Rwingett,
A few pages back you were taunting me about some arguments of Vestesd that I supposedly didn't answer.
What you don't know is that vestesd emailed me personally and said that s/he would not be able to be in the discussion for awhile. So I placed my responses to him/her on the back burner.
I don't mind replying as I remember what the issue was. But I think the subject matter should go on the Thread about the Law of Moses.
The discussion was about Christ saying in Matthew that He came not coming to abolish the law verses Paul writing that Christ abolished the law of commandments in ordinances in Ephesians. Am I right?
I think that line of discussion belongs on the thread about the law. If the poster is able to return to the discussions, I'll probably take it up again on that thread.
Unless you can't wait see what I would reply in the next day or so. But the matters are not "too difficult" for me to discuss. They do require time and labor and vestesd the main beneficiary is away for a season.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNow you're getting somewhere. Although our words (and other iconoclastic tools) are inadequate to explain the concept, we obviously can at least reach the shore of that distant beach.
The universe could be said to have existed forever, since space-time is all one dimension. Before (and I use the term loosely) space came into existance (as in the physical volume for matter-energy to exist within) there was no time. The word "forever" is, of course, a time dependant term. Of course, the English language is inadequate to describe things like this...
The thought that something-was-not while nothing-was, was somehow turned into something-is is not too hard to fathom on its face. The infinite regress is eliminated from the formula as absurd. Before something-is, at the time of nothing-was, that somehow was wrought by God. That He existed before something-is is not difficult to fathom, when we understand the nature of the Godhead.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis, of course, hinges upon the the idea that God is uncreated. That is, you hold as axiomatic
Now you're getting somewhere. Although our words (and other iconoclastic tools) are inadequate to explain the concept, we obviously can at least reach the shore of that distant beach.
The thought that something-was-not while nothing-was, was somehow turned into something-is is not too hard to fathom on its face. The infinite regress is eliminated from ...[text shortened]... d before something-is is not difficult to fathom, when we understand the nature of the Godhead.
that 'something' (God) existed before anything (else) was.
You disallow the atheist the same axiomatic stance -- that the universe always was -- because
you say 'something' had to have created the universe.
Well, isn't that convenient? The atheist can't say that 'something' had to create your first source,
but you can say that 'something' had to create the atheist's first source.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioEven the athiest realizes that something was (at one point) nothing.
This, of course, hinges upon the the idea that God is uncreated. That is, you hold as axiomatic
that 'something' (God) existed before anything (else) was.
You disallow the atheist the same axiomatic stance -- that the universe always was -- because
you say 'something' had to have created the universe.
Well, isn't that convenient? The atheist can' ...[text shortened]... but you can say that 'something' had to create the atheist's first source.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHUnfortunately, the christian creationist doesn't seem clever enough to realise that your statement includes time.
Even the athiest realizes that something was (at one point) nothing.
Once one realises this, the atheist's paradox is solved, but the creationist's paradox remains.
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd still the atheist must rely on nothing bridging the gap while the theist relies on God.
Unfortunately, the christian creationist doesn't seem clever enough to realise that your statement includes time.
Once one realises this, the atheist's paradox is solved, but the creationist's paradox remains.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe question 'where does the universe come from' is equivalent to 'where did God come from.'
Before something, nothing. Between nothing and something. Something coming from nothing. Nothing, nothing, and now, something. Something changed nothing to something.
You can say 'God was never "not there."' The atheist can say the same thing about the universe.
You can say 'No, there had to be "nothing" at some point.' The atheist can say the same thing about God.
You can say 'No...the definition of God includes that He has always been.' The atheist can say the same thing about the universe.
Do you get it yet? The 'logic' you employ to compel the atheist to contemplate the ex nihilo
problem is entirely analogous to that employed by the atheist to get you to contemplate that same
problem applied to God.
Nemesio
I am going to attempt to steer this discussion back to the Topic Theme - "A Simple Way to Experience Christ"
You all who are contributing to the discussion don't have to follow me if you don't want to. But I started the thread and it is going in many different directions. I myself have taken it off my own topic.
My contributions will try to be related to the Experience of Christ - its Availiability, the Simplicity of such, etc.
I began by speaking of those wanting to know Christ by calling on His name. This has been much ridiculed on this discussion. But I don't retract those ideas.
Calling on the name of God dates back to the fourth generation of mankind:
"And to Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time men began to call upon the name of Jehovah" (Genesis 4:26)
The name Enosh means something like "frail" and "mortal". We might say Enosh denotes frail mortal man. When the generations of early humans began to realize that life apart from God was not good, they began to call upon the name of God.
In the fourth generation of mankind men began to call on the name of God to have fellowship and communion with God.
Abraham, is called the friend of God and a patriarch who walked with God. He called on the name of God:
"And he preceeded from there to the mountain on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to Jehovah and called upon the name of Jehocah" (Genesis 12:8)
Abraham here was between Bethel (the house of God) and Ai (heap of ruins). The picture is very significant. Fallen man journeying from a heap of ruins on his way to the house of God is calling on the name of God. An application of this passage is that when we see human society as being in a heap of ruins and that we were created to have fellowship rather with God, we would call on His name.
Enosh represented frail and mortal man. Abraham represented man journeying from the ruined Satanic damaged world to the house of God.
Then in Genesis 13:4 Abram (Abraham) returns from backsliding into Egypt to the place he first called on the name of God. And there again he calls on the name of God:
"And he continued on his journey ... as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai, to the place of the altar, which he made there formerly; and there Abram called on the name of Jehovah" (Genesis 12:3,4)
Abraham came back to his consecrated position and once again called on the name of God. Calling on the name of God brings us back to the proper calibration of human life. Calling on the name of God returns us from wandering in anxiety and lines us up again with God's eternal purpose - His house.
Don't dispise calling "Lord Jesus. O Lord Jesus". Calling to contact the Lord Jesus is good for our frail mortality. Calling to touch God, to experience Christ is good to return us to focus and calibration of our most imporatant destiny - to dwell in the house of God.
Some of you should try calling on the name of the Lord Jesus in simplicity.
"Lord Jesus Christ. O Lord Jesus I need You. Lord Jesus I call on you. Cleanse me from my sins in your precious blood. Lord Jesus I call on your name."
This is a simple way to experience the Son of God.
Originally posted by NemesioMy thread was about A Simple Way to Experience Christ. I want to include your comment but related to my topic.
The question 'where does the universe come from' is equivalent to 'where did God come from.'
You can say 'God was never "not there."' The atheist can say the same thing about the universe.
You can say 'No, there had to be "nothing" at some point.' The atheist can say the same thing about God.
You can say 'No...the definition of God includes that H atheist to get you to contemplate that same
problem applied to God.
Nemesio
The matter that the Bible teaches is that it wants man to EXPERIENCE God not just know about God.
The Bible wants man to experience eternity is eternal life. The philosopher's intention may just be to UNDERSTAND something about eternity.
"Taste and see the the Lord is good" is a call to subjective experience. Taste here really means to enjoy subjectively.
The debater often assumes that only to have our curiosity satisfied is what is important.
I don't know about your philosophy. But my understanding about God comes mostly from the Bible. There God created the heavens and the earth. So He was there first and the universe was afterwards created.
I use terms like "afterwards" and "first" for the sake of the limitation of our human minds and language. As much as it kills our pride to have to admit that God (the heavenly Father) includes many things that are difficult for us to comprehend, we should worship and praise Him for such transcendence.
But eternity is something God encourages man to subjectively experience through salvation. We cannot know what it is to have always been. But we can know what it is to always be from now on. This we can have in the gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus.
Why God would love you so much and me so much is hard to understand. But He desires our fellowship forever. Of course we are fallen and in need of salvation and transformation. But in His process of salvation He prepares us for eternity to subjectively enjoy.
Do you want to understand these matters by means of partaking of them? I do. I think this is more valuable than and probably more possible than simply objectively understanding something about them.
I don't know HOW God could always be. I will find out something of HOW God always WILL be, for I have eternal life in Christ's salvation.
Originally posted by NemesioThe question 'where does the universe come from' is equivalent to 'where did God come from.'
The question 'where does the universe come from' is equivalent to 'where did God come from.'
You can say 'God was never "not there."' The atheist can say the same thing about the universe.
You can say 'No, there had to be "nothing" at some point.' The atheist can say the same thing about God.
You can say 'No...the definition of God includes that H ...[text shortened]... atheist to get you to contemplate that same
problem applied to God.
Nemesio
Not exactly. One is recognized as created, the other considered the Creator.
You can say 'God was never "not there."' The atheist can say the same thing about the universe.
Again, not exactly. There is no 'not there' for God to be, as He is immaterial, and (by definition) un-created. The atheist can say whatever he chooses, but the evidence (and reason) tells us that the universe had a beginning. There is an impetus for the universe to begin, having the properties of material. No such impetus is required for an immaterial being, Himself outside of creation.