Prayers have always been answered by the influence of the Holy Ghost. The testator of all that is true. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.There is a very good theory, involving quantum sub-automic particles, on how he might do that, but maybe for another time.
Hmmm...Not sure I understand that. My understanding of the Trinity is not one of my strong-suits.
Yes, of course we will not see eye to eye on everything, we both sit on opposite sides of the table. But isn't that what makes debating interesting and enjoyable?
Yep! It can also make it frustrating, but I think if both sides realise they're not going to convince the other, and are just trying to make their side better understood (at least as an immediate goal) the whole process becomes a lot more interesting, and a lot less frustrating.
I am not sure how the environment was set up, the formation of the earth, that is. We are told that God organised the matter that was into our earth, however, does that mean it was a result of his hands or the Big Bang that he might have caused. I do not think it matters either way but I just do not think it is set in stone either.
Yes, he created us from the dust of the earth, however, it is more then likely that he created everything else via the process of evolution by biogenesis. That is my belief.
Yes, Redemption is the name of the game. It is the reason for our existence. To be tried and tested in the flesh and then to be held accountable for our mortal probation, to be judged from the book of life by him who is worthy to judge us.
Whilst I don't agree with any of this, it seems consistent enough to me.
It is essential for it to be consistently held to the point that no bilge pump is ever required in that boat. There can be no leaks. Complete abstinence from intervention or the boat sinks with all lives lost.
Yep, I see your point.
You may regret asking that question, as I tend to go on a bit with subjects that really interest me.
Nope. I was mentioning to someone the other day that I quite enjoy being on the boards with people who take the time to explain their points of view, even if those people can have radically different views to mine.
Not everyone thinks that way, I know, but that's how it is for me.
Interesting that you say this though. Essentially it is indeed my belief, but I need to qualify it. Not many non-believer actually know this. It is a crucial period of the Plan of Redemption consisting of many complex anomalies that were needed to make it all function correctly. In scripture we see a almost analogous story that on the surface seems straight forward and almost unnecessary in kick starting humanity. One of those complexities is that when the Garden of Eden was created it was in a state of perfection, celestialised. Nothing died and procreation was unnecessary because there was no requirement to replenish anything. Adam and Eve were created from the dust, that was without imperfections, and created as perfect being. Procreation for them was also unnecessary because they would never die. Procreation was not even known to them so they walked in their nakedness with no carnal desires for each other, as they were not carnal beings. They had no knowledge of how to procreate. God was able to freely dwell in their presence as they were like unto him, perfect. In that current state nothing would ever change and we, as spirits, would remain as we were with no means to gain a body through procreation.
God gave to Adam and Eve two commandments. One, that they should not eat from the tree of knowledge, and two, that they should go forth and multiply to replenish the earth, thereby, fulfilling Gods marvellous work and wonder to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Big problem there is that neither could be accomplished without breaking one of those commandments. Enter stage left, the facilitator, Satan, that old serpent who had been banned to dwell on earth.
Satan set about convincing the weaker of the two, Eve, to partake of the fruit because he wanted Eve to sin against God to demonstrate his influence. He thought he was successful, but, little did he know, he was playing into Gods hands, and she did eat of the fruit, making Gods second commandment possible, and then told Adam what she had done. After a big row, where Eve told Adam that he no longer showed her any affection and cares more about football then her, he had no option but to partake of the fruit as she would be in a fallen state making it impossible for him to be with her, so he had no option but to partake of the fruit at which time the fall had been set into motion. We all know what then followed, They became mortal and we're sent into the lone and dreary world to fend for themselves. The fall from perfection to mortality was complete. Humanity had been born and from that point God could not intervene, although they did hear his voice a couple of times, ordering Pizza, but did not see him.
Sorry about the length of that, it could be longer if I told it all but it is very complex and interwoven with the pre-existence and the war in heaven right up until the coming of the saviour and Armageddon. It is by no means a simple event. However, God was involved in the beginning because circumstances allowed for it. Will he be involved at the end? I don't know. Only after salvation and the Judgement day, that is for sure.
I've read it a couple of times. It's interesting to me. But how did you come to that conclusion? Is it a particular denomination of Christianity, is it your own interpretation, etc?
No, that is not my belief. I now that I am going to be seen as controversial on this point but I believe that God has the power to do anything that can be done. That does not, in my opinion, detract from his omnipotence in anyway as logic dictates that you cannot do that which cannot be done, unless you are a magician owning a hat and a white rabbit. So no, I believe that there are supernatural laws that are the same as natural laws that cannot be changed.
Does this mean that our definition of natural is too limited, then? What we see as 'natural' are merely the lesser natural things, and there are a set of greater natural things as well?
This would see God defined as a natural being, which may or may not sound blasphemous to you, not sure. That's not my intent though, just trying to understand you.
Like when a people become sufficiently wicked their destruction is assured. We are getting there.
It's a mundane question, but the definition of wickedness is oftentimes where a theoretical discussion about religion and creation becomes a more practical discussion about morals, laws and what we allow in our society.
I doubt it's possible to encapsulate what you believe about wickedness in any simple manner, and would admit it's an unfair question, but if you CAN tell me how you judge wickedness, I'd be interested.
Once the plan of Redemption was set into motion then God could not intervene as to do so would stick a Huge spanner in the works messing everything up. It sound like God has constraints but if he were capable of doing the impossible there would be no need for our mortal probation. He could have just flicked his figures and we would all be back with him having perfected bodies and minds. It is a fallacy to think that God can do something that cannot be done.
I think a God with some level of constraint (for whatever reason) fits better with the evidence before me than a God with no constraints.
I don't see evidence of God at all, to be honest (obviously given my atheism), but if there were a God he would have to be non-interventionist, or at least limited (assuming omnibenevolence).
I am sorry for the length of this but the Plan of Redemption is not a simple plan. I have skimmed the surface of it, however, the intricate details are not a requirement for salvation. Just to live a Christ like life is sufficient for everyone.
No problems with the length. Sorry it took me a bit to respond.
One last question...you mention here that living a Christ like life is sufficient...do you mean that man is judged by his works rather than his faith, or are both required?
Nice talking to you my friend.
And you.
