WARNING LONG POST!
I respond to Jal in the first half.
"Nooj" "rambot" and "KokoTheGorilla" at the end.
Understandable objection, but there are a couple of points Id like to make here. You argue that an extended period of creation time makes God look weak. Essentially you envision a timeline like this
0---------------> infinite weakness
where, as time approaches infinity, God appears more and more weak. For example, six days, or seven days, or eight days, is not so bad, but 13 billion years is unacceptable. The problem with your accusation is that it cuts both ways. Your theory of six 24-hour days, by your own reasoning, impugns Gods strength, albeit less than the old-earth view. Why should we accept your model at all, that is, why should we accept your assumption that time impugns divine strength, inasmuch as this is ALSO a problem for your 24-hour cosmology? My solution lets just reject that whole assumption altogether.
Well stated. Good point. And agreed.
Second point. With the appearance of great piety, Christians are fond of acknowledging, with Paul, Gods ways are beyond our understanding (see Rom 11). But sometimes it seems to me false piety, because the moment I suggest something difficult for them to understand (such as 13 billion years to create mankind), they are apt to insist, Impossible! God would never do such a thing because it doesnt make sense to me! Does it have to make sense to you for God to do it? Thought you said His ways are beyond your understanding?
Well stated. And agreed.
This is not to suggest, Anything goes. God can do whatever He wants. No. I deem it logically contradictory to suggest that a holy God can violate ethics and virtue. Thus we need to address the question, for instance, why do innocent animals suffer, whether for 13 billion years in the old-age model, or 6000 years in the YEC model. I have what seems to be a very satisfactory answer to that question, although I dont intend to discuss it here.
This is where you go astray.
Thirdly, the 13 billion year system is actually MORE consistent with divine character, in my view, than six 24-hour days. Why so?
There is a bit of a logical weakness in mainstream thinking which my own theological system attempts to address.
Mainstream thinking does not have "divine merit" in its
It is the issue of divine merit.
Where is this in the Bible?
What is merit, and how do we get it? Merit is earned by voluntary suffering for a righteous cause over an extended period of time. The longer the time period, the greater the merit.
Where is this in the Bible?
We are rewarded by God for following His will. And moreso for doing so in spite of obstacles that could easily break us.
But the time period is irrelivent.
Jesus suffered for a few hours on the cross.
Yet that ensured the salvation of billions of lifetimes!
Here, then, is my timeline:
0---------à infinite merit.
Intensity of suffering is also a factor, but extended time is a necessity. Why so? Imagine the worst possible form of torture, such as being burned alive.
Burning alive aint that bad.
Your flesh can no longer feal pain after a few seconds.
No matter how excruciating the sensation, the fact remains that if it lasts only a nanosecond, that is, as time approaches zero, the total amount of suffering approaches zero and so does the total merit.
This is illogical.
Take for instance the cross. If it turned out that Christ didnt suffer, that it was only an illusion of suffering, how much merit would it have? None! How much praise would God deserve for it? None!
He did it for His glory and the salvation of many members of Humanity.
The problem with the mainstream model is that it defines God as inherently immutably holy. He has no choice in the matter. His actions proceed from His predeterminately holy character.
God is immutable.
He is a solid being existing outside of time.
Even when He suffered on the cross, in this paradigm, it wasnt really a voluntary suffering but rather merely appeared to be such.
It was voluntary.
He could have glorified Himself by destroying us all.
Instead He loved us and glorified Himself by saving many of us.
Furthermore: Holy means "set apart".
Holy does not mean "righteous".
Though it implies such.
To avoid contradiction, therefore, I long ago abandoned the notion that God is inherently immutably holy.
Rather, He was initially neutral, morally, and freely chose to persist in righteous deeds even in the face of the agony/suffering of temptation.
This clearly contradicts the Bible's many claims that God "never changes".
Furthermore, morallity is not set in stone. Well actually it is, but lets use a different analogy.
Morallity is not predetermined.
Why would God need to "persist in righteous deeds"?
What would be tempting Him?
God is the anchor of morality. God
is morallity.
All morallity is determined by His thought and wim.
His design and desires.
Morallity only applies then, to His creations.
He set that Men and Women are supposed to marry.
He could have designed it differently, and that other way would be morally right also.
But He didn't, He designed it the way it is for a reason: He wanted to!
The Bible is clear: God can not be tempted by evil.
Why? Because evil by deffinition is anything contrary to God. Anything opposing God is evil.
How long did God, as Ancient of Days (Dan 7:9-11), so persevere? Keep in mind that if either angels or men have labored and suffered in righteousness longer than He, they have more merit than He. If God is righteous in demanding worship, therefore, He must have persevered ineffably longer than men (presumably a finite period, of course). Thats why Paul said in Romans 4 that God is more righteous than Abraham even if he (Abraham) had earned justification by good works.
During this enormous period of time God chose to BECOME immutably holy. He no longer has freedom to choose between good and evil, He cannot be tempted, as James said. But how then do we explain Christs temptation in the wilderness? Wasnt the temptation a big lie and a farce if God is inherently immutably holy? Certainly. Anticipating the atonement, therefore, God temporarily exempted, in my view, a small portion of the Son from immutable holiness so that He could endure the agony/suffering of real temptation on earth. It was this portion of the Son that became incarnate and suffered temptation.
HOW did God make Himself immutably holy? I have a pretty good solution for this, which I wont discuss here. Suffice it to say, as a hint, that my theory is similar to Calvins total depravity. Just as man, having sinned, cannot reverse his own depravity in Calvins view, so too God, having chosen righteous deeds for aeons, cannot reverse His own holiness.
Gods merit isnt infinite because He didnt suffer an infinite period of time. It is finite, but it is so ineffably beyond human merit that He deserves our worship. As for how long He spent creating the universe the longer the better. 13 billion years is nothing on His timescale. He was in no rush to create mankind, because the longer He persevered, the greater His merit.
Fundemental flaw in all your assertions here:
God exists outside of time.
1)
Time, as we know it, has no effect or meaning to God.
God could not have "suffered" for
any length of time.
Furthermore, since Time has no meaning to God, how long it took for Him to create the universe is irrelivent.
Maybe He just liked making things big compaired to the chief gemstone of His creation (Humanity)?
Maybe He just wanted to have a contrast between how long we existed and how long the universe existed?
I don't know.
But 6 days- or 16 billion, God created the universe.
And either way, He didn't need to take any time at all.
And either way: Time never passed for Him.
To Him it would have made little difference, He simply would, I guess, "see" the difference.
Rather than experience it.
2)
God determines morallity.
God is goodness.
Immorallity is anything opposing God's design.
Evil is anything opposing God.
3)
"Divine merit" is not in scripture.
4)
The Bible claims that Gods never changes.
You claim He does.
OTHER POSTERS:
God speaks to humans. I haven't read in the Bible any accounts of possession. Or if you meant it in a non-literal sense, then yes God spoke to humans such as Moses, through which His message was heard. But note that humans are not perfect. God may speak to humans, but those humans speak or write imperfectly to other humans.
In any case, God is not speaking to or through you. So when you say:
Perhaps you should state that it is unacceptable to you, a fallible human like us all.
And when you say: Perhaps you should state that only you cannot see a purpose. God knows whether there is a purpose or not.
And when you say: God doesn't need to be defended by humans, let alone be put down by saying that human thoughts diminish THE God and His abilities.
Dang, this is some of the best Theology I have heard from anyone!
Ironic that it takes an unbeliever to state it!
You are wrong: God does speak through Humans, He is doing so with
you.
I am really tired of people claiming to know what God thinks and God knows and God wants. You don't. No one does.
Well, mostly true.
The Bible is God's written Word.
So in that sense we knowe some of what God Thinks, and Wants. (He Knows everything).
shernen, Archie isn't a creationist: He's a heretic, misreading and misquoting the Bible in all of his glory.
Woah! I disagree with how he is presenting himself and scripture, but he is no heretic.
He might be misinterpreting, misreading, and misquoting the scripture, but he is not doing it with intent to mislead.
His intentions, I am sure, are solid.
And since you do not know him and have not witnessed his effect on others in person, and since his theology is not abiblical.
He can not be called a heretic and you cross the line for doing so.
shernen clearly points out how your intellectual dishonesty (and more importantly, proud misguided faith) is wrong.
Do not call his faith proud.
I mean really, quoting a bible verse like this:
"by one man sin ... death ... entered into the world."
It's akin to saying:
"In the beginning....God....said...you must....eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden...when you eat it....you will be like God".
Time for some honesty here archaeologist.
It was a clear error. He was trying to cut to the point, he made an error but it was an easy one to make.
He didn't read through it enough, but conpairing it to clear and utter falsehood and evil misleading is also wrong.
Baby is bigger than vagina
Why did it have to be painful?
Why couldn't it release endorphines?
BTW: The snake was a metaphor for Satin whether you are 6 dayer or 16 billion years-er.
