blauch@bilge.ece.cmu.edu (Andrew J Blauch) (05/10/91)
GOD'S WILL:
God's will for us is that we accept Jesus Christ as our
Lord and Saviour and live by faith in the God who saved us. God also
wants to be loved by us because we want to love him not becuase we have
no choice. Hence, our free will to chose to love him. Now God knows
all things, therefore he knows who will accept him and who will not. He
did not however make that decision for us. It's like He has all of time
on a video and He can fast forward it to see what choice we make. I
wonder what rating he'd give the video (not G I'm sure).
GOD'S IMAGE:
If God had a physical body he would be bound by space,
which he isn't. Therefore one must reason that in God's image must
refer to something other than physically. There is no problem here with
God appearing to people. God can show Himself in anyway He wishes, but
that does not mean that that is the way He really 'looks'. Here's a
thinker for you: if Adam was made in the physical image of God then what
was Jesus made in, or did they both look exactly the same?
GOD'S EXISTENCE/REASON:
Reason is a wonderful tool for understanding the Bible.
Reason is not very helpful in proving God's existence or the validity
of the Christian faith. Anyone ever hear of Objectivists? They basically
follow a philosophy of rational selfishness. Anyhow, through many hours
of discussion with a friend who is an Objectivist it has reaffirmed the
fact that Christianity is based on faith. Only through faith can you
believe there is a God. Only through faith can you accept that Jesus was
the son of God and died for us. If Christianity could be proven true then
the entire world should believe. As was stated in another post, once you
begin to have faith your eyes are opened and you understand more. The
process continues, hopefully, as long as you continue to have faith.
Only by faith can I believe that a wretch like me will be saved.
A J B
n u e
d s l
t i
e
v
ehall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (05/13/91)
In article <May.10.02.54.04.1991.6148@athos.rutgers.edu> blauch@bilge.ece.cmu.edu (Andrew J Blauch) writes: >GOD'S IMAGE: > If God had a physical body he would be bound by space, Not necessarily. I don't think it is that obvious. The fact that a physical body *can* exist in what we call space doesn't prove that it can't exist elsewhere or is bound by that space. This is particularly true since we have no idea what may or may not exist outside "space." The language of the Bible indicates that physical image is intended. I suggest you come over to talk.religion.misc and contact Jay Windley. Jay teaches Hebrew at Kansas State and has written an article on the subject. It uses Hebrew and Greek characters which aren't in the ascii set so it can't be sent email. If you send him a stamped, self addressed envelope he will send you a copy. >... Here's a >thinker for you: if Adam was made in the physical image of God then what >was Jesus made in, or did they both look exactly the same? Adam was made in the image of God. Jesus was made in the *express* image of God. (Hebrews 1:3, emphasis mine) I think this means Adam was like God as a son is like his father but Jesus and his Father are as alike as identical twins. Jesus and Adam would look different but Jesus and the Father both look exactly the same.
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (05/14/91)
In article <May.13.02.08.18.1991.12131@athos.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: >Not necessarily. I don't think it is that obvious. The fact that a >physical body *can* exist in what we call space doesn't prove that >it can't exist elsewhere or is bound by that space. This is >particularly true since we have no idea what may or may not exist >outside "space." Well, actually, it can't exist without what we call "space." Your last sentence shows that you have not thought this through: the whole idea of being "outside" space still implies being somewhere where the concepts of "in" and "out" apply. A "body," as it is normally understood, is a thing of length, width, and breadth; "space" is precisely those three dimensions. "It's all in Plato, all in Plato. Goodness what _DO_ they teach them in these schools?" -- the Professor, in the CHRONICLES OF NARNIA Dan'l [There may be two different uses of "space" here. I agree with you that a body as we normally understand the term requires a space to exist. But it could be space in a different "universe", or of different characteristics (different dimensionality or different metric) and still allow something sufficiently close to bodies to merit use of that term. --clh]
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (05/14/91)
In article <May.10.02.54.04.1991.6148@athos.rutgers.edu>, blauch@bilge.ece.cmu.edu (Andrew J Blauch) writes: > If God had a physical body he would be bound by space, Gulp. There is *so* much unwarranted assumption in this as to make me a bit green. It's a good type case of what is wrong with "apodeictic" or systematic theology after the pattern of Greek philosophy. If I wanted to know about "physical bodies" I'd ask a physicist -- and I would find that things are rather complex, especially in regard to the relation of bodies to "space." Einstein, for example, has a few things to say about the "space-like" character of some of our experience being something of an illusion (one may go to Minkowski to get an elucidation of the situation, or study general relativity and learn of space-like, time-like and null geodesics.). And Quantum Electrodynamics introduces some wildly non-Einsteinian kinds of reality -- such that Einstein was boggled, and with Podolsky and Rosen tried to construct a convincing philosophical rejection, only to find that in *experiential reality* the universe is either non-causal or at the very least such as to make *local* causality impossible. We need not here look in detail at the results, except to notice that the physicists INSIST that the universe does NOT operate as our ordinary linguistic presumptions may dispose us to think. Even if they are "ultimately" wrong, they are still FAR more correct than some idiot Greek who mistook puns on Greek usages as "final" truths. And building a Christian theology on Greek mistakes does NOT redeem the mistakes! Nothing in science requires us to take any physicist's statement as final truth -- but there is at least some worth in granting that they KNOW what they are talking about, and have the most adequate statements of this they can manage. By contrast, Aristotelian or Thomistic or other "systematic" philosophical statements tend to have plausibility only if we ignore the reality that presents itself for modeling to the physicists. Philosophy, or theology, that attempts to make simple classifications on the basis of ordinary human use of words (and this is ALL that metaphysics has ever done!) has little claim on my attention, when the SERIOUS study of "physical bodies" finds that it MUST reject such simplistic categories. The problem with all the "omni" nonsense of popular theology is that it PRESUMES that the Greeks knew what they were talking about. But it is an incontrovertible fact that they simply did NOT. That is no denigration of their serious *attempt* to know -- but it is a warning that I will not gladly suffer an uncomprehending rehash of Greek mistakes as if they were somehow required for Christian understanding of Christian faith. -- Michael L. Siemon "O stand, stand at the window, m.siemon@ATT.COM As the tears scald and start; ...!att!attunix!mls You shall love your crooked neighbor standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."