"To release another person from ignorance, despite their initial resistance, is a great and noble thing."
-Plato
Motives. The reason I quoted this statement by Plato is because I wanted to talk about motives. Surely in Plato's statement, one of his chief motives, if not the only motive, was enlightenment. We see this in his Allegory of the Cave. We also see what Plato believed about the Forms from PJ's comment to this post. So how can we view this statement from a Christian perspective?
The question isn't, "How does this statement related to Christianity?" but, "What is the motive for telling someone about salvation through Jesus Christ?" Why, as a Christian, would I want to, in a sense, "enlighten" someone by telling him or her that God's son, Jesus Christ, came down to earth and died for our sins?
The answer is love. If I truly believe, as a Christian, there is such a place as Heaven (an eternal place of peace and joy with God), and a Hell (a place void of peace, joy, and God), and that the only way to enter this Heaven is through belief in the personal work of Jesus Christ on the cross, wouldn't I then want to tell you, out of love, about Jesus, so that you could one day be in Heaven?
At first glance I may appear to be begging the question, but if we turn to scripture we find out sharing the good news is not just a "great and noble thing," but required of us as a Christians. In Matthew 28:19,20, Jesus' last command before He ascended into Heaven was "Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always to the very end of the age."
Out of love and obedience to Christ do I share the good news. There is simply no other reason. Not for money, not for power, nor any other reason. Show me any other motive and I question it's authenticity in terms of Chrisitianity.
Blessings,
Joe
Monday, October 31, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
To Zach:
Here are some thoughts I have, for the sake of dialogue.
The idea that science can only study the natural world is not itself a scientific statement. In philosophy, this is called methodological naturalism. “Science cannot study the supernatural or spiritual realms.” Is that statement true? If so, only by definition. But not by science. That is, the sentence “Science cannot study the supernatural or spiritual realms” is itself not a scientific statement. Justifying it is very difficult, perhaps in principle impossible (and is something philosophy of science courses deal with).
Science attempts to “study the empirical world in order to find the truth.” Again, this is methodological naturalism. It is a philosophy, not “science.” It assumes that only science can find “the truth.” This position is in fact rejected by many scientists as well as philosophers.
Many, many scientists have no problem with faith. When I was a pastor at Michigan State University my church contained many scientists, science professors, and Ph.D. students in science who fully embraced faith in God. These scientists (and more) did not hold to the non-scientific, metaphysical position known as methodological naturalism.
Zach, how did you “realize” that you’ll never have enough information to “believe that all are equally likely as well as unlikely?” I think the information is there to make a decision. I believe strong inductive arguments can be made for the existence of God. I believe it is more rational to believe in God then to not believe in God. I also believe that inductive arguments for either theism or atheism are both more rational than reasons to be an agnostic.
I do not believe that the idea that “all are equally likely as well as unlikely” is not true. Probably the issue re. God or gods comes to down to but a few major positions with variations on them:
Theism (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam)
Polytheism (e.g., 330,000,000 gods as in Hinduism)
Pantheism (all is God)
Atheism (there is no God or gods)
Re. your Jefferson quote: “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” I find the Jefferson quote too biased and dogmatic. It puts far too much faith in “reason.” And the idea that God “approves of reason” more than “blindfolded fear” commits the informal logical fallacy of "false dichotomy.” Further, how could Jefferson, or you, know this to be true? Jefferson was a deist who was heavily prejudiced, in a largely unconscious way, by Enlightenment rationalism.
You write: “Why should anyone believe what I do? Well, if believing what I do makes someone happy or at peace with life, then by all means, they should believe in it. But if believing what I do doesn’t add anything positive to someone’s life, then they shouldn’t believe in it.”
I myself do not believe in this approach. I think there should be reasons behind what one chooses either to believe or not to believe. The criterion for belief should not be whether it makes me happy or at peace with life. That would not be “reasonable.” (But by “reason” I don’t mean Jefferson’s kind of reason, which I think has been largely refuted by many philosophers. There are alternative claims about the meaning of "reason" that I and others think are better than Jefferson's.)
I am very glad you asked me what I believe. For some examples of things I believe see my blog: theolobloggy.blogspot.com. I also made a post explaining what I think about strong agnosticism.
Finally, thank you for welcoming me to Joe’s blog. I’m glad you are on it and sharing your ideas. My wife Linda and I lived in Joliet for 7 years, and have a lot of friends there. You will probably see Joe before I do so please tell him hello!
Here are some thoughts I have, for the sake of dialogue.
The idea that science can only study the natural world is not itself a scientific statement. In philosophy, this is called methodological naturalism. “Science cannot study the supernatural or spiritual realms.” Is that statement true? If so, only by definition. But not by science. That is, the sentence “Science cannot study the supernatural or spiritual realms” is itself not a scientific statement. Justifying it is very difficult, perhaps in principle impossible (and is something philosophy of science courses deal with).
Science attempts to “study the empirical world in order to find the truth.” Again, this is methodological naturalism. It is a philosophy, not “science.” It assumes that only science can find “the truth.” This position is in fact rejected by many scientists as well as philosophers.
Many, many scientists have no problem with faith. When I was a pastor at Michigan State University my church contained many scientists, science professors, and Ph.D. students in science who fully embraced faith in God. These scientists (and more) did not hold to the non-scientific, metaphysical position known as methodological naturalism.
Zach, how did you “realize” that you’ll never have enough information to “believe that all are equally likely as well as unlikely?” I think the information is there to make a decision. I believe strong inductive arguments can be made for the existence of God. I believe it is more rational to believe in God then to not believe in God. I also believe that inductive arguments for either theism or atheism are both more rational than reasons to be an agnostic.
I do not believe that the idea that “all are equally likely as well as unlikely” is not true. Probably the issue re. God or gods comes to down to but a few major positions with variations on them:
Theism (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam)
Polytheism (e.g., 330,000,000 gods as in Hinduism)
Pantheism (all is God)
Atheism (there is no God or gods)
Re. your Jefferson quote: “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” I find the Jefferson quote too biased and dogmatic. It puts far too much faith in “reason.” And the idea that God “approves of reason” more than “blindfolded fear” commits the informal logical fallacy of "false dichotomy.” Further, how could Jefferson, or you, know this to be true? Jefferson was a deist who was heavily prejudiced, in a largely unconscious way, by Enlightenment rationalism.
You write: “Why should anyone believe what I do? Well, if believing what I do makes someone happy or at peace with life, then by all means, they should believe in it. But if believing what I do doesn’t add anything positive to someone’s life, then they shouldn’t believe in it.”
I myself do not believe in this approach. I think there should be reasons behind what one chooses either to believe or not to believe. The criterion for belief should not be whether it makes me happy or at peace with life. That would not be “reasonable.” (But by “reason” I don’t mean Jefferson’s kind of reason, which I think has been largely refuted by many philosophers. There are alternative claims about the meaning of "reason" that I and others think are better than Jefferson's.)
I am very glad you asked me what I believe. For some examples of things I believe see my blog: theolobloggy.blogspot.com. I also made a post explaining what I think about strong agnosticism.
Finally, thank you for welcoming me to Joe’s blog. I’m glad you are on it and sharing your ideas. My wife Linda and I lived in Joliet for 7 years, and have a lot of friends there. You will probably see Joe before I do so please tell him hello!
Saturday, October 29, 2005
A reply for PJ
PJ, welcome to the blog. You're right; when I looked back at those two thoughts they do seem a bit confusing. I suppose that since I don't actually believe in any God that it was (and it was) a little difficult for me to paint the picture of what I thought that God might be. With that said, let me say thanks for inadvertently pushing me to learn a little more about Pantheism, a school of thought which I've heard of before but never really looked into. It seems very interesting.
As for my agnostic belief, I'll try and explain some of my reasoning for believing this. At heart, I view myself as a very scientific person and not a person who's easily swayed towards relying on faith. I'm a skeptic. To keep this as short as possible, I would say that there are three main reasons (among others) for my belief. 1) Science studies the natural world, the empirical world, all that can be observed and tested. Therefore, I believe that science cannot study the supernatural or spiritual realms, assuming they even exist. So, as I see it, there can't be any scientific test to either prove or disprove God because God does not fall within the boundaries of what science attempts to do, which is to study the empirical world in order to find the truth. 2) With the numerous amounts of Gods and religions followed throughout the world it is impossible for me to fathom that there is one "true" faith. I could spend my life believing in Christianity, or some other faith, only to die and (assuming there is a God) find out that I was wrong and that I am now going to Hell, or whatever "bad place" the true God puts those who stray from the correct belief. Or I could take an agnostic view and realize that the information I'm given in life will never be enough for me to say that one God is the right one, hence I will not choose one God and instead believe that all are equally likely as well as unlikely. 3) Thomas Jefferson once said, “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” I hope that quote speaks for itself.
Why should anyone believe what I do? Well, if believing what I do makes someone happy or at peace with life, then by all means, they should believe in it. But if believing what I do doesn’t add anything positive to someone’s life, then they shouldn’t believe in it. Let me just say this though, I don’t intend or aspire to change or influence anyone’s beliefs through this discussion of my own, or yours, or Joes beliefs. If anything at all, I view these discussions as a chance to learn, a chance to do some self-exploration and occasionally a chance to reaffirm ones own views.
Finally, PJ in reference to agnosticism you wrote, “What reasons can you give to support this statement, which is very strong precisely in its claim to KNOW that one cannot know whether or not there is a God?” Yes, saying that there is no way to know whether or not there is a God is a very strong statement. But it is in no way stronger, or possibly any different, than one saying that, “Yes there is a God”, or “No there isn’t a God”, or even that “Yes Jesus was the son of God.” What do you think, and if I may, what do you believe?
As for my agnostic belief, I'll try and explain some of my reasoning for believing this. At heart, I view myself as a very scientific person and not a person who's easily swayed towards relying on faith. I'm a skeptic. To keep this as short as possible, I would say that there are three main reasons (among others) for my belief. 1) Science studies the natural world, the empirical world, all that can be observed and tested. Therefore, I believe that science cannot study the supernatural or spiritual realms, assuming they even exist. So, as I see it, there can't be any scientific test to either prove or disprove God because God does not fall within the boundaries of what science attempts to do, which is to study the empirical world in order to find the truth. 2) With the numerous amounts of Gods and religions followed throughout the world it is impossible for me to fathom that there is one "true" faith. I could spend my life believing in Christianity, or some other faith, only to die and (assuming there is a God) find out that I was wrong and that I am now going to Hell, or whatever "bad place" the true God puts those who stray from the correct belief. Or I could take an agnostic view and realize that the information I'm given in life will never be enough for me to say that one God is the right one, hence I will not choose one God and instead believe that all are equally likely as well as unlikely. 3) Thomas Jefferson once said, “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” I hope that quote speaks for itself.
Why should anyone believe what I do? Well, if believing what I do makes someone happy or at peace with life, then by all means, they should believe in it. But if believing what I do doesn’t add anything positive to someone’s life, then they shouldn’t believe in it. Let me just say this though, I don’t intend or aspire to change or influence anyone’s beliefs through this discussion of my own, or yours, or Joes beliefs. If anything at all, I view these discussions as a chance to learn, a chance to do some self-exploration and occasionally a chance to reaffirm ones own views.
Finally, PJ in reference to agnosticism you wrote, “What reasons can you give to support this statement, which is very strong precisely in its claim to KNOW that one cannot know whether or not there is a God?” Yes, saying that there is no way to know whether or not there is a God is a very strong statement. But it is in no way stronger, or possibly any different, than one saying that, “Yes there is a God”, or “No there isn’t a God”, or even that “Yes Jesus was the son of God.” What do you think, and if I may, what do you believe?
Pantheism & Agnosticism
Zach, you write: (A)“I think that God and nature are one and the same.” Then you write: (B)“I think that if there is a God, then it created life and all matter and that God’s rule is in fact the laws of nature.” But this is logically incoherent. If God = nature then God is not a being outside of nature who could have also created nature. So I think that this view does not make any logical sense.
Put another way, you have here a form of pantheism that equates God with all that is (nature). Such a god is not, cannot be, a creator-god. This form of pantheism does not allow you to affirm (A) and (B) above at the same time.
Also, Zach, can you argue for your agnosticism? That is, can you give reasons for your agnostic belief? If not, it’s just an unsupported, unsubstantiated belief. And, it is a very strong, dogmatic claim re. knowledge. Agnosticism says: One cannot know whether there is a God or there is not a God. But who says? And why should anyone believe this? What reasons can you give to support this statement, which is very strong precisely in its claim to KNOW that one cannot know whether or not there is a God?
Put another way, you have here a form of pantheism that equates God with all that is (nature). Such a god is not, cannot be, a creator-god. This form of pantheism does not allow you to affirm (A) and (B) above at the same time.
Also, Zach, can you argue for your agnosticism? That is, can you give reasons for your agnostic belief? If not, it’s just an unsupported, unsubstantiated belief. And, it is a very strong, dogmatic claim re. knowledge. Agnosticism says: One cannot know whether there is a God or there is not a God. But who says? And why should anyone believe this? What reasons can you give to support this statement, which is very strong precisely in its claim to KNOW that one cannot know whether or not there is a God?
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
An Agnostic POV
Well, since Joe has done such a nice job of explaining the God of Abraham, I guess I should toss out my very different opinions on God to mix things up a bit. First let me start by saying that I consider myself an Agnostic and not a Christian. For those who are unfamiliar with Agnosticism and Agnostics let me briefly explain what being Agnostic means to me. Being Agnostic means that I believe that the existence of a God/Gods/Creator can be neither proved nor disproved. So, as confusing as it may sound, while I do not actually believe in any one God or Gods, at the same time I do not deny that there may be God or Gods. I feel that both the belief that there is a God and the belief that there isn't a God are both equally likely. But let me be clear, I am not an Atheist. With that said let me continue with how I came to this point and then explain what I think God may be.
Growing up in a Christian home and attending a Christian church, I have pondered the question of "Is there a God?" for essentially my entire life and from about 13-21yrs old I probably would have considered myself an Atheist. (For the record I am now 23) It wasn't until I took an Anthropology class in college called Human Origins that I really began to change my Atheist viewpoints. For as long as I can remember I have considered myself to be a very scientific minded person. If I needed to know how something worked or why something in the natural world was the way it was, I knew that I could depend on science to help point me in the right direction, if not give me a reliable answer. I also understood that the scientific facts that I trusted did not always line up with some Christian religious beliefs, for example the creation story in Genesis versus The Big Bang Theory and Evolution, also the conception of Jesus from a virgin mother versus the science of human reproductive biology, which obviously requires the combination of both male and female gametes in order to conceive a child. Because of those disagreements between Science and Religion I decided that they could not coincide and that one could not be scientific minded and still hold Christian beliefs at the same time. A person either had to be a scientist or a Christian but could not be both, or so I once thought. Well, my Human Origins class inadvertently led to believe otherwise. The class focused mainly around the evolution of the human species beginning millions of years ago but it also dealt a lot with what the Theory of Evolution actually was and what science actually was in general. It was during this class that I realized that science could never disprove God but at the same time it could also never prove God as well. So after coming to that conclusion I decided that it is impossible to know (at least for me) if there is a God and even a person who was deeply devoted to one religion/God their faith in that creator had to be inherently BLIND and without any proof, evidence, or facts other than their own personal opinions. So, I stopped worrying about, but not pondering, the existence of a God and have been essentially at peace and more happy with life than ever before. So, if there is a God, what do I think God is?
I have given a lot of thought to whom or what God is in the past year or so and I have begun to narrow down my beliefs. Let me start by saying that I do not believe that any religions on Earth have it “right” so to speak, and that there is no God worshiped anywhere today that is the correct one. Frank Lloyd Wright once said, “I believe in God, only I spell it nature.” In a nutshell, that is what I think of God. I think that God and nature are one and the same. I don’t think that God is some power that created the human species apart from every other species, in effect making “us” more special than everything else. I don’t think that God judges or holds any particular values or morals to be the correct ones. I think that if there is a God, then it created life and all matter and that Gods’ rule is in fact the laws of nature. So, it is with those beliefs that I feel that one of the only ways to learn more about God is to study God, A.K.A. – The Natural World. And the field of study that deals with exploring the natural world is science. Therefore, I believe that to deny science is to deny God. That is of course, assuming that there is a God. Well, that is a very brief opinion of what I think God is. I’m sure there are many who won’t agree with me, but at the very least I hope I made at least one person think. Until next time,
-Zach
Growing up in a Christian home and attending a Christian church, I have pondered the question of "Is there a God?" for essentially my entire life and from about 13-21yrs old I probably would have considered myself an Atheist. (For the record I am now 23) It wasn't until I took an Anthropology class in college called Human Origins that I really began to change my Atheist viewpoints. For as long as I can remember I have considered myself to be a very scientific minded person. If I needed to know how something worked or why something in the natural world was the way it was, I knew that I could depend on science to help point me in the right direction, if not give me a reliable answer. I also understood that the scientific facts that I trusted did not always line up with some Christian religious beliefs, for example the creation story in Genesis versus The Big Bang Theory and Evolution, also the conception of Jesus from a virgin mother versus the science of human reproductive biology, which obviously requires the combination of both male and female gametes in order to conceive a child. Because of those disagreements between Science and Religion I decided that they could not coincide and that one could not be scientific minded and still hold Christian beliefs at the same time. A person either had to be a scientist or a Christian but could not be both, or so I once thought. Well, my Human Origins class inadvertently led to believe otherwise. The class focused mainly around the evolution of the human species beginning millions of years ago but it also dealt a lot with what the Theory of Evolution actually was and what science actually was in general. It was during this class that I realized that science could never disprove God but at the same time it could also never prove God as well. So after coming to that conclusion I decided that it is impossible to know (at least for me) if there is a God and even a person who was deeply devoted to one religion/God their faith in that creator had to be inherently BLIND and without any proof, evidence, or facts other than their own personal opinions. So, I stopped worrying about, but not pondering, the existence of a God and have been essentially at peace and more happy with life than ever before. So, if there is a God, what do I think God is?
I have given a lot of thought to whom or what God is in the past year or so and I have begun to narrow down my beliefs. Let me start by saying that I do not believe that any religions on Earth have it “right” so to speak, and that there is no God worshiped anywhere today that is the correct one. Frank Lloyd Wright once said, “I believe in God, only I spell it nature.” In a nutshell, that is what I think of God. I think that God and nature are one and the same. I don’t think that God is some power that created the human species apart from every other species, in effect making “us” more special than everything else. I don’t think that God judges or holds any particular values or morals to be the correct ones. I think that if there is a God, then it created life and all matter and that Gods’ rule is in fact the laws of nature. So, it is with those beliefs that I feel that one of the only ways to learn more about God is to study God, A.K.A. – The Natural World. And the field of study that deals with exploring the natural world is science. Therefore, I believe that to deny science is to deny God. That is of course, assuming that there is a God. Well, that is a very brief opinion of what I think God is. I’m sure there are many who won’t agree with me, but at the very least I hope I made at least one person think. Until next time,
-Zach
Friday, October 21, 2005
Why Even Bother Then?
It seems discussing God is nice, but a central question to the issue of Christianity is "Why even bother with all this?" Or "Why is God/Jesus/Christianity relevant to anything?"
The answer is because if what the Bible claims is true, there are eternal consequences at stake.
The Bible says in Romans 10:9 that "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." This passage from scripture implies that we need some kind of saving. But from what? The Bible says from our own sin. "For all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God," Romans 3:23. In Biblical terms, to be saved means to have everlasting life in Heaven. To not be saved from our sin, then, is to have everlasting death in hell.
The answer is because if what the Bible claims is true, there are eternal consequences at stake.
The Bible says in Romans 10:9 that "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." This passage from scripture implies that we need some kind of saving. But from what? The Bible says from our own sin. "For all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God," Romans 3:23. In Biblical terms, to be saved means to have everlasting life in Heaven. To not be saved from our sin, then, is to have everlasting death in hell.
Now in a nutshell - and I will be happy to elaborate more on any of this if needed - the Bible claims that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin mother, spoke Truth to the world, suffered a hellish death on the cross, and came back to life 3 days later so we could be redeemed and have eternal life with our Creator.
*We should bother, then, with the subject of God, and Jesus, and Christianity because if it is TRUE, it means there is an afterlife and a way to have it. And, of course, if there is no God - any god for that matter - it means we will not have an afterlife. We will either eternally exist one day or eternally cease to exist. But to be evasive and apathetic about the subject is worse than taking any stance at all.
I do realize there are other beliefs on afterlife and how to obtain it. I will be happy to discuss different belief systems if they come up, but for now, let it suffice to say discussions on Christianity are of the most important.
Lastly, I will take a quote from D.Q. McInerny's book called, "Being Logical." He writes, "It is one thing to say 'I don't know' after long and assiduous research into a subject. It is quite another to say, 'I don't know' when you haven't even bothered to look into the matter."
Let us bother then, for there are eternal consequences at stake.
Blessings,
Joe
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Who is God? Part 2
I left my last post off with how the God of Abraham is a personal God. First, I'd like to define what I mean by "personal." When I say God is personal, I mean "being with personality," or "having a personality." I like Pastor Paul Mizzi's informal defintion of personality. "A personality involves existence with capability of self-conciousness and self-determination" (from Truth for Today). It could also be a description of emotional, thought, and behavioral patters in a person (wikipedia.org).
Which leads me to God. If God is personal, He should show characteristics of persons such as anger, grief, joy, love, hatred, etc:
Which leads me to God. If God is personal, He should show characteristics of persons such as anger, grief, joy, love, hatred, etc:
God shows anger: Deut 1:34, Rom 12:19, Jer 8:19
God grieves: Jer 8:4 - 22, Gen 6:5,6
God shows joy: Matt 3:17, 1 Chronicles 29:17, Hebrews 11:6
God loves: John 3:16, Joel 2:18, ***Eph 2:1-5
God shows hatred: Psalm 6:16-19 (notice, however, that God's hatred is righteous)
There are, of course, more examples and these are but a few of God's traits, but if God is personal, He should not only garner these emotions; He should also think. Notice in Genesis 1:1 God thinks; a sign of a conscious. Furthermore, He has a plan. "For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adpoted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His please and will..." Eph 1:4,5. Francis Schaeffer, in 25 Basic Bible Studies, wraps up God's personality with, "He thinks, acts, and feels; three distinguishing marks of personality. He is not an impersonal force, nor an all-inclusive everything. He is personal. When He speaks to us, He says "I," and we can answer Him "You."
And so the God of Abraham is more than a "impersonal force." He is interested in the universe, our galaxy, our earth, and most importantly, us. I'd like to submit my own definition of what it means to be personal. It's not just a matter of having the attributes of a personality, or thinking, or acting, as it is to being personal. It would be one thing if God created us and said, "Ok, here's the keys, have fun." But He doesn't. He doesn't just sit up on a throne somewhere looking down on us wondering what we're doing. God took it upon Himself to actually come down to us in His son Jesus Christ. He didn't require us to meet Him half way somewhere, but He decided to come all the way to us, so that He could know exactly what it's like to be born, to cry, to lose someone, to be sick, to hurt, to relax, to be tired, to eat, to drink, to sleep, etc. He came face to face with us because He's personal.
And so if God created people and is personal, then doesn't this mean He wants a relationship with the same people He created?
Blessings,
Joe
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Who is God? Part 1
Let me start off this blog with a meat and potatoes kind of question like: Who is God? With such a loaded question I might be overstepping some boundaries by assuming some things, but I hope you understand the necessity. Maybe down the line we will be able to dialogue a bit on secondary aspects of this post.
The first thing I should probably state is that the God whom I wish to define is the God found in the Bible. He is sometimes also referred to as the God of Abraham. He is NOT Allah, He is NOT Buddha, and He is NOT Krishna, nor is He any other god of the pagans. The true God I wish to define is found in the Bible.
That being said, let me use the Bible to describe just "Who God is." I realize I am assuming the Bible to be God's inerrant and inspired word, but like I said earlier, we can hash out these details in another post. My intention here is to merely state who and what the Bible says God is, since it is the only reliable source we have of telling us who God is.
First of all, there is only ONE God:
1. "Here, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." - Deuteronomy 6:4 *a*
2. "So that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting, men may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other." -Isaiah 45:6.
3. "There is one body and one Spirit-just as you were called to one hope when you were called-one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all through all and in all." -Ephesians 4:4-6
*a* Jesus reiterates this is Mark 12:29
So we have one God and this God is also the Creator of everything we know and see. Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In 25 Basic Bible Studies, Francis Schaeffer states that the word "created" used here means to create out of nothing. God did not just shape matter that was already existent. He brought everything into being. Nothing God created is an extension of Himself - it is all independent and has an objective existence. We also know that before God created, He dwelt alone. "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." - Colossians 1:17.
God doesn't just create everything we know and just "skip town." God is personal. He cares about what happens to His creation, because He loves His creation. "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Genesis 1:31.
I will stop here for now and continue on with more about "Who is God?" in another post. I will also continue with how God is personal. Hopefully this gets us started, and I look forward to any comments.
Blessings,
Joe
The first thing I should probably state is that the God whom I wish to define is the God found in the Bible. He is sometimes also referred to as the God of Abraham. He is NOT Allah, He is NOT Buddha, and He is NOT Krishna, nor is He any other god of the pagans. The true God I wish to define is found in the Bible.
That being said, let me use the Bible to describe just "Who God is." I realize I am assuming the Bible to be God's inerrant and inspired word, but like I said earlier, we can hash out these details in another post. My intention here is to merely state who and what the Bible says God is, since it is the only reliable source we have of telling us who God is.
First of all, there is only ONE God:
1. "Here, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." - Deuteronomy 6:4 *a*
2. "So that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting, men may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other." -Isaiah 45:6.
3. "There is one body and one Spirit-just as you were called to one hope when you were called-one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all through all and in all." -Ephesians 4:4-6
*a* Jesus reiterates this is Mark 12:29
So we have one God and this God is also the Creator of everything we know and see. Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In 25 Basic Bible Studies, Francis Schaeffer states that the word "created" used here means to create out of nothing. God did not just shape matter that was already existent. He brought everything into being. Nothing God created is an extension of Himself - it is all independent and has an objective existence. We also know that before God created, He dwelt alone. "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." - Colossians 1:17.
God doesn't just create everything we know and just "skip town." God is personal. He cares about what happens to His creation, because He loves His creation. "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Genesis 1:31.
I will stop here for now and continue on with more about "Who is God?" in another post. I will also continue with how God is personal. Hopefully this gets us started, and I look forward to any comments.
Blessings,
Joe
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Welcome
Please feel free to become a member and posts frequently. Just email me your name and I will send you a confirmation. I will post my own thoughts very soon to hopefully get this page rolling. Check back frequently to view new thoughts from myself and members. Thanks and God Bless.
Joe
Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)