?

What would we say of a ruler who demands of his subjects a flow of undeserved praise and then punishes any who fail to comply? A bit of a tyrant, right?

So the question is whether God, as defined in mainstream theology, is indeed deserving of praise. Obviously mainstream theologians do indeed CLAIM that He deserves praise. But do they always cast Him in the most praiseworthy light possible? Again, you'll have to evaluate mainstream theology and decide for yourself. All I can do here is regurgitate my own understanding of the mainstream position, and hope that it's accurate.

In what sense does God merit praise? Surely there is only one possible definition of merit. In fact virtually every sermon in the last 2,000 years has CENTERED on this definition. Merit must be defined as a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time. You are at liberty to chime in if you think there is another possible definition of merit.

Consider for example two sons. The first is a lazy, slothful man who becomes wealthy in virtue of inheriting wealth. The other is born poor but diligently labors for many years to acquire wealth. Which of the two acquisitions of wealth has merit? Which merits praise? The choice is obvious.

I do not merit praise for innate characteristics. For example, don't praise me for my status as a human being, or for possessing red blood, or for breathing, because I didn't labor/suffer to accomplish such characteristics. They are innate characteristics. I was conceived with them, from the getgo.

Does the mainstream God merit any praise? When I read mainstream texts (perhaps I'm misunderstanding them), it seems to me even Yahweh's 'kindest' actions are said to flow irrevocably from His holy character, where holiness is attributed to Him as an innate characteristic. In other words, it seems to me that the mainstream God didn't labor/suffer to BECOME holy. Rather, He was holy from the getgo, He simply WAS and IS and ALWAYS WILL BE holy by nature, irrevocably so, indeed holiness is INESCAPABLY part of His essential definition.

But if that's the mainstream view, where then is the merit? Wouldn't such a God be vulnerable to the charge of being wholly UNACCOMPLISHED? Given that even the angels had to labor/suffer against the agony of temptation - struggling to overcome a genuine possibility of real corruption - wouldn't they merit more praise than He?

My challenge to you is - be consistent. Don't praise God for knowledge that He didn't labor/struggle to acquire. Don't praise Him for miracles if such have always come naturally and effortlessly to Him. And don't praise Him for His marvelous creations, if He never had to labor/suffer to learn how to create this kind of world.

Let's take a closer look at creation. In 7 days? A good leader leads by example. I'm a liar and a total hypocrite if I am a lazy slothful man who commands my son,"Follow my own example of laboring diligently." In fact a most OUTSTANDING leader will be willing to labor EXCEEDINGLY longer than what he demands of his subordinates. Therefore if God postulates a 7-day creation as HIS example of labor, but expects US to labor for approximately 50 LONG YEARS, isn't He a poor leader? Worse yet, if He merely spoke the world into existence MAGICALLY over those 7 days, and thus without engaging in any hard labor, isn't He a total hypocrite, and a total liar, if He lays down this 'paradigm of labor' as an exemplary model for us to follow? Certainly.

In my view, God's own example of labor - as a model for all men to emulate - is so critical to the proper Doctrine of God that Scripture rightly positions it in a very eminent position. Scripture situates it squarely in the middle of the very Ten Commandments themselves. Ex 20:9-11 is therefore one of the most momentous passages of the entire Old Testament. In a statement whose significance cannot POSSIBLY be overstated, Yahweh tells men to replicate His own example of labor:

"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day."

Sorry to burst the bubble of Young Earth Creationists, but they are dead wrong. If God's example of labor were merely 7 24-hour periods, then HE MERITED VIRTUALLY ZERO PRAISE FOR CREATION, since even ordinary men labor on this planet for more than 50 years. In my view, God created planet Earth over four billion years of struggling/laboring to acquire enough knowledge to mold Nature to His own high standards of engineering. The Dinosaurs, for example, were merely one stage of experiments designed to educate Him further in biology and ecology in His quest to acquire sufficient skills to both form and manage Adam and mankind at large. In fact the universe as a whole is approximately 13 billion years old, and we can chalk it all up as part of God's total labor.

In what sense, then, did God create the world in 7 days? Genesis 1 never defines a day as a 24 hour period but rather as a PERIOD OF DARKNESS FOLLOWED BY A PERIOD OF LIGHT (verse 5). Given that the sun wasn't set into place until the fourth daylight, where did the seven daylights come from? 2Cor 4:6 is understood by the translators to be a DIRECT CITATION of Genesis 1:3. Here Paul implies that the radiance of Christ's face provided the seven daylights - I call them the seven Galactic Days. In my view, then, over a period of four billion years (the age of planet Earth), Christ's face shined out into the galaxy seven times, and quenched itself six times, to create seven days (and six nights). He did this in the expectation of eventually laying down His own six-day model of labor as a model for us to emulate. Aside from these seven GALACTIC daylights, Christ's facial Light also provided, to the earth, local (24-hour) daylights and thus furnished photosynthesis for the plants, until the sun was set in place on the fourth Galactic Day.

The Seventh Daylight is still shining (for example Christ's face illuminates the entire heavenly city), because the Day of Rest is eternal. Therefore the book of Hebrews urges us to labor diligently, as to enter into God's (eternal) Rest.

 

[JAL]

What was the greatest sacrifice of Christ?

In my last post, I argued that where there is no labor/suffering, no praise is merited. Suppose for instance the Father had numbed/anesthetized Christ's nerves on Calvary as to merely create the false APPEARANCE of suffering. Would the cross have any merit in that case? Would the Son merit any praise for it? Of course not.

On the other hand, much as we praise God for the amazing sacrifice of Calvary, the fact remains that it was only three 24-hour days of (horrible) agony. As such, it is largely eclipsed by a MUCH GREATER SACRIFICE, namely Yahweh's 13 BILLION YEARS of labor as Ancient of Days. (Actually the atonement probably merits a heck of a lot more praise than the church currently imagines, but for the moment I'm presupposing the orthodox understanding of the atonement).

"Holiness" is a term representing the sum-total of all God's skills and virtues. Therefore the 13 billion years of self-education form part of His meticulous, gradual acquisition of holiness. In a nutshell, then, God's greatest sacrifice was his tedious, laborious acquisition of holiness. How much skill did He actually acquire? Consider the so-called 'forces' of nature (gravity, magnetism, and electrical fields). Gravity is probably the hand of God at work. He somehow exercises the correct amount of force on EVERY PARTICLE IN THE UNIVERSE, without making any mistakes? Yes - and the other forces are likewise the hand of God as well, in all likelihood. This is an incomprehensibly astonishing achievement. God merits supreme praise because He has accomplished unimaginably challenging feats over ineffably long periods of time.

Mainstream theologians seem completely unaware of Yahweh's greatest sacrifice. As a result, for the last 2,000 years He hasn't received any credit or praise for it. Surely this is for Him more painful than a total disregard for the cross.

 

[JAL]

Why were we made?

As I intimated in an earlier post, God didn't make this dark world just for the fun of it. He made it because He needed us. Why did He need us?

Theological debate must be reasonable. Let me make explicit two fundamental principles to be observed.
(1) The law of non-contradiction (obviously).
(2) Clarity, cogency, intelligibility. Meaning. If a doctrine is touted as 'beyond human understanding', it is not a doctrine. It's just gibberish, unless it's just a QUANTITATIVE limitation of human understanding. For example, although I cannot grasp the full magnitude/quantity of God's love, I most certainly do comprehend the NATURE of His love - it can be understood as a kindness dedicated to benevolent acts such as the reduction of suffering.

Therefore I must perforce object to any mainstream doctrines non-compliant with principle 2. Anyone who makes a nebulous statement such as, "God is eternal and outside of time", for example, or even, "God pulled matter into existence out of nothingness," is apparently speaking gibberish. He's using language that we cannot comprehend. Instead, I'm going to provide a definition of Yahweh that is plain and simple - a definition that CAN be understood. You will then find it comparatively easy to understand why He NEEDED to make us, in response to your question.

Indeed I don't think time exists as a reality-in-itself. There's no 'river of time' into which I can submerge my hand and feel its flow. Indeed I believe in only one reality - matter in motion. When we COUNT a specific number of motions (for example a clock hand ticking 60 times in a circle), we SAY that 'time has passed'. But adding the word 'time' here is really an unnecessary addition/complication that misleads people to believe that an entity called 'time' exists in its own right. Rather, all that is real is matter in motion.

Such 'time' can't go back forever. That is to say, there must be a first motion. Because, after all, if an infinite number of motions (an infinite amount of 'time') had to transpire to reach today, then today would never have been reached. Crystal? I'll have a bit more to say about that first motion, in just a moment.

In my view, matter is never created or destroyed. (As Charles Hodge admitted, for example, the Hebrew words for create do not necessarily mean create out of nothing). I refer to the original sum total of matter as The Totality. So the question is, HOW and WHY did it initiate that first motion?

(Note. By 'matter' I simply mean the original tangible substance, whatever its constitution. Only much later in history did God actually organize some of it into 'matter' as we know it today, shaped as atoms).


There seems to be only two possible reasons as to WHY a piece of matter would begin to move.
(1) Reality is characterized by randomness/chaos. It moves for no rhyme or reason.
(2) Free will causes it to move.
Which of the two possibilities seems most legitimate? Note that God doesn't blame my body PER SE for any sins committed. He blames my free choice CAUSING my body to move in sinful ways. So it's safe to say that the first motion - the first thought - was an act of free will.

When God places a soul in a human embryo/zygote, the first thought is essentially the awakening of that soul. In like manner, that first motion/thought was the AWAKENING OF THE TOTALITY, or rather PART OF IT AWAKENED. Like an embryo, or even a fetus in a womb, it awakened in a complete state of ignorance and therefore HAD TO BEGIN LEARNING.

That first part of the Totality to awaken is the part that we now know as Yahweh. He formed and shaped the universe out of UNAWAKENED PARTS (even today it's still 'essentially' dead matter). In order to form Adam's soul, and that of each angel, however, He had to AWAKEN some of those parts.

Again, WHY did He create Adam? Why did He create the angels? Be patient, please. I'll provide a cogent theory on the next post.

 

[JAL]

Why were we made?

At some point after His awakening, Yahweh probably intuited several important realizations.
(1) The Totality is potentially a place of ETERNAL CONFLICT, SUFFERING, AND WAR. Anyone who awakened in the totality could choose a life of corruption, abusing others for their own pleasure, and seizing territories, for their own selfish gain.
(2) In order to make the Totality a safe place for everyone, Yahweh would need to do the following:
(A) acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to monitor and protect everyone at all times.
(B) acquire a perfectly and irrevocably holy character, insusceptible to corruption.
(C) Serve as King and Judge over the entire Totality.
(3) The task of becoming adequately skilled and perfectly holy would require so much time and labor as to constitute too daunting a challenge to undertake without some hope of reward (and thus He decided on the church as His reward - a bride who had engaged in free will to overcome sin and temptation just like He Himself had done).
(4) In fact, to deny Himself a bride is to condemn Himself to PERPETUAL SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, eventually culminating in a kind of NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (a loss of sanity). And if Yahweh should ever lose His sanity, ALL OF US WOULD BE IN GRAVE DANGER FOR ALL ETERNITY.

Thus He created us FOR OUR OWN PROTECTION - protection from HIMSELF due to a loss of sanity!!!! He NEEDED a bride for the reasons stated.

The question is, if God still has free will, how did He become IRREVOCABLY holy? Why can't He sin today? There is a fairly simple solution. The Holy Breath is our sanctification, He makes us holy. How? Physically. In our brain and body, He bombards us with revelations of God's love, stirs up holy passions, quenches various sinful passions coursing through our nervous system, and cerebral steers our physical thought-currents in positive ways. To make Himself irrevocably holy/sanctified, therefore, God unleashed that same Holy Breath upon Himself. I like to call it the divine Immune System. Should any particle of the Godhead ever decline one iota in holy zeal, the Immune System will 'zap' it like a germ (i.e. rekindle holy passions).

Why can't God shut down His Immune System? Consider a man steeped in sin. He cannot reverse his sinful tendencies overnight - in fact no one can, on his own, accomplish this feat in a single lifetime. How much more difficult - how much longer would it take - for God to reverse holy tendencies nurtured for at least 13 billion years!

Difficult - but not impossible. The trouble is, He can't make any progress (regress?) on this because any decline in holy zeal would be immediately zapped by the Immune System. Again, why can't He shut it down? Because for those 13 billion years, He cultivated zeal to RETAIN it. Hence He can only GRADUALLY decline in that zeal (it would take ages for Him to acquire the zeal to shut it down). The problem is, if any particle in the Godhead declines even one iota in the zeal to RETAIN the Immune System, the REST of the Immune System will instantly zap it.

As a result, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to shut it down. Cannot happen. God is forever immune to sin - by His own sovereign and wise design.

 

[SkyWriting]

So then you would commonly introduce a trio as "The father, the son, and The Human Being"? That's an appropriate way to distinguish a third person?

You seem to be rambling without any cogency and then reiterating a preconceived conclusion that supposedly follows from the aimless rambling.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

 

[Albion]

I'm a Christian - making a blanket attack on Christianity? That's a rather odd claim.

I'm a Trinitarian, and I'm not wholly opposed to a statement such as the "spirit of a man" as long as it's UNDERSTOOD to be a physical soul. The problem is that the term "Holy Spirit" has acquired, in the English language, a kind of immutable association with immateriality..

How do you like Holy Ghost (since that was the usual wording until recently)?