Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:So KBC, What you're saying is it's not your belief what you posted?

Correct.

RickD wrote:It's kinda like you were thinking out loud, and typing what you understood from reading the text? Like you were and are working your way through, to try to see what's really being said?

Correct. Imagine that you have never heard about evolution before this moment and I tell you go read the site that explains evolution and then give me short synopsis of your understanding. Wouldn't it be correct for me to ssume that what you will write will not be what you believe but rather what you understood was being said?

Imagine for a moment that once you did write your understanding that I come in and state that they are your beliefs. How would that strike you? Woundn't you be a bit taken back and say something like "those aren't my beliefs they are just what I understand about the subject of evolution"

RickD wrote:The reason why I thought it was what you actually believe, is because you stated it so matter- of-factly.
Your posts are no different than any other posts by others, including myself, that are stated to show what we believe. Your posts weren't written like a scientist would write when conducting an experiment.

Presenting myself in text is not my strong suit. I'm a bio-engineer and not a writer so I do my best to clarify my position often just to ensure I don't talk past others.
In the case of biblical testing of concept there is no set scientific method for testing. I'm essentially winging this and hoping I can present it in a way that will make sense to non scientists. My expectation is that most will not be scientists. So my method is this;
1) I read the bible
2) I draw logical understandings / conclusions based on the verses
3) I write down what these conclusions are and then seek to compare them with what others have concluded.
4) I try to define the rationales others have used to make their conclusions
5) Once I have enough of a variety of others conclusions and their rationales I will then decide what is the most believable

So far I have only been able to directly eliminate Catholocism, Jehovah witnesses, mormonism and a few others I can't think of at the moment. However, I have at least 8 different other denominations that are still in the running (so to say) that aren't just straight discernable bunk.
In each case for each sect I have written my understanding and then they define where we are different in understanding and then they define how they reached their differing conclusions. At this point I am still researching a ton of foundational points and some that I never thought to check such as "repent" This would be the last one that goes into being researched and it is there because of you. I had always assumed it meant the same to all, ha what do I know right?.

RickD wrote:Now I think this is a pretty good reason why I misunderstand you. For me, what I understand about scripture is what I believe. That's not to say that my understanding won't change, and so by belief about certain things would change as well. I just don't separate my understanding from my belief. Maybe it's just how my brain works.

I would assume as an intelligent being that you read and comprehend and then decide what you are willing to believe. Many people have their hand held by missionaries or preaches etc. who direct how they are to comprehend what they read and for some they believe what they are told and others like me realise that the truth can be subjective. Remember how I keep saying there are a multitude of Christian sects / denominations? This is because I realise that each sect has their own unique foundationl understandings and beliefs based on those understanding. However, as I have also stated "they all can't be right" so In my mind I have to somehow divide error from truth. Thus, I formed a method of testing. Probably not foolproof and I may even err in the end but God directed in his word to test everything. This is the least I can do and hope that he will guide me to the correct end.

RickD wrote:Now that's different than how I see things as well. Maybe you don't really establish a belief until you see it in a system. Or in this case, a theological system. My mind is much less organized than yours. I really don't have any theologies that I hold to. I guess that's because if I hold to a theology, I feel like I would have to hold to the whole system the way it is.

We were all created equal in standing before God but from my understanding we all have differing gifts. This to me is the beauty of Gods creation, there is just no end to all the variety in everything he made including each of us. I know people that cannot stand to have one thing out of place on their desk, I know others that have everything scattered and yet somehow they all manage to get where they need to go. I have accepted that I am just one out of billions of unique entities that God gave existence to and I have to assume that I will not see eye to eye with all or even many of them.
I came here to find unique individuals such as yourself who have already made their choices on biblical fundmentals because by rights you should be able to not only define how our understandings may differ but also to define how you rationalised your understanding (which I assume is the foundation for your belief, I do assume some things until someone rattles my cage, such as "repent")

RickD wrote:KBC, I honestly can't remember anyone else posting like they were posting their beliefs, but they were actually posting their understanding only. Like I said before, I don't separate understanding from belief. Now I think I understand what you're saying, and I will go on your word that you are working through this, and you don't have an established set of beliefs yet.

Rick I am sorry for being horribly crippled in my ability to convey what I mean in the correct context it is meant. Like Moses I need a mouthpiece to convey understanding for me. I know whats in my heart and I know how I want to proceed and I definitely don't intend to cause others grief as I wade through my mess of understandings in search of truth.
It is indeed a joyfull day if you do comprehend what I'm after. this would mean that even as crippled as I am I have somehow convey the right meaning in the right way to another unique being.

RickD wrote:And I sincerely apologize for completely misunderstanding you. I hope you will forgive me, and I would like it if you would stay, and continue learning, and helping others as well.

Rick You were forgiven before you asked. I wrote it off as my fault for not being able to convey myself properly and prayed that someday God would help me with my infirmity. I had confidence that if you could really understand me that you would have treated me differently since ultimately you are here because of your love for God and those coming to find him. Unlike evo's who I know love to hate, my base assumtion is that you are exactly the opposite of them regardless of where this would have ended.
There is only a small bit of truth I can give to others and it is entirely wrapped up in my mechanical knowing. I have no reservations within that realm that have not been tested to nth degree and I would be entirely pleased to keep giving in that way. In that realm understanding and belief have become one.
On the other hand I am entirely walking through a minefield when it comes to religious foundational understandings and beliefs. The only thing I can say that I have a firmly established belief in is that God exists and I have accepted and believe that Christ is the only way to get from where I am to be with God.
It may be a long road of gathering and learning and accepting before I reach a final determination about everything I want to understand in the subtle points of Christian beliefs but the fact is that finding out is always in the forefront of my mind and it will not go away so I keep reaching out and hope to find some truths among those who profess to already be where I am intending to go.
If there is ever a question in your mind about my exact position on any point you can always ask me what my belief is on it and you will get one of three possible answers 1) thats how I understand the subject 2) This is what I believe or 3) this is what I understand and believe. The third one will basicaly mean I am not changing my position ever. 1 and 2 are both what I consider standing on one foot, the engineering term for it is a one point hitch which is inherently weak and needs more support. You will also find that I don't typically participate in subjects that I have reached an option 3 conclusion on. This is the idea that once you find what you were looking for then you stop looking. Subjects such as catholocism and mormonism which are in the option 3 category you are free to ask me about and we can have some interaction on but I won't typically begin a thread on them since they are just wrong in so many ways and there is nothing more I even want to know about them.

If by chance you can think of a way I can form a better wording to convey my position so it would be easier for others to understand this would be helpful so that future interactions with others can be clarified from my end easier.

Thank God we have made it to the same page of understanding
I appreciate your working to understand me Rick

KBCid, just for the purposes of understanding, and not necessarily to attempt to label you, would you assess your own position as Sabellianism? If not, is there a traditional position that better describes what you're saying?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

Canuckster1127 wrote:KBCid, just for the purposes of understanding, and not necessarily to attempt to label you, would you assess your own position as Sabellianism? If not, is there a traditional position that better describes what you're saying?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

[In Christianity, Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead.]

Naa. the image in my head would be best explained as the original relation of God and Christ being the same way that Eve came to exist. Eve was not born, she was taken from Adam directly and she became another unique being. This is how I envision Christ became a separate entity from the Father. He came out from the father directly, Gods first living Word, Thus he would be the first born and God would truely be a Father. Many things during the creation were done for a reason. Why was Eve taken directly from Adam? Remember God could of these stone raise up children of Abraham which means he could have raised up an Eve the same way but, he didn't. I think it is highly significant how Eve came to be. But ayway that is what I picture in my mind from my many readings of scripture. It may be wrong for some reason I just don't have the expertise to determine where the picture may be crooked.
One thing I have learned from biblical reading is that humans can screw things up very badly when it comes to interpreting the Word of God. This is where I want to take great care in not mixing tradition while interpreting the pure word of God. I am aware that the trinitarian belief arose many years after the time of Christ so it is worth the time to explore everything about it and see if it makes sense but for now this wasn't a frontline issue to me as I do have limited time when I'm working and I am already deep into one of the subjects I wanted to explore in depth.

As for a traditional position.... I cannot think of any sect I have read about that has appeared to have the same understanding that I came to but I'm sure I didn't see them all. So there may be one but at this point I am alone, just me and the concepts that arose while I read. Hopefully a bit of testing will make some greater illumination happen or maybe not. Hard to predict the future before I do the research.

So if any of that made any sense to you and you have seen something like it or are familiar with a part of Christianity that has similarities let me know it would be very interesting to see. What are the odds that my mind would generate an understanding that is mirrored in a sect I have never seen nor heard of? Wish I could be more helpful but at this point I don't know what I am or how I fit in. The one thing That I can definitely and without reserve assert is that I must use my gift in mechanical understanding to help others get out from under the veil of evilution. This is a very powerful drive for me and I can't rightly explain that either. All i can say is it feels right. I have faith that when God opened my eyes through my own mechanical gift he must have had a reason even if it was simply to help someone else besides me. who am I to argue with the giver of good.

Hi KBC.

KBC wrote:
Imagine that you have never heard about evolution before this moment and I tell you go read the site that explains evolution and then give me short synopsis of your understanding. Wouldn't it be correct for me to ssume that what you will write will not be what you believe but rather what you understood was being said?

Imagine for a moment that once you did write your understanding that I come in and state that they are your beliefs. How would that strike you? Woundn't you be a bit taken back and say something like "those aren't my beliefs they are just what I understand about the subject of evolution"

Well, when you put it that way . I think I understand.

Presenting myself in text is not my strong suit. I'm a bio-engineer and not a writer so I do my best to clarify my position often just to ensure I don't talk past others.
In the case of biblical testing of concept there is no set scientific method for testing. I'm essentially winging this and hoping I can present it in a way that will make sense to non scientists. My expectation is that most will not be scientists. So my method is this;
1) I read the bible
2) I draw logical understandings / conclusions based on the verses
3) I write down what these conclusions are and then seek to compare them with what others have concluded.
4) I try to define the rationales others have used to make their conclusions
5) Once I have enough of a variety of others conclusions and their rationales I will then decide what is the most believable

Got it. You're one of those "smart, scientific types".

So far I have only been able to directly eliminate Catholocism, Jehovah witnesses, mormonism and a few others I can't think of at the moment. However, I have at least 8 different other denominations that are still in the running (so to say) that aren't just straight discernable bunk.
In each case for each sect I have written my understanding and then they define where we are different in understanding and then they define how they reached their differing conclusions. At this point I am still researching a ton of foundational points and some that I never thought to check such as "repent" This would be the last one that goes into being researched and it is there because of you. I had always assumed it meant the same to all, ha what do I know right?.

Wow, you're trying to narrow it all the way down to a specific denomination? That is a daunting task! Just a FYI, I don't see Mormonism and JW as even being denominations inside of Christianity. Where Catholicism is a Christian denomination. That's my opinion anyways. There are certain "denominations" within Christianity, that I have looked into, and I wouldn't agree with because I disagree with their secondary beliefs, or maybe the way they worship. But, if they believe in the essentials, then they are believers. In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.

That's why I got so much into the "Law" thread. I believe if its not one of the essentials, then we as Christians have the liberty and freedom to worship and walk with the Lord as our conscience dictates. To me, following the sabbath, not getting tattoos, and abstaining from "swine" aren't essentials. If a believer wants to follow those laws that's fine. If they don't, that's also fine. It's when a believer says that another believer must follow or believe in something that is a "non-essential", that's where I have a problem. If I am given liberty in Christ to live by my conscience, others that tell me I can't live by my conscience are putting a burden on me that Christ took away. I'm not saying the law as it was given, is a burden. Only that telling me it's a sin to follow something non-essential, that my conscience and the Holy Spirit doesn't convict me on, is a burden.

I would assume as an intelligent being that you read and comprehend and then decide what you are willing to believe. Many people have their hand held by missionaries or preaches etc. who direct how they are to comprehend what they read and for some they believe what they are told and others like me realise that the truth can be subjective. Remember how I keep saying there are a multitude of Christian sects / denominations? This is because I realise that each sect has their own unique foundationl understandings and beliefs based on those understanding. However, as I have also stated "they all can't be right" so In my mind I have to somehow divide error from truth. Thus, I formed a method of testing. Probably not foolproof and I may even err in the end but God directed in his word to test everything. This is the least I can do and hope that he will guide me to the correct end.

KBC, as far as how I came to place my faith in Jesus Christ, it wasn't from reading scripture, and deciding from there. I came to believe in Him because as a child, I saw the change in my Mother after she accepted Christ. So, The Holy Spirit changed my mother, and she or the Holy Spirit in her, convinced me.

Rick I am sorry for being horribly crippled in my ability to convey what I mean in the correct context it is meant. Like Moses I need a mouthpiece to convey understanding for me. I know whats in my heart and I know how I want to proceed and I definitely don't intend to cause others grief as I wade through my mess of understandings in search of truth.
It is indeed a joyfull day if you do comprehend what I'm after. this would mean that even as crippled as I am I have somehow convey the right meaning in the right way to another unique being.

No worries, KBC. Conveying my thoughts isn't my strong point.

Thank God we have made it to the same page of understanding
I appreciate your working to understand me Rick

Thanks, KBC. I appreciate your patience with me as well.

1) I read the bible
2) I draw logical understandings / conclusions based on the verses
3) I write down what these conclusions are and then seek to compare them with what others have concluded.
4) I try to define the rationales others have used to make their conclusions
5) Once I have enough of a variety of others conclusions and their rationales I will then decide what is the most believable

It is amazing how many people do that also and yet arrive at very different conclusions as you do.

KBC, as far as how I came to place my faith in Jesus Christ, it wasn't from reading scripture, and deciding from there. I came to believe in Him because as a child, I saw the change in my Mother after she accepted Christ. So, The Holy Spirit changed my mother, and she or the Holy Spirit in her, convinced me.

Much like Rick, I became a Christian without the bible ( though I had read it).
Much like Rick, my mother had a big influence, but in a different way.
As she converted to being a JW I was compelled to look into that religion and the other Christian ones as well, I was compelled to study the bible and not just want the Watchtower said the bible was, but what other denominations and groups and even skeptics said it was.
The more I researched and study the bible and the history of Christianity, read up on apologetics and commentaries and so forth, the more the bible fascinated me BUT never "won me over".
I became a Christian when I admitted to my self that I did NOT know God and Christ, that the criticism I had of God and Christ and religion were based on NOT on what they were but on what I had MADE them to be.
CHrist revealed Himself to me when he answered the one question that I so hated God and Him for and one that day, I became a Christian, a follower of Christ, He became my lord and saviour because His Love healed my heart that had been far more broken and twisted than I ever thought it was.
I became a Christian NOT because of the bible but in spite of it and I became a Christian because Christ saved me from my hate and anger at a God that I had MADE up.

RickD wrote: Imagine for a moment that once you did write your understanding that I come in and state that they are your beliefs. How would that strike you? Woundn't you be a bit taken back and say something like "those aren't my beliefs they are just what I understand about the subject of evolution"

RickD wrote:Well, when you put it that way . I think I understand.

My fingers are crossed
I am working my way to a foundation that I can believe in and I'm starting with a basic understanding strictly derived from my own reading. So I have built a temporary building that may in fact be sitting on a sandy foundation and will be revised as the evidence dictates until that point where I set the building on a granite foundation. Then it will be an option 3 conclusion.... understood and believed and unchanging.

In the case of biblical testing of concept there is no set scientific method for testing. I'm essentially winging this and hoping I can present it in a way that will make sense to non scientists. My expectation is that most will not be scientists. So my method is this;

RickD wrote:Got it. You're one of those "smart, scientific types".

I guess I am. It has simply become a comfortable way to gain information for me. Humans are creatures of habit and once people become accustomed to a certain method it is very hard to get them to change. I don't see myself as any smarter than anyone else, I have simply studied a field of understanding that most others have never dealt with. You could become just as knowlegable in that field as I am by using the same intellect that we were all given I am sure. You just chose to look elsewhere. freedom of choice and equality.

So far I have only been able to directly eliminate Catholocism, Jehovah witnesses, mormonism and a few others I can't think of at the moment. However, I have at least 8 different other denominations that are still in the running (so to say) that aren't just straight discernable bunk.
In each case for each sect I have written my understanding and then they define where we are different in understanding and then they define how they reached their differing conclusions. At this point I am still researching a ton of foundational points and some that I never thought to check such as "repent" This would be the last one that goes into being researched and it is there because of you. I had always assumed it meant the same to all, ha what do I know right?.

RickD wrote:Wow, you're trying to narrow it all the way down to a specific denomination? That is a daunting task! Just a FYI, I don't see Mormonism and JW as even being denominations inside of Christianity. Where Catholicism is a Christian denomination. That's my opinion anyways. There are certain "denominations" within Christianity, that I have looked into, and I wouldn't agree with because I disagree with their secondary beliefs, or maybe the way they worship. But, if they believe in the essentials, then they are believers. In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.

Yes. And it may be there isn't a specific sect that I will be compatible with. From what I have seen so far it appears that each sect has a kernal of truth mixed with tradition. Separating the kernal from the tradition may allow me to ultimately put the pure picture back together and that may not reflect any one denomination. For every sect in Christianity there are heretical beliefs to them and these are not the same across the board. Your particular flavor is probably heretical to catholocism and I know there are other denominations that are heretical to you. I treat all the same until I have enough evidence to decide about them. I just avoid asserting my way is right automatically. This would be the evolution method of determining right and wrong. They make a base assumption that is untestable and build their building on top of that. This is so wrong in concept its rediculous and all just to try and eliminate the necessity of God. Very very bad science.

RickD wrote:That's why I got so much into the "Law" thread. I believe if its not one of the essentials, then we as Christians have the liberty and freedom to worship and walk with the Lord as our conscience dictates. To me, following the sabbath, not getting tattoos, and abstaining from "swine" aren't essentials. If a believer wants to follow those laws that's fine. If they don't, that's also fine. It's when a believer says that another believer must follow or believe in something that is a "non-essential", that's where I have a problem. If I am given liberty in Christ to live by my conscience, others that tell me I can't live by my conscience are putting a burden on me that Christ took away. I'm not saying the law as it was given, is a burden. Only that telling me it's a sin to follow something non-essential, that my conscience and the Holy Spirit doesn't convict me on, is a burden.

From my POV Rick it is as important to define how you reached your rationale as it is for you to assert it. I need more depth in how you reached the conclusion not just that you did reach one. Referencing outside work that simply gives a conclusion removes the meat that I am after. So without doubt I know before hand you are commited but you became commited after you reached an understanding you feel is right and believable. I want to trace your steps and see how that process occured for you. Why did you decide that your foundaation could be the only correct one when there are literally hundreds of other denominations / sects that are equally commited to a belief set that has foundational difference you don't agree with.

RickD wrote:KBC, as far as how I came to place my faith in Jesus Christ, it wasn't from reading scripture, and deciding from there. I came to believe in Him because as a child, I saw the change in my Mother after she accepted Christ. So, The Holy Spirit changed my mother, and she or the Holy Spirit in her, convinced me.

But at some point you had to have been confronted with a variety of foundational points that were either inline with your base assumption or not and you chose some as correct and eliminated others as not otherwise how could you assert what is heretical in your view and what is not right?
We each must be able to discern what is acceptable and what is not and to do that we must have a set measure to compare it too. Without a measure we would have nothing to compare with. So most people have a measure even if they don't initially realise they have made one. I will try to draw this out and define it.

PaulSacramento wrote:Much like Rick, I became a Christian without the bible ( though I had read it).
Much like Rick, my mother had a big influence, but in a different way.
As she converted to being a JW I was compelled to look into that religion and the other Christian ones as well, I was compelled to study the bible and not just want the Watchtower said the bible was, but what other denominations and groups and even skeptics said it was.
The more I researched and study the bible and the history of Christianity, read up on apologetics and commentaries and so forth, the more the bible fascinated me BUT never "won me over".
I became a Christian when I admitted to my self that I did NOT know God and Christ, that the criticism I had of God and Christ and religion were based on NOT on what they were but on what I had MADE them to be.
CHrist revealed Himself to me when he answered the one question that I so hated God and Him for and one that day, I became a Christian, a follower of Christ, He became my lord and saviour because His Love healed my heart that had been far more broken and twisted than I ever thought it was.
I became a Christian NOT because of the bible but in spite of it and I became a Christian because Christ saved me from my hate and anger at a God that I had MADE up.

See for me I had no role model as influence it was just me and the bible and time. I learned early that traditions from our forefathers may in fact be incorrect so I didn't have a desire to follow another human rather I wanted God to open my mind fresh with his intent if he was so inclined. It is written that a man may do things because it feels right to him but in fact is very wrong to God so I hoped and prayed and by a specific method did my best not to inject myself into the words. I am even studying the original hebrew and how it was translated to get as pure a picture as God had intended with his original words. I had no preconception About God other than what I had understanding from through mechanics. His depth is beyond anything I could envision even if I had thousands of years to mimic it. Beyond that the vision is cloudy and in need of illumination. I feel obligated to study it to the extent of the depth I can conceive and maybe more.

KBCid wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Much like Rick, I became a Christian without the bible ( though I had read it).
Much like Rick, my mother had a big influence, but in a different way.
As she converted to being a JW I was compelled to look into that religion and the other Christian ones as well, I was compelled to study the bible and not just want the Watchtower said the bible was, but what other denominations and groups and even skeptics said it was.
The more I researched and study the bible and the history of Christianity, read up on apologetics and commentaries and so forth, the more the bible fascinated me BUT never "won me over".
I became a Christian when I admitted to my self that I did NOT know God and Christ, that the criticism I had of God and Christ and religion were based on NOT on what they were but on what I had MADE them to be.
CHrist revealed Himself to me when he answered the one question that I so hated God and Him for and one that day, I became a Christian, a follower of Christ, He became my lord and saviour because His Love healed my heart that had been far more broken and twisted than I ever thought it was.
I became a Christian NOT because of the bible but in spite of it and I became a Christian because Christ saved me from my hate and anger at a God that I had MADE up.

See for me I had no role model as influence it was just me and the bible and time. I learned early that traditions from our forefathers may in fact be incorrect so I didn't have a desire to follow another human rather I wanted God to open my mind fresh with his intent if he was so inclined. It is written that a man may do things because it feels right to him but in fact is very wrong to God so I hoped and prayed and by a specific method did my best not to inject myself into the words. I am even studying the original hebrew and how it was translated to get as pure a picture as God had intended with his original words. I had no preconception About God other than what I had understanding from through mechanics. His depth is beyond anything I could envision even if I had thousands of years to mimic it. Beyond that the vision is cloudy and in need of illumination. I feel obligated to study it to the extent of the depth I can conceive and maybe more.

Good on you !
That is why I took Theology and am 3 years into the program.
Just remember this little advice that perhaps may help you ( It most certainly helped me):
The bible was written for us BUT NOT written TO Us.
Even the Hebrews had different "denominations" based on the same writings.

Far be it from me to put words in your mouth KBCid, but I think what you've learned is that establishing what the Bible says about things relies heavily upon the interpretive approach (or hermeneutic) that is taken when it is read and applied.

Given what you've said about your approach, the obvious question that comes to mind with what you've described as to your independent reading of Scripture, suspending your previous understanding as much as you can (which I applaud by the way) and employing your engineering mindset to connect concepts and draw conclusions (which I'm less inclined to applaud) is do you think it's not only possible, but probable, that many of your thoughts and conclusions are coming from a perspective that doesn't resemble the intent of the original human authors and the probable understanding of the original audience?

Is it possible that there are some "stowaways" in your approach and methods that necessarily lead to concepts and applications that are completely foreign to the text? Is the text subject to your hermeneutic in this regard, or is your hermeneutic itself drawn from the text or a least with strong consideration to this issues of original intent and understanding?

The engineering, scientific mindset that you're employing isn't absent from some elements of the New Testament but neither is it the norm or dominant. The Semitic, Hebraic mindset and worldview differs in some very significant ways from the method you're employing and that would raise concern to me that if I were to use such an approach that I would be painting into the words of Scripture the picture I want to see.

This is a risk that is true of all of us, myself included so please don't hear this as an accusation from which I exclude my own propensities in this direction. Perhaps some self-awareness of this would lead to some care before becoming overly dogmatic about some of the conclusions being drawn.

Lets us not forget that no one knew Hebrew and the Torah better than the Pharisees and yet...

Canuckster1127 wrote:Given what you've said about your approach, the obvious question that comes to mind with what you've described as to your independent reading of Scripture, suspending your previous understanding as much as you can (which I applaud by the way) and employing your engineering mindset to connect concepts and draw conclusions (which I'm less inclined to applaud) is do you think it's not only possible, but probable, that many of your thoughts and conclusions are coming from a perspective that doesn't resemble the intent of the original human authors and the probable understanding of the original audience?

All of what you say may be true. I fear the failure point in any method.
This is where I have considered... God made my mind and God made his word. He has the power to open my understanding and to close it. My faith is in the verse that he would that all would come to him and I pray that I can be one of them. In the end I admit to him that I am not worthy nor capable of my own power to understand his word without his help. But, I know what is in my heart and since he can see there as well then I pray for his mercy in that respect.
All I can see is the vast majority of peoples who have failed to understand his intent and I think it was because their heart was not right. So if my heart is something God is willing to work with then he will. If it is not then at some point I will cease to exist and won't know anything anymore. My bottom line is that I do care and I will try and he does know.
In my mind caring and having a desire to truely understand him is a most basic foundational starting point, past that it is up to him to help or to hinder as he sees fit. I would not have any existence without his will making it so which makes me feel that my existence has a purpose in his plan whether it be merely to assist another who is or will be chosen or whether it will be me who is chosen. Either way I want to help and learn. My desire is to reflect my maker.

Canuckster1127 wrote:This is a risk that is true of all of us, myself included so please don't hear this as an accusation from which I exclude my own propensities in this direction. Perhaps some self-awareness of this would lead to some care before becoming overly dogmatic about some of the conclusions being drawn.

I don't hear accusation. I hear be careful how you apply your understanding. Every God fearing person who God cared for feared about their own way before one as perfect as God. None of us holds the power to do or understand his intent correctly without his help. I am simply choosing to try in my own sinful way to comprehend what he wants me to know. I envision that since each of us is different then he can give understanding in a unique and individual way that is best suited for the mind he gave us.
So did you find any denominations that are similar to what I have related and does it seem too far out from your perspective on the Adam and Eve analogy for God and Christ to be true? I was interested to see what your initial thoughts were on this.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Far be it from me to put words in your mouth KBCid,

Look Sir, I will not assume you are trying to do anything with an evil intent. I want interaction to buildup so you have nothing to worry about from my end as I am sure your intent to help is genuine. I want you to express your heart as the spirit leads you to and not hold back because of what you think I may be offended by. If there is something I may be offended by then you will know when I reply and you can consider it but until such a case arises then my position is that you are going to provide the best advice you are able to give.
I have opened myself to readers here in as honest a way as I can muster in writing and I can only hope that you understand what I have said. As long as we both know where my belief and understanding separate then there should be no unresolvable problem. I want you to feel comfortable in being expressive in communicating with me and not held back by what you may think is a sensitive area. If I feel that something is beyond what I am willing to accept then I will say so. I will not cut you off nor will I give up without doing my best to ensure that you understand what my problem may be. I'm older and not so sensitive as I once may have been. So please worry more about expressing what is in your heart and less about what mine can take and I will respect you as I would assume you would respect me.

KBC wrote:
I'm older and not so sensitive as I once may have been.

KBC, if it's not too personal, do you mind telling me how old you are?

RickD wrote:KBC, if it's not too personal, do you mind telling me how old you are?

49