Heaven: Present or Future Address?

Brother Tadhg
28 February, 2007 at 9:39 am

How about reading it (and obtaining info from other Bible verses) as ‘The church is living in the world and in heaven (as Jesus is our representative), and from there, heaven, we’re expecting a Saviour.

That fits in with the Biblical that we’re ‘there’ but there’s more! Saints in a process (as the ending of hagias-mos indicates).

‘Eagerly await’ in greek is apekdechomai (and is in the present tense indicating this is a heavenly continual mindset).

So, it’s firmly rooted in the present (with wistful future wonderings). The (only) living in heaven ‘challenge’ is one reason was a problem which 1 Thess 4 sought to rectify. There some believers thought that they were ‘in heaven’ and so could do no wrong (and that led to immoral behaviour) and would not die (which caused theological prolems when some of them started dying).
GBY
Brother Tadhg

Reply

Sean
28 February, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Perhaps the New Jerusalem Bible is not a great translation for this verse. Almost all of the others say “our citizenship is in heaven.” We are citizens of the kingdom of God which will be inagurated on earth when Jesus returns in glory (Ps 2.6-8; 2 Sam 7.14-16; Luke 1.31-33). Presently the kingdom of God is in heaven but one day His kingdom will come and his desires will be done on earth (Mat 6.9). Until then we are strangers and foreigners (not because we are going to heaven but because heaven has not yet come to us).

check out our blog discussion on this same subject

more stuff on the kingdom here

Reply

Brother Tadhg
28 February, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Umm Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God as (already) being on earth in the time of His earthly ministry. It’s here now and is growing. I think the challenge to us is to accept that there’s a future element and a present element. We have it, but there’s more to come. When Jesus comes again events will come to a climax but it’s not all future.

We were strangers to God at one time, but now no longer because of what Jesus has already done.

Sorry, if that all sounds pedantic, Sean, I’m just eager to convey the point that we can live fully in the Kingdom/reign of God now, but there’s more to come. An addition in the future, but not estranged now.

GBY, Brother Tadhg

Reply

Bald Man
1 March, 2007 at 12:05 am

First off, thanks for responding, guys. It’s always nice to know I’m not blogging in a vacuum.

Bro. Tadhg,
I’m familiar with the “already-and-not-yet” of the Kingdom, but that idea doesn’t address Paul’s particular emphasis in this text. Is Paul’s point in this instance that the church is in the Kingdom of Heaven (vs. the kingdom of Rome) or that Jesus is in the Kingdom of heaven? That’s my immediate question.

Sean,
NJB seems as good as half the other ones I read, which is to say it is ambiguous. The other half favor the first reading, Jesus is in heaven; and my penchant for skepticism and cynicism has been established. It seems neither “homeland” nor “citizenship” make an appreciable difference in this application.

Reply

Sean
1 March, 2007 at 7:49 am

The kingdom of God comes at the last trumpet when the kingdom of this world becomes the kingdom of our God and His Messiah (Rev 11.15). Jesus went around preaching “Repent, the kingdom of God is near” (Mat 4.17; Mark 1.15). Near is not here. The kingdom comes when Jesus comes.

Reply

Brother Tadhg
1 March, 2007 at 2:58 pm

BaldManBlogging
I see your point (I think).

Jesus is in heaven, but that is not a complete statement as He lives within each believer. So he’s there and here in us. The Kingdom of Heaven being God’s rule (in heaven and on earth) is a current reality, with a future dimension of total fruition. So, it’s now and future.

The Bible says the Kingsom of God/Heaven (his rule on earth etc) starts small and grows, so to assume it’s a case of ‘nothing until he comes again’ doesnt do justice to Matt 13:20-30, 31-32 and his explanation v36-42 where he says good and bad will grow together on earth until the day of judgement.

This fits with Jesus’s statement of the nearness of the Kingdom, and I have a feeling that Jesus might have been talking locationally when he said that to one guy in the Bible. Sort of like saying, God’s rule is near, and you’re looking at the embodiment on it in me, it’s me guys!’

Ummm, Paul, I’m venturing is saying that Jesus is in Heaven (but elsewhere when he wants to make another point, he talks of him in us), and that we’re members of heaven on earth, just as you may be an American in Idaho! Qualitively you hold a Heaven passport, protected and under his authority wherever you are on earth, but will one day be totally at home. In that respect the church/beleiver is in the Kingdom of Heaven. Just as we may be in the race, the journey, competing and that’s whats important right now, but one day we’ll pass the finishing tape – a metaphor Paul uses a few verwses earlier. The race has started already, and the whsitle (judgement) isn’t to start the race/Kingdom but to usher in its total completion. Sort of a ‘coming, ready of not’!

Thanks for your blog, man….I’ve been reading it for age, and find it stimulating.

I guess, one thing I’ve found helpful: I think it was Augustine, walking along the beach and gazing into a shell, discovered that our minds can now more understand God totally, than a shell can capture all the sea!

Yours

Bro. Tadhg

Reply

Sean
1 March, 2007 at 4:52 pm

The kingdom of heaven = The kingdom of God (compare Mat 19.23 to Mat 19.24). The kingdom of God is the rule of God through His Messiah over the earth (cf. Dan 7.13-14; 17, 27; Ps 2.6-8). Jesus is promised to rule on the throne of David forever (Luke 1.31-33). Do you believe Gabriel was mistaken? Thus, if “kingdom of God” = “Jesus the Messiah ruling on the throne of David (i.e. in Jerusalem)” then there is no sense in which the kingdom is already here. It does not grow. Read the parable more carefully…it’s the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one who are growing. The kingdom comes suddenly and violently when the angels are sent (under the command of the Son of Man) to root out all who cause stumbling and wickedness. THEN the saints will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of God. Then means not now. Perhaps I’m just totally off my rocker, but I am seeing this more an more in the Scriptures. In fact, I couldn’t find one verse that clearly says we are going to heaven. It seems more like we are going to inherit the earth (cf. Abraham’s land promises Gen 17.8; Gal 3.29)

“Blessed are the gentle, they shall inherit the earth” –Jesus (Mat 5.5)

Reply

Bald Man
1 March, 2007 at 5:17 pm

OK, guys… it’s sounding like you’ve got your heels dug in at the moment. Perhaps I’m misreading, but let’s be sure we can keep it civil before continuing.

While we’ve wandered far from my immediate question about the Philippians’ text, (Still looking for a Greek scholar…) I’ll see if I have anything to add to this distinct, though interesting, conversation when I’ve got time.

Reply

rantzgrotto
1 March, 2007 at 5:42 pm

If I may, as an outsider, join this discussion.

“Our homeland is in heaven and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ”

This passage says to me that Heaven (I’m assuming the missing capitalization is a typo or else I’m WAY off base) is the place where the person writing descends from (Like Germany would be my homeland here on Earth (And I don’t live there nor have I ever been there, but where I can trace my roots to)).

The second half states that the saviour, Jesus Christ, will one day travel out from this Heaven place and presumably end up whereever the author is.

That is the passage, taken at straight face value from someone who is outside the religion. I can see how easily much can be read into that statement. If you care to hear my outsider’s view on my non-literal interruptation I’ll be happy to give it, but I don’t know if you’ll like it.

Reply

Sean
1 March, 2007 at 8:19 pm

the problem with this interpretation is that heaven is not the homeland. Nowhere in Scripture does it say this. Only in the New Jerusalem Bible. The NASB, NET, NAB, NRSV, HCSB, ESV, and NIV all say “citzenship is in heaven” which means that our country of residence is stored up with God until it will be revealed on the last day. The when Jesus returns he will establish/inagurate the kingdom. It’s like the parable in Luke 19 where the king goes off to receive a kingdom and then return.

Reply

rantz grotto
1 March, 2007 at 11:29 pm

And thus we have one of the main reasons I do not belong to the Christian cause. Find me the TRUE Bible and maybe I’ll believe, but until someone can find the actual word, I’m not going to spend my life fighting over translations and interruptations. Me, I’ll spend my life trying to make the physical world a better place and help my fellow man (Or woman) in those ways I can.

I thusly bow out of this debate. May peace and harmony find you whatever you believe.

Reply

Sean
2 March, 2007 at 7:32 am

rantz,

That is a terrible excuse. First of all we have both Old Testament and New Testament in the original languages. You just need to spend the time to learn them. Besides, these English translation have more than 90% agreement.

Secondly, you, rantz, are going to stand before the King one day and be judged. Now is the time to repent and follow him. He loves you and wants to forgive you.

Reply

Bald Man
2 March, 2007 at 10:39 am

Oi vey! Who knew THIS would be the post that causes controversy…

Rantz (if you’re still subscribed to comments…),
First, thanks for venturing in. Many times fresh eyes are just what the doctor ordered, and I know you’re taking a risk speaking up here.

I’m not a Greek scholar – which is why I asked my initial question – but I think your capitalization is misplaced. The Greek word normally translated “heaven” could be rendered as simply as “sky” or even “air.” For example, the Lord’s Prayer, which traditionally begins, “Our father in heaven,” could also be “Our father in the sky.” Context and (I’m inclined to say too often) theological bias are often the determining factors for selecting the English word used. So, to say affirmatively that there is a physical address called Heaven is a stretch; not necessarily incorrect, but a stretch and often beside the point.

That reminds me: You asked me a question way too long ago about scripture and inspiration and such, a question posed to you by a student. I never got around to answering it; but I’ll make it a priority. Seems timely.

Finally, I’d love to hear your non-literal interpretation; email me if you don’t want to post it.

Sean,
I’m certain you disagree with my statement about heaven; no point in arguing about it. There are clearly fundamental differences.

Second, keep your tone civil. No one is attacking you, so don’t get defensive. Everyone here is my guest, and I’m glad to have you all. Really glad. I don’t get to talk about this stuff as often as I’d like. That said: my house, my rules. Treat each other with kindness and respect, or take your ball home. This is not your platform for proselytizing.

Bro. Tadhg,
Thanks again for the encouragement. The seashell thing sounds like Augustine.

I guess the reason I doubt Paul was talking about Jesus’ present residence is that this is a “duh!” statement. The Twelve watched him float up into the sky and disappear by clouds; I suspect the story of his ascension were pretty common knowledge; and Paul had his mystical visions. The church knew where Jesus was, so Paul is wasting words restating the point.

In the letter (I’ve just skimmed it briefly) Paul’s overriding purpose aside from expressing thanks seems to be offering encouragement in the face of persistent harassment both from those who would impose the Jewish law, and from increasing Roman persecution. (Paul is, after all, in prison when writing the letter.) Paul says much about unity among the church, so it seems these external pressures were starting to create fractures within the church.

It is in light of this context, therefore, that I think the second interpretation might be more accurate. “You aren’t citizens of Judaism, or even of Rome; you are citizens of heaven. And from there – with that mindset, with those guiding values, and from within that community – you live, you persevere and you wait for Jesus to return.

My question, which none of us seem qualified to answer, is: Does the Greek text support this interpretation? Is there a definitive answer as to who the phrase “from there” is modifying? If I could just accept the less ambiguous translations at face value, I’d be done with this; but no… I had to stumble across one with a poorly placed prepositional phrase.

Reply

Bald Man
2 March, 2007 at 12:21 pm

“interruption”

Funny! Even if unintentional.

Reply

rantzgrotto
2 March, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Baldy- I’m not afraid, I’m not afraid. I spit on fear three times patuie patuie patuie! I’ll gladly hold an open dialog with anyone, but knowing that my viewpoint is somewhat counter to yours and your ideas, I don’t want to change that focus. I guess I can link to your blog from my blog and open the discussion there.

Oh, and about the interruption… What if there was a similar typo in the early version of the Bible… Oh the embarassment. Remember it was transcribed by mortals, all mortals are capable of mistake. One misplaced comma, one smudge not meant and we could have a completely different book, and who would there be to tell us we’re wrong?

Ok, ok, I’ll take this over to my blog… I feel like I’m trolling if I do it here (Truely, that is not my intent). Give me time if you want to follow me, I’ll let you know when I have it going. I’m slow.

Reply

Sean
2 March, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Rantz, you bring up a good issue regarding the transmission of ancient documents, “it was transcribed by mortals.” This is true of every single document we have before the invention of the printing press. However, the NT is the most historically reliable document on planet earth because we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts (in museums around the world) and the earliest existing fragment dates to within thirty years of the original. Thus to call into question the reliableness of the NT is to call into question every single historical document before ad1500. The question to ask is not “is it what the apostles wrote?” but “is it true?”

Reply

Jeremy Pierce
2 March, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Peter O’Brien argues for the following picture:

1. The church is spiritually gathered around the throne of God in heaven.
2. In time and space, the church manifests itself in each location congregation. That is, each congregation is not a part of the church but is the church in a local manifestation. When Paul writes to the church in Corinth, he isn’t writing to the church, i.e. the one that is in Corinth but to the church, as it is manifested in Corinth.
3. This is across time and space. All members across time are gathered in the gathering of #1, and all congregations across time fully represent and manifest the church in #2.
4. The members of the church are spiritually gathered around the throne of God, but particular members are physically present in certain locations in space and time. All members will be physically present in the location of space/time of the new heaven and new earth.
5. The kingdom of God is the manifestation of God’s rule on earth through the presence of the church in various locations in space and time after the ascension of Christ. It is the carrying out of God’s will and purposes through the church. It is spatio-temporal in a way that the church is only partially so.

This picture makes great sense to me.

Reply

Sean
2 March, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Baldman, it does not say, “you are citizens of heaven” it says “our citizenship is in heaven” i.e. it is stored up with God. In the Hebrew mindset all good things are stored up with God in heaven until they are revealed on earth.

Reply

Bald Man
2 March, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Jeremy,
Welcome to the conversation. Can’t say I completely followed what you were saying, though it seems to be along the lines of “already-but-not-yet.” I can’t help but wonder if convolutions and complexities like this are a result of clinging to some sort of physical, other-worldly Heaven. Just a bit of conjecture on my part…

Sean,
Still I fail to see a meaningful distinction between the two clauses, though I can appreciate that you do. I wonder if that Greek scholar I am dreaming about could provide insight here as well.

It also seems unlikely that Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, would have been using a Jewish approach for his Grecian audience.

Reply

Jeremy Pierce
2 March, 2007 at 4:39 pm

I think the heaven O’Brien has in mind is simply God’s presence. The church is in some sense grounded in what God does and seated with him in the heavenlies. Whatever that means, it’s got to include the idea that the church is with God somehow. You don’t need to think of that as physical at all.

Reply

Jeremy Pierce
2 March, 2007 at 4:39 pm

I should say that you also don’t need to think of it as the final state of the church, which is in the new heavens and new earth, something that I think is described in physical terms in the NT.

Reply

Bald Man
2 March, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Jeremy,
I probably am creating a false dichotomy, but it still sounds excessively complex. I’ll chew on it over the weekend.

Cheerio, folks! Feel free to keep the conversation flowing.

Reply

Sean
2 March, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Jeremy, you said, “The kingdom of God is the manifestation of God’s rule on earth through the presence of the church in various locations in space and time after the ascension of Christ.” I agree that the kingdom of God will be the manifestation of God’s rule on earth. However the kingdom does not come until the Christ comes (not his ascension). Jesus is not now ruling the earth, satan is (2 Cor 4.4; Rev 12.9; 1 John 5.19). The kingdom begins when “the Son of Man comes in glory…then he will sit on his glorious throne” (Mat 25.31). If the kingdom is here now then it is not a very just kingdom because evil is winning the day.

Reply

Jeremy Pierce
2 March, 2007 at 5:33 pm

The kingdom was present during Jesus’ earthly ministry. He said so many times. It took a different form at his ascension, and it will take yet another form (its fullest form) at his return.

I didn’t say that Jesus is ruling the world in the same sense that Satan is. What I said is that the rule of God is present on earth through the church. That doesn’t mean a fully present rule in everything (although God’s ultimate sovereignty over all things does imply some sort of rule over everything, including Satan).

Evil is winning? Evil lost at the cross.

Reply

Sean
2 March, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Perhaps we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the kingdom of God–the time when Gabriel’s prophecy will be fulfilled (cf. Luke 1.31-33) and Jesus will sit on the throne of David and rule the world (Ps 2.6-8). What are you talking about when you say “kingdom of God?”

Reply

Jeremy Pierce
2 March, 2007 at 6:23 pm

I’m talking about what Jesus says is already present when he says “the kingdom of God is among you” and “the kingdom of God is at hand” and when he describes basic Christian ethics as the ethics of the kingdom. I’m talking about what he refers to in the parables in descriptions of wheat growing with tares and various other things that can’t be around after the second coming. The parables of the kingdom make no sense if there is no sense in which the kingdom of God is in operation in the ministry of the church before the second coming.

Reply

Sean
2 March, 2007 at 10:29 pm

In regards to Luke 10.17, Jesus said, “nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” Notice he says “they,” that is, those who are alive when the kingdom arives, will not say it is in one location, it will be in the midst, everywhere. See this blog for more info

In regards to Jesus’ gospel catch phrase “repent the kingdom of God is near,” it is clear that near is not here. If I am near the store, I’m not in the store. See this blog for more info

In regards to the parable of the wheat and the tares, it is clear that the kingdom is not there while they are growing. The kingdom comes in the end when judgment and rewards are manifested. Again, I suggest that Jesus sits on the throne (i.e. kingdom) when he comes in glory (Matthew 25.31). See this blog for more info.

Reply

rantz grotto
3 March, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Jeremy- To me, what you are saying in regard to Baldy’s question is that the Kingdom is present in the present in the form of the church in each and every place it meets here in the physical world. I think this largly gets to Baldy’s main question in regard to the tense of the verb in question.

Reply

rantz grotto
3 March, 2007 at 2:05 pm

As promised, I have posted my own blog on this topic and of my thoughts. If you would like to read and comment, I’d enjoy hearing what all of you have to say.

http://keepersofthetruth.blogspot.com/2007/03/so-my-dear-friend-baldman-posted.html

Reply

Bald Man
3 March, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Sean,

To go with your interpretation for a moment, the last 2000 years have made a mockery of Jesus’ statement that the Kingdom is “near.”

Rantz,
I might even be willing to go one step further: The Kingdom of God is present wherever and whenever people live out the ethics of the Kingdom, notably reconciliation and the administration of grace, whether or not those people affiliate with Christianity. Don’t hold my feet to the fire on that one, but I’ll throw it out there for discussion.

Now I’ll go see what you have to say…

Reply

Sean
4 March, 2007 at 7:46 am

Excellent point, baldman, it would seem that the kingdom should already be here. We have discussed this point ad naseum here. There are at least three theories available.

(1) postponement theory: Jesus’ prophecy of the kingdom was conditional on Israel’s repentance. They didn’t repent…so the kingdom has been postponed unti they do (Ro 11.25-26).

(2) Hebrew concept of imminence: All of the prophets used very similar terminology when preaching repentance. They would say, “Repent, the Day of the Lord is near.” Apparently near means “just on the horizon” or it’s the next thing on God’s prophetic clock. It could come at any moment.

(3) The third option is that since the King was present, and he repesents the kingdom, he could say that the kingdom was near in that it’s representative, the king of the kingdom, was standing right there.

None of these positions does violence to the clearly defined hope given throughout the Bible (especially in the OT) that one day God will again rule His people (now including Gentiles) through an idyllic king, (like David, in fact, a son of David), the Messiah. The prophets are filled with this stuff: Isaiah 2; 11; 9.7; 35; 60; Dan 2; 7; etc.

my site on the kingdom

Reply

Brother Tadhg
4 March, 2007 at 3:29 pm

Those are three good summaries. If I had to steer towards an option, number three seems more likely, to me. However, I’ve learned (and am still learning, being dogmatic can soemtimes be unhelpful).

I think, particularly, when trying to sum up spiritual matters we, temporal beings, have our past/present/future mapped out and are comfortable with either/or options, – all aspects from our point of view. But when it comes to spiritual matters time is different and and/also seems more appropriate – views from an ‘other world’ aspect. God gave us ‘reason’, but it seems it can only take us so far! Faith is needed for that vital, ‘extra’ step.

This was an interesting concept taken up in ‘Deep Space Nine ‘of all places, when Bnejamin Cisco encountered superior god-like aliens in a neighbouring wormhole. For them, time and language were totally different., and ‘picture’ language was most appropriate – akin to the way God spoke in the OT (and NT) in dreams, and observers saw and described things ‘like this’ or that. I mean, how do you sum up heaven using the language of earth? (Rhetorical question).

This is most stimulating – great blog, great comments!

Reply

rantz grotto
4 March, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Brother TadHG: Interesting that you should mention the heaven summation. I have asked Sean about that on my blog. Hope you will take the time to reply as well.

Baldman: You speak of the Kingdom being present in the places were the people are doing good. How about this reading from the Gospel of Thomas v3:

…the Kingdom of Heaven is within you…

or this from Thomas v.77:

I am the light that shines over all things. I am everywhere. From me all came forth, and to me all return.
Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there.

(Both quotes taken from Wikipedia)

The idea of this Gospel came to me last night from my wife who read of it in the book The Tenth Circle by Jodi Picoult when speaking of her forthcoming book of unknown title.

Reply

Sean
4 March, 2007 at 8:35 pm

The phrase “the kingdom of heaven is within you” is a mistranslation that has been corrected in nearly all modern translations. For more on this read here

I do agree that God is everywhere and He certainly is there wherever one may go (Psalm 139.7-12)

Also this area of understanding the kingdom is of prime importance (Mat 6.33) because the gospel (the information required to believe in order to be forgiven) is primarily about the kingdom of God. For example, see Mat 4.23; 9.35; 24.14; Mark 1.14-15; Luke 4.43; Acts 8.12; 19.8; 28.23, 31. Thus, believing in heaven-at-death can be a serious block to salvation.

Reply

Bald Man
4 March, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Sean,
Interesting theories; I’ll throw them into my mixer. I have to say, the idea that the gospel is “information required to believe in order to be forgiven” doesn’t sit well with me. It sounds a bit like gnosticism: a special knowledge required for salvation.

Brother Tadhg,
A reminder for humility never hurts, yeah?

Rantz,
I’m not familiar with the Gospel of Thomas, and while can’t say I see a glaring fault (i.e. something that runs contrary to Jesus as I best understand him) in those two brief excerpts, it’s hard to make a wise judgment without context.

Also interesting that you should mention The Tenth Circle; Kerri has been working through the audiobook for a while.

Reply

Sean
4 March, 2007 at 10:58 pm

BaldMan, what would you say to someone who wanted to be forgiven of their sins?

Reply

rantz grotto
5 March, 2007 at 12:23 am

Baldman: Your wife and mine both share many things in common. It really is too bad that mine is not more social.

Sean: You speak much in verse without quotes, but not much in actual thoughts. It makes it hard to follow your arguements. Please remember that not everyone has spent their lives devoted to these texts. One way to convert more people is to let more people in, by making it more friendly. Just my opinion.

Reply

Norm
5 March, 2007 at 7:39 am

bald man, if i may, the text in phil 3 is clearly stated in the present. “Our conversation,[KJV] is in heaven, if it had been “will be,” then a future promise is given, or “has been,” then it would be something from a point past. The clause in question “from which,” simply refers to where our conversatoin,homeland,citizenship, or whatever translated, presently now is. I believe properly stated, “Our homeland [presently] is in heaven, from which [heaven] we look to, or expect our savior. If I were to go any further then I would be expanding on doctrinal debate for which I wouldbe happy to discuss if asked to.

Reply

Bald Man
5 March, 2007 at 9:14 am

Sean,
I’m not ignoring that last question; I just want to think on it a bit.

Norm,
The present tense of the church’s location in heaven seems clear enough; what isn’t, to me, is the object of the prepositional phrase “from there,” or as you put it “from which.” Though, as I indicate, I am tending to agree with your interpretation.

Reply

Sean
5 March, 2007 at 10:16 am

Rantz, what did I say that was unclear? I certainly would not want to be confusing in any way.

Reply

Rantz_Grotto
5 March, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Sean: It is not so much unclear, but in code. Mark 3:12, John 6:66 , etc. I don’t know what those verses are. I don’t have a Bible at my fingertips (ok, I could look them up online, but I’m lazy). Providing the text is helpful, especially because I may not be reading the same version as you and therefor might have different language which could lead to different interprutations.

Also, personally, I’d like to hear more of what YOU think on these topics, not just what the Bible says.

Reply

Sean
5 March, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Rantz,

I cite Scripture as support for what I’m saying not to make the point. I do not expect you to look up every verse I cite, but I want to have everything there in case something gets called into question. I believe what the Bible says (or at least that’s my goal).

I believe that God has a dream for his creation. He originally made things beautiful, without suffering or pain, and that he intended for mankind to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and rule over it. However, this as we all know is not what happened and with the initial choice of our primordial parents humanity itself has been degenerating ever since. The world today is sick, it is filled with corrupt governments, wars, violence, rape, murder, etc. This is because Satan is the god of this world and he is excercising his authority. Allthough it grieves God to endure the agony of his creatures he waits day after day so that more people can come to a knowledge of the truth and repent so as to be saved. Eventually, God’s patience will run out and he will judge all the wickedness through his Messiah (Jesus Christ). When Jesus comes it will not be pretty. The Bible says that many will be mourning to see him because he will be coming to counquer. As the Messiah comes to earth the saints from all ages will be resurrected and ascend into the clouds (carried by angels) to meet Jesus in the air and escort him to Palestine. Then Jesus and his saints will go marching in and take over Jerusalem, establish the kingdom (which will take time). After this Jesus will be the king of the world and the saints will be working under him in various capacities. In this time, finally, justice will prevail. Never will someone get off because they have more money or influence. Never will there be violence or war. Never again will there be corruption in the government because the Messiah, who is uniquely qualified to make right decision because of the influence of God within him, will rule from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth. His kingdom will last 1,000 years during which a grand restoration of the planet will occur. Deserts will blossom, swamps will become inhabitable, and extreme weather patterns will cease. After this millenium of righteous rule, the final judgment occurs in which all the rest of the dead are resurrected and judged. Those who are not found in the book of life will be burned to death in the lake of fire. Then, finally, God himself will come to dwell on earth with his creatures and Jesus will turn the kingdom over to the Father. Then we will finally be back where we started, in paradise, with God forever.

It was tough but I didn’t quote a single Scripture. Allthough I have Scriptures for all of it (hopefully).

Reply

rantz grotto
5 March, 2007 at 11:54 pm

Sean: That was really impressive. I kept reading thinking that you’d try and slip in some scripture, but you did really well. I’m proud of you. You must be a real hoot at parties!

No, seriously, it says many things in there which seem to be paraphrases of the Bible. My question is why is it going to take so long for Jesus and his saints to take over? Wouldn’t God just be able to blink and make it happen? Also, you keep talking about Jesus coming as if he hasn’t come before. You mean there is going to be a third coming? A third reich? Hasn’t that been tried before?

Reply

Sean
6 March, 2007 at 7:17 am

Rantz,

The only answer we are given about the “why is it taking so long” question is found in 2 Peter:

2 Peter 3:3-4 3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”…

2 Peter 3:8-9 8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. ”

I think God could easily do everything he wanted to in the blink of an eye. Jesus has come already and he is coming again (that makes 2 not three

You are asking the wrong question, you should be asking “who side am I on?” If Jesus were to come this year, would I be found on the side of those punished or those rewarded? What do you think?

Reply

Norm
6 March, 2007 at 7:35 am

140Rantz, If I may interject. In my own personal studies I have come to see that the more I try to disprove the bible and it s teachings the more that I am drawn to them. For example, in looking at the history of the old testament, I found that the scribes throughout the centuries had such a reverance for the sacredness of the “Holy writings” that they were careful to the nth degree in copying the text. As a result we have a biblical translation for the old testament that is as accurate today as when it was first written. I believe what has happened to Christianity is the result many years of people interpreting scripture the way they think and apply it to their own belief system. BUT, I have to paraphrase from the writing iof Paul [Excuse me!] “For we do not follow cunningly devised fables put forth by men,” You have mentioned the gospel of Thomas, I have read that myself, and looked into its validity, although it is estimated to have been written between 50-140 A.D. The manuscripts are not complete [fragmented] and only 3 are known. each of these show a degree of variation that they are not deemed reliable in authicity. Like Sean stated earlier, that there over 500 manuscripts and 1000s of fragments of the new testament that when compared, they verify original writings. To add to what Sean previously wrote, rather to answer your question as to why God does not just blink and make it happen. Well there is this thing called free will God gave it to man and man has used it from the beginning. God is not going to force anyone to obey him. If he did then he would be recieving our obedienceby forced influence. Now that is not any way to get anybody to love, which is what was Gods plan was from the beginning. That is why today, you can choose to believe or not. For me, it goes beyond believing, it has become a hallmark , so much so that I look to the return of the Messiah and the establishing of the kingdom which is basically a return to paradise. I try to live this every day. Im not perfect, But I know there is a God who loves and his words give me guidance[the bible] for living.Christs return is the 2nd coming not the 3rd.

Reply

Bald Man
6 March, 2007 at 9:05 am

Just interjecting with a reminder: Watch the proselytizing. Tell us what you think; ask questions about and even critique what others think; but respect and permit differences of opinion. My house, my rules. I don’t think any lines have been crossed, but it’s amazing how quickly a tipping point can be reached. I’m going to err on the side of caution.

Reply

Sean
6 March, 2007 at 9:25 am

Bald Man, I am still eagerly anticipating your response to the question: “What would you say to someone who wanted to be forgiven of their sins?”

Reply

Bald Man
6 March, 2007 at 9:28 am

Sean,
It’s in the queue, but I’ve got a couple other things ahead of that one. I won’t forget; bear with me.

Reply

Sean
6 March, 2007 at 9:37 am

Bald Man, are you a Christian?

Reply

rantzgrotto
6 March, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Baldy: You ask, would I be punished if the day came today. That depends. As I hope you know, I live a life I think most Christians would respect. The only real sticking point I can see is the believe and worship of a god. If that is the difference maker, I say punish me. I don’t want to worship anyone who is so vain they let their own pride take over.

I know my Bible-lore is not that strong, but Jesus came(1), he died, he rose again(2) and now you are saying he’s coming again(3). It all comes down to how you interprute it I guess.

Reply

rantzgrotto
6 March, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Norm: Good to hear what you have to say. Again, I don’t doubt that the Bible was written, but even the author’s of the Bible were human. If I understand correctly, some parts of the Bible were letters written by the Apostles. Not all the Apostles were great scholors, could they not have made an error when writing their letters? They had no grammer and spell checkers back then. Are you going to say that you know without a doubt that whole book, some 1,000+ pages was written in it’s original form without one typo? That, my friend, is faith.

The free will debate is always fun, but I think misplaced here. I’ll be glad to cover it over on my site if you wish.

Your faith and devotion are inspiring. For all who have taken part in this conversation, the passion you have is great. Many would not respond as you have. I do truly enjoy this discussion!

Reply

Bald Man
6 March, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Rantz,
Sean asked that question; not me. But your point is made. Christianity generally lumps #1 and #2 together in the “First Coming.”

Reply

Norm
6 March, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Rantz, true not all of the apostles were scholars, Paul was the most educated of them, Peter and John were educated to a degree, but all of them were learned in the old testament scriptures therefore they knew how to read and write. the only differences in their writings is from their own perspectives. their stories are the same. Spinoza [Ibelieve] said,” Truth is like a diamond, there are many facets, but it is the same.” It does not matter which angle you look at the truth, because you always end up with the truth,

Reply

Norm
7 March, 2007 at 6:33 am

Rantz, you might like to read Espinozas Ethica

Reply

Norm
7 March, 2007 at 7:05 am

sorry Mispelled ;Spinosa.

Reply

Jeremy Pierce
7 March, 2007 at 8:17 am

Actually, scholars are as likely or even more likely to spell it ‘Spinoza’ as they are ‘Spinosa’. Either could be a legitimate transliteration, but the first one is the one I see most commonly in philosophical literature.

Reply

Bald Man
7 March, 2007 at 11:04 am

Sean,
I almost missed your question: yes I’m a Christian.

Reply

rantz grotto
7 March, 2007 at 10:17 pm

Norm: Who is this Spinosa or Spinoza person?

Reply

Jeremy Pierce
7 March, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Baruch Spinoza was an important philosopher in the early modern period, around the time of Rene Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. He was a monist, thinking that all reality constitutes one thing without distinct parts, and he called that thing God. He was thus a pantheist of sorts. He was also a necessitarian, thinking everything that happens is the result of necessary forces in God that have nothing to do with rational choice, free will, or any contingency.

His treatise Ethics is largely a work not of ethics but metaphysics, in which he starts out with all manner of controversial axioms and seeks to prove with all manner of controversial inferences the sum total of his metaphysical picture by using what he considered mere logical inference. It’s arranged like a mathematical proof.

He was probably the first modern biblical critic. He was excommunicated by his fellow Jews, a very rare occurrence even in those days as I understand it. What he did with the Bible pales in comparison with what followed, particularly in the 19th century, but he was really the first modern figure to start treating the Bible as a document to be critical of.

Reply

Norm
8 March, 2007 at 6:26 am

True, but by his criticism he prooves that there is a God, and that nothing can exsist without him, however controversial that may be. Strange how his idea is considered to be of pantheism when his body of work points to a single God.

Reply

Jeremy Pierce
8 March, 2007 at 3:31 pm

He does call the universe God, and thus he says he’s proved the existence of God. But for him God is the sum total of all things, and thus it’s pantheism. A pantheist believes in a single God — the universe! It’s a polytheist who believes in multiple gods. Spinoza is no polytheist, since he’s not poly-anything. There is only one thing to begin with.

Reply

Sean
8 March, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Gentleman, what you are talking about is called the cosmological argument for God’s existence. Every effect has a cause. Everything that has a begining is an effect. The Universe has a begining. Therefore, the Universe has a cause. The cause of the Universe must not be part of the Universe (i.e. it must be super-natural). Let that cause be God.

Reply

Norm
8 March, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Yes ,but he still proves the exsistance of God metaphisicaly from out side the source [The bible]

Reply

Sean
8 March, 2007 at 4:06 pm

God can be proved outside of any source…based on reason alone through what is called the ontological argument:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

This argument does not depend on any sensory data.

Reply

Norm
8 March, 2007 at 5:07 pm

I was throwing this info for Rantz, but its good to know about these exterraneous sources

Reply

rantz grotto
8 March, 2007 at 8:39 pm

Sean: I have something greater than God in your theory. How about the thing which created God! If the world could have been created without some sort of creater, how can God have been created without some some sort of creater? Even Zeus had parents. Your arguement falls to the holes of, Can even God create a rock so big he can’t lift it. If yes, he can’t do all things, if no he’s not all powerful. Also, if God exists only in the mind, that means that God is not real, thus, not something for which we need to worship. I’m not really sure how your arguement works in any way other than to disprove what you were trying to prove.

Reply

rantz grotto
8 March, 2007 at 8:50 pm

Norm: The idea of attempting to prove or disprove God really isn’t that thrilling to me. As was stated over on my blog, belief is based on a leap of faith or not leaping of faith. There is no way to prove God without God itself stepping forward. There is no way of disproving God since I know of no way of disproving something without first proving it.

Now the arguement made by Spinosa as stated by Jeremy and understood by me is that some random force created the universe and for the lack of a better name they called it god (Lack of capitalization is important here). This force lacks a personality and is just a force of nature. To say that the universe was created without some force is silly, but to say that force has a personality and the will and desire to have others worship it is where the arguement on God (note capitalization) exists.

Some might say the above statement leads to a gray area between Athiesm and Agnostism, but I don’t believe so.

Also, I think to avoid further confusion we need to rename the Christian God from the generic term of god to Jehova so as not to confuse the concepts of the two. I think this might clear up some confussion.

Reply

Jeremy Pierce
8 March, 2007 at 9:17 pm

The rock God can’t move issue is a pseudo-problem. I’ve addressed it here.

It isn’t really an objection to the cosmological argument to ask what created God. The point of the argument is to show that there must be some sort of being whose existence isn’t explained by things outside itself. If you follow the argument in its details, that becomes clear. Whatever it shows, it shows that something exists whose explanation is within itself. If you then ask why that thing exists, the answer is somehow within itself. For more, see here on the cosmological argument itself and here for responses to objections to it.

Reply

Sean
8 March, 2007 at 9:57 pm

Rantz,

Firstly, the quip, “who made God” has no bearing on the cosmological argument. It is a premise that only effects have causes. God is not an effect therefore he does not need a cause. Since God has no begining he can be an uncaused causer.

God can’t perform acts that are contradictions. Since there is no such thing as a rock so big that it cannot be moved it is a meaningless question. Furthermore, God cannot make a square circle not because of any limitation on his part but because there is no such thing as a square circle.

As to your comments on the ontological argument, perhaps you need to chew on it a bit before dismissing it out of hand. Besides, I didn’t invent any of this, these ideas have been around for centuries. I’ll leave you with a question, “According to your beliefs, what caused the begining of the Universe?”

Reply

rantz grotto
8 March, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Sean: The only way that God can be causeless is to believe that nothing created God. You are creating conditions in your answer. To say that these arguements have been around for centuries and therefor are correct is also not really logical. Do you think I’m the first person to ask if God could do things which create contradictions? The arguements against God have existed as long as (or in some cases longer (some things in Christianity are exactly the same as those in other, older religions)) those for God. I really don’t understand the arguement that has been made many times here that “we’ve said this over and over for 2,000 years so it must be true.”

According to my beliefs I have no idea what caused the begining of the universe. I don’t need to define everything that exists. I don’t have to understand how to build a house to live in it. We don’t know, and will never know 100% how the universe was created during our living moments (unless God decides to show himself (if he exists)). Doesn’t bother me. Would I like to know, sure. Now, I’ll say that I lean most toward the Big Bang theory out of those I’ve heard, but I can’t really say I believe it totally because I don’t understand space science enough to do so.

“I don’t know! I don’t know! I like that. I think I’m going to leave that right here on the board for everyone to see. ‘Mr. Hand, am I going to pass this class?’ ‘Gee Mr. Spikoli, I don’t know’. I like that.” -Fast Times At Richmont High

Reply

Norm
9 March, 2007 at 6:57 am

Rantz, the reason I suggested Spinoza was partly to give you another direction to start from to get to what is true. Spinoza states that something caused the universe to come into being. that something was God, if you want, call it a creator. This creator, According to Spinoza, was/is something that has no beginning and no end. therefore, he says it must be a God. He also gives argument to disprove the exsistence of this God in the appendix of his work, Ethics., which he calls absurd because as he argues to disprove, he further proves this God. I am not trying to convert you here, though if you did I would be elated for you, but as you seem to be pretty intelligent, I just wanted to give you another source outside the bible to examine for yourself. I have found the old adage, you cant teach an old dog a new tirck, not to be true. From experience I have taught an old dog. But , as you insist in not wanting to know that there is a god, I do see that you do leave an opening for the possibility that he does exsist. W. C. Feilds, an atheist himself, on his deathbed asked for a bible. When questioned as to why. He said , “Looking for loopholes”. As you said there are holes in the god theory, so you must admit there are holes in your atheism, or you wouldnt leave room for any possibilities. There is one thing that everyone from atheist to scientist to bible scholars agree on. That is that there was a beginning. But like you said that you seek not to believe because you have no reason to believe. your willingness to be open minded allows dummies like me to speak. so with this i leave you with this, I will continue to pray that you come to the knowlege of truth.

Reply

Sean
9 March, 2007 at 7:42 am

Rantz,

I think you misunderstand what I say a lot. As to your first assertion that I am creating my own answer I think you are probably not correct there. Look at the statements again.

Every effect has a cause.
Everything that has a begining is an effect
The Universe has a begining.
Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
The cause of the Universe must not be part of the Universe (i.e. it must be super-natural).
Let that cause be God.

I am not twisting anything here (to my knowledge at least). Nothing is necessary to have created God if God does not have a begining. So then, there are two possible soultions to this (1) there is an eternal God (2) there is an eternal succesion of gods. You deny both.

As to your point about these arguments being around for a long time, I was simply saying that I wasn’t inventing anything. Age is no garuntee for truth, I never meant to even imply that.

I think you should research into whether or not the Universe has a begining. Apparently the Big Bang is the biggest theory in town and the Big Bang has a definite point in time when it began. So if you are a believer in the Big Bang then by logical extension you should either believe in an eternal God or an eternal succesion of gods. To believe that the Universe has a begining and not to believe in a Cause is contradictory.

A side point, my friend, is that you are not an atheist. You are not sure about whehter God exists or not and you are not even sure if the Universe has a begining. This makes you an agnostic (a = not; gnosis = knowledge).

Reply

Bald Man
9 March, 2007 at 8:59 am

Well, now what was the original question again?

Reply

Rantz_Grotto
10 March, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Norm: Thank you for your prayers and well wishes. I enjoy the expanding oppertunities learning provides. Some day I may look further into Spinoza.

Sean: This conversation leads easily to misunderstandings. All things in the Bible do (hence my ealier comments on if the true meanings of the original authors were correctly conveyed). I don’t see that a god (being with higher though) had to exist to create the universe.

As to your attempt to redefine me, my wife makes the same point as you do. To me I’m an athiest because I believe there is no diety (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/atheist). I am willing to listen to your arguements and will admit I’m wrong if convienced, but that does not mean that I acknowledge a god (Which to me is the definition of an agnostic, one who acknowledges a god in some form, but doesn’t know which form is correct.). Again, notice how two learned people have different connotations of words leading to potential misunderstandings.

Baldman: I wish to thank you for hosting this exchange. It is fun and one I hope will continue either here or at my site. It has allowed for many questions to be asked and good answers presented.

Reply

Bald Man
11 March, 2007 at 12:02 am

I’m always happy to host…

Reply

Sean
11 March, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Why do you say, “all things in the Bible lead to misunderstandings?” This is not an accurate statement. The vast majority of the Bible is easy to understand to such an extent that without any education, just literacy, one can pick up and understand what it says. The Bible interprets itself marvelously. You should definitely read the whole thing through (if you haven’t already). You may be surprised at how many things are explained by getting a proper foundation of the Old Testament before coming to read the New Testament.

As to your comment, “I don’t see that a god had to exist to create the universe.” My question to you is, “did you believe the universe had a begining?”

Reply

Ian
13 March, 2007 at 6:36 pm

I must say, I agree with Sean on this one. The Bible, if read from beginning to end is extremely easy to understand. All of the little ‘kinks’ and ‘twists’ that people find one place or another, in my experience at least, are always thoroughly explained within the next few pages, or the pages previous. Like Sean said, the Bible is it’s own concordance; the Old Testament(Hebrew) are the building blocks for one who has faith. Without that foundation, and religion based off of the Bible will be very hard to uphold. Without a proper framework, without proper support, nothing is very sturdy.

I guess then also, that I should place my bets on the whole ‘God’ thing. Sometimes, it’s seems that philosophy had it right in the first place. Common practice for many age-old philosophers was the deduction of an answer through persistent, clear, and logical reasoning. Take, say… a human life as an example. Because we know that instantaneous (and spontaneous for that matter) biogenesis is not possible, the why deduce that that person(s) had to have a beginning, they had to be created. And, what is a creation without something to create it (ie. the two parents of the child). And, logically, each of those parents had two of their own parents and so on and so forth until the beginning of human existence. And, when there was no human existence, what created humans? Well, since there is no creation without a creator, and there are no humans around to create any other humans, one must deduce that there must be some other super-natural being that defies both age and human understanding in order to have created humans in the first place. And, while I’m not sure about you, this seems to be a well mapped-out description of God.

The universe is the same way. So, unless the universe had no beginning, then the universe had to be created by none other then a super-natural being who defies both age and human understanding; ie. God.

Reply

rantz grotto
13 March, 2007 at 10:13 pm

Ian, Who or what created your god? Why can god have spontanious creation, but not the first human? I also seem to have little to join the god (note little g) with God (note capital G). If some force X did create the universe, what makes you think it is the same force who defined Christianity and not the force who defined Shintoism or the Bambuti religion?

Reply

Sean
14 March, 2007 at 9:11 am

Rantz, only things with a begining need a creation. The God the Bible teaches is eternal therefore he does not require a creation.

Reply

Ian
14 March, 2007 at 6:19 pm

As I see Sean has stated, the Bible teaches that God ‘was, is, and is to come’, effectively making him eternal. God didn’t have ‘spontanious creation’ being as he is eternal, as Sean also pointed out.

And, as with your second point, perhaps I jumped to conclusions here, connecting the ‘supernatural being’ in Seans post to the God of the Bible. If it’s seems that I made that jump without any real basis, my apologies. Sometimes I make connections in my mind, and just assume that everyone will be able, by some obviously non-existant means, be able to follow my train of thought.

All I meant to point out, or I suppose rather, to reinforce, was the fact that if the universe did have a beginning there must have logically been something (God in my assumption) that predated the universe in order to create it. And, because time can’t really exist outside of the universe, it is (in my opinion) quite logical to assume that this person/thing would have to be eternal.

Reply

rantz grotto
14 March, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Ian & Sean: That is assuming that what is stated in the Bible is the truth. You can’t draw from another unproven conclusion to prove your clause. As Ian points out nicely, you have to join him on his conclusion jumping to reach the same endpoint as he does. It is the common conclusion jump, and without it we wouldn’t be discussing this today. Unfortunitly, if your point is to use only logic to prove the existance of God (or god), you can’t make that jump in your proof.

I hereby conclude that without faith, the existance of God is nearly imposible to accept. With faith, the denial of God is nearly impossible to conceive. Our ideas are not seperated by right or wrong, meerly faith.

Reply

Ian
14 March, 2007 at 8:20 pm

“I hereby conclude that without faith, the existance of God is nearly imposible to accept. With faith, the denial of God is nearly impossible to conceive. Our ideas are not seperated by right or wrong, meerly faith.”

What is faith, but the distinguishment of right and wrong? Faith allows us to understand what is right action from a biblical standpoint, and, by extension, what is right action by our morals. Faith also allows us to be able to distinguish wrong. Though, one must also understand that faith isn’t simply the acceptance that God exists. I can have faith that tomorrow will be Thursday and, when tomorrow comes around, be it Thursday or not, I’ve still had faith that it would be Thursday tomorrow. And while this may seem a silly analogy, it is also a simple one. Another would be if, say, I was sky-diving. I would (hopefully) have faith that my parachute would work properly before I jumped out of the plane. Now, despite if my faith is based in truth or not, I’ve still had faith one way or another. Faith was once explained to me as expectance + yearning. I expect that this event is going to happen, and I also want it to happen, therefore I have ‘faith’ that the event will transpire.

And, for the sake of not being long-winded, just a question in response to your statement of:

“That is assuming that what is stated in the Bible is the truth. You can’t draw from another unproven conclusion to prove your clause.”

What proof is there that the Bible is unproven? What proof do you have/exists that the Bible is not truth?

Reply

Bald Man
14 March, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Philosophical arguments over the existence of god always seem to break down at some point. Unmoved mover? Fine, I’ll take an infinite progression of movers. What an outside “mover” to put that infinite progression in place? Fine, make mine an infinite progression of outside movers acting on an infinite progression. And so on…

And this from someone who believes in God.

Also, to say the the Bible is self-explanatory is, in my opinion, a misstatement. There are reasons that well intentioned, sincere, education people have debated and continue to debate the texts of the Bible: everything from meaning to historicity to application. The Bible isn’t all mystery and code, but it isn’t “The Cat in the Hat” either.

And this from someone who follows Christ and thinks the Bible has been inspired by God…

Rantz,
I’d have to say that god by definition would be eternal and without a creator. If god were a created being that that being would be inherently something other than god. Perhaps something more along the lines of a superhero. For example, the Greek gods of mythology or the pantheon of Hinduism would fall into the superhero category. God is the singular superlative; nothing can be greater than god.

Ian,
I suspect the outlandish claims of the Bible require your question to be turned on its head: What proof is there that the claims of the Bible, many of which run counter to the ordinary way things work, are true?

Reply

rantz grotto
14 March, 2007 at 11:07 pm

Baldman: I agree with your statement. My question is not, “Did something create the universe?” Because I know that something did. As has been stated, nothing can come from nothing, or is it everything must come from something… My question is more, “Is that something a thinking being or a random set of events?” To me a god must be a thinking being. That’s just me though.

Ian: I can have faith that tomorrow is Friday. It doesn’t change the fact that, ok, I write this at 4 past midnight… So I have faith that tomorrow is Monday, yeah, I can have faith that is so. It won’t change the fact that tomorrow is Friday. I’d be wrong, but I would still belive it because I have faith in it. We can have misplaced faith. Just having faith doesn’t mean we are correct. If all it took was faith, then my favorite teams would win every year, because I have faith in them.

Reply

Sean
15 March, 2007 at 8:44 am

What a wonderful distraction from a simple set of propisitions.

1. the universe has a begining
2. something or someone must have begun it that is outside or not included in the designation “universe”
3. this therefore leaves two options (1) an eternal God (2) an eternal succesion of gods.

Yet, you, Rantz, reject both! What’s to argue about? Why does the Bible have to even be a point of discussion at this point? I’m talking logically here and I’m not sure where this line of reasoning breaks down.

Reply

Sean
15 March, 2007 at 8:45 am

Believing the Bible is true or not takes faith either way. The only question is “Is it more reasonable to have faith that the Bible is true or have faith that it is not true?” However, I’d rather talk about the existence of God first because that is what Rantz denies.

Reply

	Bald Man on Florida Could End Teacher Tenu…
	Rantz Grotto on Florida Could End Teacher Tenu…
	avrum on Passover Liturgy
	Emma Barczay on Who Cares About the 75th Finis…
	Bald Man on Organic Church Life Doesn’t Wo…

bald man blogging

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Heaven: Present or Future Address?

89 Responses to “Heaven: Present or Future Address?”

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Tags

Calendar

Archives

Blogroll

February 2007
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Jan				Mar »
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28