Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: The Great Trinity Debate

Expand Messages
  • Paul Leonard
    Hi, If there is an omnipotent God who created all things then His ability to influence whatever He would wish would be present by definition. However, the
    Message 1 of 25 , May 15, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,


      If there is an omnipotent God who created all things then His ability to influence whatever He would wish would be present by definition. However, the existence of such a being is likewise outside the realms of modern science. It does fit with traditonal theology though.

      OK

      However, a god who operates purely within what appears to be the boundaries of science could likewise do all that the biblical god does. This assumption requires humans change their common understanding of reality in favor of truths that have ben recognized for at least 2500 years, if not far longer. It also requires that scientists accept some concepts for which there is ambiguous evidence rather than the currently more popular explanations for the evidence.

      I would agree

      Which way is correct is open to debate, but I would note that the Bible teaches that the wrong path seems very good to most people, and is far easier to follow. The path I propose is downright scary, and rejected as highly improbable by most. It also leads to measurable changes and great abundance of what many people preceive to be "fruits of the spirit". 

      Being unpopular and even not easy to follow still does not make it right. Now it doesn't make it wrong either.

      I am interested in hearing about the "path" you are suggesting and how it ties to Scripture, which is necessary on this forum.

      Paul
      Bill

      --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > Hi Bill,
      >
      > Below you make a statement I question.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Now, since you so nicely responded as I hoped in regards to Balaam's ride speaking, ... However, the answer of the random intervention of God to allow such things challenges all modern science (conservation of matter and energy) so it does not fit the criteria.
      > A.P. IF there is an all powerful God, who created all things, then is it not reasonable that he is capable of manipulating anything he wishes or applying scientific principles we are not yet aware of. "Modern" science is not omniscient.
      >
      > Paul
      >

    • William
      Paul, The easiest place to start to show a difference between an interpretation that is compatible with science and traditional theology would lie in a review
      Message 2 of 25 , May 16, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Paul,

        The easiest place to start to show a difference between an interpretation that is compatible with science and traditional theology would lie in a review of the account of the fall in Genesis 3. Clearly the Hebrew tells us that God spoke firmly regarding not eating the fruit of the tree. And taking this as a command might be quite proper. However, what is the exact nature and meaning of the command.

        That is to ask, is the command like that of a parent to their child of do not cross the street alone, which implies do not violate my wishes, or is it like that, also of a parent, of do not touch the burners on the stove, which implies that if the act is done there will be harm irregardless of the parent's wishes. To answer that question, let us consider some points that I am often told are irrelevant to the story, but I find highly relevant. This is, just who was Eve going to change by eating the fruit? She preceived that it would make one wiser, but which one did she see as getting wiser? If we consider a fundamental law of physics and psychiatry we know that the one person she could not have been truly aware of to improve was EVE. No one is capable of truly preceiving themselves, but merely preceiving an image that they have decreed to be themself, an image that they hold up in front of their true self and proclaim to be real and use to isolate themselves from other persons and even God. Further, individuals act in accordance with how they preceive this image to be and what they preceive its needs to be, leading to multiple problems including murder, theft, drunkenness and numerous other problems defined by Paul as fruits of the flesh, or the results of Sin.

        Now taking this approach, that is staying with science and God's command to Adam and Eve as being one which He gave because its violation would lead to problems that God did not desire but were also inevitable, rather then God's command as one of an arbitary wish, we are able to make Sin a scientific reality and the consequences of Sin to be logical certainties without having to charge God with arbitariness in who suffers the consequences and who does not.

        Admittedly I have not explained here just how the consequences are avoided through faith in Jesus (actually faith like Jesus which is actually more correct if you know the Greek) but it can logically be done.

        Now if you truly wish to pursue this further, I would suggest that we do it outside the forum as to many people jumping in will surely muddy the waters and make it impossible to explain in sufficient detail for you to decide if you find it plausible or not.

        Bill
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.