My Religion

[bibleverse2]

Are you attempting to argue that "one day is as a thousand years" is some actual spiritual time dimension allowing God to microcondense real people years into some make believe sequence?

No, not make-believe, but simply from God's viewpoint instead of man's (2 Peter 3:8-9).

For example, in Revelation 1:1,3, as in Revelation 22:6,10, "shortly" and "at hand" can be understood in the same manner as: "Surely I come quickly" in Revelation 22:20, which refers to Jesus Christ's (still future) Second Coming. That is, shortly/at hand/quickly in these verses can be understood from the viewpoint of God, not humans (2 Peter 3:8-9, Psalms 90:4).

Also, from the viewpoint of humans, part of what Revelation chapters 2-3 foretold could have begun unfolding "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) after the apostle John saw his Revelation vision. For the letters to the seven, literal, first century AD local church congregations (Revelation chapters 2-3) in seven cities in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11b) could have foretold a first century AD persecution (Revelation 2:10, Revelation 3:10) under the Roman Emperor Domitian which happened shortly after John saw his vision around 95 AD, near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c). But even all of the (to us) still-future events of the Tribulation and subsequent Second Coming of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 will unfold "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) or "quickly" (Revelation 22:20) after John saw his vision. For from the viewpoint of God, even the passing of some 2,000 years is like the passing of only two days (2 Peter 3:8, Psalms 90:4). Christians should look at the future fulfillment of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 and Matthew 24 from the viewpoint of God, not humans, for whom the passing of some 2,000 years seems like a long delay for its fulfillment (2 Peter 3:9).

Other books in the Bible contain prophecies of events which would not occur for 3,000 to 4,000 years. For example, Ezekiel prophesied of the Gog/Magog event (Ezekiel chapters 38-39, Revelation 20:8-9) some 3,600 years before its (still future) occurrence. For Ezekiel gave that prophecy some 600 years before Jesus Christ's first coming but it will not be fulfilled until some 1,000 years after Jesus' (still future) Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:10). Also, God prophesied Jesus' spiritual defeat of Satan at the Crucifixion (Genesis 3:15, Hebrews 2:14) some 4,000 years before its occurrence. And Isaiah prophesied God creating a New Heaven and a New Earth (Isaiah 66:22, Revelation 21:1-8) some 3,700 years before its (still future) occurrence, for Isaiah gave that prophecy some 700 years before Jesus' first coming but it will not be fulfilled until some 1,000 years after His (still future) Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 21:8).

. . . I think you should know......considering that you believe Adam was the first man. There is scientific evidence proving beyond the shadow of any doubt that human beings have been alive for much longer than 6,000 years ago. So, if God made Adam and Eve, as that bible story claims..... he did it much earlier than 4,000 BC.

Note that 1 Corinthians 15:45 does not require that there were no humans on the earth before Adam. For just as "the first day" in Philippians 1:5 does not have to mean "the first day" of Genesis 1:5, and just as "the first works" in Revelation 2:5 do not have to mean the first earthly works of Genesis 1:1, so "the first man" in 1 Corinthians 15:45 does not have to mean the first man ever to exist on the earth. Instead, Adam can be the first man of the Adamic line of humans which is alive on the earth today.

(See also my first blog entry on this site.)

 

[bibleverse2]

I think well-meaning theists believe in scientific observation, but the term "evolution" as portrayed and understood in the scientific community, is anti-theological by its inception and components. It is an idea that things can live and become, all in and of themselves. It simply doesn't happen. Again Colossians 1:17

Note that evolution per se should be distinguished from abiogenesis. For evolution per se (random mutation of life and survival of the fittest individuals) does not require abiogenesis (that life itself arose solely by chance from non-living matter). That is, it could have been God who miraculously created the earliest, one-celled life-forms, and then let them develop naturally by His created process of evolution into different, more complex life-forms over millions of years.

Or, God could have miraculously set things up so that in certain environments, atoms would form molecules, which would form chemicals, which would form cells, which would form nucleic acids, which would be able to replicate themselves and mutate randomly.

Indeed, God could have set things up so that atoms themselves would form. For physicists point out that if the fundamental constants of the universe (for example, Planck's constant, or the strength of subatomic electric charges, or the strength of the strong nuclear force, or the strength of gravity, etc.) were off by even a little bit, matter would not have been able to form and coalesce as we know it, and so life as we know it would never have been possible. This is called the "Anthropic Cosmological Principle", meaning that we humans only exist today because the universe was exactly tuned to make our existence possible. Atheists then have only two choices to explain our existence. It is either just an almost-impossible coincidence, one chance out of an infinite number of other possibilities for how the universe could have been tuned. Or, there must be an infinite number of other universes, almost all of which are lifeless. Either way, atheists cannot explain how any universe could even exist at all without the existence of God (Romans 1:20).

 

[Guyver]

No, not make-believe, but simply from God's viewpoint instead of man's (2 Peter 3)

From Gods perspective, time doesn’t exist except as a component of the physical world; since he is eternally existent, with no beginning or end and obviously predates all universes.

I do commend you for the reasoned post you have provided, but I believe you have misunderstood and misapplied those verses claiming “Gods time” as one thousand years = one earth day. I could argue this point and provide refutation for this point, even granting you the one thousand years as a basis for measuring “prophetic time” based upon 1 John 2:18. Using one thousand years as twenty four one hour periods shows that the last hour occurred well over a thousand years ago.

A sincere and complete study of the Revelation, especially verse one from chapter one and associated verses following, demonstrate the language and intent of the prophecy was the immediate future from the time of its writing.

So, I will respectfully disagree with you, inform you that I have a different understanding than you, but don’t necessarily wish to engage in an elongated debate over it.

 

[Lon]

Note that evolution per se should be distinguished from abiogenesis. For evolution per se (random mutation of life and survival of the fittest individuals) does not require abiogenesis (that life itself arose solely by chance from non-living matter). That is, it could have been God who miraculously created the earliest, one-celled life-forms, and then let them develop naturally by His created process of evolution into different, more complex life-forms over millions of years.

Or, God could have miraculously set things up so that in certain environments, atoms would form molecules, which would form chemicals, which would form cells, which would form nucleic acids, which would be able to replicate themselves and mutate randomly.

Indeed, God could have set things up so that atoms themselves would form. For physicists point out that if the fundamental constants of the universe (for example, Planck's constant, or the strength of subatomic electric charges, or the strength of the strong nuclear force, or the strength of gravity, etc.) were off by even a little bit, matter would not have been able to form and coalesce as we know it, and so life as we know it would never have been possible. This is called the "Anthropic Cosmological Principle", meaning that we humans only exist today because the universe was exactly tuned to make our existence possible. Atheists then have only two choices to explain our existence. It is either just an almost-impossible coincidence, one chance out of an infinite number of other possibilities for how the universe could have been tuned. Or, there must be an infinite number of other universes, almost all of which are lifeless. Either way, atheists cannot explain how any universe could even exist at all without the existence of God (Romans 1:20).

This might fit freewill and autonomous models, but not the rest of our understanding of Theology: In Genesis 1:22 there is a sense of 'allowing' things to progress, but importantly, the theologian understands John 1:3, 15:5 Colossians 1:16,17 etc.


Theologians aren't against science nor necessarily against those secular observations, but only as they neglect/do not accurately grasp the nature of creation by such expressions. When I've been a science teacher in public school, I've geared my instruction with better neutral language that fits what happens in creation by God's hand. Basically, I've avoided 'this thing happened by itself' language. It is true that 'no sparrow falls without God's knowing it' but there is a sense of His involvement and absolutely proximity, as well as Being and Sustaining the life thereof (again Colossians 1:16,17).

Anytime I'm in the process of scientific inquiry, I'm ever mindful that nothing 'just happens,' that likewise, all of creation is subject to the fall, Romans 8:19-23

Isaiah 44:24 1 Corinthians 8:6 Ephesians 3:9 Hebrews 3:4 Romans 11:36

 

[Guyver]

Anytime I'm in the process of scientific inquiry, I'm ever mindful that nothing 'just happens,' that likewise, all of creation is subject to the fall, Romans 8:19-23

Isaiah 44:24 1 Corinthians 8:6 Ephesians 3:9 Hebrews 3:4 Romans 11:36

And that is where you abandon scientific inquiry and embrace superstition Lon. For, while it is true that nothing ever “just happens” attempting to insert the “fall” is to leave science and embrace religiously inspired superstition.

I see why the notion of the fall is enticing to people of your mindset. It would be nice to blame the seemingly imperfect nature of this world to sin, the devil, or both....however, to do so means that you no longer may consider God omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Instead, you must believe that God is imperfect, like the world seems to be, and that things are not as he intended. This, even if you and others who share your views don’t acknowledge it.

If the fall is a real thing, then it means God slipped up, got snookered, or allowed it to happen on purpose. I don’t see any other plausible scenario to explain it, and I can’t accept any of those three as being truth. FWIW.

 

[Guyver]

I don’t believe there’s a thing wrong with this world. I believe things are as they should be because God is great. And yet using those words fail to capture it. God is so perfect, that everything he does is perfect, in my view. Therefore, what is now is what should be. Y’all probably see it differently, and I guess that’s just how it is.

 

[Jacob]

I don’t believe there’s a thing wrong with this world. I believe things are as they should be because God is great. And yet using those words fail to capture it. God is so perfect, that everything he does is perfect, in my view. Therefore, what is now is what should be. Y’all probably see it differently, and I guess that’s just how it is.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[Guyver]

Thank you for sharing.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Jacob]

Thank you for reading.

You are welcome.

 

[Lon]

And that is where you abandon scientific inquiry and embrace superstition Lon. For, while it is true that nothing ever “just happens” attempting to insert the “fall” is to leave science and embrace religiously inspired superstition.

Thus, you are giving mere men and mere men's observations precedence and priority over God. "My Religion" thread just went out the window. You have no religion at all if such is your thinking.

I see why the notion of the fall is enticing to people of your mindset. It would be nice to blame the seemingly imperfect nature of this world to sin, the devil, or both....however, to do so means that you no longer may consider God omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Instead, you must believe that God is imperfect, like the world seems to be, and that things are not as he intended. This, even if you and others who share your views don’t acknowledge it.

:nono: YOU've imperialized fallible man over infallible God at that point. Sorry, it is just a fact.

If the fall is a real thing, then it means God slipped up, got snookered, or allowed it to happen on purpose. I don’t see any other plausible scenario to explain it, and I can’t accept any of those three as being truth. FWIW.

This is simply/only rationalization and a disbelief in metaphysics. A lot of people, especially in the science community are incapable of metaphysical thinking and higher learning. When Stephen Hawking said "Philosophy is dead" he was showing the limitations of his own ability to understand that there ARE things in existence outside of this material plain. It was a 'inability' to understand truth past his own nose. Truth, mind you, verifiable and substantiated. Quantum physics is a field devoted to metaphysical properties.

I don't see people 'brilliant' or intellectual for these kinds of comment and denial, I feel sorry for them. At this point, with an incapability, they do indeed have to take it upon faith because their own eyes are apparently blind to truth over the matter and defer to those who can think and conceive metaphysical principles that DO, in fact exist, plainly, in this universe. Science of the 5 senses is incapable of the concept of metaphysical thinking. OR, they can simply deny it. It akin to a blind man denying the color red because he only has 4 senses. It is a learning disability, but it doesn't stand up to reasonable scrutiny and he/she is worse for the denial, not better. The blind person is correct that they must and do live without color, but there are things that 'could' benefit that blind man in the acceptance and understanding. He is missing beautiful things as well as must be forced to stand when there is a red light. He is twice handicapped for the denial.

Physical science is 1) limited therefore cannot speak to the work of the Creator beyond that of it which is physical (Colossians 1:16,17 is either true or not, it cannot be nuanced) and 2) ONLY the conglomeration of so many men's thoughts and observations of what is physical. The moment men become your guru, you've traded in God and anything He'd say.

Your religion is thus, merely the thoughts of the 5 senses and that religion is poorer for it.1 Corinthians 2:6-16 Read and ask God for His wisdom or you will ever be stuck, ESPECIALLY if you are incapable of conceiving or believing in the existence of things beyond the ABILITY of science to grasp.

 

[Guyver]

A little tension, I like it Lon.

 

[ok doser]

Thank you for sharing.

Thank you for reading.

thank you for thanking

 

[Guyver]

Thus, you are giving mere men and mere men's observations precedence and priority over God. "My Religion" thread just went out the window. You have no religion at all if such is your thinking. .

Lon, your post here has so many points I’m going to have to respond to it a little bit at a time. I’ll start here at the beginning.

First of all, my religion is my religion. It is what it is. It’s probably not your religion, so that means you and I are going to see things differently and believe different things. But the one thing we should be able to agree on, if we think scientifically and rationally, is that we are here where things are as they are.

It seems we would agree that we are not here by way of random chance occurrence, rather, we believe we live in a world that was designed and made by God himself. So, the observations that we can make about this place, especially with the aid of the scientific method are the closest thing to truth we can actually know. It is the beginning.

You want to obfuscate the view of this world by inserting a superstitious and hypothetical view that things are not as they are intended to be. You get this idea from the Bible. So, since it is known that men actually wrote the Bible, and that it being divine is a belief, not a provable fact, you’ve literally just done yourself what you have accused me of.

So, we have disagreement on the most foundational aspect of truth.....examining what is, and allowing that to shape our beliefs.

 

[Lon]

Lon, your post here has so many points I’m going to have to respond to it a little bit at a time. I’ll start here at the beginning.

First of all, my religion is my religion. It is what it is. It’s probably not your religion, so that means you and I are going to see things differently and believe different things. But the one thing we should be able to agree on, if we think scientifically and rationally, is that we are here where things are as they are.

:nono: In the 'religion' I've come to understand *(thus not 'my' religion), the way is narrow and few ever 'find' it. There is a huge difference between religions of men, vs. following God (Only in Christianity, does God come down as a man and give instruction).

It seems we would agree that we are not here by way of random chance occurrence, rather, we believe we live in a world that was designed and made by God himself. So, the observations that we can make about this place, especially with the aid of the scientific method are the closest thing to truth we can actually know. It is the beginning.

Science is a good 'testable' way to know something, but revelation (being told) is another way of knowing truth. Science 'would' argue about untestable truth, but as I said, science is ONLY able to examine what is physical. We know implicitly, that things that aren't physical exist.

You want to obfuscate the view of this world by inserting a superstitious and hypothetical view that things are not as they are intended to be. You get this idea from the Bible. So, since it is known that men actually wrote the Bible, and that it being divine is a belief, not a provable fact, you’ve literally just done yourself what you have accused me of.

You are stuck in 'just science' again with this notion. I DO, in fact, know (not superstition, that's where you are remiss) that God exists. Romans 1 says that everybody knows, implicitly, that God exists, 'by what has been made so that all men are without excuse.' Rather, according to Paul's writing, men [and women] rather 'suppress the truth.' Truth is its own 'proof.'

So, we have disagreement on the most foundational aspect of truth.....examining what is, and allowing that to shape our beliefs.

Doesn't matter. Your disagreement in this case is against God very God. I'd not like to come between you. You've got to own that yourself. What I can do, is say I'm embracing God's foundation of truth (Who would know it more?). I could describe for you 'vanilla' from a scientific perspective BUT tasting vanilla yourself, is the proof of it. I guarantee encountering the actual God of the universe WILL be its own proof.

 

[Guyver]

In the 'religion' I've come to understand *(thus not 'my' religion), the way is narrow and few ever 'find' it.

Doesn't matter. Your disagreement in this case is against God very God. I'd not like to come between you. You've got to own that yourself. What I can do, is say I'm embracing God's foundation of truth (Who would know it more?). I could describe for you 'vanilla' from a scientific perspective BUT tasting vanilla yourself, is the proof of it. I guarantee encountering the actual God of the universe WILL be its own proof.

Yes, in your religion, the way is narrow and few ever find it. In my religion love never fails so all or most all find it eventually. As I said, we have different beliefs.

On the second part, you are just mistaken and have misjudged. I embrace and do not reject God. I don’t embrace your religion, and you make the mistake of equating your religion and God. I embrace God as I understand him.

I have no doubt that your last sentence is factual and I can’t imagine how it would be otherwise.

 

[Guyver]

This is simply/only rationalization and a disbelief in metaphysics. A lot of people, especially in the science community are incapable of metaphysical thinking and higher learning. When Stephen Hawking said "Philosophy is dead" he was showing the limitations of his own ability to understand that there ARE things in existence outside of this material plain. It was a 'inability' to understand truth past his own nose. Truth, mind you, verifiable and substantiated. Quantum physics is a field devoted to metaphysical properties.

No. You conflate quantum physics (actual science) with metaphysical investigation (pseudoscience).

There is no verifiable and substantiated metaphysical properties, unless you are attempting to equate quantum entanglement with metaphysical phenomena. If I have misspoken, please provide evidence of your claim so that I may stand corrected.

 

[Lon]

Yes, in your religion, the way is narrow and few ever find it. In my religion love never fails so all or most all find it eventually. As I said, we have different beliefs.

You missed my point again: Not my religion. Difference? Your's you make up as you go 'if' you aren't doing the exact same thing: following. It is 'your' religion if not. To me? No point. I know where I was before God introduced me to Himself. It was not a good place. Anything man throws at me after that is just more 'man' and not really a 'religion' of any kind. 1 Corinthians 15:14 John 6:63-69

On the second part, you are just mistaken and have misjudged. I embrace and do not reject God. I don’t embrace your religion, and you make the mistake of equating your religion and God. I embrace God as I understand him.

Whose God? The one made up in your/their head? Again, 1 Corinthians 15:14 John 6:63-69 I literally have no place else to go. I'm convinced of this: I WILL meet God on His terms. If I demand He meet me, then I'm asking the God of the universe to bow to a mere mortal. That's just not going to happen. I will fall in line and be the creation, not the usurper. Difference between our 'religions?' I don't have a religion, I've tried to fall in line while Another dictates to me. I'm the follower else 'my' religion would be just me and naught but one lost man, hopeless and helpless.

I have no doubt that your last sentence is factual and I can’t imagine how it would be otherwise.

Its important. If I'm ever to be God's, I've got to seek Him, and not make this stuff up as I go. "IF" your religion were the same, it'd 1) be HIS religion not yours or mine and 2) it'd be the same. There is only one way. Acts 4:12 I must/necessarily give you not 'my' religion, but the words of the One I follow else it'd just be me and you pitting our 'ideas' against one another. At such a point, both religions are vain. The scriptural word for 'religion' is θρησκεία, it means to observe, follow and worship. If we go by that, religion first, cannot be our own, it has to come from God or we are just following the observations, footsteps, and worship of men. If, however, God is the one we observe, follow, and worship, and furthermore, if Jesus is God in the flesh, then the ONLY religion that is an actual religion would have to be Christianity. I cannot brag nor apologize, just get in line behind Him, observe, follow, and worship. The only way either you or I will make it, is if our religion matches up with His instructions. -Lon

 

[Guyver]

Lon, just two posts above you spoke of revelation as a form of truth. The fact that you think only your brand of religion brings forth revelation and truth shows that you are just fooling yourself and you don’t even know it. There are many different religions in the world and they are practiced for a reason. Religious practitioners practice it because they believe in it. The fact you think your religion is the only one that is right, is an attribute of your religion. It’s no proof that you are right. I know from experience you are incorrect.


So, like said, before....we disagree and have different beliefs.

 

[Lon]

No. You conflate quantum physics (actual science) with metaphysical investigation (pseudoscience).

You are showing some disdain here. I realize how and why science does this, but see here and here (first from Notre Dame, second from Canada). Metaphysics aren't 'pseudo' but er 'meta.' It means 'with and beyond.' Hawking made the same mistake so you are in good company, but it IS a mistake. There IS aught but science of the 5 senses. We can use the scientific method to show nonphysical things exist. It is the method itself that shows why. For instance, we'd say 'unicorns do not exist.' By that statement, we are in NO WISE implying that there is no such concept as a unicorn for indeed there are! :noway: Else we couldn't even talk about them, thus, in SOME non material form, unicorns do exist. Such is philosophy, but with greater things like "love" and "God" we can prove these exist. One unfortunate experiment observation occurred in a war-torn Romania in the orphanages: They discovered if children didn't have loving attention, they either died or were greatly disabled by the mere fact they weren't loved. The question 'why' cannot be answered without metaphysical, tangible, and understood, answers about love, care, and affection.

There is no verifiable and substantiated metaphysical properties, unless you are attempting to equate quantum entanglement with metaphysical phenomena. If I have misspoken, please provide evidence of your claim so that I may stand corrected.

If by 'verifiable' you mean you cannot measure it by the 5 senses, I'd concur BUT it is important to recognize this is a limitation of science (observation), not a limitation of the mind to know. I've had conversations with "only 5 senses" scientist on TOL who have tried to convince me that love is quantifiable by science (these particular were atheists so they were incredibly sold to the 5 senses alone for explanation of all life).

Rather, it is the realm of mental processing, emotion, and reasoning that the concept 'love' can even exist. Without metaphysical grasp, then love is nothing (to these of 5 senses) but a chemical electrical stimulus. These also have absolutely no way to understand that "God is Spirit." Unless He IS physical, He cannot exist. Let me go back to the unicorn: It does not, in fact, exist in the material universe BUT most of us know exactly what it is. There are other creatures that resemble nothing in this known material universe, that we all know by name.

What does this mean: It means we substantiate as some idea of fact, an entity that ONLY exists upon the metaphysical plain.

This brings up difficulties when talking about God, because of the categorization of 'imaginary' reality vs non-imaginary in that plain (and crossing over to physical, like love, for instance).

Quantum physics/mechanics crosses over into epistemology whenever it necessarily has to forward a truth based upon non-observation and thus, is a realm of science, while stemming from the physical, isn't able to actually 'show' and atom for instance. There is nothing but computer models. More interestingly (to me), it attempts explaining things that 'have to exist' or are 'shown somehow to exist' without actually being able to do so in the traditional 5 senses science. IOW, epistemology is the demonstration of actuals that cannot be shown by tradtional science, thus it shares with metaphysical concerns and expressions.

If I could summarize crudely to try to make someone understand: metaphysics seeks to prove what can only be shown true in one's mind, thus making man himself more than the some of physical parts. It necessarily has to be true because we conceive of this actual truth, apart from what is verifiable by traditional science. The fact that unicorns exist, in the mind, is proof that unicorns somehow are understood in our minds as a shared entity apart from any physical science whatsoever. A scientist or two has dismissed this as "Bah, so what, unicorns do NOT exist!" They missed the fact that their own minds, quite apart from their 5 senses, grasps the concept of 'unicorns.' The concept is the reality, alone AND knowledge they possess apart from the physical universe.

There are a few links that do a better job, but I'm always attempting to try and communicate through laymen terms first. If inadequate, I'll post the links my next response.

-Lon

 

[Guyver]

You are stuck in 'just science' again with this notion. I DO, in fact, know (not superstition, that's where you are remiss) that God exists. Romans 1 says that everybody knows, implicitly, that God exists, 'by what has been made so that all men are without excuse.' Rather, according to Paul's writing, men [and women] rather 'suppress the truth.' Truth is its own 'proof.'

Science can’t test for God Lon. There’s nothing to test. There’s no physical, testable evidence of God existing. There’s evidence of people believing God exists, and there’s evidence that religion exists. Gods existence is not provable or disprovable by science.

I never said I didn’t think God exists, in fact, I’ve said the opposite dozens of times in this thread. I said God can’t be proven to exist. If you think you can prove God exists, do it.