Evidence for God from Science

KrisW wrote:

jenwat3 wrote:Way International? What's that? Never heard of them. And I'm nondenominational.

:::engage...irreverant comment mode:::
:::access database....Furturama character...Farnsworth, Dr., Hubert J::::

If only she could have joinged a mainstream religion...like Oprahism or voodoo

:::end transmission::::

This comment is uncalled for and totally rude. I resent this greatly and you need to back off. Simply because I don't agree with your views doesn't give you the right to post things like this about me.

KrisW wrote:My Thread about Christians engaging in Polemics (among other posts) was QUITE serious...

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =3&t=32819

I see it hasn't been answered yet....

You can add the question of why some Christian's get so anal about the spelling of "neutrino" to the topic as well.

Are you a Christian or not because I'm beginning to wonder? If you are then you need to check yourself because all I'm seeing coming out of you are snide remarks and put downs. Not very Christ-like at all. And from your assesments of "some Christians" I'd say I'm probably not the first person to pick up on this.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!! At least I'm not the only one who noticed that.

I've noticed some emotionality and not so nice interactions on this and some other threads. It's okay to feel in a certain way, but let's not put down others, even if they respond badly. See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people. (1 Thessalonians 5:15)

BTW The basis for the trinity is quite simple.

God the Father is God
God the Holy Spirit is God
God the Son is God

God is one

Jesus is:

Fully human
Fully God
Jesus Never Claimed to be God?

Anyone who believes in multiple gods or believes that one member of the Trinity is not God has some significant explaining away of dozens of scriptures to do. So, if any of you hold to any of these heresies, please pick the appropriate link and explain why you think those verses are wrong.

Rich

Very well said, Rich. And while I don't think my views are heresies, I will get those verses, and also give some of my own for people to explain to me.

Gman wrote:You there? Just answer this simple question first. Was it that man died for God or was it God dieing for man? hint: Man already gave his sacrifice back in the OT with the sacrifice of Issac. Is man going to sacrifice to God again? Who's turn is it next?

Actually, Isaac was never really sacrificed, but I know that wasn't your point. The first true sacrifice was Jseus for man. Many during the first tribulation sacrificed their lives for God, and will do so again in the coming tribulation. If this doesn't answer you, let me know. I do definitely understand the love of God for man, also.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

jenwat3 wrote:Yes, we are agreed that God is omnipresent. But notice that even Jesus could not do anything without the power of God, or the Holy Spirit that God gave Him. If God didn't use the Spirit, then Jesus could not have done what He set out to do. If the Holy Spirit, or God, as you seem to see it, were everywhere, then Jesus wouldn't have needed God to give it to Him.

Jesus, however is another matter. Phillipians 2:5-11 speaks of Jesus "emptying" himself of things that were His to have as God, in order that he would become as were we, or human. This is usually referred to theologically as the hypostatic union and is the idea that Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God, yet another mystery.

We're speaking of the Holy Spirit however and respectfully I don't see how your answer addresses the passage we've agreed to start with.

What do you think Psalm 139 means in terms of omnipresence? Is the Holy Spirit omnipresent?

No, actually I don't. My interpretation of this verse is that David (or the writer of psalms) had the Holy Spirit dwelling within him. So therefore the question "Where can I go from your Spirit?" Since the Spirit was within him, he couldn't go anywhere without it. The answer to the second part "where can I flee from Your presence?" Here he is talking about God Himself, His presence. God is omnipresent, so naturally David could not flee from him. One question I have for you, if God and the Holy Spirit were "one" then how is it possible to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, and not be forgiven, but you can blaspheme against God and be forgiven?

jenwat3 wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

jenwat3 wrote:Yes, we are agreed that God is omnipresent. But notice that even Jesus could not do anything without the power of God, or the Holy Spirit that God gave Him. If God didn't use the Spirit, then Jesus could not have done what He set out to do. If the Holy Spirit, or God, as you seem to see it, were everywhere, then Jesus wouldn't have needed God to give it to Him.

Jesus, however is another matter. Phillipians 2:5-11 speaks of Jesus "emptying" himself of things that were His to have as God, in order that he would become as were we, or human. This is usually referred to theologically as the hypostatic union and is the idea that Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God, yet another mystery.

We're speaking of the Holy Spirit however and respectfully I don't see how your answer addresses the passage we've agreed to start with.

What do you think Psalm 139 means in terms of omnipresence? Is the Holy Spirit omnipresent?

No, actually I don't. My interpretation of this verse is that David (or the writer of psalms) had the Holy Spirit dwelling within him. So therefore the question "Where can I go from your Spirit?" Since the Spirit was within him, he couldn't go anywhere without it. The answer to the second part "where can I flee from Your presence?" Here he is talking about God Himself, His presence. God is omnipresent, so naturally David could not flee from him. One question I have for you, if God and the Holy Spirit were "one" then how is it possible to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, and not be forgiven, but you can blaspheme against God and be forgiven?

I think it is a stretch to take 2 phrases within one passage, even the same sentence and attribute a different sense of location. Hebrew parallelism is a form of poetry, which is used in this verse and a characteristic of it is that it repeats the same concept for reinforcement in most instances and this instance is consistent with that repeating or reinforcement, not contrast which is what I believe you are reading into it.

Are you starting with the passage itself and allowing it to speak to you on its own or are you beginning with the assumption and doing what you need to make the passage fit or not challenge your established belief?

You'll recall I mentioned that the Trinity is a mystery? God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one, yet there are 3 unique persons with specific roles. A role of the Holy Spirit is to convict a person of sin and draw them toward God the Father through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Son. Resisting this work of the Holy Spirit means a person doesn't accept the gift. It is that that amounts to blaspheming and it is what we do with Christ that determines our eternity, right?

Your question begs another one. If the Holy Spirit is not a person or God how can blaspheming an inanimate object of force be blasphemy? It would appear to me that your position would lead to more difficult questions, don't you think?

Actually, I don't think the trinity should be a mystery. But you aasked how can one blaspheme the Holy Spirit if it was an inanimate object? The Spirit isn't an "inanimate object". For one, it is definitely "animate" as it works in all Christians.
Another point, and this is a quote from a book I have. I am quoting this because it explains it in easier terms. As far as blaspheming the Spirit, "To speak against the Holy Spirit is to knowingly deny the power of God." The pharisees knew that Jesus was the Son of God, They knew that His power came from God, His Spirit. Yet they accused Him anyway of casting out devils with the power of Satan! Therefore they were blaspheming against the power of God! This is how one can blaspheme the Holy Spirit, but not God. The Holy Spirit is not a separate being, but is the power or "mind" of God. And as far as it being a mystery, I will end with this verse. 2Cor. 11:3. "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from THE SIMPLICITY that is in Christ". Christ wants us to understand Him1 He doesn't want there to be any mystery surrounding Him.

jenwat3 wrote:Actually, I don't think the trinity should be a mystery. But you aasked how can one blaspheme the Holy Spirit if it was an inanimate object? The Spirit isn't an "inanimate object". For one, it is definitely "animate" as it works in all Christians.
Another point, and this is a quote from a book I have. I am quoting this because it explains it in easier terms. As far as blaspheming the Spirit, "To speak against the Holy Spirit is to knowingly deny the power of God." The pharisees knew that Jesus was the Son of God, They knew that His power came from God, His Spirit. Yet they accused Him anyway of casting out devils with the power of Satan! Therefore they were blaspheming against the power of God! This is how one can blaspheme the Holy Spirit, but not God. The Holy Spirit is not a separate being, but is the power or "mind" of God. And as far as it being a mystery, I will end with this verse. 2Cor. 11:3. "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from THE SIMPLICITY that is in Christ". Christ wants us to understand Him1 He doesn't want there to be any mystery surrounding Him.

What is simple about the finite trying to embrace the infinite? The message of Christ is simple and requires only child like faith to receive. What Christ did and who He is however, is not simple.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit can certainly encompass and include what you describe. It seems an extreme stretch to me to define blasphemy against the acts of God by an impersonal force as opposed to a person. Blasphemy is against God. You can't blaspheme the Holy Spirit unless the Holy Spirit is a person and God. Do I understand exactly how that can be? No, I honestly don't. But it is clear to me that the Scripture attributed deity to the Holy Spirit and that that same Holy Spirit is consistently referenced throughout Scripture with attributes that are those of a person, not a thing or a force.

I assume based on the response here which didn't pick up on the comments directly tied to the passage in Psalm 139 that you're ready to move onto another verse?

As you wish. One question, though. Can these attributes not also demonstrate the Power of God?

jenwat3 wrote:As you wish. One question, though. Can these attributes not also demonstrate the Power of God?

You'll have to explain to me what you mean. If the Holy Spirit were simply power then wouldn't the attributes be attached to God Himself and not his impersonal power of force? Why even make a distinction then?

Jenna wrote:The Holy Spirit is not a separate being, but is the power or "mind" of God.

The Holy Spirit can be grieved, angered and lied to. The Holy Spirit can teach, convict and comfort. The Holy Spirit is also referred to as he and him etc. In the spirit (pun not intended) of keeping things simple, when I look at all the Holy Spirit is and does it seems so simple to believe this is actually a person. In the bible He can be seen to display evidence of emotion, intellect and will...which are what makes up a person.

What say you, Jenna?

Jen, you say it shouldn't be a mystery.

But i recall you saying that you believe that are two "beings" (correct me if I am wrong), god the father, and Christ the son, within one "family", defined as one God, or God-"family" (whatever that means)

This goes back to what I was trying to point to earlier. How is *your* definition as "two in one" any less mysterious than "three in one"?

You don't want it to be mysterious, but I see your definion as being the trinity minus one, just as mysterious. Whether we call the son and father and the spirit "beings" or persons or parts, the fact that we are saying they are still parts of one God make both of our posistions equally as mysterious. You, as far as I can tell, simply see it as being two beings within one family (one God), equally as mysterious.

So how is your position any less mysterious than ours?

zoegirl wrote:You, as far as I can tell, simply see it as being two beings within one family (one God), equally as mysterious.

So how is your position any less mysterious than ours?

I could very well be wrong (and I'm sure Jen will correct me ) but I don't think she sees it as one God. One family of gods maybe, but not one god. As I recall, she was arguing against monotheism.